Top 20

College Search & Selection
41

<p>
[quote]
I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that it is not a measurement of undergraduate academic quality in the academic world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please read what I wrote: I did not come to the conclusion that it is not * a * measure of UG academic quality; I said it is not a *universally respected *measure of UG quality in either CC or in the academic community. And it's not. There have been quite a few articles and interviews cited in the PA wars on these forums in which members of the academic community have questioned the reliability of the responses to the PA survey and its methodology, so much so that some of these members refuse to participate. </p>

<p>Anyone who wants links will have to do a search and find them. If you've been on CC at all for any length of time, you know they're there. </p>

<p>UCB: I get your point that the USNWR objective measures produce a ranking weighted heavily in favor of private universities. I just don't agree that citing PA *alone * is the way to fix the imbalance. Since someone else has combined PA with other objective measures of excellence to come up with a combined ranking score, I prefer to favor that one. If that one doesn't meet with everyone's approval, I understand. It's a matter of perception of what should be there. But that perception is vulnerable to mere opinion and regional preference.</p>

<p>Anyone can come up with "my" list based on "people I know" and it won't ring true for everyone and imo, those lists don't portray an accurate picture unless they reflect objective criteria.</p>

42

<p>I think the "Education Trust" numbers are more than suspect. Wouldn't you think that if Yale doubled up Harvard and Princeton, someone would have noticed by now?
If the "Education Trust" numbers are fed into the USN&WR calculus or other rankings, it's a shame.</p>

43

<p>I sincerely doubt that Rice has a better student quality than Hopkins, Cornell, Chicago, Georgetown, Penn, and several others that are cited above. I have carefully looked at the websites of the schools I mentioned, and they all have higher stats than Rice, if that is what the poster is basing her info on.
Rice is a great school, and must have wonderful students, but let's not exaggerate, or negate the obvious when it comes to comparing it with these top institutions.</p>

44

<p>jazzymom,
Ranking Top 20 universities is a subjective question that warrants a subjective answer. I'm providing the results of the survey of over 2,000 academics. I don't know of any other comprehensive opinion survey conducted for colleges.</p>

<p>Hawkette,
See, this is the problem with using too much objective data - you get the math wrong and it skews the results.</p>

<p>I didn't check all #'s, but UCLA looked suspect...sure enough it's score is 104, not 97. Berkeley is also miscalculated. It should be 106. </p>

<p>The problem with objective numbers is that it's a very myopic view and does not consider the big picture. Your "financial resources" rank is likely skewed in favor of universities that have medical schools. Medical school spending is not lavished on precious undergraduates.</p>

<p>The No. 1 school on your list is Caltech. Sure, it's a top-notch science/technology school and is filled to the brim with top students. But, what if I'm a student who wants to major in business? Caltech is not a good choice.</p>

<p>Harvard is great for social sciences and humanities. But, what if I want to major in engineering? Same with Yale? With regard to Washington University, what academic programs are they known for? Sure, they have great students, but I can't think of one academic program they offer that is really distinguished except maybe biological sciences. WUSTL suffers the same problem that Emory and Vanderbilt have - what program (i.e. major) offered is distinguished? The academics seem to agree and thus give it lower PA score.</p>

<p>Berkeley, Stanford, MIT, Cornell, Michigan, Harvard, Yale, and Princeton have academic programs that are distinguished.</p>

<p>Berkeley is has top programs in engineering, business, physical and social sciences, along with humanities.
Same with Stanford.
Cornell has top engineering and hotel management programs.
U Penn has Wharton.
MIT has top business and engineering programs.
Michigan has top business, humanities, social science and engineering programs.
Hence, these universities have a higher PA score.</p>

<p>Academic reputation in programs/majors is more important to a lot of people than high SAT scores and small class sizes. 80% of the posts on here are people asking, "What college has a good ________ program"? Most are asking about SAT scores to see if they can get in! Not so they can hang around with a bunch of other high SAT scoring peers.</p>

<p>Academic distinguishment comes from the professors that lead the department, not from a large percentage of undergraduate high SAT scorers. Undergraduates haven't proven themselves on a college academic level - yet. There are tens of thousands of top students with high SAT scores and great GPA...there are only a few hundred professors that can be considered true leaders/visionaries in their respective field. </p>

