The BEST US Colleges

College Search & Selection
41

<p>

</p>

<p>Here’s the ranking for every category:</p>

<p>**School Prestige (30%):</p>

<p>Harvard 29.80
Princeton 29.80
MIT 29.50
Stanford 29.30
Yale 29.20 </p>

<p>Caltech 28.50
Columbia 28.30
Penn 28.20 </p>

<p>Chicago 27.90
Duke 27.30
Cornell 27.30
JHU 27.20 </p>

<p>Dartmouth 26.90
Berkeley 26.90
Northwestern 26.80
Brown 26.50 </p>

<p>Washington USL 25.90
UVA 25.40
CMU 25.30
Rice 25.20
Michigan 25.20
Georgetown 25.00
Emory 25.00
Vanderbilt 25.00 </p>

<p>UCLA 24.70
Notre Dame 24.40
UNC 24.30
USC 23.70
Tufts 23.20
NYU 23.10
Wake 22.70 **</p>

<p>Best Colleges Rank (US News) - 10%:</p>

<p>10 1. Harvard
10 1. Princeton</p>

<p>9.8 3. Yale
9.7 4. Caltech
9.7 4. MIT
9.7 4. Stanford
9.7 4. UPenn</p>

<p>9.3 8. Columbia
9.3 8. Chicago</p>

<p>9.1 10. Duke
9 11. Dartmouth
8.9 12. Northwestern
8.9 12. Washington USL</p>

<p>8.7 14. JHU
8.6 15. Cornell
8.5 16. Brown
8.4 17. Emory
8.4 17. Rice
8.4 17. Vanderbilt</p>

<p>8.1 20. Notre Dame
8 21. Berkeley</p>

<p>7.9 22. CMU
7.8 23. Georgetown
7.7 24. UCLA
7.7 24. UVA</p>

<p>7.5 26. USC
7.4 27. Michigan
7.3 28. Tufts
7.3 28. UNC
7.3 28. Wake Forest
7 32. NYU</p>

<p>Peer Assessment Rank (USNews) - 10% </p>

<p>10.00 Harvard
10.00 Princeton
10.00 Stanford
10.00 MIT</p>

<p>9.60 Yale
9.50 Berkeley
9.40 Caltech
9.40 Columbia
9.40 Chicago</p>

<p>9.10 Penn
9.10 Cornell
9.10 JHU</p>

<p>8.80 Brown
8.80 Duke
8.80 Michigan</p>

<p>8.50 Dartmouth
8.50 Northwestern
8.50 Uva</p>

<p>8.20 UCLA
8.20 CMU</p>

<p>8.00 UNC
8.00 Washington USL</p>

<p>7.80 Georgetown
7.80 Emory
7.80 Rice
7.80 Vanderbilt</p>

<p>7.40 USC
7.30 Notre Dame
7.30 NYU</p>

<p>7.10 Tufts
7.00 Wake Forest</p>

<p>Best Colleges: High School Counselor Rankings of National Universities (USNews) - 10%</p>

<p>9.80 Harvard
9.80 Princeton
9.80 MIT
9.80 Yale</p>

<p>9.60 Stanford
9.60 Columbia
9.60 Cornell
9.60 Brown</p>

<p>9.40 Caltech
9.40 Penn
9.40 Berkeley
9.40 JHU
9.40 Duke
9.40 Dartmouth
9.40 Northwestern
9.40 Georgetown</p>

<p>9.20 Chicago
9.20 Uva
9.20 CMU</p>

<p>9.00 Michigan
9.00 Rice
9.00 Washington USL
9.00 UNC
9.00 Notre Dame</p>

<p>8.80 UCLA
8.80 Emory
8.80 Vanderbilt
8.80 USC
8.80 NYU
8.80 Tufts</p>

<p>8.40 Wake Forest</p>

42

<p>

Not to dis Stanford, but any survey that doesn’t have Harvard as undoubtedly the number 1 school without equal, is questionable…</p>

<p>Why not include the rankings from the Davis Cup…this sort of stuff can be manipulated in a thousand ways…</p>

<p>the list above looks about right, however.</p>

43

<p>“RML was not ranking quality of education, he was ranking quality of institution. Those are two DISTINCTLY different things.”
Alexandre-The OP was trying to rank the quality of undergrad program at each institution, not the institution itself. In terms of quality of institution, schools like Berkeley, Michigan, even Minnesota would surely be near the top. However, it’s different at the undergrad level.</p>

<p>“Apparently, Yale Law and Harvard Law would consider Berkeley grads to be higher quality. Look at the number of students they take.”
middsmith-Absolute numbers are useless here. Berkeley has more than three times number of undergrads as Brown, yet Brown sends more students to Yale Law. Berkeley has six times the undergrads as Dartmouth, they both send 14 to Yale Law.</p>

44

<p>After readjusting the criteria to include - Best Colleges: High School Counselor Rankings of National Universities and assigning it a weight of 10%, this is what came out: </p>

