<p>I agree fallenchemist. But I was trying to make a point that statistical data means very little. I picked on the student to faculty ratio, but most statistics can be picked apart because there is absolutely no consistancy or standardized approach. Some universities do it one way, others do it another.</p>
<p>Hey Alex!! You and I agree! Let’s celebrate! LOL.</p>
<p>BTW, I saw some pics of the expansion/renovation at Michigan. Very impressive.</p>
<p>Now that this forum has dissected the USNews metrics and debated the respective merits of most elements, perhaps we could turn our attention to the upcoming version. </p>
<p>While we know a lot of the data via the releases of the CDS or other reports --with the notable exception of the remaining renegades that still believe in hiding as much as possible-- we might ask ourselves if any of it makes any difference. </p>
<p>During the year, most discussions relate to how hard it is to gain an acceptance. Then we talk a lot about selectivity, and sometimes about the yield. We also talk about class size and faculty. While this is what interests students, how much does that matter to the product that will hit the shelves in a few weeks. </p>
<p>We know that, despite being the most talked about subject, the rate of admission does not mean much in Morse’s formula. A school could lower its admission rate by 50% and see no difference since it accounts for a paltry 1.5%. Fiddling with the alumni giving rates should be a much better place for school officials. </p>
<p>We also have heard about the “laughable” changes considered by Morse. A return of the yield and a poll of guidance counselors … how nice! But does it make ANY difference at all? It is obvious that few of the metrics that are accessible will have much of an impact on the rankings.</p>
<p>That might just be because the rankings already do a pretty decent job of placing
schools in an overall order. Some might want to move a certain school up or down a few spots but the overall pecking order is about as good as you can achieve for what is a very qualitative measurement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is it perfectly clear that faculty in design, government, etc., never ever teach undergraduates? Are these truly “stand alone” units in that sense?</p>
<p>875.1 (arts and science faculty) plus 69.2 (engineering faculty) do not add up to 988, the reported faculty number. So I surmise that 988 represents the number of faculty full time equivalents from GSAS, engineering, design, government, etc. who teach undergraduates. If that is not the case, can anyone show how the faculty number was derived?</p>
<p>This is silly. Who cares?</p>
<p>^ O.K., let’s take up your preceding point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, what is a good basis for assessing the “culture” of a school and comparing it to another? If measurement is not a good decision-making tool, what is? Suppose one poster says school X is “undergraduate focused” but school Y is not, and another poster says the opposite. How do we make sense of these conflicting claims?</p>
<p>The general culture: By reading as much material where people voice their opinions, visiting the school, talking to current students and graduates, staying over a night or two, attending a few classes. The research oriented culture vs. undergraduate focus: by looking at how involved the grad school programs are, how large the research groups tend to be, their reputation for going after the big grants, the big prizes, etc. There is nothing wrong with those things, it has its plusses and minuses. But it definitely makes it very different from schools that are more focused on the undergrads.</p>
<p>There isn’t much more one can do than that, but it is a hell of a lot more than looking at whether a school has 945 profs or 972. I am far from claiming it is an exact science, but it is about all one can do.</p>
<p>“how large” … “big grants” … “big prizes” … “more focused”</p>
<p>You seem to be making judgments that depend to some extent on measurements.
