USNWR Best Colleges 2009

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree, although I don’t think that PA score is a terribly accurate criterion for judgment. For example, I don’t see how HYPMS can get a 4.9, whereas Caltech gets a 4.7. I think that the prestige factor still has some influence in the ranking, but overall, it’s probably the best indication of a good undergrad program.</p>

<p>As for Stanford… I would rate it below Harvard and Princeton, and probably Yale. I think it spends too much money on athletic recruitment and sports in general. I saw the other day on SI that Stanford was the #1 school for Olympic athlete alums, even higher than schools like UCLA and Texas. For a school so small, this sends a clear signal that this isn’t exactly an academic utopia.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Stanford’s ranked lower in selectivity.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How’s that? Among academics why would Cal Tech be any less prestigious?</p>

<p>“Peer Assessment” score. It’s the best indicator of quality academic programs."</p>

<p>Yup. The Dean at Albertson College is intimately familiar with the academic quality at Florida Atlantic.</p>

<p>Oh yes, great example. Does anyone really care about the PA of Florida Atlantic?</p>

<p>PA is very useful when you compare schools that both have regional/national prominence.</p>

<p>^ Do you need to be “intimately familiar” to make an assessment? No, the question is asking for “distinguished academic programs”…Most deans know what programs hold the most distinction.</p>

<p>Yes, and the Dean of Bible at Pensacola Christian gets to decide whether Harvard or Stanford is better…</p>

<p>Ok. You’re right. You can use your completely useless and flawed example to discount PA. </p>

<p>I’ll consider it a relatively accurate way to quantify overall program strength.</p>

<p>For those looking for a more accurate ranking:</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/ARWU2008_A(EN).htm]ARWU2008[/url”>http://www.arwu.org/rank2008/ARWU2008_A(EN).htm]ARWU2008[/url</a>]</p>

<p>As for Stanford being in the top 3:</p>

<p>Stanford has been known to practice yield protection. There is a reason USNWR eliminated yield, because schools try to game the system and boost their yield. Even though yield may not be a factor, “student selectivity” still is so it still makes sense for Stanford to play the yield game. Yield protection also manipulates the admissions rate. Also, if you look at percentage of students in the top 10 percent of their high school classes, SAT scores, etc HYP are still above Stanford. Stanford also recruits many athletes, which brings their academic stats down.</p>

<p>Rather, the best indicator of the health of a college is by analyzing cross admits. Why should Stanford ever be ranked higher than HYP if cross admits favor them to Stanford? Using cross-admit preferences, rankings should be 1. Harvard 2. Yale 3. Stanford 3. Princeton.</p>

<p>^^
I see you’re new to CC so I’ll spare you my explanation. But just so you know, Stanford does not practice yield protection. To think so is naive and shows susceptibility towards being tricked by small differences in statistics. If you want a long post about it I can definitely give it to you (or perhaps another poster on CC can).</p>

<p>"mini and et al: are you more knowledgeable than those deans, btw?</p>

<p>According to USNWR, the deans don’t have to answer questions that s/he’s not very familiar about. i don’t think they weren’t serious in answering the survey."</p>

<p>And notice they provide NO information about who did and who didn’t answer the questions, or their level of familiarity.</p>

<p>I am NOT more knowledgeable than those deans, though, through my work, I have probably visited more institutions than most of them have. But students - and, in particular, undergraduate students are definitely more knowledgeable about their own schools, which is why the flawed Forbes survey is superior.</p>

<p>You asked for it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How would you possibly compare?</p>

<p>The yield rate data is exactly what I talked about being flawed. Stanford inflates their yield by choosing students more likely to attend (and rejecting students less likely to attend). Hence the yield data discussed is irrelevant. Far more important is cross-admit preferences, which indicates what colleges students ACTUALLY THOUGHT was better as opposed to just whether they attended. For instance, a student who chose to go to Stanford over HYP is far more important for Stanford’s selectivity than a student who chose to go to Stanford over Cal/Arizona. BTW, Stanford’s yield for this year was before Harvard admitted a ton off their wait list so Stanford’s actual yield may or may not be lower/equivalent to Yale’s.</p>

<p>The most accurate college ranking is [A</a> Revealed Preference Ranking of U.S. Colleges and Universities](<a href=“http://www.nber.org/papers/w10803]A”>A Revealed Preference Ranking of U.S. Colleges and Universities | NBER) , which was completed by highly respected economists at Stanford/etc so I wouldn’t complain about an anti-Stanford bias. It uses a reasonable method, unlike the other college rankings.</p>

<p>The final rankings are:
1 Harvard University
2 California Institute of Tech
3 Yale University
4 MIT
5 Stanford University
6 Princeton University
7 Brown University
8 Columbia University
9 Amherst College
10 Dartmouth</p>

<p>Also, FYI, that article cited by Bourne was from 2000. [The</a> New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/09/17/weekinreview/20060917_LEONHARDT_CHART.html]The”>The New York Times > Week in Review > Image > Collegiate Matchups: Predicting Student Choices) is more recent than that, and it indicates 60 percent choose Yale over Stanford, 70 percent choose Harvard, but Stanford and Princeton are about split (edge to Stanford).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>you might want to email someone at stanford and let them know theyre misreporting their student/faculty ratio, then.</p>

<p>from last years common data set:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>excluding the law and medical school faculties gets you to something similar to the 1055 number, so thats fine: [Faculty:</a> Stanford University Facts](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/faculty.html]Faculty:”>http://www.stanford.edu/about/facts/faculty.html)</p>

<p>the number of students, however, is not: [Stanford</a> University: Common Data Set 2007-2008](<a href=“Stanford Common Data Set | Institutional Research & Decision Support”>Stanford Common Data Set | Institutional Research & Decision Support)</p>

<p>based on the above link, stanford enrolled 6543 fte undergraduates last year. this leaves approximately 200 spots for masters and phd students in regular academic disciplines. hmm.</p>

<p>(mind you, stanford is not alone in grossly misreporting its s/f ratio.)</p>

<p>You’re using information from 2004…?</p>

<p>“How would you possibly compare?”</p>

<p>Forbes published it’s methodology for comparison, and noted that its measures parallel those used by the colleges and universities themselves. </p>

<p>“More than 2,000 university presidents, provosts and deans participated in the survey. How would you expect USNews to provide these data to the public? And even if USNews would, I don’t think it’s proper.”</p>

<p>If you think the Dean of Virgils Beauty College in Muskogee is qualified to tell you whether Duke or Stanford has superior educational quality, well, then, peace.</p>

<p>I say again: the most accurate college ranking is A Revealed Preference Ranking of U.S. Colleges and Universities , which was completed by highly respected economists at Stanford/etc so I wouldn’t complain about an anti-Stanford bias.</p>

<p>Quit ■■■■■■■■ (Stanford = great school – I almost decided to attend – but citing data more than four years old is out of date…)</p>

<p>FWIW, the dean at Pensacola Christian or at a vocational college does not get to vote on research universities.</p>

<p>There are still flaws with the PA, but this particular issue isn’t one of them.</p>

<hr>

<p>We can all look forward to a gazillion threads tomorrow when they are released publicly. :)</p>