<p>Faculty resouces is the largest difference between public and private, since public schools tend to have larger class sizes, higher student/faculty ratios and oftentimes pay more. Private schools also tend to have higher graduation rates (although not always... UVA has a 93% grad rate). Alumni giving, although not a big factor, tends to favor the private schools because it goes by the percentage of alumni giving. (For example, Georgetown, which is only one point higher than us, has more than double in alumni giving.)</p>
<p>P.S. I mean public schools oftentimes pay less, not more.</p>
<p>The question is whether these factors artificially inflate the private schools, or whether they reveal that private schools generally do certain things better. Take class size for instance. If private schools can offer students smaller classes, why should that be ignored when ranking schools?</p>
<p>Class size should not be ignored. I guess the question of what is artificial goes more to weight than the actual criteria. In my view, the criteria aren't bad, but some should be weighted more than others. For example, selectivity accounts for 15% of a school's ranking. This seems low to me.</p>
<p>Samwise, class size is indeed important. But classes at top state schools are only larger at intro level classes, where the material is straight forward and the need for small classes only artificially enhances the quality of education. So 50% of the all-important Faculty Resources is meaningless. Faculty salaries aren't a problem because profs at top publics now earn as much as profs at private universities. </p>
<p>Alumni donation rates also mean nothing since private universities have always depended on alumni donations for funding whereas state universities always depended on state approprations for the majority of funding. So private universities have long established highly effective means to reach their alums...privates have only recently begun to push. </p>
<p>Financial resources also means very little as it primarily measures financial aid and since most state universities are highly discounted as is, they do not give out as much in terms of FA. </p>
<p>Graduation rates are important, but the USNWR blows the difference out of proportion. Michigan and Cal have historically graduated roughly 85% of their students. At the moment, they are graduating close to 90% of their students. How is that so different from private universities which graduate 90%-95% of their students? And yet, the way the USNWR equation works disproportionately penalizes universities for each % point .</p>
<p>In the selectivity ranking, the USNWR uses the reported SAT averages of each university. But it is well known that most tp public universities, including Michigan and Cal report the average SAT scores according to the best score in one sitting whereas almost all elite private universities report their average SAT scores according to the best score in each section. That gives privates an unfair advantage that the USNWR choses to ignore instead of actually asking all universities to send SAT scores in the same way. </p>
<p>In short, the USNWR really hurts public universities in ways that don't really measure quality of education. Personally, I think the peer assessment score should count for 50% of the ranking and selectivity (properly and evenly measured) should count for 25%. All the other, less significant factors should not count for more than 25% of the total.</p>
<p>Samwise, undergraduate and graduate education are connected. The same professors, facilities and resources are used by both undergrads and grads. Like I said, in the case of huge schools with few resources, like Minnesota and UCSD and NYU, undergrads suffer. But universities like Cornell and Michigan and Northwestern are so wealthy that undergrads have access to the same resources as the graduate students. </p>
<p>And although the USNWR does not provide undergraduate rankings of individual departments, Gourman does, and his individual department rankings are somewhat (not very mind you) accurate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
which factors are artificially skewed towards privates?
[/quote]
Alumni giving rate, as measured by % of alumni giving to their schools, favor smaller schools (i.e., privates). Imagine trying to keep track of 400,000 living alumni all around the world.</p>
<p>What they should measure instead is the endowment. The best schools should turn out more successful alumni which, in turn, are able to give back more to the school.</p>
<p>Faculty salary is not a good measurement of faculty resources. You can't attract the best professors by offering more money. For top professors, research environment, endowed chair, etc are more important than mere salary. I think research grant (per faculty) should be considered together with faculty salary. After all, we are ranking doctoral universities, aren't we?</p>
<p>i'm transferring out if michigan drops this year</p>
<p>
[quote]
Financial resources also means very little as it primarily measures financial aid and since most state universities are highly discounted as is, they do not give out as much in terms of FA.
[/quote]
One way to correct that is to count the in-state tuition discount as financial aid ... which is basically what it is.</p>
<p>FYI. Professors at public schs don't earn as much as private schs.</p>
<p>“In 1970–71, full professors at public doctoral universities earned 91 percent as much as professors at private doctoral institutions. But by 2004–05, professors at public doctoral universities earned just 77 percent of what their private institution counterparts did.”
