<p>
Sure are…but all are sorta plain vanilla.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If the PA was not such an imperfect and manipulated tool, this statement would not be such a silly contradiction. If the PA truly recognized distinction and quality in UNDERGRADUATE education, it would be a bonus to be considered a LAC. </p>
<p>Of course, having a PA with a an ounce of integrity is well beyond the capacity or intention of Morse and his “scientists” and also quite contrary to the stated objective of the PA to be a tool that boosts the ranking of public universities by incorporating … intangibles.</p>
<p>^ xiggi, outta curiosity, what makes “great UNDERGRADUATE education” distinctive? I had some very good, caring teachers at my huge, impersonal public university… <em>gasp!</em></p>
<p>UCB, did I ever say that it was a rarity to have “some very good, caring teachers at my huge, impersonal public university?” </p>
<p>I am sure that, by now, you know that my issues are with the technical and integrity aspects of the PA. Allowing for instance people such as the academic pirates who filled the survey on behalf of Wisconsin and Clemson to be part of the system speaks volume about this entire exercise. </p>
<p>Now, as far as education, the problem is not the absence of caring and competent teachers. The problems stems from giving credit to teachers who are NOT very involved with educating UGs, and relying on inexperienced and incompetent students to deliver a portion of one’s education.</p>
<p>[Gee</a> heading to China - Business First of Columbus](<a href=“http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2010/06/14/daily14.html]Gee”>http://www.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2010/06/14/daily14.html)</p>
<p>Today is my bday!! So, please excuse my ‘excessive’ tOSU posts!! lol~~~</p>
<p>[Consultant’s</a> long-range plan for Ohio State calls for more housing, greener campus - Business First of Columbus](<a href=“http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2010/06/21/story2.html]Consultant’s”>http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2010/06/21/story2.html)</p>
<p>I’ve briefly checked ~40 schools that are currently ranked above or below (+/-20 spots) tOSU, and found no school has excelled in ALL indicators like the Ohio State!! Therefore, I would be very depressed if Ohio State not moving into the 1st page of USNWR ranking this year! </p>
<p>[Ohio</a> aims to boost college graduation rate | The Columbus Dispatch](<a href=“http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/03/ohio-aims-to-boost-college-graduation-rate.html]Ohio”>http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/03/03/ohio-aims-to-boost-college-graduation-rate.html)</p>
<p>P.S. I feel old… lol</p>
<p>xiggi, my point was that I had some very caring and good teachers…who also happen to be leading experts/thinkers in their respective field. That is what distinguishes an academic department from say a collection of highly competent teachers who are not also world renowned researchers.</p>
<p>
You have brought this up several times, but I’ve yet to see any concrete evidence that top research universities have different policies for their GSIs when it comes to teaching assignments.</p>
<p>“Of course, having a PA with a an ounce of integrity is well beyond the capacity or intention of Morse and his “scientists” and also quite contrary to the stated objective of the PA to be a tool that boosts the ranking of public universities by incorporating … intangibles.”</p>
<p>So xiggi, am I to understand that you also acknowledge that the remaining 75% of the USNWR formula is a tool that boosts the ranking of private universities by incorporating…data that private universities can manipulate at will?</p>
<p>Would US News really allow every top 25 universities to change their rankings, except for about 3 universities? I don’t know. I find it hard to believe things will change that dramatically.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not quite, Alexandre. Morse and his staff are relying on more than the PA to reach their objectives. While the PA is clearly playing its part, there are several other avenues, including the expected graduation rates that are nothing but a way to eradicating the impact of lower SAT scores. There are also plenty of elements that are in crying need for a rigorous revision such as the top 10% from schools that are mostly recruiting instate.</p>
<p>xiggi, I’m still waiting on your evidence concerning TAs.</p>
<p>
Outcomes, xiggi…not just the inputs…;)</p>
<p>You could also scrub that finanical resources rank which rewards universities with medical schools…</p>
