UNDERGRADUATE ranking based on the student’s environment

<p>NAE/NAS membership as a measure of undergraduate quality. UCB, you are relentless if nothing else.</p>

<p>RML,
I just did what UCB asked, ie, I took the percentages for Top 10% for all 76 colleges and then I ranked them from 1 to 76 (with ties of course). </p>

<p>Top 10% students, College</p>

<p>100% , UC SAN DIEGO
99% , U Penn
98% , UC BERKELEY
98% , UC DAVIS
97% , Princeton
97% , Yale
97% , Caltech
97% , MIT
97% , UCLA
96% , Wash U
96% , UC S BARBARA
96% , UC IRVINE
96% , UC S CRUZ
95% , Harvard
94% , Columbia
93% , Brown
93% , Georgetown
93% , Lehigh
92% , Stanford
92% , U MICHIGAN
90% , Duke
90% , Dartmouth
88% , Cornell
88% , Emory
88% , U VIRGINIA
87% , Notre Dame
87% , USC
87% , U WASHINGTON
86% , U Chicago
85% , Northwestern
85% , Rice
85% , Tufts
84% , Johns Hopkins
84% , Vanderbilt
82% , Brandeis
80% , Boston College
79% , U N CAROLINA
79% , WILLIAM & MARY
75% , U Rochester
75% , U FLORIDA
75% , U TEXAS
73% , Carnegie Mellon
73% , U MARYLAND
68% , NYU
67% , George Washington
66% , U Miami
64% , Wake Forest
64% , GEORGIA TECH
64% , Rensselaer
63% , Case Western
59% , Tulane
58% , U WISCONSIN
55% , U ILLINOIS
55% , Boston University
54% , TEXAS A&M
53% , OHIO STATE
53% , Worcester
52% , U GEORGIA
51% , Yeshiva
51% , BYU
50% , CLEMSON
48% , U PITTSBURGH
45% , U MINNESOTA
43% , PENN STATE
42% , Fordham
42% , SMU
42% , U DELAWARE
42% , VIRGINIA TECH
40% , Pepperdine
39% , Syracuse
39% , U CONNECTICUT
38% , RUTGERS
31% , INDIANA U
31% , MICHIGAN ST
30% , PURDUE
22% , U IOWA</p>

<p>hawkette, this link has the pell grant percentages…so you can substitute the pell grant percentages for the financial aid percentages…</p>

<p>[Washington</a> Monthly](<a href=“http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings/national_university_rank.php]Washington”>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings/national_university_rank.php)</p>

<p>Post #36 is interesting…different schools for once.</p>

<p>

It is a proxy measure (and an objective data point!) for stronger science/engineering programs.</p>

<p>mel,
There is little political diversity within academia, particularly at the historically elite colleges and this has intellectual consequences. It’s a closed shop. Talk to/read Dinesh D’Souza or Fouad Ajami about it sometime. </p>

<p>voss,
I’m with you on the “tailored solution.” That would be the best solution. But in the meantime, it’s entertaining and sometimes informative to explore various factors and their relative value and impact for potential undergrads. </p>

<p>As for the criteria, I have stated numerous times that others may differ with the factors used and/or their weighting. Heck, I welcome that. But I do wish folks would put a little more effort into the “why” behind their challenges and offer up some ideas of their own. Debates can be very instructive and illuminating, not least because they can often dissipate the fog and expose the hype. </p>

<p>dstark,
Thanks for the link, but one spreadsheet on diversity is enough for me. And anyway, IMO the borrowing data is a better representation of campus-wide financial need than the Pell Grantee info. </p>

<p>Just as important, if not more important, than the borrowing patterns is the institution’s response to the financial needs of the student. IMO, schools that perform need-blind admissions and meet the full financial need of ALL undergrads is an excellent indicator of the financial and moral strength of the college. </p>

<p>UCB,
The NAE/NAS data probably is an excellent proxy for the PA scoring for the science/engineering world. Obviously, much of their efforts have little to do with undergrads, but who cares if it gives you school bragging rights, right? :)</p>