<p>And you need to correct your notion that there are two separate faculties that teach undergrads and grads. There is only one faculty that teaches both. All of my lectures and engineering labs were taught by professors.</p>

<p>A college is more than undergrads and financial resources. It's also top faculty, top graduate students, facilities and opportunities that make a university world class. </p>

<p>When searching for a college, I find people ask about reputation in a prospective major, location, size, and cost much more frequently than some of the other variables you utilize to rate a university. SATs matter so the student can judge if he/she has a reasonable chance of gaining admittance. However, high school GPA is more indicative of college performance, studies suggest...but, GPA is not a standard like the SAT, so it takes a back seat. It just seems to me, that obtaining a high GPA requires more discipline than sitting for a 3-hour standardized test in which I can be coached, because the format is known to me and it's mostly multiple choice/guess.</p>

<p>We won't likely agree, but these are my thoughts and opinions. College selection is a subjective, personal endeavour. Fortunately, there are a variety of data from which to choose and determine what is most important for the particular individual.</p>

45

<p>"Say what you will about faculty, but I am of the view that the faculty at virtually all of the USNWR Top 40 is excellent." </p>

<p>Hawkette, I could not disagree more. There is a significant difference between the faculty at Cal or Harvard and the faculty at tufts or Boston College. You cannot even compare them. Sure, there are exceptional professors at all universities, and some professors at Cal and Harvard aren't brilliant. But the difference in the overall quality is clear. It is the same thing with the quality of the student body. Students at Harvard are going to be more talented than students at UCSD. </p>

<p>Also, I do not understand why you use the USNWR Faculty Resources and Financial Resources rankings but chose to ignore the USNWR Student Selectivity rankings. Should you not be using the same source for all three?</p>

46

<p>1) Harvard
2) Stanford
3) Berkeley
4) MIT</p>

<p>A GAP</p>

<p>5) Caltech
6) Princeton
7) Yale
8) Chicago
9) Columbia
10) Cornell
11)-22)
Michigan, Penn, Duke, Johns Hopkings U, UCLA, UCSD, Carnegie Mellon, UT-Austin, Wisconsin, UIUC, Washington U, U of Washingon.</p>

47

<p>ellekay,</p>

<p>You state that you have "carefully looked at the websites of the schools" and think that Rice's student body has lower stats than Hopkins, Cornell, U Chicago, Georgetown, U Penn and several others. I hope that you will provide more specifics to back up your claim. U Penn might have the best argument, but even then it is not clear and I think that the others have a weaker claim. </p>

<p>FYI-college websites often are not a reliable source for comparative student data. For example, they will frequently report admitted student data (rather than enrolling), will sometimes omit classes of students that might lower their scores, eg, dance, music, etc. students and present data that is at odds with federally scrutinized data such as IPEDs or the reporting services such as USNWR or collegeboard.com. If you want to get apples-to-apples comparisons with consistent data, it is always preferable to use the sources that have no axe to grind. </p>

<p>Here are the facts as taken from several unbiased sources:</p>

<p>25/75 Critical Reading</p>

<p>RICE: 640-750</p>

<p>U Penn 650-750
U Chicago 670-770
Cornell 630-770
J Hopkins 630-730
Georgetown 650-750</p>

<p>% over 700 on CR</p>

<p>RICE: 57%</p>

<p>U Penn 54%
U Chicago 61%
Cornell 38%
J Hopkins 40%
Georgetown 53%</p>

<p>25/75 Math </p>

<p>RICE: 670-780</p>

<p>U Penn 680-770
U Chicago 660-760
Cornell 650-730
J Hopkins 660-760
Georgetown 650-740</p>

<p>% over 700 on Math</p>

<p>RICE: 63%</p>

<p>U Penn 69%
U Chicago 57%
Cornell 59%
J Hopkins 60%
Georgetown 51%</p>

<p>25/75 Combined SAT scores of CR and Math</p>

<p>RICE: 1310-1530</p>

<p>U Penn 1330-1520
U Chicago 1330-1530
Cornell 1290-1500
J Hopkins 1290-1490
Georgetown 1300-1490</p>

