The BEST US Colleges

College Search & Selection
101

<p>Okay; I’ve always thought that School Prestige is the most important criterion in looking for schools because it is often the result of the excellent achievement of the school. I think that’s why most, if not all, ranking league tables put more weight for it than for other criteria. Well, that’s what I personally think. </p>

<p>anyway, I’d like to ask you to rank the criteria in order of importance, and if possible, please assign weights for each criterion.</p>

<p>How about dividing the whole criteria equally? In such case, assign 20% each for all the 5 criteria.</p>

102

<p>Let us put your numbers and my numbers in</p>

<p>School Prestige 5,5
Teaching/Instructional Quality 4,2
Quality of Products 3,1
Faculty Caliber 2,4
Financial Resources 1,3</p>

<p>For each person, there are 15 points. For both of us there are 30 points. Now,</p>

<p>School Prestige 10/30=0.333
Teaching/Instructional Quality 6/30=0.2
Quality of Products 4/30=0.133
Faculty Caliber 6/30=0.2
Financial Resources 4/30=0.133</p>

103

<p>.001 is missing. lol</p>

<p>Okay; let’s ask the others if they share the same opinion, because I think your suggested weight assignment will only further inflate School Prestige. And as we both know, it is in that area where the smaller schools need to put too much work on. That will also pull HYPSM further up from the rest of the schools, as their prestige level is unmatched.</p>

104

<p>Why don’t you incorporate this ranking, as well…</p>

<p>[How</a> Safe Is Your College? - Page 1 - The Daily Beast](<a href=“How Safe Is Your College?”>How Safe Is Your College?)</p>

<p>Some notable colleges on this ranking include Yale (no surprise there), Harvard, MIT and Brown. </p>

<p>Interesting that schools in big cities, Penn, Columbia and Chicago didn’t make the list…</p>

105

<p>“Considering that a considerable chunk of LAC faculty were themselves TAs at “major universities like Harvard and Cal” at some point in their academic careers, I find that claim dubious and unsubstantiated in the extreme.”</p>

<p>IBClass, I can sympathise with your pationate response. I did not mean to say that all TAs at major research universities are always better than all faculty at all LACs. I did, however, mean to say that many TAs are major research universities are as good as, and sometimes better, professors at most LACs. </p>

<p>I randomly checked the Econ faculties at Grinnell, CMC and Haverford (three of the nation’s top 15 LACs) and here’s where they got their PhDs from:</p>

<p>Carnegie Mellon University 1
Cornell University 1
Duke University 1
Harvard University 3
Johns Hopkins University 3
London School of Economics 1
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2
McMaster University 1
New York University 1
Ohio State University 1
Oxford University 1
Pennsylvania State University 1
Princeton University 2
Stanford University 1
University of British Columbia 1
University of California-Berkeley 4
University of California-Los Angeles 1
University of Chicago 2
University of Colorado-Boulder 1
University of Houston 1
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign 3
University of Massachusetts-Amherst 1
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 2
University of Pennsylvania 1
University of Pittsburgh 1
University of Rochester 1
University of Wisconsin-Madison 4
University of Virginia 1
Washington University 1
Wayne State University 1
Yale University 1</p>

<p>21 (45%) of the 47 Economics professors at those three LACs earned their degrees from programs ranked between #20 and #50 in the nation. The remaining 26 (55%) professors earned their PhDs from Econ programs ranked among the top 15. Only 14 (30% attended top 5 PhD programs (Cal, Chicago, Harvard, MIT, Princeton and Stanford).</p>

<p>Compare this to the Michigan faculty:</p>

<p>Boston University 1
Cornell University 1
Harvard University 10
London School of Economics 2
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 7
New York University 2
Northwestern University 2
Oxford University 1
Princeton University 6
Rice University 1
Stanford University 1
University of Bonn 1
University of British Columbia 1
University of California-Berkeley 4
University of Chicago 4
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 5
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities 1
University of Pennsylvania 5
University of Rochester 1
University of Washington 1
Vanderbilt University 1
Yale University 4</p>

<p>8 (13%) of the 62 Economics professors at Michigan earned their degrees from programs ranked between #20 and #50 in the nation. The remaining 54 (87%) professors earned their PhDs from Econ programs ranked among the top 15. A whopping 32 (52%) attended top 5 PhD programs (Cal, Chicago, Harvard, MIT, Princeton and Stanford)</p>

<p>So, not only is Michigan’s Economics faculty 32% larger than the faculty of those three LACs combined, but PhD students at the Michigan programs are attending a programs that is generally considered superior to those attended by close to 50% of the faculties at the LACs mentioned above. </p>

<p>I am sure many of the faculty at top LACs chose to forego careers at top ranked Econ department such as Columbia, Northwestern, Penn and Yale to teach students at smaller LACs, but overall, the majoroty of the top Economists would rather teach at major think-tanks.</p>

