The US News Prestige Rankings

College Search & Selection
101

<p>Michigan's website clearly states that the SAT range for Michigan's Freshman class this year was 1370. The 1330 figure is 2 years old. And it is not at all generous to assume that the way private universities report their SAT scores adds an extra 40 points. It is universally accepted that reporting SAT scores according to the highest score per section increases averages by 30-50 points (40 points on average). The mean SAT score at most elite privates range between 1400-1450. Michigan's mean is 1370, which is equal to roughly 1410 as measured by those elite privates. I don't see a significant difference. </p>

<p>As for NMS, with the exception of 5 or 6 schools, all universities, regardless of size have between 40 and 60, out of over 1,000 incoming students. Whether NMS make up 5% or 1% of a student body hardly matters. </p>

<p>Finally, at Michigan, 25% of students major in fields that do not lead to professional graduate schools, as opposed to 0% at Dartmouth, Duke, Brown, Chicago etc... Cornell sufers from the same arrangement, where 25% of their students major in Agriculture, Hotel Management etc... </p>

<p>I personally really like the WSJ survey conducted back in 2003. I think it is a very good start. I say it is a good start because it needs some serious work. As we both know, the Ivies and other East Coast powerhouses (like Duke, Georgetown, MIT and the East Coast LACs) benefited from the fact that 11 of the 15 programs in the survey are East Coast programs. Chicago seems to have done very well compared to other midwestern powerhouses like Northwestern and Michigan, but it doesn't negate the fact that the survey was severely skewed in favor of East Coast universities. Finally, schools with large Engineering colleges (like Cornell, Cal, Michigan, MIT, Caltech etc...) were also hurt because the study did not include graduate Engineering programs. </p>

<p>However, even when you take all of those three disadvantages into consideration, Michigan, Cal and Cornell still hold their own, and that is impressive. Can you imagine if the study included Michigan, Cornell and Cal graduate Business, Engineering and Medical programs (UCSF instead of Cal for medical)? </p>

<p>In short, and I have said this a 100 times, there is no measurable or appreciable difference between Michigan, Cal and UVA and the elite privates.</p>

102

<p>Sorry, but the top departments & programs ARE those with the most reputable faculty and strongest graduate programs. This has always been true. Most prospective undergrads search for the top departments or programs in a particular field of study. However, Berkeley & Michigan have a greater number of highly ranked departments & programs across the board than many of the schools ranked in the top 20 of the USN&WR undergrad poll. I'd like to know which highly ranked academic department or program lacks a reputable faculty and strong graduate program. </p>

<p>However, if you're trying to insinuate that undergrad students at a public institution wouldn't benefit from a greater number of highly regarded depts./programs, this is utter nonsense. Also you're trying to completely disassociate the undergrad program from the graduate program. This is exactly what the USN&WR is trying to do. It's impossible.</p>

103

<p>Miriam - Well, I think that grad programs shouldn't play a big role in the reputation of an undergrad...schools such as Dartmouth or Brown suffer from PA because its grad programs aren't as large, but its undergrad strength and placement is very strong. </p>

<p>Alexandre, I insist on using collegeboard, as the Michigan site states the enrolled numbers are "unofficiall" numbers...though you are right, they are probably atleast a year old. However, US News, which is the list most go by, lists Michigans ACT scores as 26-31 but not SAT scores (I guess ACT is more common)</p>

<p>According to collegeboard, converting from SATs to ACTs, a 31 is roughly a 1420 and a 26 is roughly a 1230
<a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/sat/cbsenior/html/stat00f.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.collegeboard.com/sat/cbsenior/html/stat00f.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>According to Ivywest, a 31 is roughly a 1400, and a 26 is roughly a 1210
<a href="http://www.ivywest.com/acttosat.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ivywest.com/acttosat.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>According to University of Iowa, a 31 is roughly a 1420, and a 26 is roughly a 1220.
<a href="http://www.uiowa.edu/admissions/undergrad/requirements/act-conversion.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.uiowa.edu/admissions/undergrad/requirements/act-conversion.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>UTexas gives a 31 as about 1400, and a 26 as 1210
<a href="http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/ACT-SATconcordance.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/ACT-SATconcordance.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So for the ACT scores given on US News, Michigans equivalent SAT scores are about 1230 - 1430 according to 4 different sources, which is still 60-70 below the number given on the Michigan "Fast Facts" site...but matches collegeboard.com:
<a href="http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=1195&profileId=6%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://apps.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=1195&profileId=6&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So collegeboard.com and US News after converting both give Michigan's SAT scores is roughly 1220/1230ish - 1420/1430ish, depending on the conversion</p>

