USNWR Rankings - The Metrics

[GoBlue81]

<p>

I never compared Michigan to Harvard.

Goodness, I’m glad Michigan is not like Harvard … otherwise I’d have attended the wrong school for engineering.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

Personally, I think that it is a mistake for supporters of schools to compare their favorite to Harvard

I’d like to make a comparison of my school to Harvard:</p>

<p>Science Faculty Strength:
School, #NAS Members:
Harvard, 148
Berkeley, 130 (no med school)</p>

<p>Is this a mistake, xiggi? ;)</p>

[leanid]

<p>“Being who you are and destined to be should be sufficient.” - Xiggi</p>

<p>Great to see Calvinism is still alive and kicking! After all, there’s been simply too much upheaval…</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

I’d like to make a comparison of my school to Harvard:</p>

<p>Science Faculty Strength:
School, #NAS Members:
Harvard, 148
Berkeley, 130 (no med school)</p>

<p>Is this a mistake, xiggi?

</p>

<p>UCB, again this is all about picking the elements that support your own theories. Is your chosen example of comparing the number of NAS faculty members correct and relevant? More than probably the answer is yes on both counts. </p>

<p>However, I believe that other elements will be a lot less convincing. For instance, the national distribution of the student body at Berkeley might offer a different glimpse. And so would answering the simple question about how interchangeable the student body might be. And that is why I think that it does not make much sense to push the comparisons too far. </p>

<p>Fwiw, I maintain that you could add the entire UC application pool to Harvard’s and that it will change close to nothing to the admitted class at Harvard. And that would yield some kind of an admission percentage!</p>

[rjkofnovi]

<p>"their objective was to write a sentence that included both Harvard and U Michigan in hopes that the na</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>I agree, xiggi, that Berkeley doesn’t compare well in student strength to HYPSM due to the size and nature of the public mission. But looking at other important factors, like faculty academic distinction, Berkeley does match the level of HYPSM…or more precisely, HS than any other US university…and that’s saying a lot.</p>

<p><em>Removes my blue and gold shades</em></p>

[hawkette]

<p>alex,
Re your statement,</p>

<p>

A difference of 250 points on a 1600 scale is significant. A difference of 100 points is not.

</p>

<p>Are you aware of the following:</p>

<p>25th percentile comparison
900 Howard
1230 U Michigan
1380 Harvard</p>

<p>75th percentile comparison
1320 Howard
1430 U Michigan
1570 Harvard</p>

<p>So, according to your very demanding scale, I guess the student bodies of Harvard and U Michigan must be peers and so, too, for the 75th percentile, must the student bodies of Howard and U Michigan.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

I have never seen Alexander state that Michigan is a peer of Harvard. That so called zealousy is more in line with some other posters here at CC. That anyone would make a childish and ridiculous statement like the one I just quoted, tells me that they were looking for an excuse to diss Alexandre and Michigan.

</p>

<p>Perhaps you should not give Hawkette more ammunition to diss Michigan. There are indeed zealous posters; some might even be overzealous; then we might have a few zealots. Those posters might demonstrate zeal or jealousy, perhaps zealousness. Zealousy would not score you many points on a Scrabble board, unless there is a special Ann Arbor version. It is a lousy word! :)</p>

[hawkette]

<p>xiggi,
Give rjk a break. He only went to U Michigan and then only as an IS student. We can only expect but so much…:D</p>

[hawkette]

<p>al,
Re your earlier questions on Student/Faculty ratio, </p>

<p>

1. what is Harvard’s student to faculty ratio according to the “data” you provide?</p>

<p>2) exactly how did Harvard calculate that ratio (provide actual numbers please)?</p>

<p>3) what is Caltech’s student to faculty ratio according to the “data” you provide?</p>

<p>4) exactly how did Caltech calculate that ratio (provide actual numbers please)?</p>

<p>5) what is Michigan’s student to faculty ratio according to the “data” you provide?</p>

<p>6) exactly how did Michigan calculate that ratio (provide actual numbers please)?