Source: <a href="http://www.aaup.org/surveys/06z/zrep.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.aaup.org/surveys/06z/zrep.htm</a></p>
<p>“..2004-05 the highest paid full-time professors at the University earned an average of $120,200… At Princeton University, the highest paid full-time professors earned $151,100…”
Source: <a href="http://www.michigandaily.com/news/2006/01/10/News/Faculty.Pay.Cant.Compete.With.Ivies.League-1433934.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.michigandaily.com/news/2006/01/10/News/Faculty.Pay.Cant.Compete.With.Ivies.League-1433934.shtml</a></p>
<p>"In the selectivity ranking, the USNWR uses the reported SAT averages of each university. But it is well known that most tp public universities, including Michigan and Cal report the average SAT scores according to the best score in one sitting whereas almost all elite private universities report their average SAT scores according to the best score in each section. That gives privates an unfair advantage that the USNWR choses to ignore instead of actually asking all universities to send SAT scores in the same way."</p>
<p>While I guess that does have an impact on the SAT score ranges in USNWR, I think a much more important reason for the difference is simply the number of students. With classes of over 5000 to fill, it's just a fact that we're going to have a lower middle 50% than private universities with classes of 1000-2000. You could take the entire class of 2010 at Harvard and enroll them at Michigan, and then enroll the other 3500 or so students that it takes to fill the entire UM class, and you'd still see an average SAT around the 1350ish that we have now.</p>
<p>Personally, I'm way more impressed that a university of UM's size can recruit a class with an ACT range of 27-31 than hearing about some private university with an average ACT of 31 or 32. Think about the fact that our top 25% of students (our upper quartile) for the upcoming class consists of 1350 students who all had 31s or better on their exams.</p>
<p>"But classes at top state schools are only larger at intro level classes, where the material is straight forward and the need for small classes only artificially enhances the quality of education."</p>
<p>I don't think that class size is unimportant for underclassmen. Even some Michigan departments would agree with me. For example, the regular calc sequences are split into many small classes taught by TA's, rather than having a large lecture. If a school can have professors teaching intro classes with 20 kids in them, I see that as a distinct advantage.</p>
<p>"Financial resources also means very little as it primarily measures financial aid and since most state universities are highly discounted as is, they do not give out as much in terms of FA."</p>
<p>'Expenditures per student. Financial resources are measured by the average spending per full-time equivalent students on instruction, research, public service, academic support, student services, institutional support, and operations and maintenance (for public institutions only) during the 2003 and 2004 fiscal years. The number of full-time equivalent students is equal to the number of full-time students plus one-third of the number of part-time students. (Note: This includes both undergraduate and graduate students.) We first scaled the public service and research values by the percentage of full-time equivalent undergraduate students attending the school. Next, we added in total instruction, academic support, student services, institutional support, and operations and maintenance (for public institutions only) and then divided by the number of full-time equivalent students. After calculating this value, we applied a logarithmic transformation to the spending per full-time equivalent student, prior to standardizing the value. This calculation process was done for all schools.'</p>
<p>This doesn't seem to be a measure of financial aid, but rather how much each school effectively spends on a student.</p>
<p>"Graduation rates are important, but the USNWR blows the difference out of proportion. Michigan and Cal have historically graduated roughly 85% of their students. At the moment, they are graduating close to 90% of their students. How is that so different from private universities which graduate 90%-95% of their students? And yet, the way the USNWR equation works disproportionately penalizes universities for each % point ."</p>
<p>Isn't the only thing included a schools graduation rate compared to its predicted graduation rate? </p>
<p>'Graduation rate performance. The difference between the actual six-year graduation rate for students entering in the fall of 1998 and the predicted graduation rate. The predicted graduation rate is based upon characteristics of the entering class, as well as characteristics of the institution. If a school's actual graduation rate is higher than the predicted rate, then the school is enhancing achievement.This measure is only included in the rankings for schools in the National Universities and Liberal Arts Colleges categories.'</p>
<p>So unless USNews is trying to over predict our grad rate this doesn't seem to be hurting us. In fact, don't we usually have a higher than predicted rate and therefore benefit from this?</p>
