<p>Xiggi, the 75% is not based on objective data and you know it. The faculty resources and financial resources rankings are COMPLETELY distorted and manipulated by private university and the alumni donations rank is completely biased against the nature of public universities as they have far more alumni and no history of courting them for donations. If that 75% were consistantly reported, several public universities would be ranked among the top 20.</p>
<p>Actually, I do not know that the faculty resources and financial resources rankings are COMPLETELY distorted and manipulated by private university. </p>
<p>Are you telling me that financial resources (and their related impact on the quality of education and quality of life of undergraduates) has been misrepresented by USNews?</p>
<p>But again, none of this discussion matters much. We both will read the 2011 report and put in down thinking it was distorted … AGAIN. :)</p>
<p>xiggi, the way private universities report class size and student to faculty ratios is very questionable. I know for a fact that Columbia and Harvard have over 10,000 students in the colleges of Arts and Sciences and Engineering, and faculties or roughly 1,000 supporting those 10,000+ students and yet somehow, they manage to claim ratios of 6:1 and 7:1 respectively? </p>
<p>As for financial resources, the USNWR does not take lower, subsidized in-state tuition into consideration when evaluating financial aid donations, nor does it adjust for economies of scale and operational efficiency.</p>
<p>The alumni donations ranking is a complete joke too.</p>
<p>I always look at the bottom line. Bottom line Xiggi, any ranking that does not have at least one public university among the top 10 and at least 2 or 3 more public universities among the top 20 is trying to sell something.</p>
<p>Welcome back, xiggi!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Case in point is not a private university but a public one…enter UCLA. Compare the financial resources rank of UCLA versus Cal. The only difference is UCLA includes their medical school spending. So much for a ranking wholeheartedly dedicated to the almighty undergradute “experience”. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>alex,
For UNDERGRADUATE education, there are many terrific colleges in America, but making that judgment is not based on whether a college is private or public. It is based on the environments that the colleges themselves offer to the average UNDERGRADUATE. </p>
<p>The factors that most influence what the UNDERGRADUATE student will encounter are:</p>
<ol>
<li> The quality of the student body (smarter students are preferred)</li>
<li> The size of the classroom (smaller classes are preferred)</li>
<li> The quality of the instruction (high teaching marks and profs teaching is preferred)</li>
<li> The institutional resources (more money is preferred) and a willingness to spend it on undergraduates for things like advising, counseling, financial aid, etc.</li>
</ol>
<p>The point is not that the publics can’t offer the above; the point is that there are many colleges that do it better. If one accepts these as the base criterion, no public belongs in the Top 25, much less the Top 10. This is not an anti-public statement. This is a resounding statement about the strength and commitment of the schools that offer the best environments for UNDERGRADUATES. </p>
<p>Conversely, if you want to rank based on a school’s research reputation crafted by its faculty in tandem with its strength in graduate school education, I concur that the rankings would change and several publics would likely be included in the Top 25. But the interest of the thread and of most folks looking for a college is what will be their experience when they get to a college, not what some unknown academic thinks of a college’s research reputation.</p>
<p>Hawkette, I was referring to undergraduate education. For graduate education, Cal is anywhere between #1 and #3 and Michigan is #6 or #8. A bunch of other publics (Wisconsin, UCLA, Texas, Washington, UIUC, UNC, UCSD etc…) would make the top 25. But when I post on this forum, I always refer to undergraduate education. Any ranking that does not ranka powerhouse such as Cal or Michigan in or around the top 10 is not accurate as far as I am concerned. </p>
<p>Try to understand that my criteria are different from yours and just as valid. I certainly think your criteria are important. but honestly, one can find what they need atvirtually any top 100 university or college. At Michigan, most classes I took (with the exception of maybe 5 or 6) had 6-30 students. And I do not regret my large classes either. Intermediate Microeconomics with Hal Varian, History with Sidney Fine and Chemistry with Brian Coppola, Political Science with Ray Tanter or Ken Lieberthal were all awesome classes, even if there were 100-200 students enrolled in those classes. All of my classes were taught by professors and with the exception of maybe a handful of classes, those professors were not merely considered world authorities in their field, they were also excellent and caring instructors. Furthermore, like any student in college, I took courses that corresponded to my level and ability. As such, most students I interacted with were pretty strong academically. Of course, we did not share SAT results with each other, but most of them chose Michigan over other top universities and like me, most of them ended up going to top graduate schools or went on to get offers in excellent companies. When I graduated from college, my 3.45 GPA was good enough to get me into two top 20 Economics PhD programs and landed me jobs with major companies in NYC and London. I am sure students at virtually any top university can boast of similar experiences. Virtually all my friends at Michigan did.</p>
