UNDERGRADUATE ranking based on the student’s environment

College Search & Selection
21

<p>Coureur,
I remember another poster once writing that any ranking is only as good as its methodology. While there will never be a one-size-fits-all that satisfies all of us, I do believe that there are certain major benchmarks that have value, eg, student body strength, size of classroom, faculty quality, institutional resources. Probably you would disagree on some of the factors and weights, but in comparing undergraduate colleges, there are certain variables that IMO are legitimate comparisons. </p>

<p>Ch,
What are the numbers to the left in # 19?</p>

<p>Noimagination,
Truth be told, I don’t really like any of the faculty measurements. But I think that the Teaching ranking at least is relevant to what I consider important in the classroom, ie, quality of teaching. It’s not much, but it’s certainly better than the nefarious PA scoring. </p>

<p>Re your suggestion of NRC data, that is heavily influenced by graduate school activity. I would think that it has little value to prospective undergraduate students and their families. Furthermore, it is similar to the PA scoring and thus says little to nothing about the classroom experience for a student. </p>

<p>Re standardized test data, how would you sort and rank the results, eg, by 25th percentile, by 75th percentile, by mid-point, by % over a certain threshold, etc?</p>

<p>Re the suggestion of Internationals, Non-Majority Gender and % Pell Grantees, I did something along these lines. Not having the full Pell Grantees numbers for all colleges, I used the % of students who are borrowing. Here are those results:</p>

<p>% of International students, % of non-majority gender, and % of students who borrow </p>

<p>Total , School</p>

<p>129% , Brandeis
125% , RUTGERS
117% , PENN STATE
114% , U MINNESOTA
113% , Pepperdine
113% , Syracuse
112% , U CONNECTICUT
112% , U IOWA
111% , U Rochester
111% , Case Western
111% , INDIANA U
110% , USC
110% , U Miami
110% , Worcester
109% , Dartmouth
109% , Fordham
107% , Columbia
107% , Notre Dame
107% , U ILLINOIS
106% , Johns Hopkins
106% , Boston University
105% , Carnegie Mellon
105% , U WISCONSIN
105% , OHIO STATE
104% , Cornell
103% , MIT
103% , NYU
103% , Boston College
103% , Lehigh
103% , U WASHINGTON
103% , U PITTSBURGH
102% , Northwestern
102% , UC SAN DIEGO
101% , U Penn
101% , U MICHIGAN
101% , Yeshiva
101% , PURDUE
101% , UC S CRUZ
100% , U Chicago
100% , Brown
100% , Rensselaer
99% , Harvard
99% , TEXAS A&M
97% , UC IRVINE
96% , Stanford
96% , Duke
96% , Rice
96% , Tulane
96% , George Washington
95% , Georgetown
95% , Tufts
94% , Emory
94% , UC S BARBARA
94% , U TEXAS
94% , U MARYLAND
93% , Wash U
93% , UC DAVIS
93% , MICHIGAN ST
92% , Yale
92% , UCLA
91% , Caltech
91% , CLEMSON
91% , SMU
90% , UC BERKELEY
89% , Vanderbilt
89% , U DELAWARE
88% , Wake Forest
88% , U FLORIDA
86% , WILLIAM & MARY
86% , BYU
84% , U GEORGIA
83% , GEORGIA TECH
83% , VIRGINIA TECH
82% , U VIRGINIA
77% , Princeton
74% , U N CAROLINA</p>

<p>In addition, I added the % of OOS students as I think that this can also be an important factor in student diversity on a college campus. In this case, the results change quite dramatically. Here are those results:</p>

