<p>Any metric you choose is going to not be applicable to some majors. Research is an important part of most fields, especially if you have aspirations to go on to graduate school. It's probably more relevant than median ACT score or a bunch of other stuff people are throwing out there.</p>
<p>what about ranking the schools by their incoming sat averages/act averages</p>
<p>"Since when did research opportunities become a driving force in college selection? For the most part, students are taking basic classes to fulfill major requirements in math, economics, history, poly sci, english, chemistry, etc. I don't really see at the UG level how exposure to cutting edge research and graduate programs is nearly as important as teaching quality of the professors. One needs to obtain a background in the subject matter before being able to do unique research in it."</p>
<p>It's not that hard to finish general requirements and the basics of your field in two years. Then you have two years of upper level classes and research possibilities, maybe more depending on the situation. </p>
<p>You might not be a master at whatever research you're doing, but it gives you a chance to learn about a very specific part of your field, find out what research is actually like in your field, get advice/tips/guidance from somebody who is currently doing research in that field. Graduate schools will like to see that you've shown you're capable of doing research work, and know you've at least had a glimpse of what things will be like in graduate school. They don't want to waste funding on a kid who's spent 4 years in the classroom, and doesn't find out until graduate school that they don't like doing research in that field.</p>
<p>It's also very helpful to have professors who are active in the academic community. First of all, they're writing your recommendations, so you want somebody top graduate schools have heard of. They don't hear about people because they're good teachers, they hear about people because they publish good work. They'll also be much more informed about the faculty situation at graduate schools you're thinking about going to. They'll know some obscure school is actually really good at what you're interested in, or they know a bunch of professors at some highly ranked school are retiring/leaving.</p>
<p>"what about ranking the schools by their incoming sat averages/act averages"</p>
<p>Insofar as trying to distinguish between top schools based on that, past performance is no indication of future success. Lots of people who get top scores **** the bed when they start doing harder work in college, some people (like me) don't give a crap about standardized tests and do very well in college.</p>
<p>Since it was just made up, a few posts ago. BTW, what's more important if I'm a writing major, an art history major, or a French major? The opportunity to do "research" or the opportunity to study with a professor of high teaching quality, regardless of whether there are grad students on my campus or not? </p>
<p>I think some people are thinking solely about the world of the sciences in which access to research could be an important benefit for an undergrad, and forgetting that there are many, many majors on a college campus in which "grad research" is pretty much irrelevant.</p>
<p>"Any metric you choose is going to not be applicable to some majors. Research is an important part of most fields, especially if you have aspirations to go on to graduate school. "</p>
<p>Most??? Maybe the hard sciences / engineering, maybe the more quantifiable social sciences like econ or poli sci. Not for musical theater majors, not for journalism majors, not for writing majors, not for art or art history majors, not for foreign language majors. I think it's "some," not "most."</p>
<p>"past performance is no indication of future success." </p>
<p>It seems inherent to me that trying to determine innate ability is the best way to predict future success. Not to mention that studies have shown that the single most predictive factor of freshman year GPA is math SAT score. </p>
<p>Generally, I find that people who do well on standardized tests think they measure something and those that don't do well think they're meaningless. However, it seems to me that it is more important to have innate ability than to be dumber, but with exposure to high-powered research faculty. There's only so much molding a prof (who even cares about teaching) can do.</p>
<p>If you're doing anything related to math, physics, econ, polysci, biology/chemistry, engineering, astronomy, sociology, history, linguistics, kinesiology, religion, statistics, etc. , research would probably be a good thing. The exceptions are basically just business, writing, language, and artsy stuff. Hopefully if you're in the second category, you'd be smart enough to not pay attention to irrelevant rankings.</p>
<p>Do you really think there's that much of a difference in a person's innate ability to understand and succeed in a certain field because of a 2-3 point difference on a standardized test from high school?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many people at Michigan turned down Notre Dame.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This isn't surprising considering Notre Dame isn't as good as Michigan, on the grad and undergrad levels. Notre Dame is most famous for its athletics, not academics.</p>
<p>That's completely inaccurate BerkeleySenior. I think Notre Dame would get the nod over Michigan in every academic area besides maybe Engineering. Both schools are great but the ND alum network is VERY CLOSE-KNIT and the ND student body is stronger as evidenced by mid-50th percentile SAT scores. Also, ND has more money to spend on each of its students since it is a private school and has better advising.</p>
<p>too bad their faculty could not get a sniff from any real top schools.</p>
<p>yea i wonder what the "mid-50th percentile" of professors' SATs at Notre Dame would be compared to Michigan's.</p>
<p>I can answer the question about how Notre Dame's faculty compares. </p>
<p>On the measurement that actually has relevance for undergraduate students, CLASSROOM TEACHING EXCELLENCE, Notre Dame ranked 9th out of 25 colleges. U Michigan was not ranked.</p>
<p>According to whom Hawkette?</p>
<p>Michigan has a much higher PA score. ND is rated so highly because of a relatively small enrollment and many people wanting to go there. EAD, tell me the departments which are higher rated at ND than at U-Mich. The list would not be very long.</p>
<p>umich gets a higher pa b/c of research not because of faculty focus for ugs, which nd clearly wins.</p>
<p>barrons, what are you talking about? The new head of the college of Arts and Letters at ND left Harvard as the head of the humanities department to take the same position at ND. Would you consider Harvard a "real top school"?</p>
<p>Here's a list of some of the faculty: keep in mind this list is only for Arts and Letters.</p>
<p>Let me know if you still think its a football school.</p>
<p>All</a> Faculty // College of Arts and Letters // University of Notre Dame</p>
<p>P.S. ND's theology and philosophy departments are widely to considered #1 in the nation.</p>
<p>Faculty for:</p>
<p>Theology department:
Theology</a> Faculty // College of Arts and Letters // University of Notre Dame</p>
<p>Philosophy department:
Philosophy</a> Faculty // College of Arts and Letters // University of Notre Dame</p>
<p>And let's not forgot about the president: Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C. B.A., M.A., University of Notre Dame; Licentiate in Sacred Theology, Jesuit School of Theology at Berkeley; D.Phil., Oxford University</p>
<p>Would you consider Oxford a "real top university"?</p>
<p>Sorry, I'm just sick of horrific ignorance.</p>