<p>As such, those factors of yours, although important, arenot differentiating factors as far as I am concerned. What separates universities in my opinion in the presences of a World class faculty and World class facilities availlable to both undergraduate and graduate students. </p>
<p>I do not expect you to agree with me Hawkette, but I expect you to understand that we each have our standards, and mine are set pretty high…as are yours I am sure.</p>
<p>alex,
Re your personal standards, I don’t dispute them, but they do little to illuminate a discussion making institutional comparisons. Nonetheless, your point is instructive, ie, that an individual’s experience at a great many schools can be excellent. I don’t think anyone would disagree with that, including me. </p>
<p>However, what you are relating is your experience, not to mention that it is dated, ie, from the early/mid-1990s. Frankly, that is a very long time ago and things do change and evolve. Most informed observers of the US college scene, outside of the closed world of academia, have seen many colleges rise significantly since your attended college. It is truly astounding how many very good college choices we have available to us in all corners of this country. </p>
<p>As for making distinctions between institutions, perhaps you can improve upon my suggested measurements for comparing the UNDERGRADUATE experience/environment/education that is available at America’s colleges. I look forward to your thoughts on this.</p>
<p>^ Hawkette, are you saying Michigan’s offerings have gotten worse? I’d say a majority of the kids at places like Michigan had the same experience Alex did in the '90s. College hasn’t changed that much…:)</p>
<p>Also what hasn’t changed are the elite universities ability to attract a higher proportion of academic (faculty) talent versus the “up and comers”. The student gap has definitely been closed (mostly due to Tidal Wave II floating all boats)…the faculty gap not so much. It is the faculty that brings distinction to academic programs.</p>
<p>hawkette, Michigan has improved over the years. I visit the University at least once a year and the university has spent over $1 billion on improving its faciltities since I graduated. Students I know who attend the University today describe Michigan much as I remember it. Some professors have retired (or died) since I left, but equally good faculty step up and carry on.</p>
<p>At any rate, I cannot really add to your list of criteria because I personally do not believe that the quality of a university can be measured or captured statistically. That is why I believe rankings are generally flawed. As you see with many of my groupings, I tend to be pretty inclusive. Of course, that’s when I am covering quality of undergraduate education. When it comes to institutitional quality, I am not nearly as sweeping.</p>
<p>As I often say Hawkette, to me (and this is only my opinion) what separates universities isn’t statistical. I firmly believe that the quality of a university’s faculty, facilities and curriculum are what set it apart.</p>
<p>ucb & alex,
No question that some students can get a quality undergraduate experience at a place like U Michigan or many other colleges. But things change/evolve there and elsewhere and thus relative offerings/strength of environment also change. While I don’t have the complete data set to make full comparisons to alex’s days in the early/mid 1990s, my claim is that there are many places which today offer a superior environment based on the criteria of: </p>
<ol>
<li>The quality of the student body (smarter students are preferred)</li>
<li>The size of the classroom (smaller classes are preferred)</li>
<li>The quality of the instruction (high teaching marks and profs teaching is preferred)</li>
<li>The institutional resources (more money is preferred) and a willingness to spend it on undergraduates for things like advising, counseling, financial aid, etc.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>Re student quality, as UCB notes, there has been an enormous broadening of student quality and the main beneficiaries of this have been the privates, not the publics. If you like I can cite many datapoints, but I would hope that you would accept this fact. There is now consistently very high student quality at several dozen colleges around the USA, the great majority of which are private. </p>
<p>Re classroom/environment measurements, one can point to the USNWR Faculty Resources data. In 1992, while alex was a student at U Michigan, the school ranked 35th on this measurement. Today it ranks 74th. I don’t know if this reflects some change in methodology or the fact that the state of Michigan became an economic basket case over this period of time, but the drop-off was materially worse than other state Us that have also seen their state funding decline, eg, UC Berkeley (from 24th to 35th), U Virginia (29th to 35th), etc. The differences are much sharper and more negative in comparison with the nation’s top privates, including all of the USNWR Top 20. Nearly all of them either maintained or improved their position. </p>
