UNDERGRADUATE ranking based on the student’s environment

College Search & Selection
141

<p>

</p>

<p>::yawns::</p>

<p>There is much more to a university than its aesthetic beauty and grandeur. I’ve visited Duke many years ago, and I wasn’t all that impressed. I actually preferred UNC-Chapel Hill at the time. Duke cannot even match up to Michigan in the number of interdisciplinary programs. As for Stanford, I wouldn’t call it the most ideal college town.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is where you are wrong. Have you seen the list of famous Michigan alumni? It is enormous, and many employers/grad schools highly respect Michigan. Just type in “Michigan alumni” and click on the Wikipedia page.</p>

<p>And Duke and Michigan are peers, PA-wise.</p>

142

<p>You state school grads don’t understand the concept of accounting for the size of the student body when making statements. Michigan obviously has more notable alumni than Stanford or Duke because it’s been around for a lot longer and graduates a LOT more students(biggest alumni base in the country). However, Duke and Stanford grads occupy more prominent roles in business where these alumni connections matter and are more highly concentrated in the NY/DC/SF area where all the top college grads want to work in ibanking/management consulting/tech firms.</p>

143

<p>

</p>

<p>A Michigan degree is very well-respected in NYC and DC. Amazingly, most Michigan alums do not live in the state of Michigan. They occupy all sorts of positions and have strong alumni bases EVERYWHERE (including California). I will give the edge to Stanford on the West Coast, but I believe all three schools are equal in the Northeast.</p>

<p>In fact, there are more Michigan alums in Obama’s administration than Stanford and Duke!</p>

144

<p>Lesdiables,
Look, U Michigan is a good place and Alex and his buddies have a lot to be proud of. They may spend too much time in front of the mirror and overrate themselves on some metrics, but U Michigan has a lot of redeeming features, including a good rep in academia and a good athletic tradition. Saying that they are good does not mean that Duke or any other school is bad. Be generous. </p>

<p>I’d like to include U Michigan in that universe of colleges across the USA that do a good job of combining academics, social life and athletic life. For the record, here is a good list of Top 50 schools that do this best:</p>

<p>Privates: Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Cornell, Rice, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Georgetown, USC, Wake Forest, Boston College, U Miami</p>

<p>Publics: UC Berkeley, U Virginia, UCLA, U Michigan, U North Carolina, Georgia Tech, U Illinois, U Wisconsin, U Washington, Penn State, U Florida, U Texas</p>

145

<p>Duke and Stanford alumni networks rival the top tier of the Ivies. They are 2 of the best feeder schools to the top MBA, Med, and Law Schools. Combined with beautiful campuses, top academics, and high quality sports programs, Duke and Stanford are unique.</p>

146

<p>lol Duke is quite possible the most overrated University in the country after WashU.</p>

147

<p>Chicago, Notre Dame, and Northwestern are 3 great schools from the midwest. Chicago has top academics and great grad schools. Northwestern offers strong academics/athletics. ND has the academic/athletic combination and very strong national alumni network and the best college fight song!</p>

148

<p>^ Are you implying those are the only best schools in the Midwest? </p>

<p>I am a proud Northwestern alum, but I wouldn’t ignore elite public universities such as Michigan and Wisconsin.</p>

149

<p>

</p>

<p>Duke doesn’t have the top basketball program of the modern era-not even close. Hate to nitpick, but there are some misconceptions which just have to be cleared up about that place.</p>

<p>Duke is a good school academically, but its athletic tradition is often overrated. Not to mention the fact that Durham is a dump.</p>

150

<p><3 duke (10char) :). I haven’t met one person unhappy with duke here. That’s all I gotta say</p>

151

<p>

<a href=“http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf[/url]”>http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
Stanford: #4
Duke: #6
Michigan: #30</p>

<p>As far as employers go, how come Michigan isn’t as represented at the top investment banks/management consulting/tech firms as Stanford? It’s not even close in this regard.</p>