Still, it’s reasonable to ask whether an impressionistic approach to measurement is good enough. Maybe it is. Choosing a college may be a decision better supported by a satisficing strategy than by trying to identify an optimal choice based on carefully scrutinized empirical evidence. ([Satisficing</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing]Satisficing”>Satisficing - Wikipedia))</p>
<p>The trouble is, many students do not have the time or money to visit many colleges. Nor do they necessarily have the self-knowledge to decide whether one school culture or another would better suit their personalities. Choosing a college can be a good process to work on that. To get started, though, reliable metrics can be a useful tool in building a first-pass list of candidate schools. </p>
<p>When we went through this process with my son last year, we did not use rankings and metrics very much even for that. He had a strong, clear sense of what would fit: a small school with good academics and a liberal atmosphere preferably in an outdoorsy setting where he could hike, climb, etc. when he was not busy studying. This narrowed 3000-plus institutions down to a few good candidates and near-misses. Then he visited to compare campus atmosphere, food, classroom dynamics, and other features. I don’t remember ever discussing S:F ratios (since he only considered LACs, that was not much of an issue.) </p>
<p>Me? I do find the measurement process pretty interesting. How to gather data to help people, or hoodwink them, is fairly important in many situations.</p>
<p>Good Lord. I never said data and measurements can be eliminated, I was specifically referring to counting faculty members within tenths of a body part, LOL. That was what sounded especially silly, although the whole tone of trying to rank schools based on metrics is almost equally silly to me. Sure, certain parameters within that construct should be looked at, such as class sizes, academic levels of potential peers, etc. Even though these can be “manipulated”, one can still get a pretty good feel for what it is like at that school. Of course, these should only be looked at if it is important to that student. Hey, if number of times the football team was ranked in the top ten is important, they should look at that. Hope that wasn’t the case for any USC people this year. The things that are important vary for each student, either in the particular parameter or the weighting, and most likely both. It is a big part of the reason I find this whole USNWR thing so misguided.</p>
<p>It sounds like what you and our son did is exactly what I was talking about though. You identified factors that were important (school size (which is a measurement), location to meet interests, academic reputation, etc.) Then you visited and made certain judgements. Perfect. You are right that not everyone can do that, and it just means the decision will, unfortunately, be less informed than otherwise. But trying to decide based on stats like S:F ratio won’t really help that student. They are going to have to rely on the big picture stats like academic quality of their peers and the like, and whatever they can gleen from descriptions of the schools and (hopefully honest) discussions with current and past students.</p>
<p>Without taking the time to look at your past posts, where did your S end up?</p>
<p>fallenchemist, I really don’t think the point of the above discussion was to obsess over counting faculty members within tenths of a body part. We were exploring whether certain private schools are reporting their data according to reasonable interpretations of the CDS instructions, or if they are finagling that data to make it appear students have more faculty available to them than they really do. To explore that issue, you need to inspect the numbers. But yeah, it’s easy to go down a rabbit hole.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Colorado College. Loves it. Schools he also considered but ruled out included Macalester (too cold, too urban), Whitman (too far), Reed (too far, too intense). He liked the classroom dynamics and mountain setting at CC; a scholarship sweetened the deal.</p>
<p>Haha University of Michigan is being compared to really top schools. I laugh in italian. </p>
<p>not surprising its being done by public school graduates. Its so common on CC, people defending there schools and comparing them to well established schools while bashing Harvard, Princeton, Yale and Stanford.</p>
<p>When it comes to producing new technology and expanding knowledge the big publics easily match the top privates. 4 of the top 5 researchers are publics. Many of the top producers of new patents are publics.</p>
<p>With regards to undergraduate instruction though, Berkeley is the only public school that belongs in the top 25.</p>
<p>^ yeah thats general knowledge. But if i remember clearly this does not have anything to do with undergraduate education. I will be the first to admit that most top privates are no different from glorified boarding schools but they do deliver what they sell. </p>
<p>Claiming that University of Michigan or Berkeley is as good as Brown is laughable. But of course the Michigan and Berkeley alumnis would be quick to point at peer scores (biased towards schools with strong graduate programs) and other useless data. </p>
<p>I even heard someone claim that the strength of the student body- in which UMich is really weak at- is irrelevant to judging a school. One must be on some good pot of they think UMich is a top 15 undergrad.</p>
<p>I think people should be clear about what they are talking about before they post. Are they talking about undergrad or postgraduate?</p>
<p>Please prove how you get a better undergrad education at Brown. Do similar Brown students go on to better lives than UM or UCB grads of similar ability. I can provide facts that show the faculty at the two schools mentioned is superior.</p>
<p>
Based on… the expert and unbiased opinion of lesdiablesbleus?
That depends on how you measure the “strength of the student body”, doesn’t it?</p>
<p>“Please prove how you get a better undergrad education at Brown. Do similar Brown students go on to better lives than UM or UCB grads of similar ability. I can provide facts that show the faculty at the two schools mentioned is superior.”</p>
<p>The same way it is impossible to prove that Harvard is better than BC or even University of Massachusetts Amherst. </p>
<p>What does the faculty have to do with how good a school is? Some kids dont even attend class, and most American students are either facebooking, sexting, IMing, Twittering while class is going on. The most intellectual activity I see going on in class is reading sport websites. Further these star faculty, would be focussing on what made them stars- research</p>
<p>"That depends on how you measure the “strength of the student body”, doesn’t it? "</p>
<p>Well I meant academic strengths.</p>
<p>
That isn’t an answer. You’re setting up a strawman argument over faculty strength rather than providing any evidence whatsoever to support your prior point.
How do you measure that?</p>