<p>
</p>
<p>wrong yet again</p>
<p>compare a 16 student class with a class of 600 students</p>
<p>the 16 student class allows for significant interaction between the professor and most of the students - not so in the 600 student class</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>fully agree</p>
<p>The top 5 criteria (indisputable) for picking/ranking a college:</p>
<ol>
<li>Academics/Departments</li>
<li>Location-Weather</li>
<li>Sports</li>
<li>Selectivity of Admissions</li>
<li>Girls (or guys)-Social Life</li>
</ol>
<p>The importance of each of these specific traits depends on the applicant, and of course, the desirability of a college depends on the applicant. Rankings mean nothing in this context.</p>
<p>In this sense, Stanford and Duke have to be near the best.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ha!</p>
<p>good one</p>
<p>A Job Interview:</p>
<p>*Employer: So, tell me why I should hire you?</p>
<p>Student: Hmmmm, because my college has a great football and basketball team…</p>
<p>Employer: so…do you play football or basketball?</p>
<p>Student: Nope, but I love to watch.</p>
<p>Employer: oh…ok…*</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s “nicer”? This has absolutely no effect on undergraduate experience, which I think you know as well. You mention being able to hear your classmates’ questions, but an additional factor is important in this discussion: the use of technology, which has been monumentally important in recent changes in academia. Not gonna lie - if I find out my class is being recorded (distributed online), there’s no way I’m going to class, whether it’s 150 people or 600 people. (Honestly the recorded class could be 20 students and I still wouldn’t go.) Today the idea of a large lecture hindering your learning is even less common, if not rare, especially considering that students learn better in a non-lecture format - as pedagogical research has shown, interactive learning is the most effective way to learn/teach. </p>
<p>(As a personal aside: I honestly don’t care what my classmates are asking about. Most often, they’re asking about something they should already know, either from the reading or from the professor’s lectures. For the dedicated student, most questions asked in lecture are stupid.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This tells me you haven’t been in a 16-student class. I’ve been in such a class many times and inevitably it turns into more of a lecture. Lectures are lectures are lectures; it doesn’t matter if the class if 15 students or 500 students. It’s the same either way. In my personal experience, interaction with the professor really breaks down after about 10 students. Beyond that, it might as well be a lecture; the number of students listening has no effect on your ability to learn (or at least, it shouldn’t have).</p>
<p>It’s a valid reason for choosing a college though. The sense of community it can provide is unreal. By your logic, only 1 is a valid reason for choosing a college.</p>
<p>Tell me why I should hire you?
2 - My college has great weather. (Terrible)
4 - My college is super selective. (Look at College of the Ozarks)
5 - I had a blast partying. (Again, terrible)</p>
<p>WOAH!!! im from NJ, why you snubbing princeton!!! #18 is bull, they should be top 3 no contest. how columbia is 3rd is the dumbest thing ive ever seen.</p>
<p>Nice theory except the University of Chicago has always had the best undergraduate education in the United States among the major research universities. You didn’t give the slightest consideration to curriculum.</p>
<p>^ why does U Chicago give the best undergraduate education? Is it because of the core curriculum? FWIW, many people in academia find the UChicago-type core not only exhausting, but just not very useful. IMO the Core that Chicago emphasizes is one of the biggest wastes of time ever.</p>
<p>im talking about going somewhere to live for 4 years. sports, weather, social life—important if u value them or value not being miserable,nothing to do with a job interview. honestly, its about what you like. thats it.</p>
<p>No one has asked yet- how is NYU so high up? Their academics are weak, and their sports are terrible. They haven’t even HAD a football team since 1952! In general, especially out of the NY/NJ/CT tri-state area (and even in it), it’s not a very well respected school. I guess some of the grad schools (esp. law) are solid, but for undergrad, its viewed as somewhat of a joke. What criteria did they do well in?</p>
<p>NYU excels in many areas, not just law… </p>
<p>Philosophy, politics, economics, business, english, math, public affairs are all top programs (within the top 10/15)</p>
<p>Computer science, psychology, sociology, anthropology, education, just to name a few. (All top 15/25ish)</p>
<p>NYU really isn’t as bad as you seem to think it is. And, since the same professors teach undergrads and grads… I’d say NYU students aren’t really that ‘bad off’. </p>
<p>Oh, and NYU has average class sizes small than Notre Dame and other comparable schools. </p>
<p>Remind me, why doesn’t NYU deserve its reputation?</p>