<p>Same as above, but with % of OOS students added in </p>

<p>Total , School</p>

<p>205% , Dartmouth
203% , Brandeis
199% , Notre Dame
195% , Brown
194% , MIT
194% , George Washington
193% , Georgetown
191% , Johns Hopkins
185% , Yale
184% , U Penn
183% , Boston University
183% , Harvard
183% , Duke
183% , Wash U
182% , Carnegie Mellon
179% , U Chicago
178% , Columbia
178% , Lehigh
177% , Northwestern
174% , Boston College
172% , Vanderbilt
170% , Tufts
167% , Syracuse
167% , Cornell
167% , NYU
164% , Emory
163% , Tulane
163% , Wake Forest
161% , U Rochester
161% , Princeton
160% , U Miami
159% , Rensselaer
158% , Pepperdine
157% , Case Western
157% , Yeshiva
156% , Caltech
155% , Worcester
154% , Stanford
153% , Fordham
153% , U DELAWARE
149% , U IOWA
148% , USC
148% , BYU
145% , INDIANA U
142% , PENN STATE
141% , Rice
140% , U MINNESOTA
140% , PURDUE
137% , U WISCONSIN
136% , U MICHIGAN
136% , SMU
135% , U CONNECTICUT
132% , RUTGERS
120% , U PITTSBURGH
120% , CLEMSON
118% , U MARYLAND
118% , WILLIAM & MARY
116% , OHIO STATE
115% , U WASHINGTON
115% , VIRGINIA TECH
113% , U ILLINOIS
110% , GEORGIA TECH
110% , U VIRGINIA
105% , UC SAN DIEGO
104% , UC S CRUZ
102% , TEXAS A&M
101% , MICHIGAN ST
100% , UC IRVINE
98% , UC S BARBARA
98% , U TEXAS
98% , UCLA
97% , UC BERKELEY
96% , U GEORGIA
95% , UC DAVIS
92% , U FLORIDA
91% , U N CAROLINA</p>

22

<p>The OOS thing would have be adjusted for the population of the state. Brown gets an unfair jump for being in a state that’s smaller than my county in NY.</p>

23

<p>“I’ll make a deal with you. Give me the factors that you might use to create an UNDERGRADUATE ranking and I’ll try to run the numbers for you.”</p>

<p>I have a better idea: Don’t give us yet another individual-opinion one-size-fits-none ranking. Just don’t bother. USNWR does enough damage; no need to contribute to it.</p>

24

<br>

<br>

<p>I don’t think that is a fair characterization of the ranking in the original post. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all ranking, so it’s worthwhile to assess quality from several perspectives. This set of criteria focuses, fairly well, on factors I think are most important to nearly everyone: students, faculty, class size, and institutional resources. If it happens to come out that hawkette’s favorite schools are near the top, then at least s/he can say s/he has an objective, measurable basis for his/her opinions. </p>

<p>There are some problems with the specific component metrics, in particular the one for intructional quality. The USNWR instructional score is too old, too limited, too unreliable. I’d just take it out.</p>

<p>USNWR, FSPI, and Washington Monthly use 3 very different sets of criteria to arrive at rather different ranking results. Each has strengths and weaknesses and is more or less useful depending on your interests. Hawkette’s ranking is similar to the USNWR ranking. One advantage, to me, is that it removes the problematic, subjective PA score (which really adds nothing if you already have a good set of objective measurements to cover important factors).</p>

25

<p>“One advantage, to me, is that it removes the problematic, subjective PA score (which really adds nothing if you already have a good set of objective measurements to cover important factors).”</p>

<p>Who says the so called “good set of objective measurements” even exist? Furthermore, some of those so called “important factors” that USNWR uses aren’t necessarily really all that important. Once again someone is trashing the PA scores without which puts top notch public schools at an unfair disadvantage. Afterall, what could the collective opinions of thousands of academics mean compared to the brilliant minds of CC posters?</p>

26

<p>The PA can be predicted almost perfectly by quantitative factors. There is wisdom in the collective judgement of experts.</p>

27

<p>

Once again, hawkette, the survey was not asking about teaching quality it was asking about dedication to teaching. Two different things.</p>

<p>Collegehelp, I liked your first ranking better for some strange reason… ;)</p>

