<p>lol. I said "TAs are graduate students", I thought it was pretty obvious that I meant graduate rankings is correlated to undergraduate education, since discussions and review sessions are led sometimes by TAs, which are of higher quality at Berkeley than at say... Notre Dame. </p>
<p>TAs are a tremendous resource, if you forget how to evaluate a rather complex integral, although some professors will help you, it is more likely that your TA will help more.</p>
<p>also, that your assumption that private status college students are more intelligent is not right. It may be the case for Idaho State vs. Dartmouth, but it's not a valid assumption for the elite publics like Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan and UVA.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>What do your numbers mean in Post #17?</p>
<p>^ I believe that's top 10, 20, and 30 programs respectively alongside the US News undergrad ranking.</p>
<p>Anyway, this shows quite a bit. The number of departments/programs here could actually be more extensive (see sources like National Research Council). If you look at other rankings for graduate and professional programs and couple them with undergraduate rankings, I think it comes out as something like this.</p>
<p>Tier 1: Harvard, Stanford
Tier 2: Yale, Penn, Columbia, MIT, Berkeley, UChicago
Tier 3: Cornell, Princeton, Michigan, UCLA, Northwestern, Duke</p>
<p>There are probably more schools in Tier 3 but that's all I can think of at this moment.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Who cares? At the undergraduate level, specific department strength/quality isn't that relevant. I would rather look at the SAT scores of incoming students, job placement, research/internship opportunities, alumni giving, student/faculty ratio, etc. In all those areas, Cornell and Berkeley falter quite a bit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To suggest that Cornell "falters" to a place like Duke in terms of SAT scores, job placement, or research opportunities offered to an undergraduate is pretty naive. Once you control for the differing characteristics across the two institutions, Cornell and Duke are pretty much at the same level in terms of the undergraduate experience. The only thing Duke takes the cake on is alumni giving, which is probably more a function of Duke's basketball success than anything else.</p>
<p>Duke's a great school, and can more than stand on its merits. But so is/can Cornell. No need to needlessly bash one and place the other upon a pedestal.</p>
<p>IF you throw the NRC rankings into the mix Berkeley emerges to the top tier. UCLA does pretty well too as do schools like JHU, Illinois and Wisconsin</p>
<p>
[quote]
^ Add in UCSF (Berkeley's defacto medical school) and it has 14/14 programs ranked in top 10...tied with 'furd.
[/quote]
Na uh. UCSF, other than being a UC in the same vicinity, hasn't ever had any affiliation with Cal. Cal trying to claim UCSF as its defacto medical school is like Cal trying to claim the Golden Gate Bridge as its defacto bridge.</p>
<p>Posts like these just make me laugh. What are you trying to achieve by counting how many strong graduate programs a university has? Going to college is about becoming a more educated person, not about how well your college does in the graduate school rankings. </p>
<p>Also, how did you pick which graduate programs to include? Was it just the subjects you're interested in? If you're going to do something as preposterous as this, at least make it fair and include all the types of graduate programs that U.S. News ranks. </p>
<p>Anyway if you want to learn about the quality of a school, it's pretty simple. First, you look at how small the classes are. I don't care how many Nobel Peace Prizes your professor has won if there are so many students in the class that he doesn't even know your name. Second, take a look at the graduation rate. It's the best way to find out how strong the student body is and whether the school is doing what it needs to to make sure students graduate. </p>
<p>For college, it's just silly to worry about prestige. You wanna worry about prestige, go to graduate school. And if you think U.S. News's rankings can capture the way every school is perceived through its peer assessment score, you're just fooling yourself.</p>
<p>
</p>
[quote]
As the Great War ended and the nation passed into a prosperous new decade, the single most important issue for the UC Medical School continued to be the problem of the split campus. In the wake of the 1906 earthquake, the displacement of the sciences from San Francisco to Berkeley was viewed as a temporary measure. With science instruction ensconced in teaching laboratories at Berkeley while clinical training was centered at the SF County Hospital and Parnassus Heights in San Francisco, students were forced to function in two very different environments. Despite much rhetoric about consolidation of the campuses and frequent pronouncements of plans for change, the rift would continue to plague the medical school and the university until well after the Second World War.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
As early as 1911, Dean D'ancona identified the split as a mistake, echoing the judgment of the Flexner report that elaborated on the dangers involved in a geographically divided medical curriculum where "busy physicians...[do] not breathe the bracing atmosphere of adjacent laboratories." The UC Regents were aware of the need for consolidation, but preferred San Francisco as the location for the medical school, and in April of 1912, they resolved that the medical school should be reunited in San Francisco as soon as possible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
And if you think U.S. News's rankings can capture the way every school is perceived through its peer assessment score, you're just fooling yourself.
[/quote]
And if you think class size and graduation rates can capture the way every school is perceived, you're just fooling yourself.</p>
<p>Nobody said this was a definitive ranking. PA score asks for opinion on "distinguished" academic *programs<a href="i.e.%20majors">/i</a>...not undergraduate student qualifications.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm rather new to CC, and as I have expressed elsewhere have been simply shocked at how much Cornell is mocked on this forum....while the Duke/Vanderbilt/Rice etc... boosters seem to be gunning to knock it down so their own schools can rise in prestige perception.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha...I feel your pain as Northwestern experiences similar things. Look at the following statement from a <em>high school senior</em> that's going to Duke in the fall:
[quote]
In pretty much every academic area (except business schools- kellogg clearly has the advantage there and the arts) Duke is better. There's no comparison.