104

<p>Thethoughtprocess, even those numbers that are a couple of years old (mean of roughly 1330) are only 50-70 or so points below the Brown, Northwestern, Chicago, Dartmouth, Duke means, when you consider the fact that Michigan does not mix and match, but rather, looks at scores in one sitting. That is hardly a huge difference when one considers the fact that many Michigan students plan to major in non-traditional majors like Nursing, Kinesiology and Music, where SAT scores are not as important as purpose or talent. But make no mistake, when comparing apples to apples, Michigan (and Cal and UVa) are identical to the likes of Brown and Duke etc...</p>

105

<p>Alexandre in a lot of your posts you point to statistics and say "Hardly a difference." Like a graduation rate of 87% or 93% and I look at UC Berkeley being ranked #21 and harvard being ranked #2 out of 2500 schools and I say "Hardly a difference."</p>

106

<p>Alex, many people at Brown and Duke are also athletes or have unique talents that don't require high SAT scores to be admitted...and I won't say 50-70 points is a big difference - but it IS lower, and that is if you add an extra 40-50 points to compensate for combined scores. I'm not sure if this is an official number to recenter SAT scores for public schools. Columbia, Duke, Brown also have their share of musicians, future nurses, etc. It is assuming to say that Columbia, Duke, and Brown only have academic students who don't pursue unique fields such as Music or Nursing, whereas many students at UVA or Mich do.</p>

<p>To see if indeed Mich, UVA, and Berkeley have lower SAT scores because their students pursue non-traditional majors, lets take a look at the most popular majors at each school, and what percentage of the school is involved in them:</p>

<p>Mich - 60% of students major in business (6%), engineering (17%), social sciences (15%) , english (6), Psych (11%) or biology (6%) according to collegeboard.com. The six largest majors are all traditional majors.</p>

<p>UVA - 70% major in social sciences (25), engineering (9), business (8), psych (8), and English (7). History is 6th biggest and also 7%, Liberal Arts is the 7th largest major and is 7%. Again, traditional majors for which SAT scores are important.</p>

<p>Berkeley - 60% major in social sciences (21%), engineering (11%), biology (12%), business (6%), and english (6%). Again, the largest majors are traditional, and not vocational majors such as nursing.</p>

<p>So it looks like the largest majors at these schools are still traditional majors, making your argument that public school students are more specialized seem to be less strong.</p>

<ul>
<li>Columbia's 5 most popular majors include Performing arts (9% of student body), about 65% involved in 4 largest traditional majors (social science, history, english, psych)

<ul>
<li>Duke's 5 most popular majors include military security (7% of student body), about 65% involved in 4 largest traditional majors (social science - 34%, engineering - 15, psych - 9, biology - 7)</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>

<p>So about 60% of the student body at Columbia and Duke are involved in the most popular traditional major areas - social sciences, natural science, engineering, and humanities. This is about the same as Mich, UVA, and Berkeley. So I'm not sure where the argument that many students at Mich, UVA, and Berkeley are specialized whereas not many at Duke and Columbia are specialized comes from - especially when the data shows an almost identical proportion for most common majors. With this in mind, Columbia, Duke, and Brown have SAT scores more than 100 points higher than Berk, Mich, or UVA, though only 60-70 points when giving them the combined sitting handicap.</p>

<p>SAT scores, feeder rates into top grad programs, etc. show that Columbia, Duke, and Brown are better for the typical undergrad. Of course you can try to explain why Cal, Mich, and UVA perform worse, but overall the students at Brown and Duke and Columbia perform better. </p>

<p>I mean, Mich, Cal, and UVA are great schools, but I would never consider them as good as Brown, Duke, or Columbia for undergrad, in any respect. However, I'm interested in looking at data of undergrad majors besides what is listed on collegeboard.com, as its numbers might be a few years outdated or off.</p>

107

<p>"I mean, Mich, Cal, and UVA are great schools, but I would never consider them as good as Brown, Duke, or Columbia for undergrad, in any respect."</p>