<p>And tell me ziggi, you see nothing wrong with the alumni donation rate, faculty resources and financial resources ranks? Those seem, perfectly impartial to you? You do not think that they are designed to help private universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Brown and Cornell might actually be taking in better kids than Chicago, it isn’t so clear cut. Caltech is a specialized school which takes in more narrowly focused academic kids, counselors might not be impressed by this. Also I wouldn’t say Brown and Cornell aren’t academically excellent. Chicago and Caltech are world renowned for their research, which while somewhat valuable to undergrads, is not the most important factor in educating them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Supporting students who need help and having them graduate is just as important as challenging students academically. Having significantly greater proportions of a college drop out altogether is definitely a bad sign. It’s one thing to challenge students, entirely another to not be able to get students through their 4/5/6 years. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>actually I don’t think it does, Caltech is definitely viewed by most as more prestigious than Dartmouth or UPenn. UCB is viewed as more prestigious than Emory, Rice or even Wash U. CMU > USC in terms of prestige. Do you define “academic quality” merely through peer assessment? </p>
<p>University Presidents know a huge amount about college quality, but unfortunately have distorting incentives, such as rating their own school higher than the schools around it in the ranking, to try to influence their school’s rank. Counselors don’t have these same incentives as strongly. Peer assessment is a valuable metric, but by no means free from bias and manipulation.</p>
<p>I don’t understand the fuss behind the alumni donation rankings…do state schools like Berkeley and Michigan not solicit donations from their alumni base?</p>
<p>^ They sure do…I get a solicitation about once a month - I give my share. However, a lot of my fellow alums think that since their state tax dollars go to support the university, they don’t have to contribute extra.</p>
<p>Actually LDB, it is not common for public universities to solicit. It just is not part of their culture. In fact, many public universities (Michigan included) have rules that forbid them from contacting alums freely. So that is one reason why comparing alumni donation rates is not fair. But beyond that, public universities are at a serious disadvantage for other reasons:</p>
<p>1) They typically have much larger alumni bases, making it significantly harder on the alumni offices to reach a large percentage of alums. Generally, public universities target a small percentage of their alums whom they know will donate large sums of money. Private universities have much smaller alumni bases and can reach a larger segment of that network. That is why LACs have such high alumni donation rates. A whopping 31 out of the top 50 USNWR LACs have alumni donation rates of 40% or more, compared to just 5 of the top 50 USNWR universities.</p>
<p>2) Private universities have a history of soliciting donations from alums. This was their primary means of raising funds from the start. Public universities were handsomely funded by their respective states until the late 70s. It wasn’t until the 1980s that state universities started soliciting alums. They are improving in this domain, but they lag private universities by more than half a century.</p>
<p>At any rate, alumni donation rates should not be used as a metric as it does not measure quality of education or alumni satisfaction.</p>
<p>“However, a lot of my fellow alums think that since their state tax dollars go to support the university, they don’t have to contribute extra.”</p>
<p>UCB, although I am sure that was a common way of thinking in the 70s, I think most alums today recognize that tax dollars are not nearly enough to support a university of Cal’s caliber in this day and age. Most Michigan alums I know recognize that at any rate. Unfortunately, the University does not have the mindset or the means to reach a large segment of the alumni network. I graduated from Michigan in 1996. I have never received a single letter from Michigan soliciting a donation. None of my friends who attended Michigan have ever received such a letter as far as I know. Itr is just not part of the culture.</p>
<p>^ Hmmm…seems kinda surprising to me that Michigan doesn’t solicit any donations from alumni. I get phone calls, letters from the College of Chemistry - my resident college, flyers and magazines from the athletic department, and more recently, the 10 year reunion campaign. Perhaps I’m targeted more aggressively because I’ve donated in the past.</p>
<p>While I agree that the Alumni Giving statistic should not be used in the rankings, at least not for the publics, there are several publics that do an excellent job with this:</p>
<p>29% Georgia Tech
28% Clemson
23% U Virginia
22% U North Carolina
22% W&M</p>
<p>Could it be that southerners like and appreciate their State Us more than those in other regions??</p>
<p>Here is the link to the guidance counselor rankings from last year.
[Best</a> Colleges - Education - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-counselor-rank]Best”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-counselor-rank)</p>
<p>Georgetown way up. BU, Cuse, Fordham and GW too high. Kansas tied with UCSD?</p>
<p>^I actually think that ranking is decent. I think adding counselor rankings wouldn’t be a terrible idea. While I think academics’ opinions certainly are more important, having a viewpoint of “prestige/quality” (since that’s essentially all PA is…) from a different set of individuals who also deal with institutions of higher learning a lot is a positive thing, in my mind. Brown and Georgetown, two schools habitually underranked, would benefit from this ranking.</p>