<p>25/75 ACT scores</p>

<p>RICE: 29-34</p>

<p>U Penn 29-33
U Chicago 28-33
Cornell 28-32
J Hopkins 28-32
Georgetown 29-33</p>

<p>% of students scoring 30+ on the ACT</p>

<p>RICE: 68%</p>

<p>U Penn 66%
U Chicago 64%
Cornell 56%
J Hopkins 59%
Georgetown 58%</p>

<p>% of Top 10% Students</p>

<p>RICE: 87%</p>

<p>U Penn 94%
U Chicago 80%
Cornell 84%
J Hopkins 80%
Georgetown 84%</p>

<p>Average HS GPA:</p>

<p>RICE: na</p>

<p>U Penn 3.83
U Chicago 3.89
Cornell na
J Hopkins 3.69
Georgetown na</p>

<h1>of National Merit Scholars (% of entering class)</h1>

<p>RICE: 159 (21%)</p>

<p>U Penn 115 (5%)
U Chicago 196 (15%)
Cornell 47 (2%)
J Hopkins 24 (2%)
Georgetown 40 (3%)</p>

48

<p>ucbchemegrad,
I took your suggestion and redid my calculations and you are right. Not sure what I did before, but I think (hope!) that I got it right this time. Here are the corrected ranks when you consider the three factors that I think are most important in the undergraduate academic experience:</p>

<ol>
<li>Student Strength (as measured by mid-point of 25/75 SAT score)</li>
<li>Faculty Resources (as measured by USNWR ranks)</li>
<li>Financial Resources (as measured by USNWR ranks)</li>
</ol>

<p>Rank … Overall Score … Selectivity Rank by SAT score ( 25/75 SAT Avg ) , Faculty Resources Rank , Financial Resources Rank , School</p>