<p>I find that comment quite ignorant and very sad. I know for a fact that Michigan is just as good, or else, I would not have picked Michigan over those three schools you mention...at the behest of an alum of one of those three schools. It is not merely an opinion that Michigan, Cal and UVa are as good as those schools...it is a fact that is universally accepted by anybody who is worth looking up to.</p>

108

<p>Sorry Alex, I meant to say - I wouldn't recomend Michigan, UVA, or Berkeley over Brown, Duke, and Columbia for the best undergrad academic experienece, based on on stats and grad placement (which are meaningless to many students, but not to the ones pursuing top academics). </p>

<p>I'm not sure why it is a "universally accepted" truth that UVA, Mich, and Berkeley are as good as Columbia, Duke, ad Brown. I just don't see what facts back that up. Thats all. Its well known I'm pro-small, elite, private schools and not a fan of large public schools, so maybe its because I'm biased, but most facts I've used and offered show that statistically Columbia, Duke, and Brown are stronger by a good deal.</p>

<p>Also, UVA Mich and Berk are all top 20 schools and among the best in the nation, I just think for undergrad Columbia, Duke, and Brown are more in line with the top 10. For grad, Mich and Berk win hands down (as far as I know, which isn't very much at all).</p>

109

<p>I disagree with you. You make it seem like I do not care for "top academics". When I chose universities, my first priority was an unbeatable intellectual experience that would give me unlimited access to the best faculty and open doors to all graduate programs and exclusive firms I may wish to pursue. Of course, most of the 16 (10 in the US, 2 in Canada and 4 in the UK) universities I got into afforded me that opportunity, but Michigan is the one I liked the most. </p>

<p>You say you aren't sure why it is "universally accepted" that Cal, Michigan and UVa are as good as elite private universities? I would say the peer assessment score is ample evidence. Cal is always ranked between #5 and #7 and Micbigan always between #7 and #12. Here's what one of the people had to say about Michigan and Cal. Keep in mind that it is in the context of undergraduate education. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>You may not believe that Michigan and Cal are worthy universities, but like I said, those who are worth looking up to (those who truly understand education and are in a position to impact our lives) believe Cal and Michigan are among the very best. All you do is point to the 50 point SAT difference and the slight differences in graduate school placement as proof of quality differences. However, tat does not prove anything where the quality of those universities is concerned.</p>

110

<p>And I don't understand why you put more weight on immeasurable things that could be true of any university than real data like SAT scores and grad placement. Many students every day choose Columbia, Brown, Duke, Chicago and other privates over Mich or UVA, though you yourself made the reverse decision. Also, you say "unbeatable intellectual experience" and "access to best faculty" - why would an intellectual experience and access to faculty be more available to students at Mich or UVA than Columbia or Duke - the latter have a smaller sized student body but also excellent grad programs with top professors. </p>

<p>PA scores reflect the grad reputation I feel, so I never put that much weight on it, though you may disagree. I point to a very large difference in SAT score, and a much higher rate of admissions into top professional schools (3 times as many proportionally than the top publics, even though similar numbers pursue traditional majors). I'm sure if cross-admit data was revealed, it would also show most students accepted to UVA or Mich and also to Columbia, Brown, or Duke, they would choose the latter.</p>

<p>I'm sorry if I offended your alma matter, but I don't think being less strong for undergrad than Chicago, Columbia, Duke, or Brown is that bad...like I have said, I consider Mich and UVA great, top 20 schools, great intellectual experience and all. But I don't consider them as good as Chicago, Columbia, Duke, and Brown. And most typical measures of undergrad strength agree with this idea. I mean, maybe those who are worth looking up to believe Cal and Michigan are better than top privates, but this prestige, like I've said, is because they have such excellent graduate programs in a number of fields, not because their undergrad student body is ultra-strong.</p>

111

<p>
[quote]
Sorry, but the top departments & programs ARE those with the most reputable faculty and strongest graduate programs. This has always been true. Most prospective undergrads search for the top departments or programs in a particular field of study. However, Berkeley & Michigan have a greater number of highly ranked departments & programs across the board than many of the schools ranked in the top 20 of the USN&WR undergrad poll. I'd like to know which highly ranked academic department or program lacks a reputable faculty and strong graduate program. </p>

