<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for playing, UCB. Obviously, I have seen the survey and actually posted links to copies of the survey. I think the last time was during the Clemson debacle. </p>
<p>As you know, the survey is as scientific as a popular magazine Sexiest Man Alive effort. This, however, does not stop the efforts of many to glorify the USNews results and continue to pretend it is a LOT more than it is. Of course, since ignorance is bliss, they do have an excuse.</p>
<p>
I’d give it a little more credit than that, xiggi, for several reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li>Academic distinction can be more tangible to measure than attractiveness.</li>
<li>Survey participants are <em>supposed</em> to be leading academic administrators.</li>
<li>Highest and lowest scores are statistically removed.</li>
</ol>
<p>Now, I know that this is not going to change your mind and will likely provide you with more fodder. </p>
<p>
Likewise, most of the PA haters hate it because they think it hurts their school ranking…namely you with the Smith vs. Harvey Mudd/CMC “injustice”!</p>
<p>alex,
Based on my reading of many sources, I would agree with your view and the grade listed above that U Michigan’s classroom teaching merits a grade of B+. This is in line with my perception of how the undergraduate classroom experience there compares with other highly ranked colleges.</p>
<p>As for your question about the veracity of the A+ and A grades, are there common traits among all of those colleges that graded so highly for classroom teaching? Many jump out at me.</p>
<p>All have relatively low numbers of undergraduate students. </p>
<p>All have lots of small class sizes as measured by % of classes involving less than 20 students and few classes involving more than 50 students. </p>
<p>All have low Student/Faculty ratios.</p>
<p>All use TAs sparingly or not at all.</p>
<p>You may not think that these are important factors, but most folks do. And I think it is undeniable that these factors materially influence the learning environment, including teaching effectiveness, that a student will encounter on a college campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><em>cough</em> Stanford, MIT, Caltech, Chicago, Harvard???!</p>
<p>All of these schools use TAs in the same manner as the top publics (i.e. lead discussion and lab sections).</p>
<p>I don’t know that PA gets there, but I think there ought to be some measure of the qualifications of who is actually teaching the undergrad students at each school. I know at one point years ago I almost took a job as a part-time adjunct at a local college. My qualifications for same would not have been remotely comparable to someone who had received a Phd in the subject from a leading university, much less a highly published scholar in the field.</p>
<p>To the extent that undergrads are actually not being taught by these leading scholars, or instead are being instructed by TAs, adjuncts, non-tenure permanent lecturers, etc., this should be reflected too. In an ideal world they would take a statistically significant sample of students at each college, analyze the qualifications of each instructor for each class hour that student had :academic/ research credentials, teaching experience (# undergrad classes taught to date), evaluations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCB, I do not blame for thinking that my position vis-a-vis the PA is prompted by a reaction to a lower score given to one of “my schools.” </p>
<p>Of course, HMC is only “my school” by geographical proximity. Fwiw, I have used the examples of Smith and Harvey Mudd not only to expose the LAC PA lunacy but also the deficiency of the USNews ranking in elements such as expected graduation performance. As you might remember, HMC was ranked dead last in that category when the Morse goons decided to give HMC an expected graduation rate of … 99% and thus eradicating ENTIRELY the benefit of being the most selective LAC in the country. On the other hand, a school such as Smith received a major boost BECAUSE of his comparatively lack of selectivity. If relying on the benefits of PA corrupted by malfeasance and geographical cronyism wasn’t enough. And, oc course a major reason to use the Smith versus HMC ad nauseam is that it is also represents the best example to underscore the lack of logic of the “mathematical” model that purports to demosntrate that the PA correlates “perfectly” to the hard data. </p>
<p>Anyway, you might consider that the mere fact of attending a school that has a very high PA would not change anything on my continuing crucifixion of the PA … and the use of TAs… Actually, I think you do know that I very rarely --if ever-- write about “my schools.” Not that I consider that a “crime.” I do enjoy --and respect-- the relentless efforts displayed by you and Alexandre in supporting your alma maters.</p>
