Undergraduate Education: Ranking What Counts

College Search & Selection
61

<p>RML,
I could not disagree more with your statements above. Things do change on college campuses, but awareness, understanding and appreciation of those changes are what take time. Plenty of colleges are living off of their historical reputations while many others have attracted terrific faculty and students and yet are not broadly recognized for their current excellence. It’s also pretty obvious that, even if the colleges make great improvements, the world of elite academia is almost completely impervious to changing its perceptions of the historical pecking order.</p>

<p>The beauty of the statistical comparisons that I regularly present is that they are not prejudiced assessments skewed by personal preferences and values. The objective data provides real-time snapshots of the current reality that a student will confront on a college campus. ABC College might have a wonderful reputation among academia based on research achievements scored years or even decades ago, but does that automatically translate into its being a superior place today for undergraduate students? Of course not. I would hope that no prospective student would be so foolish as to ignore the facts and fall for the hype.</p>

<p>As it relates to this and other threads, I fully acknowledge that the Teaching Assessment fails as badly as the Peer Assessment charade. The only saving grace of the Teaching ranking is that it has some direct meaning to undergraduate students (and thus I firmly see it as a better factor in an overall USNWR ranking comparison). But I would agree with anyone who argued that the results are outdated and that any student using them should do so only as a starting point and that one should do their own research to see if these historical reputations are deserved today.</p>

62

<p>

</p>

<p>If it is a flawed statistic, based on opinions of the same academics whom you continually deride as being biased, and “completely impervious to changing its perceptions of the historical pecking order”, then why do you continually insert the Teaching Excellence numbers into the discussion, creating several threads which use it as a basis for comparison?</p>

<p>Hawkette, you are trying to have it both ways. You continually use the statistic and then when others question your logic and judgment, you insist that you told us you didn’t really believe in it. No one is forcing you to bring up the teaching excellence survey. No one else appears to raise it as much as you do (in my admittedly cursory review of your 200 threads, you are the person who mentions it the most and you are the person who uses it to rerank colleges, giving it a weighting of 25% percent or even 50%).</p>

<p>I personally believe that college administrators and faculty are capable of assessing the quality and reputation of schools. They don’t know everything and some of them might be biased, but on balance they are not a monolithic group of evil individuals intent on preserving the status quo at all costs. Certainly their biases (whether a school turns out worthwhile research, whether it has well-known professors, whether it has a good physical plant and a large endowment) strike me as more important than some of your own biases, i.e., good schools have big-time football programs, employers are some of the best people to assess the worth of a school). </p>

<p>The USNWR ranking system may have a disproportionate affect on students and on balance, I think that a tiered ranking system would be better and lead to less ridiculousness in the college admissions process (i.e., a student who insists that the number 10 school is much better than the number 11 school). Your points as to the fact that there are many fine schools and that students should not be limited by the ranking systems are good ones. However, your constant rejiggering of the same figures over and over and using outdated sources to make your points (and then pretending you were somehow forced to do it or that people who criticize you either don’t understand you or are part of the monolithic elite attempting to perpetuate an unfair status quo) are, I believe, not that helpful to the discussion.</p>

63

<p>midatlmom,
I accept that the Teaching ranking is a flawed statistic. I think that the PA is an even more flawed statistic. Ideally, I’d prefer that rankings systems use neither, but if forced to choose, I’d choose Teaching. I also believe that this choice is more reflective of what’s important to most prospective college students. Hence, my predilection to include it in some threads and “rankings.”</p>

<p>I agree with your thought about tiers. However, I think the tiers will shift as the priorities shift and I made this point in another thread (which coincidentally was the genesis of the idea to create this thread). </p>

<p>Here is an excerpt from a recent post that I made on tiers for colleges ranked in the USWNR Top 50 National Universities:</p>

<ol>
<li>By Peer Assessment score (most important for those seeking a career in academia)</li>
</ol>