<p>**
97.60 Stanford 29.30
96.95 Harvard 29.80
96.60 Princeton 29.80
96.50 Yale 29.20
95.90 MIT 29.50</p>

<p>90.70 Berkeley 26.90
90.55 Penn 28.20
90.30 Duke 27.30
90.20 Columbia 28.30
89.65 Chicago 27.90
89.25 Caltech 28.50
89.05 Dartmouth 26.90
88.55 Cornell 27.30
87.40 Brown 26.50</p>

<p>85.80 JHU 27.20
85.55 Northwestern 26.80
85.30 Michigan 25.20</p>

<p>83.85 UCLA 24.70
83.70 Notre Dame 24.40
83.70 Washington USL 25.90</p>

<p>81.95 Rice 25.20
81.50 CMU 25.30
81.20 Georgetown 25.00
81.15 UVA 25.40
81.00 Vanderbilt 25.00
80.40 Emory 25.00</p>

<p>79.60 USC 23.70
78.60 UNC 24.30
78.00 Tufts 23.20
77.10 NYU 23.10</p>

<p>75.10 Wake 22.70
**</p>

45

<p>The new list more accurately reflects prestige of undergrad programs. However, fundamental problem of mingling graduate and undergraduate reputation exists whenever PA is used. Is it reasonable to claim Duke undergrad is better than Dartmouth undergrad? Or Chicago undergrad is better than Brown undergrad? It is just as easily, if not easier, to be claimed as the other way around.</p>

46

<p>Although PA is very inaccurate and debatable, it’s something we are stuck with for now. The list does more accurately reflect undergrad programs.</p>

<p>RML - how did you measure quality of product?</p>

47

<p>So, if you rank RML’s list, it would be like:</p>

<ol>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton </li>
<li>Yale </li>
<li>MIT </li>
<li>Berkeley </li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Duke </li>
<li>Penn<br></li>
<li>Caltech </li>
<li>Chicago </li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
</ol>

48

<p>

</p>

<p>You are correct. I was rating the quality of the institutions not the quality of education. </p>

<p>If someone here wants to know how the colleges rank for QUALITY of EDUCATION, here it is:</p>

<p>25% - Instructional / Teaching Standard </p>

<p>24.85 Yale
24.80 Princeton
23.90 Stanford
23.80 Brown
23.60 Dartmouth
23.05 Duke
22.90 Harvard
22.80 Notre Dame
22.50 MIT
22.40 Penn
21.90 Columbia
21.80 Caltech
21.80 Washington USL
21.75 Chicago
21.50 Berkeley
21.50 Georgetown
21.25 Rice
21.20 Northwestern
20.90 Cornell
20.50 Michigan
20.30 Vanderbilt
20.20 Emory
20.00 UVA
18.95 CMU
19.95 Tufts
19.95 Wake Forest
19.85 JHU
19.85 UCLA
19.70 UNC
19.70 USC
18.65 NYU</p>

49

<p>

</p>

<p>That category constitutes 20% of the whole criteria. 10% came from Forbes’ payscale, and another 10% came from Employer Review gathered from THES-Qs.</p>

50

<p>

Now compare that list to the early USNWR ranking in 1985. </p></li>
<li><p>Stanford</p></li>
<li><p>Harvard & Yale</p></li>
<li><p>Princeton</p></li>
<li><p>Chicago</p></li>
<li><p>Duke</p></li>
<li><p>Berkeley & Brown</p></li>
<li><p>UNC Chapel Hill</p></li>
<li><p>Dartmouth</p></li>
</ol>

<p>And the next ranking in 1988.</p>

<ol>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Berkeley</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Chicago & Michigan</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>MIT & UNC Chapel Hill</li>
</ol>

<p>It’s obviously not an exact match, but it’s pretty darned close. Clearly the same schools have been dominating for at least the past 25 years.</p>

51

<p>“That category constitutes 20% of the whole criteria. 10% came from Forbes’ payscale, and another 10% came from Employer Review gathered from THES-Qs.”</p>

<p>RML - You really shouldn’t use THES-Qs to measure undergrad. Do you think you can substitute THES-Qs with WSJ feeder ranking? or split the 10% into two 5%'s for each?</p>

<p>“I was rating the quality of the institutions not the quality of education.”</p>

<p>You are trying to rate the quality of undergrad establishment at each institution, not undergrad+grad at each institution, right?</p>

52

<p>

</li>
</ol>

<p>That’s not how I would rank them. For one, there is very little that separates Stanford from Harvard, and all the rest of the top 5 schools (HYPSM). In fact, Harvard was # 1 for School Prestige (30%) and Quality of Products (20%). Stanford was also # 1 in two categories but in areas with smaller weights namely, Faculty Caliber (15%) and Financial Resources (10%). What killed Harvard in the ranking was its Instructional/Teaching Standard (25%) in which it was only ranked #7, whilst Stanford was ranked #3 in that category.</p>

