<p>The whole idea of ranking undergraduate teaching seems like a true exercise in futility. The qualities that make a good teacher are subjective and vary according to the individual. I personally learn from uninterrupted lectures and isolated time to struggle with work. Only when I run into trouble is dialogue back-and-forth helpful, and that trouble is unlikely to happen in class. Other people learn differently.</p>
<p>Even if you managed to find common attributes, they would probably be well-nigh impossible to measure.</p>
You do raise a valid point, xiggi. How many profs should we deduct from Stanford’s and Harvard’s totals? Surely their medical school profs don’t teach undergrads, right? Or perhaps an easier way would be to just add Berkeley’s NAS totals to our medical school campus in San Francisco (UCSF)…since Berkeley doesn’t technically have a medical school.</p>
<p>Oh, UCB, you won’t hear much disagreement from my corner. After all, don’t we all want the same thing, namely a ranking system that actually does what it is advertised to do. As you know, my problem with the rankings starts with the faulty interpretations of data and ends with the attempts to explain the inexplicable with misleading correlations. </p>
<p>In the case of the NAS numbers, I actually support your approach … entirely. After all, I am pretty sure that it would not be too hard to establish a pretty good correlation (that word again) between the size of the ELITE graduate schools and the number of NAS members. Then, the next step would be to use the numbers you posted earlier, you know the ones that suggest a correlation between the number of NAS members and the PA. Ergo, ipso facto --or whatever the correct latin expression is-- one could suggest that there is a correlation between the *size *of the graduate school at elite schools and their PA number. </p>
<p>And, contrary to popular belief, that is something that does not bother me at all. Again, as long as the “methodology” is disclosed with integrity.</p>
<p>Anyway, a new cycle of ranking debates is about to start any minute now. What’s the status of that Morse Countdown again? As far as I am concerned, it won’t be much different from past year. One or two changes to provoke Enquirer-type discussions and the same overall feel. A lot of comments by people who do not understand the data is from last year. </p>
<p>hey UCB, what about the numbers for Smith and Harvey Mudd for my good friend xiggi? :)</p>
<p>but, I have to disagree with adding SF to Cal’s numbers. Based on my history reading of the near bk SF hospital (which grew into a campus), it never actually was part of Cal per se, just the University of California as whole. And, then they had to turn south and open a Southern Branch. Perhaps they wanted to surround those Farmers in Palo Alto :)</p>