<p>"In the selectivity ranking, the USNWR uses the reported SAT averages of each university. But it is well known that most tp public universities, including Michigan and Cal report the average SAT scores according to the best score in one sitting whereas almost all elite private universities report their average SAT scores according to the best score in each section. That gives privates an unfair advantage that the USNWR choses to ignore instead of actually asking all universities to send SAT scores in the same way."</p>
<p>I'm not currently subscribed, so I can't check right now, but I thought USNews uses ACT averages for Michigan? I could be wrong on this.</p>
<p>"Personally, I think the peer assessment score should count for 50% of the ranking and selectivity (properly and evenly measured) should count for 25%. All the other, less significant factors should not count for more than 25% of the total."</p>
<p>So basically a schools image should determine how well it's ranked?</p>
<p>"Samwise, undergraduate and graduate education are connected. The same professors, facilities and resources are used by both undergrads and grads. Like I said, in the case of huge schools with few resources, like Minnesota and UCSD and NYU, undergrads suffer. But universities like Cornell and Michigan and Northwestern are so wealthy that undergrads have access to the same resources as the graduate students."</p>
<p>Is it not true that at Berkeley, for example, many students have to end up staying an extra semester because they had a required class that was full. Or that lectures are so large that people have to sit on the steps in the lecture halls until enough people stop going to class?</p>
<p>Michigan is certainly not as bad as this, but it goes to show that there is a difference between undergrad and grad programs. Furthermore I suspect there is a big difference in student quality between undergrad and grad classes, and that certainly affects what a professor can do.</p>
<p>"What they should measure instead is the endowment. The best schools should turn out more successful alumni which, in turn, are able to give back more to the school."</p>
<p>And this wouldn't favor large schools why?</p>
<p>"i'm transferring out if michigan drops this year"</p>
<p>Lol, I remember when the law school dropped and the facebook group 'screw this, I'm transferring to harvard law' started.</p>
<p>It is NOT the case that all non-Intro classes are smaller. Especially in the engin/science departments, 200-300 level classes still have up to 150 students in them. Even 400 level classes will have 50+ students. If you truly want a small class size, take a 500-600 level class. Only about 8 Ph. D candidates in those classrooms.</p>
<p>USNews uses ACT scores for Michigan rather than SAT scores. However, they are based on one sitting versus a combination of best SAT scores at other top schools. We are the only top 25 school that receives more ACT applications than SAT.</p>
<p>Yes, it's true that ACT scores are based on one setting, but the ACT is arguably easier than the SAT.</p>
<p>Samwise, most of your points don't apply to mine. I am not going to answer all of them, but I will answer a couple:</p>
<p>1) Like I said, for intro classes, class size is irrelavent. If a student struggles with Calc I and II, she/he has no business going to a school of Michigan's caliber. The reason those classes are broken down into smaller sections is because Calculus is a pre-requisite for half of LSA's classes, so roughly 2,500 students must take the class each semester. </p>
<p>2) You are quite correct about the Financial resources rank, and I don't think Michigan is hurt on that one.</p>
<p>3) Graduation rank is hard to comprehend, but it isn't merely a function of the difference between predicted and actual graduation rate. If that were the case, Michigan wou'd be close to #1. </p>
<p>4) I did not mention Cal as one of those schools that is equally good at the graduate and undergraduate levels. Cal has limited resources...not as limited as Minnesota, but not as well off as the likes of Cornell or Michigan. To make matters worse, Cal's graduate programs are unmatched, making the contrast even more dramatic. However, being able to graduate on time and the ability to enroll in a class has nothing to do with quality. What I mean by quality is that once enrolled, you have access to the faculty and to the facilities that make the university great. And for the record, between the students I went to college with and myself, we must have enrolled into over 200 classes over 4 years (we all graduated within 4 years and most of us with double majors), we always got into every class we wished to register for. </p>
<p>5) No, a school's image should not determine how good it is. That's what the USNWR does by coming up with all those little meaningless criteria that private universities manipulate to look good but have no real bearing on the actual quality of the institution. What I am saying is that professors and university officials know what universities are the best and which ones are prducing the best undergraduate students. That is why the peer assessment score is so important.</p>
