The Wisdom of US News Peer Assessment Rating

College Search & Selection
81

<p>Well, here’s some anecdotal information for you:</p>

<p>Econ 1 for Spring 2009 was taught by Prof. Olney. It just so happens she is a great teacher…
“Professor Olney is the recipient of UC Berkeley’s Distinguished Teaching Award (2002-2003); the Jonathan Hughes Prize for Excellence in Teaching Economic History (1997); Distinguished Teaching Award, University of Massachusetts (1990-1991). She was selected as a “Great Teacher in Economics” by the Stavros Center for Economic Eductation in 2007.”</p>

<p>[Olney</a>, Martha L.](<a href=“http://elsa.berkeley.edu/econ/faculty/olney_m.shtml]Olney”>http://elsa.berkeley.edu/econ/faculty/olney_m.shtml)</p>

<p>Yes, it really is “ouch for UC Berkeley undergrads” … :rolleyes:</p>

82

<p>ucb,
I chose those factors because that is what CH’s model is using. I dropped out a few of the variables (school type and size) so that you couldn’t easily identify a school. </p>

<p>Wanna give it a guess?</p>

83

<p>^ Heh, don’t Notre Dame, USC, Emory and University of Washington have a PA score of 3.9? </p>

<p>The other schools with PA of 4.5 are Penn, Johns Hopkins, Cornell, Columbia. </p>

<p>The real question you should be asking Hawkette, in context of the PA score, is what distinguished academic programs do USC, Emory, Notre Dame and Washington offer that Penn, JHU, Cornell and Columbia can’t match?</p>

84

<p>Do you know which of the schools above in # 77 is a 4.5 and which is a 3.9? I used CH’s datapoints (he ain’t using the various program strengths so not sure why you’re asking about that) and wondered just how different some of these schools are on these variables.</p>

85

<p>^ To be honest, I wouldn’t know without looking at USNWR data.</p>

86

<p>Xiggi, </p>

<p>Here’s another anecdote:</p>

<p>Upper-division “Economic Theory-Micro” (Econ 101A) for Spring 2009 was taught by Prof. DellaVigna. He’s a Harvard PhD and 2008 recepient of Berkeley’s undergraduate teaching award as well as (gasp!) a 2004 Social Sciences Undergraduate Research Mentoring Award…</p>

<p>Also, Social Sciences Distinguished Teaching Award, UC Berkeley, 2007.
Nominee for Best Advisor Award, Economics Department, UC Berkeley, 2007.</p>

<p>[DellaVigna</a>, Stefano](<a href=“http://elsa.berkeley.edu/econ/faculty/dellavigna_s.shtml]DellaVigna”>http://elsa.berkeley.edu/econ/faculty/dellavigna_s.shtml)</p>

87

<p>ucb,
That was the point. If CH is using these variables to refine down to PA scores, then you’d expect to see some clear patterns and differences. I don’t see any and, unless you are extremely familiar with the data or consult directly with the source material, it’s hard to pick out the 4.5 PA colleges from the 3.9 PA ones.</p>

<p>College : Math 25 - Math 75 , Accept Rate , Yield , 6-Yr Grad Rte , Endowment per Capita</p>

<p>School A : 660 - 770 , 24% , 33% , 91% , $127,932
School B : 660 - 760 , 33% , 56% , 95% , $530,640
School C : 660 - 740 , 27% , 30% , 88% , $435,402
School D : 690 - 780 , 17% , 34% , 92% , $399,791
School E : 660 - 740 , 33% , 39% , 91% , $297,459
School F : 650 - 740 , 25% , 35% , 85% , $219,855
School G : 670 - 780 , 25% , 33% , 91% , $879,268
School H : 660 - 770 , 21% , 47% , 92% , $271,970</p>

88

<p>hawkette-
If the predicted PAs are different, then there must be something in the data that is making them different. Perhaps some factor(s) that you are not listing. Once the prediction equation is determined, then it is simply a matter of multiplying by the weights and adding them up. It is simple arithmetic.</p>

89

<p>UCB, thank you for sharing the description of the courses and the faculty profile of Olney and DellaVigna. Of course, since I had posted the links to the faculty profile and course listings and written that I checked them, one might assume I did see those. </p>