[/quote]
But the FACTS say:
Northwestern 4-6-4 (14)
Duke 2-6-4 (12)</p>
<p>Graduate program rankings matter because they are based on the fact that these programs have stellar faculty, the people who write your letters of recommendation. They also speak to the resources that the university has along with the commitment to excellent scholarship. This also means the programs have high quality graduate students (which frankly are better scholars than the faculty members sometimes) who will also teach at major institutions. Finally, if you read the entire thread you will know that the US News rankings have already been included.</p>
<p>Not sure what's wrong with these Duke posters around here. I guess they bash other comparable schools so they can sleep better at night? I've always had a fond feeling towards Duke, but now I am so turned off by the snobbish attitude that these Duke students have been displaying and I am sure I will go nowhere near Duke in future. I actually was an acepted student at Duke last year, and was seriously considering going there. I am glad that I turned it down, I wouldn't like a bunch of snobby kids who think that they are something. And, to be honest, Cornell isn't even underrated in the real life. People respect the college and they do, in general, know that it is a terrific school. I haven't met a single person in real life asserting that Duke is a superior school to Cornell. I've heard that HYPSM + Wharton are better than Cornell, though.</p>
<p>yes they are. Like I'll say time and time again, Cornell is an EXCELLENT school, but they have benefited greatly from their inclusion in the Ivy League since this athletic coalition was formed in the mid-20th century. Let's say Colgate had joined. They would no doubt have traded places with Cornell in the department of "prestige and elitism". Whether Duke or Cornell or Northwestern or Rice or Wash U is better is something that people have to decide for themselves based on numbers, atmosphere, and other variables.</p>
<p>"TAs are a tremendous resource, if you forget how to evaluate a rather complex integral, although some professors will help you, it is more likely that your TA will help more."</p>
<p>Well this is where small schools help. Anytime I couldn't handle a "difficult integral" and none of the other students in my class were available to help me, I've always just gone straight to the professor, and they answer me quite pleasantly. I've never gone to a TA for help.</p>
<p>how do these rankings correlate with being overrated or underrated- the rankings are ratings themselves- so all this is somewhat stupid- although interesting to see how the schools ranked</p>
<p>
[quote]
yes they are. Like I'll say time and time again, Cornell is an EXCELLENT school, but they have benefited greatly from their inclusion in the Ivy League since this athletic coalition was formed in the mid-20th century. Let's say Colgate had joined. They would no doubt have traded places with Cornell in the department of "prestige and elitism".
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, why single out Cornell? Cornell is merely only one of the 8 ivy schools, and according to your logic, then, other ivies should be benefitting from this ivy status and they should all plummet in prestige if they weren't in the ivy league, then? Cornell's prestige and reputation comes from its own academic merits, not its Ivy League tag. Even before the foundation of the Ivy League conference, Cornell was widely viewed as one of the new leading universities in the country and the founder of Stanford University visited Cornell, Harvard, and MIT when looking for some ideas upon which to build his new school. Also, Cornell's fame, which is prevalent especially overseas, has a lot to do with its extensive research outputs and its distinguished programs in Ph.d. programs, and others like architecture, law, MBA, medicine, hotel management, etc., all of which rank top 15-20 in the nation. </p>
<p>Consider a school like Dartmouth. At the international level and many times even at domestic level, it is not as well known as Cornell. It is still an Ivy League school, just like Cornell. The fact that Dartmouth focuses on undergrads and doesn't focus on researches or other marketable grad school programs are the primary reasons that Dartmouth isn't as well known as Cornell overseas. Another example. Stanford and UC Berkeley, too, are widely considered to be among the best universities in the world by many academics both within U.S. and the rest of the world. More so than Brown, Dartmouth, and even Cornell. Why? I repeat, it is because of these schools' distinguished and remarkable academic programs and impressive research outputs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And if you think class size and graduation rates can capture the way every school is perceived, you're just fooling yourself.
[/quote]
Oh my God, you're missing the whole point! The point is that trying to determine prestige is futile, whereas if you actually look at the pure numbers of a school, its true quality can be determined. Just to give an example, there are plenty of people on the West Coast who haven't even heard of Duke. I even know of someone who went to Cornell, moved to the West Coast, and hadn't even heard of Duke - in other words, I'm not just talking about those living on the margin.<br>
[quote]
Graduate program rankings matter because they are based on the fact that these programs have stellar faculty, the people who write your letters of recommendation
[/quote]
The same faculty that teach graduate programs aren't always the same faculty that teach undergraduates. I don't think what is known about graduate school faculty can just be extrapolated to undergraduate faculty like that.<br>
[quote]
Finally, lgellar, if you read the entire thread you will know that the US News rankings have already been included
[/quote]
I never said that U.S. News rankings weren't included; I said that some of U.S. News's graduate school rankings weren't included such as the ones for education. Trying to determine which types of graduate schools to use is just too arbitrary; it would be better to include them all if you're trying to make a statement about something like this.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cornell is an EXCELLENT school, but they have benefited greatly from their inclusion in the Ivy League since this athletic coalition was formed in the mid-20th century.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cornell's prestige comes not from its Ivy League status but from the top-notch academic departments. Otherwise, schools like Penn or Brown or Dartmouth would be more prestigous than they are now. Brown or Dartmouth is virtually unknown in most of the US and internationally while Cornell is known as an academic powerhouse. It has nothing to do with being in the Ivy League.</p>