<p>Georgetown,Tufts,W&M,and Wake Forest are all underrated by about 8-10 spots. Esp with the Large research schools in higher places. Each one has literally hundreds if not thousands of kids that could not get into above stated schools.</p>
<p>US News doesnt capture the true nature of the medium sized undergrad focus schools listed above.</p>
<p>I agree. Dartmouth tends to do well in USNEWS (usually #9, although personally I think it should be 6-7), but overall most of the "hybrid" schools don't do that well because they lose on the grad-related research metrics and don't get compensated enough for undergrad focus.</p>
<p>Watch Tulane to drop heavily this August, Duke to slide and Cornell to edge back into top 10. It's the nature of the beast.</p>
<p>It is difficult to believe just how weak the USC student body was circa 1997.
That USN&WR issue has the 25%-75% SAT range as 1070-1310, with an admissions rate of 70%.</p>
<p>I concur that Georgetown, Tufts, W&M, and Wake Forest all have terrific students and are schools that are in the mix for comparison with top universities. These underrated schools also can make a strong argument for ranking positions above several of the most highly ranked State Universities. However, these schools don't rank as well in the USNWR rankings because of their low relative Peer Assessment score. Consider the following PA scores:</p>
<p>Top Publics
4.7 UC Berkeley
4.5 U Michigan
4.3 U Virginia
4.3 UCLA
4.2 U North Carolina</p>
<p>4.1 Georgetown
3.7 Tufts
3.8 W&M (also public but with fewer graduate programs)
3.5 Wake Forest</p>
<p>Ex-Peer Assessment, the rankings would change rather significantly. Consider the following ranks with and without Peer Assessment scores.</p>
<p>Current USNWR rank, School, projected rank without PA
28. Tufts, 19th
23. Georgetown, 20th
30. Wake Forest, 24th
32. W&M, 34th
Only W&M would not improve its position and this is primarily due to its low Faculty Resources rank (45th).</p>
<p>By contrast, the publics would all move down and some by a significant number of ranking places. Consider how their rankings benefit from the 25% weighting accorded to this variable:</p>
<ol>
<li>UC Berkeley, 30th</li>
<li>U Michigan, 36th</li>
<li>U Virginia, 27th</li>
<li>UCLA, 31st </li>
<li>U North Carolina, 31st</li>
</ol>
<p>
[quote]
Watch Tulane to drop heavily this August, Duke to slide and Cornell to edge back into top 10. It's the nature of the beast.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you saying this based on USNews' new rankings formula?</p>
<p>Last I heard, they were considering making adjustments to the expected graduation rate based on Pell Grant recipients. That alone could change some schools' positions. However, as I understand it they are undecided about whether they will do that or not for 2008 (or ever).</p>
<p>Yes having a top quality faculty hardly matters. The large publics serve a broader profile of students and also offer a much broader range of majors. I doubt that a physics major at UNC is hurt because some kids with 1100 SATs majoring in education share the campus.</p>
<p>barrons,
It cuts both ways. Why should a student in education give a hoot about the physics professor? </p>
<p>Having a top faculty is certainly a desire on any campus. But, how do you measure "top" and who is doing the measuring? Furthermore, what is the student's access to that professor? How interested is the "top" professor in undergraduate education? What is the class size where you are exposed to this "top" professor? What resources are going into the programs to support the efforts of this "top" professor and his undergraduate students? What is the "top" professor doing to prepare the student for postgraduate life? These are all critical and relevant questions, yet Peer Assessment measures almost none of this.</p>
<p>Well, if US News keeps its formula, Penn will slide one point in its raw score but will keep the same rank because its average SAT score decreased slightly, but other than that I don't think anything will change. Thats just for the top 10 or so schools, I don't know about the rest.</p>
<p>That is barring any change in Peer Assessment Scores though.</p>
<p>The education school is also very good for one. Take a look at the top rated education schools--some familiar names. The good big schools are good in many areas.<br>
How interested are the mediocre profs at lower ranked schools or are they busy applying for jobs in better depts with more prestige and resources?</p>
<p>One thing for sure, if you get to know the top prof he/she will have connections everywhere. Most of them are good people.</p>
<p>Interesting speculation about USNWR's next round of rankings. Here are the current Top 50 with their current point totals. Who's going up and who's going down? </p>
<p>1 Princeton 100
2 Harvard 99
3 Yale 98
4 Cal Tech 94
4 Stanford 94
4 MIT 94
7 U Penn 93
8 Duke 92
9 U Chicago 89
9 Dartmouth 89
9 Columbia 89
12 Wash U StL 87
12 Cornell 87
14 Northwestern 86
15 Brown 85
16 J Hopkins 84
17 Rice 81
18 Emory 80
18 Vanderbilt 80
20 Notre Dame 78
21 UC Berkeley 77
21 Carnegie Mellon 77
23 Georgetown 76
24 U Michigan 75
24 U Virginia 75
26 UCLA 74
27 USC 72
27 Tufts 72
27 U North Carolina 72
30 Wake Forest 71
31 Brandeis 68
31 W & M 68
33 Lehigh 67
34 Boston College 65
34 NYU 65
34 U Rochester 65
34 U Wisconsin 65
38 UC SD 64
38 Georgia Tech 64
38 Case Western 64
41 U Illinois UC 63
42 Rensselaer 61
42 U Washington 61
44 UC Irvine 60
44 Tulane 60
44 Yeshiva 60
47 UC Davis 59
47 UC S Barbara 59
47 U Florida 59
47 Penn State 59
47 U Texas 59</p>
<p>YU has top-flight grads. I think it gets a raw deal these days. 35th seems like a much more suitable slot for it.</p>
<p>As I said, I live in a predominantly Jewish area, I went to private school and my brother still does--I dont know a SINGLE person who went/goes to YU...</p>
<p>so the top 20 of 1997 would look something like:</p>
<ol>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>UChicago</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Rice</li>
<li>Wash U</li>
<li>Notre Dame</li>
<li>Emory</li>
<li>Vanderbilt</li>
</ol>
<p>that's really quite interesting. i'm surprised Wash U, Notre Dame, Emory and Vanderbilt made it in the top 20 over the likes of Georgetown and UVA.</p>
<p>it's also surprising that excellent universities like Duke, Brown and Northwestern dropped considerably over the last ten years as well. i wonder what was the change for this significant change in the rankings for these schools?</p>
<p>Very small differences have large effects in the 5-20 range, causing the large changes in rank.</p>
<p>I think Chicago will "meet" with US News again this year, but this time call janitors and cooks faculty members.... :rolleyes:</p>
<p>read this
<a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1635326,00.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1635326,00.html</a></p>
<p>a good article from Times magazine</p>
<p>what about best undergraduate b-schools?</p>
<p>Penn Wharton</p>
<p>(rather large gap)</p>
<p>NYU Stern</p>
<p>(rather large gap)</p>
<p>everything else</p>
<p>
[quote]
when Penn miraculously jumped from 13 to 7, did it really, in the time frame of 1 year become that much better of a university?
[/quote]
Yes, actually ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
it's also surprising that excellent universities like Duke, Brown and Northwestern dropped considerably over the last ten years as well. i wonder what was the change for this significant change in the rankings for these schools?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>uchicago met with usnews editors to "discuss" (ie scheme to manipulate data) how to improve its rank</p>
<p>washu began utilizing "aggressive admissions" policies (ie mass mailing and then disproportionately waitlisting students)</p>