<p>Now, perhaps we could focus on what happens to the Econ UG students who have to pick classses for the Spring Semester. Perhaps, it would be interesting to find out how many students are in fact taking UG Econ classes at Berkeley. Considering that it is usually a very popular major and that Econ classes might be pre-requisites for some majors, I’d think that there must be quite a few students looking to sign up for Econ classes. </p>

<p>Here’s the entire Spring 2009 catalog:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Setting aside our points of contention, I’d like to know what your first reaction would be, if you were a sophomore or junior at Cal? Do you find the course selection impressive for UNDERGRADUATES? Do you find the breadth and depth of the listing of courses to represent the reputation of the faculty? What do you think of the fact that only 10 instructors are teaching classes in the Spring of 2009 at a school the size of Berkeley?</p>

90

<p>^ The schedule of classes lists more courses in Spring 2009. In addition to the courses mentioned above, these courses were offered to undergrads in Spring 2009:</p>

<p>Economics C3 - Intro to Environmental Economics and Policy, Perloff
Economics 100A - Economic Analysis - Micro, Mortimer
Economics 100B - Economic Analysis - Macro, Sheth
Economics 101B - Economic Theory - Macro, Magin
Economics C103 - Introduction to Mathematical Economics, Ahn
Economics 105 - History of Economic Thought, Pearson
Economics 121 - Industrial Organization and Public Policy, Edlin
Economics 122 - Industrial Organization Seminar, Farrell
Economics 123 - Government Regulation of Industry, Farrell
Economics 124 - Special Topics in Industrial Organization, Woroch
Economics C125 - Environmental Economics, Zilberman
Economics 140 - Economic Statistics and Econometrics, Woroch
Economics 141 - Econometric Analysis, Graham
Economics C142 - Applied Econometrics and Public Policy, Weber
Economics 151 - Labor Economics, Reich
Economics 161 - Economics of Transition: Eastern Europe, Turley
Economics 162 - The Chinese Economy, Roland-Holst
Economics C175 - Economic Demography, Lee
Economics C181 - International Trade, Wood
Economics H195 - Senior Honors Thesis </p>

<p>[UCB</a> Online Schedule of Classes: Search Results](<a href=“http://osoc.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=SP&p_classif=--+Choose+a+Course+Classification+--&p_deptname=Economics&p_presuf=--+Choose+a+Course+Prefix%2FSuffix+--&p_dept=&p_course=&p_title=&p_instr=&p_exam=&p_ccn=&p_day=&p_hour=&p_bldg=&p_units=&p_restr=&p_info=&p_updt=&x=53&y=8]UCB”>http://osoc.berkeley.edu/OSOC/osoc?p_term=SP&p_classif=--+Choose+a+Course+Classification+--&p_deptname=Economics&p_presuf=--+Choose+a+Course+Prefix%2FSuffix+--&p_dept=&p_course=&p_title=&p_instr=&p_exam=&p_ccn=&p_day=&p_hour=&p_bldg=&p_units=&p_restr=&p_info=&p_updt=&x=53&y=8)</p>

<p>Shall we compare this to economic course offerings at Claremont McKenna?</p>

91

<p>

Being a rescourceful Cal alum, I’d use a more official source for my information.</p>

<p>

Correction: that is the entire Spring 2009 catalog posted on a prof’s obscure blog. :rolleyes:</p>

92

<p>^^–^^</p>

<p>UCB, I posted the same link in my post Number 80. It has not changed much since I used it, and the welcome page still reads: </p>

<p>Welcome to the UC Berkeley Department of Economics</p>

<p>[Economics</a> Courses at Cal](<a href=“http://elsa.berkeley.edu/econ/courses.shtml]Economics”>http://elsa.berkeley.edu/econ/courses.shtml)</p>

<p>[noparse]<a href=“http://elsa.berkeley.edu/econ/courses.shtml[/noparse]”>http://elsa.berkeley.edu/econ/courses.shtml[/noparse]&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>As far as the obscure prof comment … your words, not mine. </p>

<p>PS I do not think it would be fair to compare Cal’s schedule of classes to CMC’s. Grossly unfair, especially if comparing the availability of classes or hours of instruction by faculty on a per student basis. Econ and government are just two poor examples. Better pick a major that is not so specialized, perhaps one where NSF rules the world. :)</p>

93

<p>^ I said obscure blog, not obscure prof… :)</p>

<p>I believe the courses listed on the linked website are courses with dedicated homepages.</p>