<p>Tier 1 (4.8-4.9): Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford
Tier 2 (4.5-4.7): UC Berkeley, Caltech, U Chicago, U Penn, Columbia, Cornell, Johns Hopkins
Tier 3: (4.1-4.4): Duke, U Michigan, Dartmouth, Northwestern, Brown, U Virginia, UCLA, Wash U, Carnegie Mellon, U North Carolina, U Wisconsin
Tier 4 (3.6-4.0): Rice, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Georgia Tech, U Illinois, U Texas, Emory, Notre Dame, USC, U Washington, NYU, UCSD, UC Davis, W&M, Penn State, Tufts, U Florida
Tier 5: (3.0-3.5): Wake Forest, Brandeis, Boston College, Rensselaer, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, U Rochester, Case Western, Tulane, Lehigh
Tier 6 (<3.0): Yeshiva</p>

<ol>
<li>By undergraduate academic environment (probably the best single ranking for comparison of the UNDERGRADUATE academic experience, ie, great peers, small classes, excellent classroom teaching, deep financial resources)</li>
</ol>

<p>Methodology draws heavily from USNWR rankings. Drop Alumni Giving and substitute “Great Commitment to Classroom Teaching” rankings for Peer Assessment rankings. All schools not ranked in Top 25 ranked as # 26. </p>

<p>Tier 1: Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Duke, Dartmouth
Tier 2: Brown, Caltech, U Penn, Northwestern, U Chicago, Wash U, Rice, Columbia, MIT, Notre Dame
Tier 3: Emory, Vanderbilt, Cornell, Johns Hopkins
Tier 4: Tufts, Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, U Virginia, Wake Forest, USC, UC Berkeley, UCLA, Brandeis, NYU, U Rochester, W&M, Boston College, Lehigh, U North Carolina
Tier 5: Case Western, Yeshiva, Rensselaer, U Michigan, UC Irvine, UC Santa Barbara, UCSD, Tulane
Tier 6: U Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, U Illinois, UC Davis, U Florida, U Washington, U Texas, Penn State</p>

<p>I created the tiers arbitrarily based on how I saw gaps occurring in the ranking. Below are the calculated scores in case anyone wants to know how I arrived at these tiers. </p>

<p>Rank , Score , College</p>

<p>1 , 3.95 , Princeton
2 , 5.40 , Yale
3 , 5.80 , Harvard
4 , 7.35 , Stanford
5 , 7.55 , Duke
6 , 7.60 , Dartmouth</p>

<p>7 , 8.85 , Brown
8 , 9.55 , Caltech
9 , 9.70 , U Penn
10 , 10.95 , Northwestern
11 , 11.40 , U Chicago
12 , 11.55 , Wash U
13 , 11.75 , Rice
14 , 12.30 , Columbia
15 , 12.60 , MIT
16 , 13.30 , Notre Dame</p>

<p>17 , 15.60 , Emory
18 , 16.35 , Vanderbilt
19 , 16.60 , Cornell
20 , 17.95 , Johns Hopkins</p>

<p>21 , 21.15 , Tufts
22 , 21.80 , Georgetown
23 , 22.95 , Carnegie Mellon
24 , 23.35 , U Virginia
25 , 23.60 , Wake Forest
26 , 24.75 , USC
27 , 24.80 , UC Berkeley
28 , 25.80 , UCLA
29 , 26.60 , Brandeis
30 , 27.80 , NYU
31 , 28.05 , U Rochester
32 , 29.20 , W&M
33 , 29.65 , Boston Coll
34 , 29.70 , Lehigh
34 , 29.70 , U North Carolina</p>

<p>36 , 31.25 , Case Western
37 , 31.75 , Yeshiva
38 , 32.75 , Rensselaer
39 , 32.85 , U Michigan
40 , 35.35 , UC Irvine
41 , 36.85 , UC Santa Barbara
42 , 38.25 , UCSD
43 , 39.05 , Tulane</p>

<p>44 , 41.60 , U Wisconsin
45 , 41.90 , Georgia Tech
46 , 42.40 , U Illinois
47 , 45.55 , UC Davis
48 , 51.35 , U Florida
49 , 55.80 , U Washington
50 , 56.95 , U Texas
51 , 63.75 , Penn State</p>

<ol>
<li>By best combinations of great academics, great social life and great athletic life. This is obviously very subjective as individual preferences will decide the attractiveness of a college’s social life. Also, great athletic life is a very important consideration for some, but certainly not all, students. In creating these tiers, I tried to give equal weight to each of the three considerations. Admittedly, in some cases, it’s a pretty big guess. </li>
</ol>

