<p>This entire argument is pointless. It boils down to the issue of PA and PA is related to graduate school prestige. Absolute fact.</p>
<p>PA at USNWR relates to undergraduate pograms. Is it any school’s fault that they are superior in both?</p>
<p>UVa is a relatively small school in a growing state that is also popular with OOS kids in the heavily populated Northeast. I doubt admissions will get any easier anytime soon. That said, UVa has glaring academic weak areas in sciences and engineering as recognized in their own internal studies. They are trying to fix that without much success as top science and engineering profs need a support system UVa cannot currently offer. So they will be wise to focus on other areas of the liberal arts and things like busienss they do well and don’t cost much to fund (comparatively).</p>
<p>In my personal opinion, any league table that ranks Berkeley and Michigan outside of the top 20 is dubious. Both Berkeley and Michigan are at least better than Wasington U, Emory, Notre Dame and Vanderbilt.</p>
<p>Goodness, everyone is so ignorant.<br>
No one is saying these are “bad” institutions, but for undergraduate experience?
Yes UCB and Michigan are top 10 institutions, but they just are not as good for undergraduate as schools like WashU, Emory, ND, Vandy, Wake, BC, W&M, Tufts, etc. Look at class size, TA’s teaching classes, alumni giving rates (if alumni didn’t have a great experience they won’t give back). Everyone is trying to lump graduate and undergraduate in together, they are different!</p>
<p>willmingtonwave, Michigan and UCB are ranked higher in UNDERGRADUATE according to USNWR than some of the schools you mentioned were better . They are certainly better than them on the graduate level as well according to any ranking. They’re just better point blank period lol. On the UNDERGRADUATE level, Michigan and UCB have higher ranked programs than the schools you listed according to USNWR. That has been our point this entire time. This is why we believe they should certainly be ranked higher. Okay, some of the schools may be more selective but for all intents and purposes UCB and Michigan have better programs. </p>
<p>I’m tired of the condescending view of bigger schools. We do not have big classes. Larger school = Larger faculty resources. As a freshman in many INTRO level classes, I only had one class with 100+ students. The rest of the classes I took only had abnout 20-30 students.</p>
<p>Wake Forest, BC, William and Mary and Tufts aren’t even in the top 25 by any consensus even though they’re great schools. What’s the point of bringing them up if we’re talking about USNWR?</p>
<p>I can back Ibleedblue with the negative view of public schools and large classes. Here are my class sizes this upcoming fall at Clemson:</p>
<p>Chemistry Lecture: 88
Chemistry Lab: 20
Chinese + Lab: 22
Calculus: 25
English: 19
Intro To Engineering + Lab: 58</p>
<p>These are all non-honors classes and only my english class is being taught by a TA. The rest of the classes are taught by professors and there are no recitation sections with TA’s so professors are teaching all the classes a week.</p>
<p>Good luck with that Pierre. I bet when you get to Clemson, your classes at that level are much larger. Its a big school. They don’t employ hundreds of chemistry professors and hundreds of english professors.</p>
<p>This thread has devolved into the classic “my school is better than your school” which typifies the rankings threads and underscores why rankings are so insidious. Absurdity.</p>
<p>Its a popularity contest people. Plain and simple.</p>
<p>I am saying that the USWNR Rankings is severely flawed. Peer Assessment is pointless and is biased for research based schools. Schools that are in the south, have large greek life, big sports, are religiously affiliated, and don’t churn out research are hurt.</p>
<p>By the way, speaking of Clemson:
[Clemson</a> president gives low grade to other schools - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-06-12-clemson-rankings_N.htm]Clemson”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2009-06-12-clemson-rankings_N.htm)</p>
<p>It is a joke. Less than 50% of the Presidents even fill out the PA surveys. Take out the Peer Assessment and large research publics sink in the rankings. I have nothing against schools like that either. Most of the schools I am looking at for History graduate are larger public research schools like UNC, UGA, LSU, NC State, etc. So do not try to paint me like that. I just want a more honest methodology that truly tries to reveal the best undergraduate schools. </p>