<p>

Wisconsin is NOT an elite institution.</p>

<p>

Don’t trust me, trust ESPN.
[Counting</a> down the most prestigious programs since 1984-85 - Men’s College Basketball - ESPN](<a href=“Manager Bruce Bochy to miss Texas Rangers' game Monday - ESPN”>Counting down the most prestigious programs since 1984-85 - ESPN)</p>

<p>In the 64 team era, Duke has more Final Four appearances, Sweet 16 appearances, NCAA tournament wins, 30 win seasons, first team All-Americans and All-Americans than any other school in the country including the University of Nobody Cares.</p>

152

<p>

</p>

<p>this is actually pretty true, but most duke people i’ve met are also people who will say they love everything, with regard to anything you ask.</p>

153

<p>

</p>

<p>Opinions certainly do vary. But virtually all top institutions make some use of standardized tests as an admissions factor. The Common Data Set establishes a standard for reporting the data. There’s been some discussion on CC about some schools not using the CDS or reporting figures for admitted rather than matriculated students, but it isn’t clear that those numbers differ all that much. I think it’s fair to assume some correlation between median test scores and intellectual ability, for lack of a better system. Moreover, many schools with the highest median scores also base admission on ECs and other subjective factors that some of the best public universities hardly even consider.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>All these factors are important in differing degrees to different people. But to me, student quality is a huge factor. It greatly affects the quality of discussion in and out of the classroom as well as the standards a teacher can apply in presenting material and assigning grades.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think I ever attended a class, intro or otherwise, with as many as 150 students at any of the private schools I attended. Maybe 75-100 in one first year science lecture at Chicago. And I don’t consider 30 students “small” for an advanced class. 5 is small. 15 or so is a good size for undergraduate seminars. Some LACs and a few small universities have no classes (or very few) larger than 50, with the average around 15. I don’t see how you can have a lively, inclusive discussion of difficult material with 30 students or more.</p>

<p>To me, high student quality and small classes are essential features of a high quality liberal arts & science learning environment. Top public universities like Berkeley and Michigan do attract plenty of excellent students. They offer many small classes, especially in upper level courses, and superb resources for research. If I lived in Michigan or California and could get all that for half the out-of-pocket cost of a private school, I’d probably pick the state university. If cost were not a factor, then personally, small class sizes and selectivity would be more important to me than many of the other factors Alexandre mentions (because, to me, discussion and mentoring are key elements of liberal education.) A TA lecturing in a heavy foreign accent to 250 students may be passing information, but that’s not a very high standard for higher education. Is this just a stereotype or is it not fairly common in undergraduate classes at even the best state universities? Of course, for a well-prepared student who can bypass those classes, that issue sorta disappears.</p>

154

<p>

</p>

<p>this doesn’t happen. it’s very annoying to have to point this out in every other thread. TAs don’t lecture. For some classes, they lead discussion sections, but these are 4th year PhD students who will become professors next year. Public Universities aren’t any different from private universities with regard to this aspect. And actually this as a focal point of many discussions about public Universities confuses me, if you care so much about teaching, then why do you care if it’s a 4th year PhD?</p>

155

<p>“As far as employers go, how come Michigan isn’t as represented at the top investment banks/management consulting/tech firms as Stanford? It’s not even close in this regard.”</p>

<p>Actually by your own link the numbers are pretty close: 181 vs. 156. Michigan is the 5th most highly represented undergraduate institution on your whole list. Very impressive.</p>

<p>Clearly this proves conclusively that there are a large number of highly capable people at Michigan, and attending that university is not keeping them from landing placement in these top programs.</p>

<p>The percentage is lower because the student body population across the entire institution is more diverse, both in capabiltites and fields of interest, and a greater proportion of students there prefer the midwest.</p>

<p>But if you are a top student and considering attending there, there is ample reason to believe that you will be recognized as such by people evaluating your achievements, and can achieve top placements if you are good enough. </p>