<p>However, if you're trying to insinuate that undergrad students at a public institution wouldn't benefit from a greater number of highly regarded depts./programs, this is utter nonsense. Also you're trying to completely disassociate the undergrad program from the graduate program. This is exactly what the USN&WR is trying to do. It's impossible.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I'm sorry, I can't buy this argument, because it would logically mean that the elite LAC's would therefore be some of the worst schools in the world because they don't have strong graduate programs (heck, they mostly don't have ANY graduate programs). Yet I don't think anybody is going to seriously deny that schools like Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, and Wellesley are darn fine undergrad schools.</p>

<p>In fact, the LAC's serve as the great counterexample. If grad programs are so important, then how are the LAC's so good? I know that somebody is going to reply that LAC's are very different from research univeristies, but ** that's the point **. The LAC's prove that, by running education in a different way, you don't need top grad programs to deliver a strong undergraduate experience. Just because you don't have strong grad programs (or no grad programs at all) doesn't mean that you can't have a strong undergrad program.</p>

<p>Furthermore, I would point out that many research universities are basically LAC's, in terms of running their undergrad program. Let's face it. Princeton, Dartmouth and Brown are basically LAC's. Even schools like Northwestern, Duke, Yale and perhaps Chicago have LAC-ish features. Hence, I think that these schools' undergrad programs should be looked at the way that the LAC's are looked at.</p>

112

<p>I don't want any part of the top public ve top private argument, but a comment and three questions</p>

<p>I know some graduates of Cornell Hotel Management who went on to graduate school, and I don't know whether the proportion of those entering professional school is lower from this program than the traditional liberal arts. Anyone know?</p>

<p>Alex, do you have data that establishes</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The top publics REPORT their SAT scores as single sitting? (how they report is not necessarily the same as how they use the scores for admission)</p></li>
<li><p>Best combination results in a 40 point boost over best single sitting?</p></li>
</ol>

113

<p>
[quote]
In short, and I have said this a 100 times, there is no measurable or appreciable difference between Michigan, Cal and UVA and the elite privates.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Everyone would agree with the statement ... with a very small addendum:</p>

<p>In short, and I have said this a 100 times, there is no measurable or appreciable difference between Michigan, Cal and UVA and the elite privates that share their rank.</p>

<p>Princeton and Harvard are elite private schools, and so are Smith, Bates, and Colby. Now, do you still posit that there is no measurable or appreciable difference between Michigan, Cal and UVA and Smith, Bates, and Colby? Or are elite schools only defined by a higher ranking in the USNews report?</p>

114

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, I would point out that many research universities are basically LAC's, in terms of running their undergrad program. Let's face it. Princeton, Dartmouth and Brown are basically LAC's. Even schools like Northwestern, Duke, Yale and perhaps Chicago have LAC-ish features. Hence, I think that these schools' undergrad programs should be looked at the way that the LAC's are looked at.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sakky, you may want to add Penn and Wharton to your list.</p>

115

<p>Sakky, I agree that LACs should be looked at separately. They offer a completely different approach, one that is admitedly just as good, to undergraduate education. I also agree that Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, Princeton and Yale offer, to varrying degrees, a LACish approach to undergraduate education. Other such schools include Emory, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt and WUSTL.</p>

<p>I don't think private schools like Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, MIT, Northwestern, Penn and Stanford do though. Any school where 65%+ of the students are graduate students and/or where professors care more about research cannot be considered "LACish". </p>

<p>Thethoughtprocess, what do you mean Immeasurable? The peer assessment score is the only criteria used by the USNWR that has a common frame of reference. It is the only true measurable constant in their infernal equation. </p>

<p>SAT scores can be manipulated and reported in varrying ways. Different universities emphasize it more than others, forcing their averages up without really improving the quality of their student bodies. That alone can help some universities and hurt others. I also think I made it abundantly clear that state schools have their hands tied behind their backs in the way they report their SAT ranges. </p>

<p>Graduate school placement rates are telling but not linear because one does not know how many students within the university are applying to graduate schools. </p>

<p>Student to faculty ratios are impossible to read because some schools, like Chicago and Penn, list all faculty (purely-for-research, assistant, part time etc...) whereas other universities, like state schools, will only list full time teaching faculty. </p>

<p>There is very little frame of reference used when ranking universities. The peer assessment score seems to be the only universal invariant.</p>

116

<p>"Peer assessment (weighting: 25 percent). The U.S. News ranking formula gives greatest weight to the opinions of those in a position to judge a school's undergraduate academic excellence. The peer assessment survey allows the top academics we consult—presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions—to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching. Each individual is asked to rate peer schools' academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). Those who don't know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly are asked to mark "don't know." Synovate, an opinion-research firm based near Chicago, collected the data; of the 4,089 people who were sent questionnaires, 58 percent responded."</p>

