<p>NotYourBusiness,
yor own ranking is not in synch with official. But I understand. Every Med. School applicant has his own ranking. Some names are also kind of out of space. “Case Institute of Technology” - never heard about it.</p>
<p>Thats the old name for Case Western, before the merger.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why aren’t those “good” schools?</p>
<p>Hi Sue22:
I understand my argument was quite strong (silly as you put). But it is an argument that highlights that when looking at individual examples to reach conclusions, one needs to account for population size and for the fact that “outliers” exist. I wanted to argue against the view posted by some people that school has no effect on the likelihood of winning a Nobel Prize. Using an example that someone from a less-ranked school won the prize is not a valid argument to support the assertion that “there is no advantage to going to a top school”, in particular because there are many institutions outside of what we usually consider the top schools. By the same token, the fact that the small set of top schools account for many prizes shows that this small set of institutions are disproportionally overrepresented. Granted, the quality of the student has an effect on the likelihood of winning a Nobel and needs to be factored in. But I also believe that the educational environment in undergraduate (and graduate and post-grad) also need to be factored in.
The example of a person coming from a non-top undergrad proves that it is possible for a student to eventually win the Nobel regardless of his/her institution. It does not prove that there is no institutional effect, and that we should disregard undergraduate institution as a factor that influences the likelihood of winning the Nobel Prize.</p>
<p>NotYourBusiness-
Correlation does not equal causation.
Your point would be valid if the inputs in each case were the same, i.e., if the students entering the various undergraduate programs had the same basic statistics going in. They don’t. </p>
<p>What you’re proposing is like comparing the outcomes of basketball camps. One (Camp A) has an average height of 6’10 with very few under 6’ and many at 7’, the other 3 (Camps B, C, and D) an average height of 5’11 with a few 7 footers. When 3 players from Camp A make the NBA and one each from camps B, C, and D make it does it mean that attendance at Camp A made the difference or was it simply that Camp A had a much higher proportion of tall players to begin with? It’s not clear. What is clear is that one did not need to attend Camp A to be drafted into the NBA.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that without data comparing like students there is no way to determine what, if any, effect undergraduate institution has on eventual achievement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes … and the number of people on this forum that don’t get that rather simple distinction continues to amaze me.</p>
<p>That’s not to say that there isn’t an advantage to attending an Ivy or other elite institution, just that this data doesn’t prove it.</p>
<p>I know this isn’t what the main thread is about, but given the direction it’s going in, it’s interesting to note that not only are there Noble Prize winners who haven’t gone to ‘top ranked’ schools, there is one that is actually a high school dropout:</p>
<p>Roth famously dropped out of his Queens, N.Y., high school in his junior year. After taking weekend classes at Columbia University, he became a full-time Columbia student, earning an engineering degree before receiving master’s and doctoral degrees from Stanford in operations research in 1973 and 1974, respectively. He has since held professorships at the University of Illinois and the University of Pittsburgh.</p>
<p>-from the Stanford website [Stanford</a> visiting Professor Alvin Roth wins Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics](<a href=“You've requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News”>Stanford visiting Professor Alvin Roth wins Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences | Stanford News)</p>
<p>Though he did go to an Ivy League school for undergrad. </p>
<p>But I guess you can say that graduating high school is not a prerequisite for being a Noble Prize winner. Just like not going to a top ranked school. But I still wouldn’t advise anyone to drop out of high school. I think being a high school graduate matters.</p>
<p>Graduating FROM high school. NOBEL.</p>
<p>Sorry. Meet my pet, Peeve. (Shamelessly stolen from Safire.)</p>
<p>My bad on the spelling–just not paying attention and being sloppy.</p>
<p>As for the usage of ‘graduate’</p>
<p>From the Merriam Webster’s Dictionary</p>
<p>Usage Discussion of GRADUATE</p>
<p>In the 19th century the transitive sense (1a) was prescribed; the intransitive <i graduated="" from="" college=""> was condemned. The intransitive prevailed nonetheless, and today it is the sense likely to be prescribed and the newer transitive sense (1b) <she graduated="" high="" school=""> the one condemned. All three are standard. The intransitive is currently the most common, the new transitive the least common.</she></i></p><i graduated="" from="" college="">
<p>Just goes to show how these usage rules, like clothing fashions, can change with the times…</p>
<p>The transitive sense that was prescribed in the 19th century was the one in which X grants a degree or diploma to Y. The dictionary claims this as standard, though I don’t think I’ve heard this usage for this verb.</p>
</i>
<p>Sue and Annasdad:</p>
<p>This is the last time I post about this subject.</p>
<p>Clearly we see the world differently and we will not be able to convince each other.</p>
<p>You will not convince me that there is “not important” to go to a top school based on the fact that there are a few people who graduates from a non-top school won the Nobel. I believe that the likelihood to win the prize is a function of the person and the institution. To use Sue’s analogy, I believe that to be a successful NBA player a person needs to have the physical abilities and good coaching (coaching does matter).</p>