<p>Tier 1: Stanford, Duke, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame
Tier 2: Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, UCLA, UC Berkeley, U North Carolina, U Michigan, U Virginia, Wake Forest, USC, Georgetown
Tier 3: U Penn, Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale, Brown, Boston College, Georgia Tech, U Illinois, U Wisconsin, Penn State, U Florida, U Texas, U Washington
Tier 4: Harvard, MIT, Columbia, Wash U, Johns Hopkins, Emory, W&M, Lehigh, UC Santa Barbara, UC Davis, Tulane
Tier 5: Caltech, U Chicago, Carnegie Mellon, Tufts, Brandeis, NYU, UCSD, U Rochester, UC Irvine, Case Western, Yeshiva</p>

<ol>
<li>By “Best Value” as ranked by Kiplingers. They do their rankings separately for privates and publics. The rankings for publics are an average of their Best Value rankings for IS and OOS students</li>
</ol>

<p>PRIVATES
Tier 1: Caltech, Yale, Princeton, Rice, Duke, Harvard
Tier 2: Dartmouth, MIT, Emory, Stanford, U Penn, Brown, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt
Tier 3: Johns Hopkins, Tufts, Wake Forest, Boston College
Tier 4: Cornell, Columbia, Lehigh, U Chicago, USC, U Rochester
Tier 5: Carnegie Mellon, NYU
Tier NA: Wash U, Georgetown, Brandeis, Case Western, Rensselaer, Yeshiva, Tulane</p>

<p>PUBLICS
Tier 1: U North Carolina, U Florida, U Virginia, W&M
Tier 2: UCSD, UC Berkeley, UCLA, U Wisconsin
Tie 3: U Washington, U Texas, U Michigan
Tier 4: UC Irvine, Penn State, UC Santa Barbara, Georgia Tech
Tier 5: U Illinois
Tier 6: UC Davis</p>

64

<p>I’ll add my “tier” for engineering:</p>

<p>Tier 1: MIT, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, Illinois, Texas, Georgia Tech, Wisconsin, Rice, Princeton, Northwestern, UCSD, Cornell, Columbia, UCLA, USC, UCSB, Johns Hopkins, Rensselaer, Penn, Harvard, Brown, Florida, Washington, Penn State, UC Davis, Caltech, Purdue</p>

65

<p>^ Such a diplomat. :p</p>

66

<p>UCSD and UC Davis DO NOT provide a better engineering education than Yale or Duke. You are out of your mind UCB.</p>

<p>Why don’t you people besides Hawkette get it? Department quality doesn’t matter. No one is smart enough as an undergrad to do truly brilliant research that forces one to need the faculty at the 5th best engineering school rather than the 10th best engineering school.</p>

<p>If we’re talking about job placement, Duke engineering blows every school on your list besides Harvard, Stanford, Michigan, Caltech, Penn, Northwestern and Berkeley out of the water.</p>

67

<p>I don’t know about Davis but UC-San Diego is better known in the engineering community for its engineering graduates than Yale…Duke is on the same level in terms of engineering as UCSD</p>

68

<p><em>Sigh</em> Leave it to the Dookie to get his panties in a bunch. Relax… </p>

<p>Sorry, but biomedical engineering is too limiting in my book. </p>

<p>I forgot to add Virginia Tech to the list.</p>

69

<p>Dook Pratt :open_mouth: hahahha. Yale has an engineering school?</p>

<p>I agree with Pierre…UCSD’s bioengineering program is on par with Duke’s BME. BME is probably the only top 10 department at Pratt anyways… lol.</p>

<p>In terms of PA vs. Teaching, I totally agree with Midatlmom on this one.</p>

70

<p>You’re laughing now Phead128 but there were more engineering companies at Duke’s career fair this year than there were students who were interested in them. At CMU, Michigan and Berkeley, there might be 400 engineers competing for 20 or so job openings at the major companies while at Duke, companies like Cisco and Northrop Grumann basically have to beg students to choose them over the top investment banks and management consulting firms.</p>

71

<p>“At CMU, Michigan and Berkeley, there might be 400 engineers competing for 20 or so job openings at the major companies”</p>