28

<p>vossron,
I am presenting this data/ranking as a way for some folks to compare various colleges based on selected criteria that IMO will most impact the actual classroom environment at ABC College. I’m not selling this thread as a one-size-fits-all college ranking. I agree that that is not an achievable goal. We’re not going to change the world with these “rankings,” but we might discover some relevant comparison metrics and uncover a few college gems that get overlooked in the damaging hunt for prestige. </p>

<p>IMO, it’s a fun conversation and I like reading how others evaluate colleges and which factors are important to them. I have a view, but I’m willing to listen to other perspectives that might improve upon that view. I’ll be interested if/when confidentialcoll (or others) comes back to the thread with his criteria and then we run the numbers. </p>

<p>Mel,
I hear you on the OOS allocation issue. One could make similar requests about Internationals (Euro? Asia? etc.). And just adding the 3 or 4 datapoints together probably doesn’t tell you much and almost nothing about the quality of the college that you’re looking at. But I understand your interest and how such a measurement might give a minority a sense that he/she would not be isolated in a sea of white faces. </p>

<p>If you want to focus on diversity, I’d love to see greater diversity of thought (both for the faculty and the student body) on college campuses. IMO, there is a lot of groupthink and ostracizing of certain groups, eg, can you imagine the classroom response on an Ivy campus to someone complimenting Sarah Palin? Or someone expressing a strongly held view against abortion? Or maybe challenging the accepted wisdom on the matter of climate change? I’m not trying to make this a political thread, but if you want diversity, I think a lot of folks would prefer less focus on skin color and more on true intellectual diversity. </p>

<p>rjk,

  1. Can you clarify which factors that I (or USNWR) have included which you believe aren’t important for an undergraduate ranking?<br>
  2. Are there any factors beyond PA scores that you consider worthwhile?<br>
  3. What, in your eyes, would be an appropriate UNDERGRADUATE ranking methodology?</p>
29

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s not that I think CC posters are better judges of quality than college professors. It’s that we ought to be able to come up with metrics that avoid the need for subjective assessments as part of the ranking. Of course, the choice of metrics inevitably reflect what the choosers think is important. But that’s legitimate, isn’t it? If you disagree that class size is important, for example, then use a different metric.</p>

<p>I don’t understand why the absence of PA scores necessarily disadvantages top public schools. The FSPI is very much a numbers-driven assessment, but it tends to rank public institutions very highly. The Washington Monthly ranking also is numbers-driven. Its #1 national university pick is Berkeley. Of course, these two rankings do reflect very different judgements about what is important to college quality.</p>

<p>If you have no strong opinions about what is important in judging a school, by all means trust the experts. Just take an opinion poll of college professors. From that perspective, the USNWR probably is a pretty good approach.</p>

30

<p>

</p>

<p>What about this methodology?</p>

<p>Students in Top 10% of HS class: 33.3333%
Peer Assessment: 33.3333%</p>

<h1>NAS + #NAE members: 33.3333%</h1>

<p>;)</p>

31

<p>ucb,
I know you’re just trying to be funny and I did giggle a bit. For laughs, I’ll run the numbers for you if you give me the NAS and NAE data for the 76 colleges. It would also be helpful to know how much time those profs actually spend with an average undergraduate student. </p>

<p>Also, can you explain what the non-science, non-engineering students should consider?</p>

32

<p>Collegehelp -</p>

<p>Thanks for your very gracious reply. After I posted I was sure someone was going to come here and yell at me for “dissing” Rutgers. It probably was rude of me, but at least I made it clear that it was only my opinion. Again, I appreciate your post in response to mine.</p>

33

<p>

NAE members are easy:
[Members</a> By Parent Institution](<a href=“http://www.nae.edu/nae/naepub.nsf/Members+By+Parent+InstitutionA?openview]Members”>http://www.nae.edu/nae/naepub.nsf/Members+By+Parent+InstitutionA?openview)</p>

<p>NAS members, you have to type the name of the college in the “institution” line here:
[National</a> Academy of Sciences:](<a href=“http://www.nasonline.org/site/Dir?sid=1011&view=basic&pg=srch]National”>http://www.nasonline.org/site/Dir?sid=1011&view=basic&pg=srch)
They’ll give you a listing of members and a count.</p>