<p>I will not be able to convince you that it is “important” to go to a top school based on the disproportionate number of graduates from top schools who won the Nobel. You believe that the likelihood to win the prize is a function of the person only. To use Sue’s analogy, you believe that to be a successful NBA player a person needs to have the physical abilities **only<a href=“coaching%20does%20not%20matter”>/b</a>.</p>
<p>To finish, I will leave you with this quote from a book review about “Exam Schools” (Public High Schools for gifted and highly motivated students) published on this Monday’s WSJ. The article finished with the following quote: “One parent at Pine View School for the Gifted in Florida told the authors that he was a bit concerned about the schools’ name. ‘For me, I guess I feel like all kids are gifted in some way.’ But that didn’t stop him from sending his kids there”. Deep inside, that parent knows. Deep inside, we know.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the discussion of Nobel prize winners says little about TODAY’S higher-ed options for students. Many of the awards (in the sciences, anyway) are granted for work conducted decades ago, when fewer people went to ANY college, let alone a “top” one. Those who did often had many other advantages that allowed them to attend leading institutions. Things are different now.</p>
<p>Perhaps it might be useful to compare hands-on research opportunities at “elite” schools versus others. Many LACs and state universities do a very good job providing students a range of opportunities to work closely with faculty and conduct and present research. HYPSM do not have the lock on this.</p>
<p>As a parent with two children in college, I remain confused about the rankings in US News, Forbes, the Princeton Review, etc. So I decided to develop my own ranking based on criteria that I consider important for choosing an undergraduate institution. I spent way too much time on this exercise, but I have managed to evaluate all the 4-year colleges in my state and neighboring states, and also about 120+ colleges that are at the top of the US News and/or Forbes lists.</p>
<p>The results are very interesting and informative to me, but perhaps not to others who might legitimately have other criteria or weight the same criteria differently.</p>
<p>Some conclusions I have drawn from this exercise that I wouldn’t have known if I just followed the established rankings: the “worst” colleges can be very bad indeed when evaluated against my criteria, the “best” colleges in my ranking do not always correlate with selectivity (three of my top 30 colleges have acceptance rates equal to or greater than 50%), and the majority of colleges in my state are very close to each other, with just a handful either well above or well below the vast middle.</p>
<p>I would recommend that any prospective student do his or her homework and evaluate colleges based on personal criteria important to him or her. Although I dislike the fact that the established rankings pubs are so influential, I love the fact that colleges now routinely make data publicly available (in response to the established rankings), and that means we can all use the data to make more informed choices. </p>
<p>Even before my exercise, I concluded (based on empirical research as well as personal observation) that student success has so much more to do with the student than the college. Yes, the college matters, but the student matters so much more. And thank goodness this is true, because the alternative is depressing for those who think individual effort should be rewarded by society.</p>
<p>Keith, would you consider sharing the “Belton Index”?</p>
<p>I will probably share it at some point once I am satisfied with it, but the point of my post was not to suggest my ranking is any better than others or should be taken seriously by others. My point was to say that one person’s ranking will be different than another person’s ranking, and therefore – because choice of college is so individual – one should use the data that is publicly available to draw one’s own conclusions.</p>
<p>I found that the following information sources were most helpful in my exercise: the Common Data Set from each college (particularly sections B and I) , the NSF survey of earned doctorates (how many students from an undergraduate institution earn a Ph. D. in a given year), and payscale.com (salary information for graduates of a college over time). I also very much like the National Survey of Student Engagement–I think it says good things about a college’s leadership if it participates in the NSSE.</p>
<p>That’s an impressive amount of work, Keith. I’ve started compiling a similar list, but only in as so far as it applies to Spygirl and her particular set of interests, major possibilities and needs. I’ll put together a different list for Spyguy when it’s his turn.</p>
<p>There is a site I subscribe to called DIY College Rankings. I did buy her spreadsheet as she’s done an enormous amount of data collection.</p>
<p>I’m also in the process of creating my own personalized rankings. I used the IPEDS website for the bulk of my information. The best part is that it has almost all the information you could possibly need on every school imaginable. Plus, you can download the information with whichever variables you choose right onto you computer as an excel document. Works great for me.</p>
<p>IPEDS is one of the places the DIY woman found her stats and it’s very illuminating and extra handy that you can download it right into excel. Because, where would we be without our spreadsheets :)</p>
<p>Of course, one of the most important columns for us is financial feasibility.</p>
<p>NIce to have one’s own rankings, and I sort of have my own. But my kids don’t go by it. They tended to have their own too.</p>
<p>I hear you, Cpt. I’ve been researching mostly within Spygirl’s parameters, which are getting narrower every day. Although I do on occasion find a school that she will consider even though it might not check off all of the boxes.</p>
<p>It would be so much easier if we were independently wealthy.</p>