<p>so your conclusion that Duke is better is based on your own biased opinion since you aren’t sure what happens at other schools?</p>

72

<p>Duke’s Pratt is ranked #35 according to the USNews and World report. Yale is at 40th place. While I can see former Dean of Pratt engineering Kristina Johnson did a magnificent job of tripling your endowment, doubling the size of the freshman class, and increasing the size of Pratt’s research expenditures… It’s still a decent engineering school. I hope it becomes the “Trinity” of the engineering schools… but that will take sometime (although I heard Pratt students have exceptionally high SAT scores and it is very selective to get in)</p>

<p>All in all, Pratt is a good engineering school. I have lost focus on what we are disagreeing on. :)</p>

73

<p>The original US News ranking is not very good, but it’s better than this one.</p>

74

<p>“At CMU, Michigan and Berkeley, there might be 400 engineers competing for 20 or so job openings at the major companies”</p>

<p>… what a worthless statement.</p>

75

<p>kb,
I would probably agree with you that the statement is inaccurate. However, I think you would do us all a lot more good if you didn’t deride the statement, but rather presented the evidence that refutes the claim. Can you do that?</p>

76

<p>

The burden of proof is on Kb? He is not the one asserting that ridiculous statement.</p>

<p>semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit - “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.”</p>

77

<p>Roughly 300 Fortune 500 companies recruit at Michigan’s CoE, offering the majority of graduating undergrads full time jobs. There is a reason why Michigan’s CoE is ranked between #4. and #9 in the nation. recruiters raid the campus annually and recruit students in a per/capita basis like only a handful of programs can enjoy.</p>

<p>ring<em>of</em>fire claimed that there are only 20 job openings at major companies open to students at schools like CMU or Michigan. That’s not even close. Microsoft, Cisco and Intel alone hired 50 Michigan students last year. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, GE and Northrup Grumman hired another 50. If my math is correct, we are talking about 100 Michigan graduates taking 100 jobs at just 7 major companies. Major Pharmaceuticals and Petrochemical firms recruit dozens more, as do ALL the major IBanks and Management/Strategy Consulting firms. Other major recruiters on campus include NASA, the JPL, Google, Oracle and several major universities, including Caltech. Cornell, Duke, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, Yale and several others. Altogether, there are far more than 20 openings at major companies.</p>

<p>For a complete list of recruiters who actively hire students on campus, scroll down to pages 11-14 of the link below. </p>

<p><a href=“http://career.engin.umich.edu/annualReport/Annual_Report0708.pdf[/url]”>http://career.engin.umich.edu/annualReport/Annual_Report0708.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

78

<p>Hawkette wrote…</p>

<p>“kb,
I would probably agree with you that the statement is inaccurate. However, I think you would do us all a lot more good if you didn’t deride the statement, but rather presented the evidence that refutes the claim. Can you do that?”</p>

<p>Only “probably agree”. …lol</p>

<p>I find it interesting that somebody who has written over 1,000 posts trying to rank schools, wouldn’t know the facts about Michigan, a school that is ranked over and over by that somebody.</p>

<p>"The burden of proof is on Kb? He is not the one asserting that ridiculous statement.</p>

<p>semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit - “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.” </p>

<p>Phead128… yep.</p>

79

<p>I don’t know much about CMU, but a brief look at the downloads at this link [College</a> of Engineering - Post-Graduation Survey Results - Information for Students and Alumni - Career Center - Student Affairs](<a href=“http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/career/employ/salary/cit.html]College”>http://www.studentaffairs.cmu.edu/career/employ/salary/cit.html) shows that CMU engineering has very healthy job placement. About 220 students from the class of 2008 seem to have gone directly into the workforce, at companies including Microsoft, Northrup, Boeing, Corning, GE, Bechtel, Westinghouse, Goldman, McKinsey, Lockheed, IBM etc. </p>

<p>Phaed-great post:)</p>

80

<p>Please stop calling it a “teaching assessment.” Teaching was not assessed. Quality of instruction was not assessed. </p>

<p>Respondents were simply asked to name ten colleges with an unusually strong commitment to undergraduate teaching. </p>

<p>That’s a potentially informative metric, but you repeatedly claim it is something that it is not.</p>