106

<p>

No need to sympathize. I didn’t attend a LAC, although I do admire them. </p>

<p>I attended a major research university for undergrad, though, and I’m currently a grad student in a top 3 program. The idea that any of my fellow TAs or I could be better than LAC professors strikes me as exceedingly odd, unless those professors are considerably more incompetent than I give them credit for. Even professors from lesser programs have years of research experience that we simply don’t have.</p>

107

<p>

Nothing is missing! Use fractions. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>We price the gold. Its true value is determined by what the “average” thinks.</p>

108

<p>

You know what’s more embarrassing, driving 300 miles in April to visit the school that rejected me.</p>

109

<p>

Um, it is according to USNews…#2 in undergrad engineering and business and #9 in “dedication to undergrad teaching”…yet some people on here who have never even taken an undergrad class at Berkeley vehemently disagree…always one to open their mouths about Berkeley yet remain silent about their own alma maters. Now who has the inferiority complex? ;)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I went through this “very large backdoor”…:slight_smile:
I’m so happy I did. Now I can take my turn at the pulpit. ;)</p>

110

<p>

</p>

<p>Alexandre, in some respect, I would be happy to agree with you. In others, I could not disagree more. </p>

<p>My biggest disagreement would be about TAs. For starters not all TAs are cut from the same cloth. At certain schools, TAs are students who are about to complete a rigorous PhD program, at others they are untrained and barely competent students who might have just started a Master’s program, and HAVE to teach as part of their fonancial package. Add the poor command of English and you know why there are specific remedial and “training” programs at the public academic factory. </p>

<p>Pretending that such a TA could be “are more capable than professors at most LACs” can ONLY be qualified as … ridiculous or downright insulting. </p>

<p>Then, regarding the Engineering, inasmuch as you correctly listed Harvey Mudd afor the Engineering, your comments simply ignore the fact that the schools that is most comparable to Harvey Mudd is none other than Caltech. Of course, I do not blame you for not knowing or recognizing a fact that is common knowledge in Pasadena. </p>

<p>Lost in most of the discussion here is that we are talking about --or should at least-- the quality, depth, and scope of EDUCATION. This is what ultimately leads to academic preparation for a career, or for the pursuit of a higher degree. When it comes to those criteria, how do you think that HMC graduates fare when offered well-paid jobs jobs or spots in most selective graduate programs? </p>

<p>One can look at those facts or continue to support attempts to list “Best” colleges by using National Enquirer or People magazine type of criteria … where bigger is indeed better, and where resources and quality faculty per capita are not relevant. </p>

<p>Oh well, this is simply a lost battle, especially when reading the analyses of people who have never seen the inside of a LAC … nor the research universities they so adamantly support. At least, I know that your knowledge of Michigan and Cornell is as extensive as it is current. I just wished you could use the same sense of objectivity for which I respect you much for a few LACs. In turn, I would grant to you that the LACs I know the best are not exactly the “typical” LAC as they offer their students extended resources by SPECIALIZING in a few areas where they have few peers. I also have to concede that the research universities I am most familiar with are neither very common.</p>

111

<p>

Maybe in terms of student quality that is true. Not in terms of faculty quality.</p>

<p>National Academy of Engineering Members:
CIT: 29
HMC: 0</p>

<p>National Academy of Science Members:
CIT: 73
HMC: 0</p>

112

<p>UCB, you’re -again- focusing on excellence in scientific research with excellence and dedication to … teaching. </p>

<p>And, fwiw, don’t we know where the focus on research is omnipresent and of paramount importance at a research university?</p>

113

<p>^ Who cares…I’m just refuting your claim that “your comments simply ignore the fact that the schools that is most comparable to Harvey Mudd is none other than Caltech.”</p>

<p>

You’re the one comparing a research university to a LAC. Maybe it’s you who needs to educate yourself on the difference. </p>

<p>HTH</p>

<p>P.S. xiggi, are you claiming Caltech has a dedication to undergrad teaching…that’s a first.</p>

114

<p>I’m not quite sure how any LAC is “most comparable” to an elite research institution like Caltech. Maybe in terms of undergraduate student quality, but certain not in terms of facilities, equipment, laboratories, faculty quality, etc…</p>

<p>Harvey Mudd and Caltech have fundamentally different business models. One fields an expensive, large, broadly competitive research faculty on the foundation of a small, selective undergraduate student
body. The other is an eminent private university that made conscious choices to compete in a more limited way as research institutions such as the administrative decision to NOT hire a wide range of
research faculty capable of obtaining high levels of external support.</p>

<p>Yes, LACs & “hand holding” is nice. What is more important is that the individual think independently and take responsibility for his own pursuit of knowledge and learning experience. That is why research (pursuit of new ideas and advancing the society in which we dwell in is so important compared to simply reading the textbook written by someone else who made that discovery for you… bore)</p>