<p>HMC sits as an odd duck in the LAC category, as a boutique science- engineering school with literally or virtually no humanities majors. They should bump it out of there altogether. Who cares what it ranks in LAC category, it is completely incomparable to the numerous other schools that are listed in that category and actually properly belong there. Nobody is deciding HMC vs. Smith, they are deciding Wellesley, a “real” LAC, vs. Smith. And HMC vs. Berkeley’s engineering college.</p>
<p>IMO.</p>
<p>^^ Fair enough. </p>
<p>Xiggi, regarding the Smith/HMC discrepancies, I think administrators have a harder time evaluating each others liberal arts colleges…the nature of LACs means there is less tangible and visible academic distinction versus what goes on in the national research university realm. LAC profs are not as actively engaged in research, which is where the visible and tangible academic rewards ultimately give an academic program its distinction. </p>
<p>Arguments are made that survey takers shouldn’t fill out their forms based on research and graduate programs…however, the problem lies with asking academics to fill out the survey in the first place. They will rank academic programs based on prestige in their eyes…which, I will admit is not always in the interest of the undergrad. But I do think the results are valid and have meaning (less so with the LAC ranking given the reason I mentioned above). </p>
<p>P.S. Students with high stats should graduate…that is why HMC is punished in the ranking. Morse is looking at outcomes, not just inputs.</p>
<p>“P.S. Students with high stats should graduate…that is why HMC is punished in the ranking.”</p>
<p>The normed “expected graduation rates” that it is being compared against were likely developed via regression analysis across LACs that do not have the same profile of majors offered by HMC. They do not have tons of engineering majors, and perhaps engineering majors may switch out at a higher rate than history and French majors, etc. HMC is an odd duck in this category.</p>
<p>^ Valid point.</p>
<p>I see that hawkette is once again trying to disguise the CP student surveys as a legitimate portrayal of student opinion. I will refer you to a previous post of mine on the topic: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063933518-post108.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1063933518-post108.html</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t that the truth as in deliberately creating categories to guarantee certain … outcomes. That is why Morse is not bashful about why there IS a PA. </p>
<p>Fwiw, the “scandal” regarding HMC was that is expected graduation rate was set at an impossible rate. In comparison, Caltech visibly graduation rate was adjusted. </p>
<p>Also, how much sense is there to have a metric (expected graduation rate that is derived from the selectivity index of prior years) that REWARDS to report lower selectivity in a ranking that is supposed to show … the BEST college in the nation. Since when is accepting more students with lower scores and ranking a positive? Yet that is the way it works for the LACs!</p>
<p>^ Hmmm…I’m unsure if USNWR uses selectivity data 4 years prior to develop the predicted graduation rate. If they do, that seems most logical. </p>
<p>
If LACs enroll students with lower scores and graduate them at a higher rate than a school that enrolls students with higher scores, isn’t the first school doing a better job with its resources (ceteris paribus)? </p>
<p>Schools are all compared among their cohort…with regression models to predict outcomes. But, like Xiggi said the problem is with the outliers. Perhaps Morse needs to apply the “Xiggi Adjustment Factor” to get the results perfectly aligned with Xiggi’s opinion… :)</p>
<p>“As for your question about the veracity of the A+ and A grades, are there common traits among all of those colleges that graded so highly for classroom teaching? Many jump out at me.”</p>
<p>They jump out at me too Hawkette. Which is why I question the ratings. My friends who attended those universities (and several did) seemed to complain as much as I did.</p>
<p>“All have relatively low numbers of undergraduate students.”</p>
<p>So are we to believe that MIT’s 6,000 graduate students do not take away from the attention its 4,000 undergrads receive? How about Chicago’s 8,000 graduate students vs 4,000 undergrads? Perhaps Harvard’s 6,000 undergrads to its 15,000 graduate students?</p>
<p>“All have lots of small class sizes as measured by % of classes involving less than 20 students and few classes involving more than 50 students.”</p>
<p>Really? Interesting. Care to define “classes”. Do all universities include just main lectures and seminars or do some also include special research/writing capstones and discussion sessions?</p>