<p>BTW, on absolute numbers of NAE and NAS members, here is what I came up with:</p>

<p>224 , MIT
215 , Stanford
204 , UC BERKELEY
183 , Harvard
102 , Caltech
97 , Princeton
87 , UC SAN DIEGO
83 , U TEXAS
66 , Columbia
65 , Yale
63 , Cornell
63 , U WISCONSIN
61 , U WASHINGTON
56 , U ILLINOIS
52 , UCLA
48 , UC S BARBARA
45 , U MICHIGAN
41 , U Chicago
38 , U Penn
35 , Northwestern
33 , USC
32 , Johns Hopkins
32 , NYU
30 , UC IRVINE
29 , Carnegie Mellon
29 , UC DAVIS
29 , U MINNESOTA
28 , U MARYLAND
27 , GEORGIA TECH
27 , RUTGERS
23 , PENN STATE
22 , Duke
21 , OHIO STATE
21 , PURDUE
20 , TEXAS A&M
18 , Wash U
18 , U FLORIDA
16 , Rice
15 , U VIRGINIA
15 , U N CAROLINA
14 , Brown
14 , VIRGINIA TECH
13 , U Rochester
12 , Lehigh
12 , INDIANA U
11 , Case Western
9 , Boston University
9 , U DELAWARE
9 , UC S CRUZ
8 , Brandeis
8 , Rensselaer
8 , MICHIGAN ST
7 , U GEORGIA
6 , Vanderbilt
6 , Yeshiva
6 , U PITTSBURGH
5 , Dartmouth
5 , U IOWA
4 , Tufts
4 , SMU
3 , Emory
3 , Notre Dame
3 , U Miami
3 , Syracuse
2 , U CONNECTICUT
2 , Worcester
1 , Georgetown
1 , Tulane
1 , George Washington
1 , CLEMSON
1 , Fordham
1 , BYU
0 , Wake Forest
0 , WILLIAM & MARY
0 , Boston College
0 , Pepperdine</p>

<p>And just for kicks, I looked at Amherst, Williams, and Swarthmore. Amherst has 3. Williams and Swarthmore have 0.</p>

<p>Hawkette, think about what you wrote to me in your last post.</p>

<p>Lending money to families that are pretty well off isn’t diversity.</p>

<p>The pell grant numbers and the financial aid numbers are not similar and they are measuring different things.</p>

<p>The financial aid numbers are fine for what they measure…how a school takes care of the students it accepts. I guess. Grants are better than loans… so the financial aid numbers don’t tell a complete picture.</p>

<p>The pell grant numbers tell a different story. A diversity story. How many students at a school come from families that make a certain income or less.</p>

<p>It’s your ranking…you can throw anything you want into it.</p>

<p>My understanding of the loan information is that this is loans processed thru the school wherein the school makes an evaluation of the applicant’s level of wealth and income and makes a determination about whether they qualify for need-based aid. I think your characterization of these folks as “pretty well off” is pretty far off.</p>

<p>As for the Pell numbers, feel free to do some lifting of your own and create your own spreadsheet on this. Better yet, please disclose what you would consider a reasonable methodology for ranking undergraduate colleges and present what you create.</p>

<p>Well…Washington Monthly kind of beat me to it. ;)</p>

<p>There are people getting loans that come from families that make over $100,000 a year…especially at the top schools.</p>

<p>The median income at Duke is over $200,000. I’m guessing. ;)Look and see the percentage of students that are getting loans, how many are on Pell grants, and how many aren’t getting loans. How much income or wealth it takes to be able to afford Duke.</p>

<p>At UCBerkeley the median income is in the $80,000s. </p>

<p>Harvard gives aid to students that come from families that make over $180,000 a year. I don’t know how much more than $180,000. </p>

<p>The student bodies have different financial needs.</p>

<p>Princeton used to have a calculator that gave a potential student an idea how much aid they would get. (Maybe Princeton still does). It was on the Princeton website.You can get aid if you are from a family making over $100,000 a year.</p>

<p>So the financial aid information does not tell me about diversity on its own. Using Pell grant information helps. Unless you think schools predominantly filled with students from wealthy families and upper middle class families is diversified.</p>