<p>I would rather rank HYPSM as group 1, and my group 2 would compose of the following schools:
90.70 Berkeley
90.55 Penn
90.30 Duke
90.20 Columbia
89.65 Chicago
89.25 Caltech
89.05 Dartmouth
88.55 Cornell
87.40 Brown
85.80 JHU
85.55 Northwestern
85.30 Michigan </p>

<p>Choosing one over the other is OFTEN sensible, reasonable and acceptable, though could be, sometimes, personal.</p>

53

<p>

</p>

<p>I was in Hong Kong 4 days ago and “investigated” some academic people there how the THES-Qs’ Employer Assessment was derived at as well as the concept for the said survey. I also investigated some academic people in Manila, Singapore, Malaysia and the United Kingdom and all I gathered pointed to the same thing - that the THES-Qs Employer Assessment was, in fact, a gathering of data for both UNDERGRADUATES and postgraduates, but more on for undergraduates. If you don’t believe me, I woudl encourage you to contact them.</p>

54

<p>PA is bad because it mingles undergrad with grad. At least it’s purpose is to measure undergrad. The THES-Qs’ purpose is to measure both grad and undergrad with emphasis on grad, rendering it a poor indicator of undergrad. For example, grad powerhouse Cornell was rated 99 while undergrad elite Dartmouth was only rated 93. To most employers, an undergrad from Dartmouth is at least as good as one from Cornell. The University of MELBOURNE’s 100 vs Brown’s 83. Even Boston University was rated higher than Brown, and University of New South Wales over Princeton.</p>

<p>Besides, most of THES-Qs’ employers surveyed are not “elite” enough for students at top schools, such as Brown, to apply to.</p>

55

<p>THES-Qs looks like garbage to me. It’s even more messed up than that Forbes list that ranked US Military Academy 1st. I would say Brown undergrad cares way more about how Yale Law views Brown compared to how a mid-sized Italian company views it.</p>

56

<p>IPBear, I’ve personally met two people from THES-Qs in Manila sometime in 2007, and I can vouch to you that the Employer Review does not have emphasis on grad. Again, if you doubted me, I suggest you contact THES-Qs yourself to verify on this. In case you are not aware, many of the schools that were ranked in that survey have very small grad population or don’t really rely their school quality or school prestige on having grad programs. Now, if these schools are predominantly undergrad focused, why would they put more premium on grad/postgrad prestige knowing that they even haven’t encountered grad/postgrad alumni from the schools that they assessed?</p>

<p>I cannot give you the link to the questionnaire for THES-Qs’ Employer Review, but if you would take time to look for it, you will learn that the questions aren’t for grad/postgrad graduates employment. It was, by and large, about undergraduate recruitment. </p>

<p>Anyway, the weight I assigned for it wouldn’t really do significant change in the positioning or placement of the schools in the list. And as for WSJ, I have huge issues with it.</p>

57

<p>[QS</a> Top Universities: Employer review](<a href=“http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/methodology/employer_review/]QS”>http://www.topuniversities.com/worlduniversityrankings/methodology/employer_review/)</p>

<p>This is the link to the survey. Excluding the MBA questions, which compose majority of the survey, the remaining question splits about 50/50 between graduate and undergrad. When University of Texas (rated 95) and NYU (rated 96) are rated so much higher than Brown (rated 83), it’s not hard to guess how much weight grad programs have. After reviewing it, I now understand why Cornell was rated 99 while Dartmouth was rated 93, why University of New South Wales was rated higher over Princeton. It not only give too much emphasis to grad aspects of schools, but also give emphasis to European, especially British, schools. Would students choose The University of Melbourne over Brown for undergrad? No.</p>

<p>You don’t have to use WSJ feeder schools. You can just eliminate 10% altogether or give more weight to Forbes payscale. But, using THES-Qs is a big blow to the credibility of your ranking if you are ranking undergrad programs.</p>

58

<p>IPBear, I can sense that your intentions are good, but let me suggest that we don’t discuss THES-Qs on this thread. If you want to do that, ask permission to the moderator and I’d be glad to indulge with you on that particular topic. Alternatively, you can open a new thread for that, if the moderators will allow you to do that. :)</p>

<p>As for changing the criteria, I’d rather devote a portion of that for facilities. example, computer access, library, labs, high-tech equipment, dormitories, eateries inside the campus, etc… Unfortunately, such data/collection aren’t available.</p>

59

<p>I stand by what I said earlier, good data > no data > misleading data. Other parts of your ranking look fine; in fact, they are quite accurate representations of undergrad programs imo. However, using misleading data such as THES-Qs is a big blow to the credibility of your ranking if you are ranking undergrad programs.</p>

60

<p>

You just don’t get it. Let say 20 Berkeley students applied to Harvard Law, 5 got accepted, 20 Brown students applied to Harvard Law, 5 got accepted. Why would the actual size of the school matter?<br>
Btw, absolute numbers are the best way to measure the impact.</p>