<p>1 … 4 … 1 ( 1520 ) , 2 , 1 , Caltech
2 … 13 … 2 ( 1490 ) , 3 , 8 , Harvard
3 … 14 … 3 ( 1485 ) , 9 , 2 , Yale
4 … 17 … 6 ( 1450 ) , 7 , 4 , Wash U
5 … 19 … 4 ( 1480 ) , 3 , 12 , Princeton
6 … 22 … 13 ( 1430 ) , 1 , 8 , U Penn
7 … 25 … 8 ( 1445 ) , 3 , 14 , Duke
8 … 27 … 14 ( 1425 ) , 6 , 7 , U Chicago
9 … 29 … 5 ( 1470 ) , 20 , 4 , MIT
10 … 32 … 9 ( 1440 ) , 13 , 10 , Stanford
10 … 32 … 6 ( 1450 ) , 15 , 11 , Dartmouth
12 … 34 … 15 ( 1410 ) , 7 , 12 , Northwestern
13 … 37 … 11 ( 1435 ) , 10 , 16 , Columbia
14 … 44 … 19 ( 1390 ) , 22 , 3 , Johns Hopkins
15 … 48 … 21 ( 1385 ) , 10 , 17 , Emory
15 … 48 … 23 ( 1375 ) , 10 , 15 , Vanderbilt
17 … 50 … 11 ( 1435 ) , 15 , 24 , Rice
18 … 51 … 9 ( 1440 ) , 18 , 24 , Brown
19 … 52 … 21 ( 1385 ) , 14 , 17 , Cornell
20 … 56 … 17 ( 1395 ) , 17 , 22 , Carnegie Mellon
21 … 75 … 15 ( 1410 ) , 25 , 35 , Tufts
22 … 76 … 17 ( 1395 ) , 21 , 38 , Notre Dame
23 … 77 … 33 ( 1320 ) , 38 , 6 , Wake Forest
24 … 80 … 29 ( 1325 ) , 32 , 19 , U Rochester
25 … 84 … 28 ( 1330 ) , 36 , 20 , Case Western
26 … 92 … 19 ( 1390 ) , 38 , 35 , Georgetown
26 … 92 … 24 ( 1370 ) , 28 , 40 , USC
28 … 93 … 50 ( 1230 ) , 23 , 20 , Yeshiva
29 … 103 … 37 ( 1310 ) , 19 , 47 , Lehigh
30 … 104 … 25 ( 1360 ) , 32 , 47 , Brandeis
31 … 105 … 37 ( 1310 ) , 30 , 38 , NYU
32 … 107 … 29 ( 1325 ) , 38 , 40 , UC Berkeley
32 … 107 … 39 ( 1295 ) , 42 , 26 , UCLA
34 … 111 … 32 ( 1323 ) , 32 , 47 , Tulane
35 … 120 … 39 ( 1295 ) , 50 , 31 , U North Carolina
36 … 121 … 44 ( 1270 ) , 46 , 31 , U Miami
37 … 122 … 29 ( 1325 ) , 36 , 57 , U Virginia
38 … 128 … 33 ( 1320 ) , 55 , 40 , Rensselaer
39 … 129 … 49 ( 1240 ) , 23 , 57 , Pepperdine
40 … 133 … 35 ( 1315 ) , 69 , 29 , U Michigan
41 … 134 … 35 ( 1315 ) , 53 , 46 , Georgia Tech
42 … 162 … 54 ( 1185 ) , 55 , 53 , UC Irvine
43 … 165 … 27 ( 1335 ) , 69 , 69 , Boston Coll
44 … 166 … 45 ( 1250 ) , 74 , 47 , U Wisconsin
45 … 168 … 45 ( 1250 ) , 95 , 28 , UCSD
46 … 174 … 41 ( 1290 ) , 74 , 59 , U Illinois
47 … 178 … 26 ( 1340 ) , 46 , 106 , W&M
48 … 180 … 52 ( 1200 ) , 32 , 96 , UC Santa Barbara
48 … 180 … 42 ( 1285 ) , 69 , 69 , George Washington
50 … 189 … 51 ( 1225 ) , 42 , 96 , Syracuse
51 … 192 … 53 ( 1190 ) , 110 , 29 , U Washington
52 … 203 … 56 ( 1155 ) , 116 , 31 , UC Davis
53 … 208 … 45 ( 1250 ) , 123 , 40 , U Florida
54 … 254 … 48 ( 1245 ) , 110 , 96 , U Texas
55 … 276 … 43 ( 1280 ) , 147 , 86 , U Maryland
56 … 279 … 55 ( 1180 ) , 165 , 59 , Penn State</p>

49

<p>ucbchemegrad,
Re the idea of SATs vs GPAs, I agree that the GPA is probably more important in the eyes of the adcomms, particularly when it involves college prep courses. However, since we don't have access to the GPA data and the grades themselves differ so much from school district to school district, it is really not a very reliable number.</p>

<p>The idea is the same with Top 10% scorers. Top 10% can mean very different things at different schools when you consider the quality of the students from one school or school district to another school or school district. Heck, if you believe that the Top 10% numbers are a good indicator of student strength, then all of the UCs, including UC Riverside at 94%, would be considered to have a stronger student body than Stanford (89%). And each of UCB, UCLA, UCSD, UCD, UCI and UCSB score equal to or higher than each of the Ivies, including HYP.</p>

50

<p>The financial resources rank looks funny. USNWR states:

[quote]
Expenditures per student. Financial resources are measured by the average spending per full-time-equivalent student on instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, and operations and maintenance (for public institutions only) during the 2005 and 2006 fiscal years. The number of full-time-equivalent students is equal to the number of full-time students plus one third of the number of part-time students. (Note: This includes both undergraduate and graduate students.) We first scaled the public service and research values by the percentage of full-time-equivalent undergraduate students attending the school. Next, we added in total instruction, academic support, student services, institutional support, and operations and maintenance (for public institutions only) and then divided by the number of full-time-equivalent students. After calculating this value, we applied a logarithmic transformation to the spending per full-time-equivalent student, prior to standardizing the value. This calculation process was done for all schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>USNWR takes total spending on instruction and research and divides it by the number of students. This factor is not adjusted for universities with medical schools. Medical school research spending is not a direct benefit for undergrads.</p>

<p>The reason I mention this is note the difference between Berkeley and UCLA's financial resources ranking. These two institutions are part of the same public system. The difference in spending at UCLA is due to medical school.</p>

51

<p>Hawkette, </p>

<p>I agree that the top 10% is not a reliable indicator.</p>

<p>SATs in combination with GPA in core academic, college prep courses would be a more reliable indicator.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And each of UCB, UCLA, UCSD, UCD, UCI and UCSB score equal to or higher than each of the Ivies, including HYP.