<p>Here is the Princeton financial aid calculator…for anyone who wants to play around.</p>

<p><a href=“https://sweb2.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/FinAid/finaid_form.pl[/url]”>https://sweb2.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/FinAid/finaid_form.pl&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Percentage of students with Pell Grants…9% at Harvard, 10% at Princeton and 32% at Berkeley.</p>

<p>Harvard and Princeton have nice financial aid packages…if you can get into the schools.</p>

<p>The Top 10% percentages list illustrates the absurdity and inanity of some of the USNWR criteria, e.g., when UC SD is number one by virtue of its dubious claim of having 100% of top ten students; whereas Harvard cites 95% and Vanderbilt 84% – ridiculous. These UC numbers are a perverse result of average students (based on the middle 50% SAT scores of the UC also-rans: SB, Davis, SC, Irvine) attending substandard California public high schools. The USNWR editors need to address this charade immediately. </p>

<p>The news emanating from California is that parents should avoid the public college system at all costs due to the CA budget nightmare, student tuition protests, faculty cuts, et al— for who knows what the next four years will hold. </p>

<p>Once again, UCB, I don’t care how many accolades and designations a faculty receives, because if a school does not attract top undergraduates, it’s not a top school, period.</p>

<p>@hawkette</p>

<p>The problem with the Teaching Commitment rating is that it compounds the difficulties of a survey system with a very vague question that is extremely difficult to answer without a large amount of research and experience.</p>

<p>To defend the NRC data:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Ranking schools as a whole is a purely academic pursuit with no worthwhile results for anyone. Allowing the student to customize the ranking based on intended area(s) of study makes it somewhat more legitimate. The NRC data is the best available, despite being old.</p></li>
<li><p>I don’t agree that graduate and UNDERGRADUATE (I can do caps too) education are completely separate in all cases. I understand that you are wary of research powerhouses that treat UNDERGRADUATES with apathetic uncaring, but that does not make the individual strength of a department irrelevant. A strong, active department with research dollars can offer a lot.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>I try to balance the effect by using retention and graduation rates. A strong department is only rewarded if undergraduates are actually able to get through it and graduate. This promotes schools that have both top-notch research and a commitment to helping UNDERGRADUATES progress. Some of the funding data might work even better, but I don’t know enough about it to feel comfortable using it.</p>

<ol>
<li>In my personal ranking, I mix the NRC data with the number of completions in areas of interest (with caps once critical mass is reached). This seemed unnecessary to explain my idea, but it shows the flexibility of my method. If you prefer class size data or Teaching Commitment scores or anything else, you can put it in the same place and then let the retention/grad rates balance it out. Take any ranking you please.</li>
</ol>

<p>I used 75% test scores from IPEDS, because even a quarter of the student body at most universities will be more than enough peers to work with.</p>

<p>I chose the Pell stats for two reasons:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>The data is easily available on IPEDS and EdTrust (from IPEDS)</p></li>
<li><p>The % receiving Pell Grants is a clear indicator of the presence (or absence) of low-income students.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ll go a step further. I have attended and/or taught at 6 top-tier research universities, 3 public and 3 private (the latter all Ivies). In all my years in academia I have yet to meet a single faculty member in the humanities or social sciences who did not teach undergraduate courses; and I’ve met precious few who did not take undergraduate teaching seriously. The idea that there are separate undergraduate and graduate faculties at top research institutions, and that therefore evaluations of faculty strength are somehow irrelevant to the quality of undergraduate education, is a pernicious myth propagated by some on CC either out of ignorance or out of ulterior motives. This is not to say that all the top academics in a field are brilliant classroom teachers. John Rawls, arguably the most important moral and political philosopher of the 20th century, was a poor lecturer, mumbling and with a speech impediment. Saul Kripke, one of the most important logicians of the 20th century, was pretty much clueless about how to run a class. Joseph Raz, arguably the most important living legal philosopher, is also an ineffective public speaker, so soft-spoken he’s sometimes barely audible. None of these intellectual giants will win teaching awards; the students go in for razzle-dazzle over substance. Give them a lecturer with a quick wit and easily digestible powerpoint summaries of the key “take-home” points, and he’ll win hands down over the subtle and penetrating thinker every time. But I’ll tell you what: if I really want to learn philosophy, I’ll take the likes of Rawls, Kripke, and Raz every time. I’ll have to work at it. It won’t come easily. But the reward is, I’ll be challenged at a much deeper level, and I’ll learn far more in the process. And to my mind, that’s what education is about, either at the undergraduate or at the graduate level.</p>

