The US News Prestige Rankings

<p>Actually Xiggi, I can tell you exactly how much they teach UGs. The average tenure track faculty teaches 75% UG and 25% grads. To be more exact 1.47 ug classes and .58 grad classes per semester. This has been very much the case the last 10 years where the numbers range from a low of 1.3 classes per semester to 1.57 while the grad classes are .83 to .55. Overall most teach about two classes per semester. (2.06-2.17). Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Oh, and over 75% of the faculty has tenure so most of them are teaching ugs.</p>

<p>Source UW Data Digest 2005-2006.</p>

<p>I also just heard that applications went from around 21,000 to 30,000 this year. The secret is getting out.</p>

<p>If you think PA assessment is better than actual overall undergraduate rankings, I'd think you'd have a problem picking out the best undergrad colleges</p>

<p>Michigan over Dartmouth? Berkeley and Chicago over every school besides like Harvard and Yale? Indiana over BC? I think if you took the public schools out, which benefit greatly from PA (the largest factor in the US News rankings), you would have a great list of undergrad schools using just PA. The public schools are still amazing schools, but probably not as good for undergrad as the top 10-15 privates. Aside from that kind of problem skewing undergrad quality, I think PA reflects the usual undergrad college pecking chain perfectly (HYPSM Cal Tech, then Columbia, Duke, Penn, Dartmouth, etc.) with Cornell and Chicago a bit higher.</p>

<p>TheThoughtProcess, I agree with you, but not for the same reason. You think picking Michigan over Dartmouth using the peer assessment score is irrational because you believe Michigan is an inferior university to Dartmouth. I believe it is irrational because the two schools, although equally exceptional in their own right, are completely different. Like I said before, universities with peer assessment scores between 4.3 and 4.7 are essentially equal in terms of academic excellent. At that level, one should start looking at personal preference and fit rather than try to bash one university over the other.</p>

<p>Interesting legerdemain in the Daily Pennsylvanian (Penn newspaper) today...</p>

<p>"After having been listed for two years as the fourth-most-prestigious national university, Penn slipped behind the California Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University in the most recent round of ratings, released today. Last year, Penn stood alone in the number-four spot, behind only Harvard, Princeton and Yale universities."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/44e54d8bdab5f%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailypennsylvanian.com/vnews/display.v/ART/44e54d8bdab5f&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Alexandre-
Could you say more about the difference in SAT reporting styles between publics and privates? You say that publics report SATs in a way that makes them seem 40 points lower.</p>

<p>‘"After having been listed for two years as the fourth-most-prestigious national university, Penn slipped behind the California Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Stanford University in the most recent round of ratings, released today. Last year, Penn stood alone in the number-four spot, behind only Harvard, Princeton and Yale universities."’</p>

<p>-Is the Daily Pennsylvanian not a student-run newspaper? I mean, who cares what students think??? :rolleyes:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Alexandre-
Could you say more about the difference in SAT reporting styles between publics and privates? You say that publics report SATs in a way that makes them seem 40 points lower.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The top publics require SAT scores from 1 sitting, while privates take the best combined score. So for example, if I got 800/760/750 the first time and 750/800/760 the next time, privates would count it as 2360, but publics count it as 2310.</p>

<p>the reason the big publics match in prestige rankings with smaller privates is precisely their size: the average student quality at the private is better, but the best from the big public matches the best from the small privates - these are the ones causing graduate adcoms, recruiters, to develop the mindset of equal prestige
I'm not convinced that it's an unfair system either</p>

<p>Does anyone on this thread realize that the South also has "ancient" universities? Try Georgetown, Virginia or William & Mary. In fact, W&M is the 2nd oldest US college and the most selective American public university. The out-of-state accept rate is an astounding 22% (same as CalTech) and the average SAT score is 1360! US News doesn't know what they're taliking about when they elevate juvenile schools like Duke, Emory, Vanderbilt and Wake into the top 30. What nonsense!</p>

<p>Emory, Vanderbilt, and Wake are all amazing schools that deserve their rankings and are arguably underrated still - mainly because of their location.. </p>

<p>Since you obviously hate Duke because its not yet a century old, so I won't bother to argue with you.</p>

<p>River Phoenix hits the nail right on the head and made my argument for me. I agree that there are different ways to sort out how a private vs. public stack up. However just as PRIVATE schools have no political issues holding them back (i.e. budget cuts) and the ability to be more selective, PUBLIC schools have advantages in the rankings with larger #s of departments to be the "top in" along with more students. The "more students" part is a blessing and a curse in that by sheer numbers they can compete with private schools for the # of kids with similiar top stats, but by the laws of supply and demand, have more that are below those numbers.</p>

<p>actually, i've long held the opinion (only based on a small sample though) that Duke, Emory, Vanderbilt, and Wake are all overrated, and that Georgetown, Virginia, and W&M are underrated</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
actually, i've long held the opinion (only based on a small sample though) that Duke, Emory, Vanderbilt, and Wake are all overrated, and that Georgetown, Virginia, and W&M are underrated

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>What makes you think that? In my opinion, Georgetown and WM are both considered more prestigious than the statistics would imply. Duke is probably overrated as well, but Emory and Vandy seem about right.</p>