[/quote]

Well, it depends on how much weight you assign to each factor.</p>

<p>USNWR's selectivity ranking assigns these weights:
Acceptance rate: 10%
High school class standing—top 10%: 40%
SAT/ACT scores: 50%</p>

<p>You can change how much weight you want to assign. In your case, you think it should be weighted 100% SAT/ACT scores. I don't think it should be 100% high school standing and GPA, but some mix, like USNWR has done.</p>

52

<p>I think you might misunderstand why I use standardized test scores so frequently. It is not to crowd out the importance of GPA or curriculum, but that it is the only standardized number that we have available to us and which means the same thing whether you are in Florida or Maine or California or Nebraska. By contrast, class rank and GPA will mean very different things depending on where you come from. </p>

<p>I agree with the adcomms that a student's curriculum and GPA are the best factors to use in the admissions decision. They also believe that these factors are closely followed by standardized test scores which I also agree with. One KEY point is that I interpret standardized test scores as a general proxy for a student's achievement in his/her high school classwork as well. There will always be exceptions, but there is a much greater degree of correlation than not between high standardized test scores and high GPA. There just aren't that many students who got a 2.8 in the classroom and a 1480 on their SAT.</p>

53

<p>^ Fair enough. I agree that it is standardized in the way it is scored. But, you run the risk of bottling up student achievement in one nice round number. (Kinda like the PA score). </p>

<p>SAT is not standardized among the methods that students prepare for the exam. Coaching and multiple test attempts normally increase scores. Is the person smarter after he/she witnesses an increase in score across several attempts? I'd say that he/she is smarter in terms of SAT test management, not IQ or general knowledge.</p>

<p>Do you have a response for my comments on the financial resources ranking?</p>

54

<p>ucb,
I think you're on to something here. As noted earlier, some of the data, such as the spending per student as published by the Education Trust, looks inconsistent. Perhaps the medical school component is the hidden piece as this might explain the UCLA-UCB difference. I have also wondered about the spending per student that goes on at Johns Hopkins as that school is ranked 3rd in this category and perhaps the medical school theory is further confirmed by this. If this is really the case, I agree that this makes this a much LESS useful measure for undergraduates and I'd probably sharply reduce or toss the measurement altogether.</p>

55

<p>^ Haha, well, if you want to criticize JHU, they do include lab research spending for their Applied Physics Lab, in addition to the medical school. It's been recently discussed here:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/469473-2007-top-research-u-rankings.html?highlight=Johns+Hopkins+APL%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/469473-2007-top-research-u-rankings.html?highlight=Johns+Hopkins+APL&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

56

<p>I'm not trying to criticize anyone or anything; I'm just trying to understand what is and is not being included and reported so that the comparisons being made are apples-to-apples. I think that Yale's numbers look a little out of whack as well.</p>

57

<p>i agree with hawkette.</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
I'm not trying to criticize anyone or anything; I'm just trying to understand what is and is not being included and reported so that the comparisons being made are apples-to-apples.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Can we get an apples-to-apples comparison of SAT scores as well (i.e. no superscoring, first-sitting, no coaching)? That would be nice to see, but I'm not going to hold my breath.</p>

59

<p>ucb,
Another way to look at the financial resources issue is the endowment per capita. Now this figure doesn't distinguish between undergrad and graduate students (and no doubt grad students cost significantly more), but it might help tell us about the resources available, although probably not much about the actual spending that is done to support undergraduates.</p>

60

<p>^ I don't think it will tell you how much gets spent on undergrads.</p>

<p>Endowment figures again favor private wealthy universities and they only spend a small fraction of their endowment per year. Publics have smaller endowments, but are subsidized with government funding. So, unless you include the government funding as well, its not a fair comparison.</p>