<p>Honestly, I really don’t trust what the people who responded to the PA surveys have to say. I don’t see why people put so much weight on what the PA says.</p>

117

<p>KK, at least the peer assessment score cannot be easily manipulated... not that much anyway. It's not like a school can send letters to the Presidents, Provosts and Deans of Admissions of peer insistutions and ask them to pretty please raise their PA rating! Yes, some schools may be able to sway the votes of a handful of peers, but when hundreds, if not thousands of peers ae voting, they can hardly affect the final verdict. PA scores have fluctuated very little over the years, showing a consistancy seldom seen in any of the other USNWR criteria. That's exactly what Gerhard Casper (Yale educated dean of the University of Chicago Law school and eventually president of Stanford throughout the 90s) was pointing to when he wrote his criticism of the USNWR in 1996. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I maintain that's because all the other criteria can be manipulated big time because they are reported by the institutions themselves. Why do you think there are such huge leaps in the rankings on an annual basis? If a private school wishes to have a great faculty resources rating, all it needs to do is include its Law and Medical school faculties, its purely-for-research faculties and its part time and asistant professors into the mix, something many universities, particularly the publics, cannot do. </p>

<p>The Peer assessment score is the only criteria which has not been inflicted with the wild swings that other criteria have been heir to, and that is not surprising when you consider the fact that there are hundreds of highly informed academics involved in each peer category.</p>

118

<p>ThoughtProcess:</p>

<p>1) US News is stilted toward private schools. Just look how highly Washington University in St. Louis is rated by that magazine -- #12!!!!! They lose all credibility based on that ranking.
2) Who has ever heard of THES before? That’s like me mentioning that W&M was recently rated higher than Duke by the Washington Monthly. Meaningless. More meaningful is the fact that US News ranked W&M #1 or #2 a few years back in "commitment ot teaching."
3) W&M’s freshman SAT average is 1360 (in- and out-of-state combined) but the o-o-s cohort average is 1450 -- same as Duke’s.
4) US News' Peer Assessment category is skewed toward private schools and their marketing machines.
5) Your NMS statistic is incorrect. I believe it is closer to 100 for W&M (you left out a zero).
6) The WSJ Feeder Rankings you cite were done like 5 years ago and the statistics for W&M were incomplete (they used a sample because they didn’t get the entire dataset back in time). Anyway, W&M has an 80% placement rate at medical schools which I believe meets or even exceeds Duke.</p>

<p>As for the NCAA stuff, a recent NCAA study shows that only William and Mary and Stanford University reported student-athlete SAT scores of at least 1,000 in eight categories based on gender and sport.</p>

119

<p>Alex,</p>

<p>Do you have the evidence to support</p>

<p>
[quote]
I made it abundantly clear that state schools have their hands tied behind their backs in the way they report their SAT ranges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I know you said it. The question is whether there is documentation that the differences you cite in SAT reporting are true? I have looked for this, but cannot find it. If you know the citation, please respond.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

120

<p>Masuile:
1) Agreed, though US News is America's most popular ranking, and its probably as close as you can get for undergrad
2) Agreed, though THES is Britain's most popular ranking and the most heeded international one (thats what non-American HS kids look at)
3) It is impressive its OOS applicants are as strong as Duke's with an average SAT of 1460, but its overall student body as significantly lower stats - also, maybe Duke's OOS students have even higher stats since it accepts almost 15% of students from its home state at slightly lower standards.
4) I'd argue PA is skewed towards larger schools if anything,though I don't really know, I don't put much weight on this though - I just posted it because it helped my argument
5) Masuile, I used the numbers posted by KK posted on a different thread here, though I think 10 is closer than 100 - I don't think WM has more scholars than Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, Mich, Chicago etc.
6) Maybe WM has a higher placement rate to med school, but on the feeder ranking Duke does have the 7th ranking overall, and it is usually the standard with what to go by.</p>

<p>Maybe I don't give enough credit to W and M, indeed it is a very impressive school - still, most undergrad measures put Duke in the top 7 to 9 schools or so overall in the country (regularly behind HYPSM and Cal Tech, within a tier with Columbia, Penn, Dartmouth, Brown, and friends), whereas W and M isn't.</p>