<p>Re the classroom instruction, based on the various sources that I have consulted for institutional comparisons of student opinion (CP, PR, Sparknotes, BW, NSSE, etc.) about the quality of instruction, these more loudly trumpet the high-quality, high-touch environments of other colleges. </p>
<p>Finally, re institutional resources, endowment per capita measurements place U Michigan outside of the Top 50 colleges in the USA. Furthermore, on measurements such as the USNWR Financial Resources rank, U Michigan places outside of the Top 35. As for willingness to spend for undergrads, consider financial aid, eg, while U Michigan meets 100% of the need of its IS students, it only meets 62% of the financial need for its OOS students. This is a deficit to U Virginia and U North Carolina which, though having small endowments when measured absolutely, still meet 100% of all of their students’ financial needs. In addition, there are more than 25 top privates which also meet 100% of the financial needs of all of their students. </p>
<p>My point is not to bash U Michigan—you brought it up, not me—but to instruct that there are plenty of places that provide superior settings and make larger efforts to assist their undergrads. And my sense is that this gap has grown since alex’s days there in the early/mid 1990s. That doesn’t make it a bad place, but it might help demonstrate that things don’t stand still, even in the world of American colleges.</p>
<p>
Yes, and no question that some students can get a quality undergraduate experience at a place like an elite, small private university or LAC. To each his own.</p>
<p>
Hmmm…I think publics have seen increases in average SAT scores as much as privates.</p>
<p>
Well let’s look at what factors go into that “faculty resources” ranking:
Look up those statistics for Michigan from 1992 and compare to today and you’ll find your answer.</p>
<p>Many colleges can game that measure by having classes of 19 students and 49…inefficiently reward/pay incompetent teachers…include grad students in the student faculty ratio calc…etc.</p>
<p>
And endowment measures do not include public state funding (albeit decreasing in recent years)…it’s not an apples to apples comparison.</p>
<p>
If a public university meets 100% of need for in-state students, that’s fantastic. Why the need to subsidize out of state students with tax payer money? It’s the college’s decision. It’s likely UVA and UNC need to provide financial incentive in order to attract OOS students that UMich doesn’t need to offer.</p>
<p>ucb,
I know that you and other public defenders like to portray the privates as malicious manipulators of data and so I deliberately included a few other State Us in my comparisons. LOL. But anyway, it’s not a public vs private thing. At least not to me. There are differences in what the average undergraduate will experience at various colleges. Looking at those differences and calculating their importance to the individual is what college search is all about. </p>
<p>I have other data that I can post to make these comparisons, but I don’t want to turn this into another argument of good vs evil. I’ve stated my criteria and why I think they’re more useful than the nefarious PA measurements or other subjective/subversive considerations. People can decide for themselves what elements they want to use.</p>
<p>ucb,
I hardly think that U Virginia and U North Carolina have much difficulty in attracting OOS students. Major LOL. Do you know how hard it is to get into either from OOS? Much, much harder than U Michigan. </p>
<p>As for meeting 100% of the need, a school is free to make its own choices about how to spend its money. In fact, I think that it says volumes about the institution’s priorities. Some believe that meeting the financial need of their students is important; some think it is less so. For me and probably the vast majority of OOS applicants to any of these schools, it’s not debatable which is the odd man out.</p>
<p>
Oh please, lady! You’re all about public vs. private!</p>
<p>examples from post #90:
</p>
<p>My criteria are not for or against one form of school (public or private). I care about the student and the environment that he/she will encounter. So I compare and that analysis can lead me to make some referential statements. That was my point.</p>
<p>Hawkette, you are entitled to your opinion and I to mine. I am well aware of what other universities across the nation have to offer. However, according to my criteria, Michigan is one of the top 10 or top 15 research universities in the US. According to you and your set of criteria, Michigan is not among the top 50. To each his own.</p>
<p>However, your claim that Michigan places outside the top 50 in the nation in institutional resources is extremely misleading. First of all, you are mixing public with privates. Publics receive hundreds of millions of dollars in state funding annually. Privates do not. You are also including LACs, when you shouldn’t. Finally, you fail to take economies of scale into account. Financially speaking, there are porbably 10 or so universities that are appreciable better off than Michigan financially.</p>
<p>^^ Oh yeah, and William & Mary is the best public university for all students? You agree? Or is it just for some students?</p>
<p>Alex,
I’m actually not clear on your criteria. Would you please post them so that I can better understand how you reach your conclusions?</p>
<p>ucb,
Well, W&M certainly wouldn’t be the best choice for aspiring engineering students. LOL. They don’t have engineering there but rather offer it thru a combined program with RPI and Columbia.</p>