<p>

Hmmm…maybe poet laureates and MacArthur fellows? ;)</p>

34

<p>Hawkette – I am continually pleased to see how well schools like Tulane, GW, Pitt, SMU, Miami FL et al do when the inane beauty contest portion (aka PA counting 25%) is stripped away from USNWR data. As well, how poorly the UC also-rans (Irvine, SB, Davis) do. Spread the word – PA has gotta go. Thanks for your excellent work.</p>

35

<p>ucb,
Even trying to game as much as you possibly could, UC Berkeley still couldn’t get any higher than # 5. See results below with comparison to USNWR. Sorry.</p>

<p>One interesting thing for me was the NAS/NAE sub-ranking which I calculated as Total NAE/NAS faculty divided by the undergrad population. That “ranking” might be an excellent proxy for the PA scoring for the schools with strong technical/science rankings. Here’s the Top 30 which includes 8 publics:</p>

<p>1 Caltech
2 MIT
3 Stanford
4 Harvard
5 Princeton
6 Yale
7 Columbia
8 U Chicago
9 UC BERKELEY
10 Johns Hopkins
11 Rice
12 Carnegie Mellon
13 Cornell
14 Northwestern
15 U Penn
16 UC SAN DIEGO
17 Duke
18 Wash U
19 UC S BARBARA
20 Case Western
21 Brandeis
22 Lehigh
23 U Rochester
24 Brown
25 U TEXAS
26 GEORGIA TECH
27 U WASHINGTON
28 U WISCONSIN
29 USC
30 UCLA</p>

<p>While the overall methodology that you suggested was pretty ridiculous, it was interesting to me to see how most of the same names stayed at the top. And schools like Wash U which get a lot of heat on CC stayed in roughly the same position. Here are the full results:</p>

<p>33% = NAE & NAS faculty members relative to size of student body
33% = Top 10% students
33% = PA Score</p>

<p>UCB Rank , Chg vs USNWR , National University</p>

<p>1 , 3 , MIT
2 , -1 Princeton
3 , 1 Caltech
4 , -1 Yale
5 , 16 UC BERKELEY
6 , -5 Harvard
7 , -3 Stanford
8 , -4 U Penn
9 , -1 Columbia
10 , -2 U Chicago
11 , 4 Cornell
12 , 0 Wash U
12 , 23 UC SAN DIEGO
14 , -4 Duke
15 , -1 Johns Hopkins
15 , 1 Brown
17 , 7 UCLA
18 , -6 Northwestern
19 , -2 Rice
19 , 8 U MICHIGAN
21 , 1 Carnegie Mellon
21 , 21 UC DAVIS
23 , -12 Dartmouth
24 , 18 UC S BARBARA
25 , -1 U VIRGINIA
26 , 0 USC
26 , 16 U WASHINGTON
28 , 18 UC IRVINE
29 , 18 U TEXAS
30 , 5 GEORGIA TECH
31 , -14 Vanderbilt
32 , 7 U WISCONSIN
33 , -5 U N CAROLINA
34 , -3 Brandeis
34 , 1 Lehigh
36 , -19 Emory
37 , -14 Georgetown
38 , 1 U ILLINOIS
39 , -7 NYU
40 , -12 Tufts
41 , -21 Notre Dame
41 , -6 U Rochester
41 , 0 Case Western
44 , 9 U MARYLAND
45 , 26 UC S CRUZ
46 , -4 Rensselaer
47 , 0 U FLORIDA
48 , -15 WILLIAM & MARY
49 , -2 PENN STATE
49 , 12 U MINNESOTA
51 , 2 OHIO STATE
52 , -18 Boston College
52 , 9 TEXAS A&M
54 , 7 PURDUE
55 , -3 Yeshiva
55 , 1 Boston University
55 , -27 Wake Forest
58 , -5 George Washington
59 , 12 INDIANA U
60 , -10 U Miami
60 , 6 RUTGERS
62 , -4 U GEORGIA
63 , -7 U PITTSBURGH
63 , 8 VIRGINIA TECH
65 , -15 Tulane
66 , 2 Worcester
67 , 1 U DELAWARE
68 , 0 SMU
69 , 2 U IOWA
70 , 1 MICHIGAN ST
71 , -13 Syracuse
72 , -11 CLEMSON
73 , -12 Fordham
74 , -8 U CONNECTICUT
74 , -3 BYU
76 , -18 Pepperdine</p>

