Us news rankings 2011

College Search & Selection
441

<p>

</p>

<p>They don’t cover the Northwest Territories in history class at Princeton?</p>

442

<p>Sarcasm is oftentimes lost here at CC…</p>

443

<p>I’m sorry, its very hard to detect without at least some form of smilies.</p>

444

<p>

“Leveling the playing field”?.. :D</p>

445

<p>UCBChemE…careful you might get banned, you are flirting with danger…</p>

<p>on your youtube post, believe it or not, I was told and threatened with banning on this website for posting a college youtube.</p>

<p>apparently it is against TOS for CC to post youtube links, EVEN IF IT IS ABOUT A COLLEGE.</p>

446

<p>Going college vs college mode:
Well, to answer the OP: I really believe this is a solid list of schools based on a combination national prestige, selectivity, and academics. The USNEWS 2011 CAN look like this, but I doubt it will.
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/2885267-post115.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/2885267-post115.html&lt;/a&gt;
However, I would switch Duke with Caltech. Then it looks perfect (although they’re in the same tier group already, so it doesn’t really matter). I also hope UVA to be the top public school, outranking Berkeley and make it to top 20 :)</p>

447

<p>I also wish the US News take this data to consideration: <a href=“http://mup.asu.edu/research2009.pdf[/url]”>http://mup.asu.edu/research2009.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I wonder if the rankings will somehow be “better” by incorporating research expenditures.</p>

448

<p>so thesaiyans, are you saying that for undergraduate rankings you want the Graduate Med School research expenditures to be taken into account?</p>

449

<p>Why should UVa be going up?? It has no major standing in most science and engineering fields. It’s basically a good liberal arts college and business school. It is one of the few schools with flat to declining research funding. That is a poor reflection on the faculty.</p>

450

<p>I have to say, TheSaiyan, your reasoning escapes me. Given how few undergrads get involved in research at that level or that depends on that kind of funding, I cannot imagine how it is relevant enough to the undergraduate experience to include it in the calculations.</p>

451

<p>Opps, I’m incredibly sorry fallenchemist and JohnAdams. You’ve caught me. I didn’t mean them at all, and I was severely confused (drunk?) when I posted that.
I apologize.</p>

452

<p>^^^LOL! Hope the hangover isn’t too bad.</p>

453

<p>TheSaiy - careful with fallenchemist - he is so good at debating pro-Tulane that he might just convince you to transfer there from your graduate school situation.</p>

<p>ha!</p>

454

<p>Hahaha yeah, you guys are funny.</p>

455

<p>I wouldn’t consider that Matt. Our applications declined that year, and the admission rate increased some. Not to mention, for class of 2013, the SATs were slightly lower. We have nothing going for us this time since our peers generally saw increases in such areas. At least slightly more enrolled, but I don’t think that’ll help. I see us at about the same spot or 19-20.</p>

456

<p>I am curious of the 2011 ranking, especially knowing the changes done I am curious on how some of the Big Ten schools will rate.</p>

457

<p>Death, taxes, and Barrons slamming UVa…</p>

458

<p>Please show me the inaccurate part??</p>

459

<p>Nothing inaccurate.</p>

460

<p>I think Chicago will overtake Penn soon enough. IMHO, it has the best chance to join the likes of HYPSM on USNWR because it still has so much room to improve in the calculations used to formulate the ranking.</p>