94

<p>great post hawkette. really points out the absurdity of PA. There is very little correlation to PA and strength of undergrad student body. I love your posts that shows how “deep” a school is based on % of students who score above 700. That, to me, is a much better way to tell where the smart kids go to school.</p>

95

<p>^ Actually, looking at the percentage of kids with high SAT scores is a really poor way to “tell where the smart kids go to school.” Anyone with basic numeracy can easily see that 50% of a class of 300 (roughly the size of each class at many LACs) is a far smaller number than 25% of a class of 6,000 (the size of each class at many state flagships). In fact, the former is 150 students, the latter 1,500—an entire order of magnitude difference. Compare (arguably) the top three schools in California: UC Berkeley, Stanford, and Caltech. </p>

<p>Caltech, with 913 undergrads (=228/class) has middle 50% SAT CR + M scores of 1470-1580. That means on average there are 171 students in each class at Caltech with SAT CR + M of 1470+.</p>

<p>Stanford, with 6,584 undergrads (=1,646/class) has middle 50% SAT CR + M scores of 1340-1550. Let’s assume the 50% median is halfway between the 25th and 75th percentile score, or 1445. OK, let’s be generous and call it 1470. That means on average there are 823 students in each class at Stanford with SAT CR + M of 1470. That’s almost 5 times as many as at Caltech. Impressive.</p>

<p>Now consider UC Berkeley. With 24,636 undergrads, that averages out to 6,159 per class. Their undergrad SAT CR + M middle 50% is 1220-1470. That means 1/4 of the class, or 1,540 students per class, have SAT CR + M of 1470+. But wait a minute . . . that’s twice as many each year as at Stanford, and roughly 9 times as many each year as at Caltech.</p>

<p>Bottom line: most “really smart kids” don’t go to elite private schools. Most go to big state flagships. Yes, as a percentage you’ll find more at elite privates. And yes, I’ve heard the argument that it’s not sheer numbers at the top but the bottom of the class that matters, etc. I think this is mainly b.s. because at a bigger school the top students will naturally gravitate towards the most challenging classes and programs which consequently will be disproportionately populated with top students. The difference is a difference of scale, not quality. There are some good reasons that some applicants might prefer a smaller school. But being surrounded by better students is not one of them. This is one of the all-time great hoaxes in American higher education.</p>

96

<p>collegehelp-- joining this one late, but I certainly enjoyed your analysis here (and the spirited discussion of course). A bit of apples & oranges (and this would definitely take some work), but it would be interesting to me to see how your current model (using National U’s to build the model, perhaps with research $ removed) applied to the national LACs, comparing modeled PA to actual PA. Similarly, I would be interested to see what factors were most important if you built a regression model to predict PA just using the LAC data, then compare it to the important factors of the National U model. I’d think that size issues and speculation on graduate reputation influence could be further explored.</p>

97

<p>“Bottom line: most “really smart kids” don’t go to elite private schools. Most go to big state flagships. Yes, as a percentage you’ll find more at elite privates. And yes, I’ve heard the argument that it’s not sheer numbers at the top but the bottom of the class that matters, etc. I think this is mainly b.s. because at a bigger school the top students will naturally gravitate towards the most challenging classes and programs which consequently will be disproportionately populated with top students. The difference is a difference of scale, not quality. There are some good reasons that some applicants might prefer a smaller school. But being surrounded by better students is not one of them. This is one of the all-time great hoaxes in American higher education.”</p>

<p>I agree.</p>

<p>“I think this is mainly b.s. because at a bigger school the top students will naturally gravitate towards the most challenging classes and programs which consequently will be disproportionately populated with top students.”</p>

<p>Just wanted to highlight this again. :)</p>

98

<p>dstark,
Something tells me that if your child had gone to Middlebury or Wash U instead of U Michigan, then you’d have a different view on this…:rolleyes:</p>

99

<p>I don’t think so. As an undergrad, she took graduate classes with students that graduated from schools like Middlebury and Wash U.</p>

<p>I’m not sure why you don’t understand Bclintock’s statements. </p>

<p>One of my best friends has a child who is going to Middlebury next year. I’m sure she will enjoy it. She wanted a much smaller atmosphere.</p>

100

<p>

</p>

<p>Sorry bc, but SAT scores are Hawkette’s sole mantra… :)</p>