<p>These rankings by hawkette: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/720445-undergraduate-education-ranking-what-counts.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/720445-undergraduate-education-ranking-what-counts.html</a>
provide a much better picture of Undergraduate experience and what really matters, not professors who are more interested in their own research than undergrads.</p>
<p>haha ghostbuster, I already have the class roster for all my classes so I think my counting would be more accurate :)</p>
<p>Finally if the OP was only given the magic top 25 but can’t get the LAC’s and 25-100 National Universities, it makes me question whether this list is legit or not. Dubious. Either you have the lists or you don’t.</p>
<p>Clemson gives class rosters to incoming freshmen? That is weird…and perhaps a violation of privacy rights and school regulations. How so?</p>
<p>they’re posted online after i login and after I’ve paid my tuition so I already know everyone who’s in my classes, i don’t think that would be a violation of privacy rights? I mean at most schools, there’s a student directory on their website so I don’t see how that would be violating anything.</p>
<p>I mean, that’s cool. No one is questioning the value or reputation of any school. There’s nothing insidious about questioning the methodology and results of an already established ranking publication until you use it to belittle something else. That is not at all my intention. The ranking is kind of suspect and flawed in general.</p>
<p>Research is only really prevalent (and funded) in the hard sciences and maybe engineering so majors in liberal arts, education, business and many other areas are not competing with major research for a profs time.<br>
Many if not most scientists are very happy to mentor sincere undergrads with a real interest in their area. Advanced level science classes tend to be much smaller than the general ed classes. The large research programs provide great opportunity for undergrads to work in research.</p>
<p>lol and oh well pierre0913, you should have picked michigan. :-P</p>
<p>I have to say wave, I agree with you. Colleges have a vested interest in rising in the rankings because attracting top students can equate to increased grants from the government, and success breeds success. Colleges are a business and they compete like all other business entities do. That being said, many college presidents abhor these rankings, as many of them have opted out of them. Some colleges are more obsessed with them than others. Don’t forget that a lot of Ivy Grads (and Michigan too!) are employed at so called lower ranked schools. So they can’t be that bad. In fact, one of the first things I do in evaluating a college is to look at the depth of the faculty and their credentials (knowing that a PhD does NOT mean they can teach…some of my best professors were from so called no name schools!) </p>
<p>I wouldnt go to a large public college for the life of me. Michigan, UCLA, Berkeley, UNC, Ohio State, Arizona, Texas …pick one. Just not my bag and what I wanted out of a college experience. I wanted a school with a total student body of under 15,000 and preferably an undergraduate level below 10,000…even much smaller. For someone else, they couldn’t imagine going to a school that wasnt a large public. I had neighbors who went out of state to Georgia precisely because it was a huge public flagship. Whatever turns you on. </p>
<p>The only thing that matters is that kids pick the right school for them and that when they graduate, hopefully in four years or perhaps less, they come out well rounded, well educated and are measured by their character, not their starting salary. If you have succeeded in all of the above, good for you.</p>
<p>I know a few people going to Michigan next year, they’re very active in the community and very smart so I have a good feel for Michigan so far haha</p>
<p>and IBleedBlue, I should’ve applied to Michigan but my dad didn’t want me (he doesn’t want me going to school in the state of Michigan…though surprisingly South Carolina isn’t that far behind Michigan in the unemployment rate) to so I never got around to it, I’ll see what I think about transferring somewhere after my freshman year.</p>
<p>ghostbuster, I will not be graduating in 4 years because I plan to do co-op which is a 5 year program. Other than that, I absolutely agree with your last paragraph.</p>
<p>Alot of people in my family went to SC and NC universities…mainly clemson and nc state. I love it down there! and the weather is so much better. How far is it from myrtle beach?</p>