<p>Thanks for the link; I appreciate it. However, I have real trouble with the methodology. CalTech is ALWAYS going to "beat" MIT because it offers fewer majors. At least, if I understand the data correctly..</p>
<p>Yale comes out #1 in English lit for women. Not surprising, since Yale has one of the best English departments in the country. BUT..a disproportionate % of students, especially female students, major in English. So, assuming this stuff is relevant in the first place...shouldn't the relevant stat be the % of students who major in a particular department who get a Ph.D.? ..at least if we are trying to measure the strength of an undergrad department?</p>
<p>To illustrate, MIT offers LOTS of outstanding majors that CalTech doesn't. So, if we look at the narrow band of subjects both schools offer and then adjust for the TOTAL # of students at each school (per capita), the % of the student body in each individual subject will be higher at CalTech. I THINK what you'd want to do is adjust MIT's number by eliminating the students who major in poli sci, econ, philosophy, music, and business--all very strong majors at MIT that are non-existent or weak at CalTech. Otherwise, it seems to me, you are comparing apples to oranges. If the percentage of students majoring in each subject at MIT and CalTech who go on to get Ph.D.s is EXACTLY the same, CalTech will look a LOT better in the stats because the percentage of the whole student body majoring in each of those subjects is higher. I hope that's clear. </p>
<p>This is basically the same mistake USNews made the year that CalTech was rated #1. That year, USNews weighed how much spent per student VERY heavily. CalTech came out first. Why? Because it costs more to educate an engineering major than a philosophy major. MIT spends less per student...but it may not spend less per student on students who major in tech subjects. Weighing that factor so heavily meant that schools with high percentages of students in tech subjects soared in the ratings, and those with strong classics departments plummeted. Pretty silly if you ask me..USNews realized its mistake and never used that criterion again.</p>
<p>I think the big publics will be wiped out in the competition IN PART because they offer so many more majors. The % of students in the student body who major in any particular subject is going to be FAR lower than at a LAC that doesn't offer business, agriculture, engineering, journalism, education,communications,etc.majors. If you look at the stats for any particular major, and ONLY adjust for OVERALL school size, you've really stacked the system to favor LACs and AGAINST large public Us. We want to know what % of English majors at UMich-AA or Berkeley got Ph.D.s--not what percentage of the student body got Ph.D.s in English. I don't have to look at ANY data to know that a higher percentage of the overal student body at any half-way decent LAC will get more Ph.D.s in English than at UMich.</p>
<p>If you've ever read the old Gourman reports, he does the opposite. He measures the overall quality of an institution in large part by the # of programs it has rated in the top 50. So, the more majors you offer, the better the school. The LACs get wiped out. </p>
<p>If I'm missing something..let me know..I'm serious..I'm not trying to score debating points. But from one I can see, the fewer departments a college or university has, the better it's going to do using this methodology. </p>
<p>I still have lots of other reservations. Including doctor of divinity degrees benefits schools with high percentages of main-stream Protestants, especially church-going Protestants. HINT: Most D.Div. become ministers. Catholics aren't going to get D.Divs. Neither are Mormons. They are totally worthless for them. I don't know if rabbis usually do.</p>