<p>Why are the people here underrating Michigan so much? Almost every department at michigan is in the top ten. Honestly Michigan is academically weak in nothing.</p>
<p>W&M is best undergrad public. Virginia, Michigan, California are best research public. All should be in top 25.</p>
<p>Top 20-yish schools for undergraduate</p>
<p>HYPSM+Caltech
Chicago, Columbia, Duke, Dartmouth
Brown, Berkeley, Cornell, Northwestern, JHU
Rice, Michigan, Vanderbilt, Emory, UVa, Georgetown, ND</p>
<p>^ I know you are pro-Berkeley but how is Cal exactly better as an undergrad institution than Rice, Emory and Vandy?</p>
<p>“Virginia, Michigan, California are best research public.”</p>
<p>UCLA, Wisconsin, UIUC, etc. are all stronger research universities than Virginia.</p>
<p>“Almost every department at michigan is in the top ten. Honestly Michigan is academically weak in nothing.”</p>
<p>Many are in the top ten, but most are in the top 15-20.</p>
<p>“^ I know you are pro-Berkeley but how is Cal exactly better as an undergrad institution than Rice, Emory and Vandy?”</p>
<p>Better brand name in the US and abroad.
Better employment prospects.
Grads are paid more, earn more.
In a much better location (near SF).</p>
<p>These are far more important factors than those petty faculty-to-student ratio and stuff that some people here are promoting. But don’t worry. The differences in groups are pretty minute to the point that it’s almost insignificant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Were USNWR rankings even around in the 1970’s?</p>
<p>Pizzagirl: It was either the 70s or early 80s…</p>
<p>RML: Hmm, I figured you would point to prestige/“brand name”… but you must concede that a large portion of Cal’s prestige is derived from its grad programs. How much, who knows? One can’t really quantify that.</p>
<p>"Better brand name in the US and abroad.
Better employment prospects.
Grads are paid more, earn more.
In a much better location (near SF).</p>
<p>These are far more important factors than those petty faculty-to-student ratio and stuff that some people here are promoting. "</p>
<p>In that case, then why is Dartmouth up there? Also, if you wanna go by that, schools like NYU, UCLA, Wisconsin,and Texas would trump Brown, Rice, ND, Emory, Dartmouth and Vanderbilt.</p>
<p>^^^^Finally some here on CC are catching on!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It most certainly did. In the very first college rankings issue (which I still have somewhere!), it was a very short, single list, it was entirely reputational, and the only people canvassed were college presidents.</p>
<p>^^^You mean the one’s who really know what is going on in academia? The list was short, so USNWR knew it would never sell enough issues with that limited amount. You see, the same old boring schools just kept coming up over and over again. Tweak the data and inlcude hundreds of schools. Now you sell magazines!</p>
<p>^ are you that bitter that large publics have moved down?</p>
<p>Only to the point that people feel that USNWR is the know all and end all source of what makes a quality institution. This is particularly true here on CC. There are many great schools, but no one is going to convince me that some of these schools are not playing the rankings game and doing everything they can to climb the USNWR ladder.</p>
<p>
“Best” if I want to major in U.S. colonial history and immerse myself in that historical experience…but not so much for my major.</p>
<p>^ You could kinda combine the two:</p>
<p>[History</a> of Chemistry - Chemical Heritage Foundation](<a href=“http://www.chemheritage.org/]History”>http://www.chemheritage.org/)</p>
<p>Come to Philly and check it out! :)</p>
<p>And while you’re here, you can get yourself a graduate degree:</p>
<p>[The</a> Graduate Group in History and Sociology of Science](<a href=“http://hss.sas.upenn.edu/mt-static/hssc/]The”>http://hss.sas.upenn.edu/mt-static/hssc/)</p>
<p>;)</p>
<p>
Most academic prestige is derived from faculty achievements…which translates to graduate program prestige…which filters down to undergrad program prestige. </p>
<p>Only taking into consideration the academic qualifications of undergrads is to ignore a huge portion of what makes up a university…namely the faculty. Let’s have a billionaire start up a school with a couple faculty, enroll a few 1600 SATers and we’re well on our way to achieving high ranking in USNWR metric.</p>
<p>[The</a> New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/17/weekinreview/20060917_LEONHARDT_CHART.html]The”>The New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices)</p>
<p>Here’s a list of colleges that NY Times deemed noteworthy to report about, and I think it contains pretty much the best schools in the US. Also, note where the competitive applicants(cross-admits) choose between two schools. (Like the fact that most Tufts admits end up choosing another great school instead)</p>
<p>However, there’s one bias in the data, great southern schools like Rice, Emory and Vanderbilt are omitted. They are usually underrated in their prestige, I guess.</p>
<p>45, I want engineering, not just chemistry. ;)</p>