</p>

<p>I’ll let you do the work for Caltech and U Michigan, but the Harvard numbers for student/faculty ratio come from USWNR. A quick check of their 2008-09 CDS reveals in Section I that they count their undergrad students (6671) against their faculty (988) for a calculated ratio of Student/Faculty Ratio of 7/1. </p>

<p>In further inspection of the USNWR data, you will also find that Harvard has a complete faculty size of 1712 full-time professors and another 410 part-time for a faculty total of 2212. My interpretation is that the difference between 988 and 2212 has to do with the allocation to graduate programs, professional programs and the partial counting of the part-time professors. </p>

<p>Do you interpret it differently?</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

I agree, xiggi, that Berkeley doesn’t compare well in student strength to HYPSM due to the size and nature of the public mission. But looking at other important factors, like faculty academic distinction, Berkeley does match the level of HYPSM…or more precisely, HS than any other US university…and that’s saying a lot.</p>

<p><em>Removes my blue and gold shades</em>

</p>

<p>I could not agree more with you, UCB. The “nature of the public mission” were the words I was looking for. I do not understand why being the very best at what you’re supposed to do does not seem to be enough an accomplishment.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>Hawkette, I do not judge universities based on the strengths of their student bodies. Harvard is a top 5 university, Michigan is a top 15 university. As such, Harvard is better than Michigan. Only MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale match Harvard. I am not familiar with Howard. </p>

<p>Nlow Hawkette, where is your response to posts 231 and 242?</p>

[hawkette]

<p>See # 270. More to come…</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>Xiggi, I’m fine with my alma mater being considered the Harvard of public, research universities.</p>

[rjkofnovi]

<p>“Zealousy would not score you many points on a Scrabble board, unless there is a special Ann Arbor version. It is a lousy word!”</p>

<p>LOL. As soon as I sent it out I wondered if that word existed. Obviously I was too lazy to consult the dictionary. </p>

<p>Post Note. It’s a word and you just lost your turn!</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>Alexandre, sure no problem</p>

<p>Michigan increased its endowment from $1.6 billion to $6.0 billion, an increase of $4.4 billion.</p>

<p>Princeton incresed its endowment from $4 billion to $12.6 billion, an increase of $8.6 billion.</p>

<p>total students enrolled
Michigan - 41,674
Princeton - 7,592</p>

<p>

For instance, since I graduated, Michigan has led the nation in endowment development. In 1996, Michigan’s endowment stood at $1.4 billion (not among the top 15 in the nation). Today, Michigan’s endowment stands at $6 billion, making it the 6th largest endowment in the nation. I challenge you to name a top 30 university that has developped its endowment to the degree Michigan has.

</p>

[hawkette]

<p>al,
Re my statement, </p>

<p>

Enough with your observations about your college experiences almost two decades ago. They’re not a proxy for what goes on today any more than mine might be. Heck, during your time back in the early/mid 1990s, Michigan was still a state with a functioning economy. As we’ve seen, the world changes and even in academia as many colleges have seen their competitive position change over the last two decades.

</p>

<p>If you graduated from U Michigan in 1996, that means you started in 1991, ie, almost 19 years ago. Okay, you’re right—it’s not two decades….I guess that extra year makes you au courant on what it’s like to be choosing a college in today’s America and going thru freshmen year. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>Times change. And so do schools. Some move up, some move down and still others fall behind by standing still. </p>

<p>Finally, re your statement,</p>

<p>

Michigan’s department rankings have not changed since 1996.

</p>

<p>that’s a great one. As we both know, there haven’t been any updated rankings released since before that time (1993?). Haha. Very good. U Michigan has maintained its rankings for 17 straight years!!! Very funny stuff.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

As we both know, there haven’t been any updated rankings released since before that time (1993?)

You didn’t just refer to the NRC grad rankings as the only source of department rankings, did you?</p>

[JohnAdams12]

<p>hawkette, why don’t you give us a few examples of this</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p>

Btw, for the non-academic aspect (fit) of college selection, compared to what a student can find at a major public vs any of the Ivies, I actually like the major public’s non-classroom advantages.** In many cases, the differences can be quite large, resulting in much higher quality of life for the undergraduate student**. I have often argued that this element of college life, representing 150+ hours per week out of the classroom, is not sufficiently weighed by prospective college students.

</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>^ Rice baseball? :)</p>