<p>I also don't think UMich should be ranked outside of the top 3 in this category. UMuch has always just been slightly behind Berkeley and tied for UVa in 2nd spot. The tree of them are what we can all the "Big Three" US State Us.</p>
<p>Here are the actual USNWR rankings of the top 5 publics over the past decade. Readers can make their own interpretations about which colleges have consistently ranked with others. I think it's pretty clear.</p>
<p>2009 , 2008 , 2007 , 2006 , 2005 , 2004 , 2003 , 2002 , 2001 , 2000 , College</p>
<p>21 , 21 , 21 , 20 , 21 , 21 , 20 , 20 , 20 , 20 , UC Berkeley
23 , 23 , 24 , 23 , 22 , 21 , 23 , 21 , 20 , 22 , U Virginia
25 , 25 , 26 , 25 , 25 , 26 , 25 , 26 , 25 , 25 , UCLA
26 , 25 , 24 , 25 , 22 , 25 , 25 , 25 , 25 , 25 , U Michigan
30 , 28 , 27 , 27 , 29 , 29 , 28 , 28 , 25 , 27 , U North Carolina</p>
<p>While I understand attempts by U Michigan partisans to regularly associate U Michigan with the likes of Cornell, Northwestern, and U Penn, I also notice an credibility-sapping pattern of omission of what are arguably the most comparable universities (UCLA and U North Carolina). I hope that this "oversight" will be rectified in future posts.</p>
<p>Good grief, hawkette.</p>
<p>
[quote]
While I understand attempts by U Michigan partisans to regularly associate U Michigan with the likes of Cornell, Northwestern, and U Penn, I also notice an credibility-sapping pattern of omission of what are arguably the most comparable universities (UCLA and U North Carolina).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While you may not see it, over 2,000 academics rate UMich with the likes of Cornell, Northwestern and UPenn...</p>
<p>Cornell (4.5)
Penn (4.5)
Michigan (4.4)
Northwestern (4.3)</p>
<p>UCLA (4.2)
UNC (4.1)</p>
<p>Think of it as a new "teaching excellence" survey...;)</p>
<p>Good grief, UCB. You devil…are you just trying to create a little excitement? :)</p>
<p>Easily the most controversial element of the USNWR rankings, the PA rankings are hardly a reliable ranking device, particularly as applied to undergraduate education. LOL. </p>
<p>However, if you must rely on the subjective views of academics, why not also take their views on colleges best known for their commitment to classroom teaching excellence. I think most would argue that this is a heckuva lot more relevant to most undergrads than the research reputation of a school in some far-off lab or department. </p>
<p>USNWR did one such survey (albeit more than a decade ago) and ranked 25 national universities and the results were as follows (publics in caps): </p>
<p>1 Dartmouth
2 Brown
3 WILLIAM & MARY
4 Rice
5 Princeton
6 Stanford
7 Duke
8 MIAMI U (OH)
9 Notre Dame
10 Yale
11 U VIRGINIA
12 U Chicago
13 Emory
13 UC SANTA CRUZ
15 Vanderbilt
16 Boston College
17 Harvard
18 Northwestern
19 Caltech
20 Wake Forest
20 U NORTH CAROLINA
22 BYU
22 Wash U
24 Georgetown
24 Tufts</p>
<p>As you can see, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and U Michigan are nowhere to be found.</p>
<p>^ USNWR dropped that survey a long time ago. It was a one-time fluke and apparently the editors didn't see the value in it that you do. It's all rolled into the PA score now...