<p>These people are obviously not being evaluated as some aggregate. They are evaluated based on their individual capabilties and by this standard they are well represented at this subset of the nation’s top professional programs. Fifth most highly represented overall indicates that there is quite a body of talent there, a point which will not escape evluators at the next rung.</p>

<p>It simply does not matter what a percentage across a whole multi-college university is. So long as there are large, segregable pools of talent there, you will be evaluated primarily by reference to the smaller pool that you are a member of there, not the aggregate. Moreover, individual applicants are 100% of a pool of one applicant, and they are evaluated individually on their own merits. If there are stupid people at a school and you, at the same school, are smart, do not expect that each of you will share the identical fate. Regardless of some aggregate percentages computed across your whole school. </p>

<p>The question before you is: if you are in fact good enough, can your school help propel you to achieve to your capabilties? Not everyone else there as some aggregate, but you, given your capabilities? Michigan is # 5 on your own link, clearly it didn’t hurt those students.</p>

156

<p>"It simply does not matter what a percentage across a whole multi-college university is. So long as there are large, segregable pools of talent there, you will be evaluated primarily by reference to the smaller pool that you are a member of there, not the aggregate. Moreover, individual applicants are 100% of a pool of one applicant, and they are evaluated individually on their own merits. If there are stupid people at a school and you, at the same school, are smart, do not expect that each of you will share the identical fate. Regardless of some aggregate percentages computed across your whole school. "</p>

<p>I agree. That’s what I see in the real world…outside of CC.</p>

157

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s good (if tiresome) to dispel stereotypes. But I don’t recall ever experiencing a TA leading a discussion section in my private college. The closest I came to this was in a break-out section where a TA managed the lab activities. Having TAs lead discussions would concern me even more than having TAs lecture on basic introductory material. If it’s a 4th year PhD, he or she might be very good (and of course, a professor has to start somewhere). But if it’s a seminar discussion of some important book or concept, I’d prefer it to be mentored by an experienced professor with a mature perspective. </p>

<p>At issue is not only the quality of the classroom experience. Also important is the exposure of senior, tenured faculty (people who have a stake in academic decision-making) to the perspectives of young students. </p>

<p>My outlook is influenced by my experiences as an undergraduate in a private college. Classes in the humanities and social sciences there typically focused on the discussion of primary source materials. The teaching tended to be Socratic. One method would be to lead off with a question that had challenged discussions in the past. I think this approach makes for a good learning environment but it depends heavily on small classes, experienced professors, and actively involved students.</p>

<p>If you don’t buy the “Great Books” concept, if you think college classes should focus on introducing students to the latest hot ideas and methods in the field, then in some disciplines a young professor or a 4th year PhD may be as current on these approaches, more “fresh”, than an older tenured professor.</p>

158

<p>

</p>

<p>Dook was the best team of the 90s, for sure, but it hasn’t done anything lately. It trails UNC in all time wins, national championships (5>3), and in the head-to-head matchup. Besides, the ESPN article was written when UNC had 2 national titles and Dook had 3. UNC has 5 national titles now and Dook still has…3. </p>

<p>Dook has slipped up big-time as of late, not advancing far in the tourney and losing repeatedly to its arch-rival. It may be a top 5 program, but it is in no way the best. Even the recruits are recognizing this now, and are thinking twice about Dook (i.e. Harrison Barnes).</p>

159

<p>Life after internet! Some people should do research on student’s blogs at each campus to find out the quality and environment of its</p>

160

<p>" Classes in the humanities and social sciences there typically focused on the discussion of primary source materials."</p>

<p>Primary sources are good. The problem with many small classes at some private schools is the students don’t come from different economic backgrounds so the discussions are skewed. For example, If you are taking an economic class with 10 students and 5 come from wealthy backgrounds you are not going to get a lot of diversity of thought from that group. Classes get too small and the talking is stilted.</p>

<p>You just have to watch CNBC to understand what I’m talking about.</p>