<p>
Considering NYU costs 55k+ a year and has notoriously bad financial aid, the admissions folk most settle to fill part of the class with a demographic getting in mainly because they can pay. This is true at all schools, although seems to be especially so at NYU. This means a large # of students are there because their parents are rich, not because they are intelligent/capable enough to get in on their own. This contributes to its bad reputation. That, along with the fact that a large number of unqualified students from my HS have attended in recent years, students who mainly applied due to NYU’s prevalence on various TV shows and few other reasons. While I recognize that NYC is an expensive city, I just don’t feel like NYU’s price tag corresponds to the strength of the school. </p>
<p>
I’m aware, their grad programs are solid. The undergrad, however, is not on par.</p>
<p>phantasmagoric,</p>
<p>You’d realize what I wrote didn’t necessarily contradict yours if you read what I wrote earlier:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It the same professors teach the undergrads, as the grads, then what exactly makes the undergrad program weak?</p>
<p>I don’t think the academic reputation of NYU is determined by what students may or may not get in. Princeton isn’t a good school because only very good students get in. </p>
<p>I wouldn’t say that the education you’ve received is in any way superior to mine. In some areas, I would even say that the education I’ve received (in virtue of the professors and faculty I have access to) is better than the one HYPSM could provide me. </p>
<p>While that isn’t true in all cases, I don’t think you’re accurately judging NYU. NYU students are, on average, no richer than most other schools’ students. (Just look at the financial aid data). And, average SAT scores are within the same range as UMich, Cornell, USC, UCB and so on. (Just take a look at the collegeboard SAT percentiles). The average GPA is an A-. </p>
<p>So… Having access to the same faculty, the same average SAT scores, small average class sizes and so on and so forth… Why doesn’t NYU deserve its reputation? Sure, the average GPAs may be a bit lower than some other top schools, but that doesn’t tell you anything. The same faculty teaches the same classes to the students who take that class. It’s not like people with lower GPAs from high school take different classes. </p>
<p>Maybe it is more expensive than it ought to be, but that doesn’t tell you anything about the quality of the education received. And as far as your comment about NYU not being respected, I’ve never come across that. In the internship positions I’ve held, Columbia is no more well respected than NYU.</p>
<p>
I’ve never heard of the same professors always teaching undergrads and grads, especially at a large school. It happens, perhaps often, but isn’t always the case.</p>
<p>
This isn’t Princeton vs. NYU, and, for the record, I’ve only been accepted, I haven’t begun to attend.</p>
<p>
Yes, it isn’t a good school because of that, but it certainly helps. Having very good students attend helps maintain its academic reputation.</p>
<p>
USC also has spectacular sport programs and, according to this list, is below NYU. If academics are on par but sports are much better, how does this make sense?</p>
<p>this quote from the OP:
I just think that NYU, a school with hardly any sports culture/teams and okay academics, does not deserve to be above many others on the list. Where’s Wake Forest? Where’s Georgetown? I’d say these are more well-rounded than many of the schools (not just NYU) on the list.</p>
<p>At NYU, in the departments that I know of, it is the case. There are a number of world-famous professors at NYU; I’ve been able to take classes from all the ones I’ve wanted to.</p>
<p>I don’t know about you, but I’m going to college for an education. Sports or lack thereof doesn’t make or break any school. Sports contribute nothing to the quality of a school; just the overall undergraduate experience, mayhap. And, each category only gained a school 1 point; so sports didn’t have all that much of a bearing on the ranking provided.</p>
<p>Georgetown isn’t as academically strong as NYU, neither is Wake Forest. Not when it comes to departmental strengths, anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>*no campus</p>
<p>*high tuition/high levels of student indebtedness</p>
<p>*high admit rate</p>
<p>*low endowment (relative to private universities.)</p>
<p>There’s no way NYU is above UCLA or Princeton for that matter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i like how all the counter points against NYU don’t “tell you anything” :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>as would be expected in any major research university in a large city. You find the same people at USC, UCLA, Columbia, Berkeley, etc. The only thing that makes NYU different is its (unwarranted) pricetag.</p>
<p>lol @ texas a&m ranked ahead of rice and vanderbilt. obvious ■■■■■ is obvious</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ha!</p>
<p>another good one</p>