[quote]
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).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I still don't see what you see wrong with the PA score. It's pretty accurate for what it is supposed to be measuring - distinguished academic programs. UMich has more distinguished academic programs than UVA, UCLA, UNC and W&M.</p>
<p>Hawkette, teaching excellence is just one component of undergraduate education. The PA asks those same individuals responsible for the teaching excellence rating to rate universities according to overall undergraduate academic excellence. I don't see how you can possible support one without supporting the other.</p>
<p>Secondly, the reason why some of us who actually know Michigan argue that it is comparable to Cornell, NU or other large research universities is because there are some here who say otherwise. Nobody is questioning that Michigan is comparable to UCLA and UNC. Personally, I often include those two publics, as well as Cal, Wisconsin, UT-Austin and UIUC as peers of the University of Michigan.</p>
<p>"As you can see, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and U Michigan are nowhere to be found."</p>
<p>Yes, neither are Columbia, Cornell, MIT or Penn.</p>
<p>So once again hawkette, tell us where you attended school? When she finally admits in the general forum discussion where she graduated from, I think the reason for the bias against Michigan will become apparent.</p>
<p>My only complaint against the PA scores of USNWR is that they are only weighed at 25%. In my opinion, this is by far the most important variable in the rankings used of what makes a university great.</p>
<p>The teaching excellence ranking is highly questionable as well, or should be more "controversial" than the peer assessment should. If that ranking is accurate, then it would suggest that one would learn more at MIAMI U (OH), which was ranked 8th overall, than at Yale, which was only ranked 10th overall, and Harvard, which was only ranked 17th. But we all know that that isn't the case. </p>
<p>Basing on the data which Hawkette provided, it also appeard -- quite clearly -- that Umich is consistently ranked in the top 3.</p>
<p>Alex,
The schools that are most frequently referenced on CC (and elsewhere in my experiences) for providing a strong commitment to undergraduate teaching are found on the USNWR Classroom Teaching Excellence survey. Maybe it's a fluke, maybe it's an undeserved reputation, but we consistently hear/read about these colleges when the topic is classroom teaching, eg,</p>
<p>Dartmouth, Brown, Rice, Princeton, Duke, Yale, U Chicago, Emory, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, BC, Northwestern, Wake Forest, BYU, Wash U, Georgetown, Tufts </p>
<p>The same would be true when the topic is research strength as you see fairly regular statements of schools appreciated for this, eg, </p>
<p>Harvard, MIT, Stanford, U Penn, Columbia, Cornell, J Hopkins, Carnegie Mellon, UC Berkeley, UCLA, U Michigan, U Wisconsin, U Washington, U Texas</p>
<p>All of these are great schools and students can have excellent experiences at all. IMO, however the first group would be the better option for UNDERGRADUATE study while the latter group would be superior for GRADUATE study.</p>
<p>hawkette, I wouldn't waste so much time on these people. People like UCBChem like the PA scores because it ranks his school as the top public. In his case, it may actually true for Berkeley, but that's the reason he references it. Michigan graduates, on the other hand, like the scores because it puts them higher than they deserve to be. The PA scores are not a ranking to themselves, but rather only a small piece of a ranking. Everyone that didn't graduate from Michigan knows that they are not peers with the likes of Northwestern, Penn, Cornell, etc. They can convinces themselves that they are a top school, but looking at the overall US News ranking we still see their overall education outside the top 25. Anyway, two thousand academics are the last people that I would consider end all of reliable sources of measuring the usefulness of an education at different universities. Many of the best professors at these universities are there because they couldn't hack it in the real world. There is a reason that PA scores are only for %25 of the rankings, as the people coming up with the ranking realize that they are not a main component when trying to measure schools. You have provided more than enough evidence that Michigan is not in the top group of schools. There is just no convincing these Michigan graduates of their place, as they must honestly believe themselves to be Ivy league material.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First, I like schools that have shown a strong commitment to undergraduate teaching and those that have consistently shown up in various surveys/measurements are William & Mary, U Virginia, and U North Carolina.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Could you please elaborate on the survey/measurement to which you are referring? If you have found some good metrics for commitment to undergraduate teaching, I am sure other posters would like to consult them as well.</p>
<p>UVa has recognized its own shortcomings as far as having top professors--especially in sceicnes and engineering. The program they tried to implement to improve has been an abject failure and is being re-thought.</p>
<p>jec7483 went to Penn State
hawkette went to Ohio State</p>
<p>Look at the undergraduate academic rankings of departments at the top schools in USNWR. Over and over again you see UCB and Michigan in the top 10-15. Over and over in many different disciplines. I don't see Penn State's name appearing there that often for example. That's the difference.</p>
<p>hawkette. It is possible that a school can be excellent at both the UG and Graduate level. Your above list separates them out completely. Perhaps that's why you can't stand Michigan? From your remarks it appears that you feel Michigan is superior at the graduate level to Yale, Chicago, Duke, etc... That or perhaps your statement is over simplistic or self serving to prove a point that I'm sure you're not wanting to make.</p>
<p>Hey hoedown, I asked the following questions first (#58). I have yet to get an answer. What makes you think you are gonna get one?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Originally posted by hawkette in post #52
Second, I prefer colleges that have stronger student bodies... UC Berkeley leads in this category today
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please explain how's UCB holding the lead today. And please tell who's #2.</p>
<p>
[quote]
**Originally posted by hawkette in post #52
what I expect will be improvements at UCLA, U Texas, UCSD and U Washington as Asian and Hispanic immigrants bolster the populations and student selectivity in California, Texas, and Washington.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Asians I can understand as that's the stereotype today. But Hispanic? How would having large inflex of Hispanic immigrants help boost the selectivity of the state? Are they not going to count as URM any more 10 years from now?</p>
<p>p.s. These were extracted from hawlette's post where she explained how she predicted the top public universities would rank in 10 years.</p>
<p>hawkette will answer those questions as soon as she tells everyone what school she attended. My suggestion to you is not to hold your breath waiting.</p>
<p>U Michigan is ridiculously homogeneous. This is not a good thing.</p>