<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.”</p>
<p>No, I am asking why judging how good a school is should be based on faculty strength, when to be sincere faculty rarely contributes to undergraduate education. Infact, top faculty is drawn to the research facilities/salaries of a school more than providing good education.</p>
<p>"How do you measure that? "</p>
<p>Top 10% of the class, how many valedictorians/salutatorians a school has. The SAT averages, and how selective a school is. e.t.c</p>
<p>
And that answers barron’s question in what way…?
Are we talking about sums or proportions? If the former, I’m okay with that.</p>
<p>Apparently Sefago knows about as much about US colleges as we know about those in France. Barely enough to be dangerous.
If that’s all US students are doing in class their parents should demand a refund and put the kid to work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For years, one of the best teachers ever at Cal was some guy named Glenn Seaborg. He chose to teach Frosh Chem, even after he won a Nobel (or two), and his name ended up on the Periodic Table of Elements.</p>
<p>“And that answers barron’s question in what way…?”</p>
<p>I focused on the last part of his question. I ignored the first part- you should have noticed that. I was wondering why he was asking about faculty strengths and what that had to do with my assertion.</p>
<p>The first part of his question is funny.
“Do similar Brown students go on to better lives than UM or UCB grads of similar ability.”</p>
<p>Going from your logic, it’s obvious that you can find people at UMass Amherst with equal and superior ability to those at Harvard. So UMass Amherst is no different than going to Harvard hehe</p>
<p>Seems you are going down a slippery slope if you want to claim all schools are the same.</p>
<p>Anyhow my main concern is this- why were people angry when UMIch was considered equivalent to OSU, while adamant enough to claim that UMich is similar to even lower ivies? Like what really distinguishes UMich from any other public school? What makes UMich different from UMass-Amherst</p>
<p>I am using UMass-Amherst as an example, nothing wrong, its still an excellent school</p>
<p>“For years, one of the best teachers ever at Cal was some guy named Glenn Seaborg. He chose to teach Frosh Chem, even after he won a Nobel (or two), and his name ended up on the Periodic Table of Elements.”</p>
<p>LOL, and so . . .</p>
<p>Anyhow you have to show me a link between faculty and how good a school is.</p>
<p>IMO, By the way people of equal ability can excel anywhere they go to. However, I just find it funny that Umich students are uncomfortable being compared to OSU, when there really is, IMO, no difference in both schools lol.</p>
<p>^^^ I have yet to see any evidence suggesting that school choice plays a major role in later life success. If you have any, I’d be interested in seeing it.</p>
<p>In terms of educational quality, a highly-ranked department will probably at least have a diverse variety of research interests and correspondingly courses.</p>
<p>I have no problem comparing UMich to tOSU.</p>
<p>"Anyhow my main concern is this- why were people angry when UMIch was considered equivalent to OSU, while adamant enough to claim that UMich is similar to even lower ivies? Like what really distinguishes UMich from any other public school? "</p>
<p>The University of Michigan has a PA score of 4.4 which is certainly equivalent to the “lower ives.”</p>
<p>The Ohio State University and UMass have PA scores considerably LOWER.</p>
<p>
[National</a> Academy of Sciences:](<a href=“http://www.nasonline.org/site/Dir?sid=1011&view=basic&pg=srch]National”>http://www.nasonline.org/site/Dir?sid=1011&view=basic&pg=srch)</p>
<h1>National Academy of Science Members on faculty, School:</h1>
<p>148, Harvard
129, Berkeley
124, Stanford
118, MIT
73, Princeton
72, Caltech
60, Yale
49, Columbia
45, Washington
41, Wisconsin
39, Chicago
34, UCLA
23, Michigan
18, Duke
10, Brown</p>
<p>Get the idea?</p>
<p>Whenever NAS memberships are trotted out, I always wonder … why is this relevant to students not in the sciences? What do I care if my school has 25 NAS members or Nobel Prizes in chemistry if I’m studying something else entirely?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good point, and I would point out this is really the only benefit I see between any top school and any “perceived” lower ranked school. The opportunities for academic enrichment. I think is where the merits of a school should lie, and not how many nobel laureates are in there faculty.</p>
<p>As long as you dont see any difference between UMich and OSU, then we are good. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why do you keep citing that crap as a source? What does perception- tainted by the graduate reputation have to do with quality? </p>
<p>So its all about perception right? Which is even being further perpetuated by its alumni who come on college confidential and claim that UMich is a top 15 school. </p>
<p>Please what is the difference between OSU and UMich?</p>
<p>I am sure an OSU grad could come here, and argue: “OSU has 52,00 students. Such a large student body increases the ability of intellectual exchange which makes OSU a top school. Small schools like Harvard have too few students which make intellectual exchange less likely. Hence OSU is a top school”</p>
<p>To cut this short- anyone can argue that there school is a top school based on any criteria they choose. I brought brown in to bring the public school kids in with there inferiority complex. I doubt the average Brown kid would care what happens at UMich.</p>
<p>
I didn’t say that I “don’t see any difference”. I did say that I have no problem comparing the two. UMich has enough higher-ranked departments that I conclude it probably does offer more variety and/or quality in terms of both research and coursework. tOSU is just large enough and ranked enough that it probably still offers more than a typical undergrad could take advantage of.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please link me to undergraduate rankings for each department. </p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh boy here we go again . . .</p>
<p>
Old: [NRC</a> Rankings in Each of 41 Areas](<a href=“http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc41indiv.html]NRC”>NRC Rankings in Each of 41 Areas)
New: [Best</a> Graduate Schools - Education - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools]Best”>http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools)</p>
<p>These are grad rankings. I’m assessing departmental strength, which will carry over to either grad or undergrad for the reasons in #329… which you agreed with.</p>
<p>Are there tangible benefits to choosing UMich over tOSU for undergrad? Maybe not. A human being can only take advantage of so much, after all. But that doesn’t mean that they should be ranked the same, just that rankings don’t necessarily matter very much beyond a certain point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And how many of these members are teaching undergraduate courses in the sciences?</p>
<p>
Pizzagirl, you’re missing the point of why I trotted out those numbers. Sefago asked to show a relation between faculty quality and university quality. It just so happens that science is a very broad academic field and the best research universities tend to have the highest concentration of distinguished faculty. My point was nothing to say about these numbers affect undergrads studying English…however, the top universities have great English departments too.</p>
<p>“As long as you dont see any difference between UMich and OSU, then we are good.”</p>
<p>All public schools must be equal according to you.</p>