<p>I personally think the best teachers are the ones who are making the ground breaking discoveries in their own field. Yes, I can learn from the textbook. The best teachers aren’t the ones who can repeat the most crucial key points in a textbook for you. In the end, you are the one who will be learning from the textbook independently in the first place. Hand holding is good up until a certain point. This is college though, you take responsibility for your own learning. </p>

<p>Hand holding is not necessary in my opinion. Will there be professors that help you navigate through the waters in a real job that demands the best out of you. Hand holding is so high school guys.</p>

115

<p>“Hand-holding” simply means that faculty members and administrators offer to help you when they perceive that you are struggling or failing.</p>

<p>They care about your personal and intellectual growth, and they are there if you need guidance. That’s all.</p>

<p>It doesn’t mean that independent learning/critical discourse is discouraged.</p>

<p>Wherever did you get that idea?</p>

<p>Sure, in the real world, you won’t always have the luxury of this level of personal attention. However, you won’t always need it, because you will have been well-prepared.</p>

<p>A number of premiere small law firms encourage mentor-mentee relationships between partners and associates. I’m sure the top consulting firms encourage their junior consultants to continue to seek the people who’ve trained them for guidance. And so on.</p>

<p>Just because you’re jealous of the privileges that LACs undergrads have doesn’t mean you should bash LACs. ;)</p>

116

<p>“And, fwiw, don’t we know where the focus on research is omnipresent and of paramount importance at a research university?”</p>

<p>xiggy, when it comes to Engineering and the hard sciences, research is omnipresent and of paramount importance…full stop. That is why schools lile Cal and Stanford will trump any LAC when it comes to such fields of study.</p>

117

<p>I don’t necessarily agree, Alexandre. Elite research focus without good teaching is not going to prepare better scientists than great teaching and strong research.</p>

<p>Do I think that being somewhere where there is no research is advantageous? No, not really, not personally. Do I think that you have to be at one of the places with the top dollar amounts of research production? No, so long as you have access and opportunity to do PhD level research.</p>

118

<p>

And yet plenty of LAC students get into top graduate programs in the sciences.

I think we all know research experience is perhaps THE most important part of a graduate application. Thus we are presented with two possible scenarios:</p>

<p>1) Students at LACs are not lacking in research options after all.</p>

<p>2) The faculty in those top PhD programs are stupid and admitting unqualified students.</p>

<p>Which scenario do you pick?</p>

<p>If it’s scenario #2, you might also want to challenge the intelligence of the Goldwater Scholarship selection committee. Apparently they haven’t gotten the message that LAC students are vastly inferior in the sciences.</p>

<p>Goldwater Scholars 2005-2007
MIT 8
Berkeley 6
Carnegie Mellon 6
Cornell 6
Michigan 6
Caltech 5 </p>

<p>Pomona 9<br>
Oberlin 8<br>
Lafayette 6<br>
Mount Holyoke 6<br>
Reed 6<br>
Williams 5 </p>

<p>Goldwater Scholars 2008-2009
MIT 7
Caltech 6
Cornell 6
Michigan 5
Berkeley 3
Johns Hopkins 3</p>

<p>Hope 5
Pomona 4
Amherst 3
Davidson 3
Swarthmore 3</p>

<p>More than 300 undergraduates have co-authored articles with Hope faculty in the last 20 years. That’s an astonishing average of 15 students a year getting published in major journals. </p>

<p>Oh, what LAC students could do if only they didn’t need their hands held! :rolleyes:</p>

119

<p>

</p>

<p>Alexandre, I will now put you on the spot. Do you believe that the UNDERGRADUATE education in engineering is better at Michigan than at Harvey Mudd? Better at Michigan than at Caltech? Do you believe that the UNDERGRADUATE education in engineering is better at Cal than at Harvey Mudd? Better at Cal than at Caltech? </p>

<p>And, again, please remember which schools Caltech considers as its true peers and … rivals in undergraduate education. And, perhaps, you might also consider the percentage of engineering students at Cal and Michigan who would not stand a chance of being admitted at Caltech or at Harvery Mudd.</p>

120

<p>modestmelody, there is no black and white, which is the point I am trying to make. LAC supporters claim that LACs offer all the benefits that research universities offer…and none of their shortcomings. I am sorry, but that is not the case. LACs cannot compare to research universities in many important ways (resources, course depth and breadth, research opportunities, diversity etc…) and vice versa (class size, quality of instruction, individual attention, resources per student etc…). </p>

<p>But to compare any LAC to Harvard, Stanford or MIT is a little off if you ask me. The top 15-20 LACs are all amazing, and certainly on par with the top 15 or top 20 research universities, but I cannot accept the claim that Middlebury is two notches better than Cornell or that Amherst and Williams are equal to Harvard and Princeton.</p>