36

<p>For students and families who want to compare UNDERGRADUATE colleges based on what the student will actually encounter on a college’s campus, consider how colleges compare based on the FOUR KEY QUESTIONS:</p>

<ol>
<li>How hygienic are your student peers? More hygienic classmates are preferred.</li>
<li>What size is the washroom? More smaller toilets, fewer large toilets and low student/washroom attendant ratios are preferred.</li>
<li>How committed is the institution to effective washroom instruction? A commitment to undergraduate washing is preferred. </li>
<li>How financially strong is the institution and will they spend to assist undergraduates in wiping? More toilet paper is preferred. More toiletry services and full b*tt coverage is preferred.</li>
</ol>

<p>I measured a universe of 76 Universities and compared and ranked them in this universe only. This “ranking” is admittedly a rough measurement and unquestionably others might select different proxies for this comparison. But for prospective undergraduates and families, I think it’s a pretty accurate reflection of the nature of the academic environment and scene that a typical undergraduate will encounter when he/she goes to college. </p>

<p>Here is the methodology: </p>

<p>90% = Size of Washroom. The method used is to assign 40 % for rank in washrooms with fewer than 20 students, 40% for rank in washrooms with more than 50 students, and 20% for rank in student/washroom attendant ratio.</p>

<p>10% = Cleanliness of Washroom. The method uses the Washington Post Cleaning Commitment ranking. 17 colleges received a ranking. All other colleges were ranked equally at # 30.</p>

<p>Rank , University </p>

<p>1 , WashU in St. Louis
2 , University of Washington, Seattle
3 , Washington State University
4 , Central Washington University
5 , Eastern Washington University
6 , Western Washington University
7 , George Washington University
8 , Washington and Lee University
9 , University of Bath (UK)
10 , CUNY-Queens College (Flushing, NY)
.
.
.
76 , Harvard University</p>

37

<p>

I disagree completely with you on this point. The call for political diversity is a nonsense misunderstanding of the differences between freedom of speech and academic freedom.</p>

<p>You are free to say what you want, but once you enter the academy, all speech is NOT equal. The process of creating knowledge and disseminating data requires that we understand that not all opinions are equally valid. So as far as I’m concerned, come into any classroom with any idea you want, but in academia you earn respect with evidence and analysis which come from strong methodology. Methodological maturity/variety is important for any department to achieve, and in my experience departments are quite aware of this fact. This is the equivalent of “political diversity” in academia. Diversity of traditional political ideology is pretty much pointless for a university.</p>

38

<p>“I am presenting this data/ranking as a way for some folks to compare various colleges based on selected criteria that IMO will most impact the actual classroom environment at ABC College.”</p>

<p>The desire to be helpful is excellent, but it’s the “selected criteria that IMO” that’s the problem, IMO. :slight_smile: I hope it’s not very far off that USNWR or someone else will provide a site with pertinent data where students can specify what is important to them and generate their own tailored rankings, somewhat the way College Board’s College Matchmaker works.</p>

39

<p>Thanks Hawkette. What if you just used raw NAE/NAS members without adjusting for undergrad pop.? Berkeley would prob rise even more but I suspect it wouldn’t be enough to surpass MIT and 'furd. Yale would prob fall a bit.</p>

40

<p>hawkette,</p>

<p>can you post the ranking for selectivity, and if possible, explain how you were able to come up with it?</p>