<p>The ACT is easier for some and harder for others. Many concordances tables have been developed over the years. However, the concordance tables are based on the comparison of one sitting to one sitting. Thus, in theory, it is more advantageous to take the SAT more than once than it is to use an ACT score. I am aware of only one of the top 25 schools that allows a student to combine multiple ACT scores</p>
<p>1) You may feel that way, but others disagree. </p>
<p>"The reason those classes are broken down into smaller sections is because Calculus is a pre-requisite for half of LSA's classes, so roughly 2,500 students must take the class each semester."</p>
<p>But each section has only 20 students. If they felt class size didn't matter wouldn't they just combine say 5 sections into one?</p>
<p>3) USNews says the following about this: "Graduation rate performance. The difference between the actual six-year graduation rate for students entering in the fall of 1998 and the predicted graduation rate."</p>
<p>Unless they are lying or I am horrendously misinterpreting what they say, the graduation rate performance is only the difference between predicted and actual rates.</p>
<p>4) "I did not mention Cal as one of those schools that is equally good at the graduate and undergraduate levels." Granted, I was simply using it as an example, and I did state that Michigan doesn't have the same type of problems as Cal (in fact this is the reason that I would rank Michigan over Cal personally). </p>
<p>When I think about the quality of a program, I see the biggest thing as the quality of courses. In this way a correspondence between grad and undergrad departments isn't obvious. A big factor in class quality is the level at which a professor can teach, which is heavily influenced by the ability of the students. While you have the same professors in the undergrad program, the students may not be at the same level.</p>
<p>5) "That's what the USNWR does by coming up with all those little meaningless criteria that private universities manipulate to look good but have no real bearing on the actual quality of the institution."</p>
<p>People will of course agree on what is meaningless. While you find class size meaningless, for instance, many people would find selectivity meaningless (just check out the Chicago board). The only thing that has been proven to skew towards private universities here so far is the SAT/ACT reporting. But Cal and Umich could report these differently if they desired, and somehow I don't see this as some big conspiracy between private schools and USNews.</p>
<p>"What I am saying is that professors and university officials know what universities are the best and which ones are prducing the best undergraduate students."</p>
<p>I've talked to many professors at different universities, and to be honest most of them don't know half as much as they think they do about other institutions. At best they are going to have some grad students that went to the school or know some professors at the school. The people they know will give them some idea of the school, but the grad students are usually going to represent the best students, who were probably influenced by the school they went to far less than the average person. In the end I think the students who go to the university could tell you a lot more about it than people on the outside, but of course most people will be biased towards the school they attend and won't have experienced other schools. Again, I think peer rating is important because that's what's going to matter when you apply to grad school or for a job, but as far as the rankings go I think it already plays a big enough role. If that's all one cares about he can simply click the peer ranking button and read off the list like that.</p>
<hr>
<p>"If a student struggles with Calc I and II, she/he has no business going to a school of Michigan's caliber."</p>
<p>I'm all for that. The rest of us could all get singles!</p>
<p>1) Samwise, the amount of homework and grading required for Calc I and Clc II will require classes be broken down into sections anyway. And since the subject matter is so straightfoward, and the number of students who must take Calc I and II is so great, it makes sense to skip the lecture and just have sections.</p>
<p>3) If the graduation rank were truly and purely a reflection of the difference between the predicted and actual graduate rates, Michigan would be ranked #1 among the top 30 national universities. Michigan was at +8...no other university in the top 30 did better in that respect.</p>
<p>4) I agree, the quality of a course is indeed what's most important. And that's determined by the curriculum, the faculty and the resources and facilities. I don't see how student talent is an object when discussing elite universities. This year's entering class at all but 5 or 6 universities had mean SATs that ranged between 1350 and 1450. So clearly, student quality is not an issue. </p>
<p>5) I too have talked to many professors at Cornell and Michigan, and they know most top universities intimiately, as they themselves have studied and taught, on average, at 6-10 different universities and have close ties to peers and have tought students who did their undergraduate studies at dozens of other universities. </p>
<p>I stand by my previous statement, the USNWR criterea are useless for the most part.</p>