<p>Whats with all these opinions about Duke being overrated? I would think people would finally stop complaining Duke was ranked higher than Stanford or MIT and is ranked outside the top 5 on most rankings. Are the opinions based on anything? However, I guess knowing a few...not-so scholarly people at any school is sort of a turn-off to the place.</p>

<p>Is Duke known for any department or school besides its Medical School? Have you ever heard of any famous alumni from there? Please. Duke is ranked #1 in the south by US News simply because it is private and has the largest advertising budget.</p>

<p>Stanford and MIT deserve their reputations. They are phenomenal science schools with strong research backbones.</p>

<p>Duke garners a lot of prestige for its impressive campus and aristocratic name.</p>

<p>and JJ Redick</p>

<p>I don't know mascuile, but most people here are concerned about undergrad, though grad programs at Duke are good as well - however, looking at your past comments, what I notice is a lack of facts and an abundance of terribly misinformed generalizations. </p>

<p>Now, here I go, comparing Duke to some of its peer schools on a number of rankings, statistics, etc. and also compare it to William and Mary, and explain why these are useful in making your vargue, generalized arguments seem useles:</p>

<p>Rank on US News - culmination of alumni giving, selectivity, and financial strengths - oft subject to manipulation but somewhat useful and by far the most popular rankings:
1-3) Harvard, Princeton, Yale usually
7) Penn
8) Duke
9) Columbia
9) Dartmouth
I don't know where W and M is, but not in the top 25.</p>

<p>Rank on THES - this, like US News, attempts to gauge undergrad quality of all international schools - again, this is undergrad, not grad, otherwise Chicago and Columbia would surely be higher:
1) Harvard
2) Yale
11) Duke
14) Cornell
17) Chicago
19) Columbia
(W and M is not in the top 30)
Again, this is an undergrad ranking, not grad ranking.</p>

<p>Average SAT scores - a somewhat good measure of selectivity
Harvard 1410 - 1580
Yale 1400 - 1580
Duke 1370 - 1540
Dartmouth 1360 - 1540
Columbia 1340 - 1530
Penn 1360 - 1520
Cornell 1290 - 1480
William and Mary - 1260 - 1440
Hey look, WM is over a 100 points lower then most of Duke's peer schools - take it for what its worth.</p>

<p>Peer Assesment - What top academics think of schools, this is often skewed towards top grad programs just because they add to a schools name (of course, this is often contended)
Chicago - 4.7
Columbia - 4.6
Duke - 4.5
Penn - 4.5
Dartmouth - 4.4
Brown - 4.4
William and Mary - I'm not sure, but probably again, much lower</p>

<p>Number of National Merit Scholars enrolling at undergrad insitutions - NMSC winners are usually the most selective students in the country, so where they go could be correlated with undergrad strength:</p>

<p>1) Harvard - 287
2) Yale - 232
3) Stanford - 194
...
6) Duke - 117
7) Penn - 101
8) Columbia - 71
...
62) William and Mary - 10
OK, so top students like to choose Duke more than William and Mary.</p>

<p>WSJ Feeder Rankings, a gauge of proportion of students being sent to some of the top 15 professional schools, this has a blatant Northeast bias which hurts West-Coast schools and Southern schools:
1) Harvard - 21.5 %
4) Stanford - 10.7%
7) Duke - 8.6%
8) Dartmouth - 8.4%
11) Columbia 7.14%
50+) William and Mary is not included in the top 50 schools
Ok, so Duke sends many kids to top professional programs, atleast on this biased survey towards Northeast schools.</p>

<p>Ok, so Duke does really well, especially considering Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Dartmouth each have their professional schools used in the 15 survey schools, whereas Duke has none (though its professional schools are usually ranked between 7-12). Duke did all this in technically less than a century.</p>

<p>Ok...is there anything else that needs to be shown to make you stop making comments such as Duke is only ranked highly or respected because "it is private and has the largest advertising budget?"</p>

<p>I think I've shown you many reasons why Duke owns Willian and Mary in almost every way, and why Duke certainly isn't overrated since it is considered one of the best schools in the country/world. It also has good white basketball players, who doesn't love that? So, I've shown rankings on the two most popular undergrad rankings, SAT scores, feeding rates into top professional schools, and the choices of National Merit Scholars, who themselves are among the top students in the nation. Would you like to see anything else? I'm sure it will only serve to further my point. Is there any data or rankings or survey of undergrad strength, anything at all, that would contradict my point that Duke is better than William and Mary for undergrad and why its not overrated and why you should become better informed on a school before attacking it?</p>

<p>Um you cant compare WM to Duke because its a state university. If, for example, you compare out of state acceptance rates and SAT ranges, WM's acceptance rate according to the registrar themselves (i asked) is approximately 10 % for girls and 22% for guys, both lower than Duke's and rivaling the Ivy's. the SAT range is also signficantly higher when considering OOS applicants. And US news is notorious for giving far too little recognition to public universities. and who cares about white basketball players, especially since the athletics at Duke seem to lead to rape and DWI..... (lacrosse rape and reddick's dwi)</p>