<p>Bottom line, I think a lot of the bashing of research universities for the excellence of their faculties is nothing more than thinly veiled anti-intellectualism. I maintain that the greatness of the world’s great colleges and universities has always been defined by the intellectual excellence of their faculties. That’s no less true today than it was in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, or the Enlightenment.</p>

<p>well-said bclintonk</p>

<p>^^Hear, hear!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sorry, you may think you’re better off learning from someone you can’t even hear in a large room who has no interest in interacting with you because they have no time and you’re not a priority so you can’t even get things clarified later on…</p>

<p>But I’ll take the wit and clear presentation and just read the unbelievable work of Rawls, Kripke, and Raz. Breathing the same air as them would not make it easier to understand, but having someone who explains things well go through the material with me takes me quite far.</p>

<p>

Anti-intellectualism? Please, let’s not be dramatic. It wouldn’t matter if you’re the most brilliant person on the planet if you can’t find a way to effectively communicate new information to me. It’d matter quite a bit when determining your value as an investigator and to the academy, but that doesn’t mean it has value to me when I’m an undergraduate. The truth is, most people are not one trick ponies in my experience-- the best teachers tend to be excellent researchers. That’s why priority/commitment of the institution matter. It’s not that Rawls is the norm, it’s that brilliant teachers are the norm, and then the institution makes demands on time that cannot be met and because they value brilliant teaching very little or not at all, that’s the first thing that gets shortchanged.</p>

<p>There are wider institutional and societal goals for universities that extend beyond educating undergraduates, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that potential students should be worried about much else except for their ability to learn at that school. That’s why we’re going to college.</p>

<p>BClint: “The greatness of the world’s great colleges and universities” should in part be “defined by the intellectual excellence of their faculties;” however, if the school in question is not attracting commensurate excellent students, it cannot be considered great. Nothing anti-intellectual about that, in fact it’s rather non-intellectually obvious.</p>

<p>bc,
Your one step further was one step too far for this reader. Post # 52 may have been the most arrogant thing that I’ve ever read on CC and perfectly illustrates the great divide between us. You equate students wanting effective instructors as anti-intellectuals. What an insult! And what a huge misunderstanding/misrepresentation of those who advocate for effective undergraduate instruction over reputation/prestige factors in evaluating various institutions. </p>

<p>You revere a professor who’s a great thinker, but who either completely lacks the ability or the interest to effectively communicate his ideas. I do not. I respect their intellectual wattage, but I would NEVER want them as an instructor. They are the antithesis of what students should experience in a classroom. Let the college employ them if they wish for research purposes (and to boost their PA scores), but don’t waste the undergraduate’s tuition money. Respect the student. </p>

<p>I revere the professor who’s a great thinker, but who also understands that a vital and primary part of his mission is to educate students. This professor is not great just because of his/her brain, but also because this teacher has the capacity and desire to communicate and who challenges his/her students, sets the bar high, recognizes student potential and excites it, develops rather than dominates his/her students, etc. </p>

<p>Student development is the classroom objective, both the learning of the course’s material as well as expanding the student’s own critical thinking abilities. If a professor can’t do this, then he/she should hardly be considered “great.”</p>

<p>

Most arrogant thing that I’ve ever read on CC? Please, let’s not be dramatic.</p>

<p>Here’s my nomination of most arrogant post I’ve ever read on CC:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063467249-post20.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063467249-post20.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>^ Dukies are such fine representatives in CC!</p>

<p>No one likes lesdiablesbleus. He is a ■■■■■ who browses other forums and sparks controversy.</p>