<p>“All have low Student/Faculty ratios.”</p>
<p>Would that include graduate students? Many of those universities conveniently leave graduate students out of their calculations. Given the size of some of those universities’ graduate student bodies, including them as public universities do would certainly level the playing field.</p>
<p>“All use TAs sparingly or not at all.”</p>
<p>Really? LOL! Please Hawkette, any university where PhD students outnumber undergrads is going to us TAs. Several schools on that A+ and A list have PhDstudent bodies that outnumber undergrads. Care to explain how those thousands of PhD students earn their stipends?</p>
<p>As usual Hawkette, you naively (or intentionally) rely on manipulated and unverified data. I chose not to trust them because privateuniversities lie to improve their rankings. A university that gives itself a rating of A+ or A is definitely suspicious. </p>
<p>And even if the data were somehow correct, that would not explain how a university can claim that on average, its instructors deserve a rating of A+. There is no way that every single instructor (or the majority for that matter) is perfect ands appeals to all sorts of student and learning style on any given campus. That would be impossible. I can see how some universities can boast of delivering A- or B+ classroom experiences, but A+ or even A is impossible, regardless of what the data says.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s precisely the point. You are based in Rhode Island; how, indeed, WOULD you know if Iowa is “any good” compared to GW/Pitt/Lehigh/Fordham – all East Coast (or in the case of Pitt, near-East Coast) schools? It sounds like you think it might not be, else your hesitation … But what makes you think that, other than you don’t suspect it is because you’ve never heard much about it … But you’re not in the same geographical area? I mean, from my vantage point in the midwest, I’d rate Iowa much higher than Fordham. </p>
<p>Why would we think anyone really has any accurate nationwide impressions of other schools that aren’t heavily biased by geography and “well, I’ve heard of this one but not that one”?</p>
<p>Alex,
I think you’re in denial. U Michigan is a nice school, but it really can’t compete with the intimate environment of those schools that graded out at A+ or A. It’s just different. You may still have preferred the large size of U Michigan or even some of the specific programs offered at your school, but I think it’s silly to argue that the large size differences don’t impact the nature of the undergraduate experience, including in how the education is delivered in the classroom. The smaller environments have a huge leg up in this regard.</p>
<p>Also, while you probably already knew, of the 19 national universities that scored an A+ or A grade, all but three ranked in the USNWR Top 20 (exceptions are Carnegie Mellon at # 22, Tufts at # 28, and U Rochester at # 35). </p>
<p>Anyway, to make the comparison more fair for your U Michigan, I’ll drop out the LACs. Here are the 19 national universities that graded at A+ or A. </p>
<p>GRADE OF A±–Caltech, Dartmouth, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, U Chicago </p>
<p>GRADE OF A—Brown, Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, Duke, Emory, Harvard, Northwestern, Rice, Tufts, U Penn, U Rochester, Vanderbilt, Yale </p>
<p>GRADE OF B+
U Michigan</p>
<p>Now let’s compare on those few data points that I mentioned</p>
<p>Undergrad Students , School</p>
<p>921 , Caltech
3154 , Rice
4147 , Dartmouth
4153 , MIT
4981 , Princeton
5022 , U Chicago
5044 , Tufts
5277 , Yale
5355 , U Rochester
5998 , Carnegie Mellon
6095 , Brown
6496 , Duke
6532 , Stanford
6678 , Harvard
6837 , Vanderbilt
6890 , Emory
7495 , Columbia
8476 , Northwestern
9756 , U Penn</p>
<p>25,994, U MICHIGAN</p>
<p>I’ll ask my question again, hawkette:</p>
<p>How many students participated in the survey from each school to arrive at the “academic grade”?</p>
<p>It’s on their site. They list the number of participants by school. I remember it being almost always more than 200 and frequently more than 300.</p>
<p>More data on environment differences:</p>
<p>GRADE OF A±–Caltech, Dartmouth, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, U Chicago </p>
<p>GRADE OF A—Brown, Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, Duke, Emory, Harvard, Northwestern, Rice, Tufts, U Penn, U Rochester, Vanderbilt, Yale </p>
<p>GRADE OF B+
U Michigan</p>
<p>% of classes with < 20 students , School</p>
<p>78.5% , Yale
77.2% , Columbia
77.1% , Harvard
75.3% , Northwestern
74.9% , Princeton
73.2% , U Chicago
72.9% , U Penn
72.8% , Tufts
72.2% , Stanford
71.4% , Duke
70.8% , Caltech
70.6% , Brown
68.2% , Emory
67.7% , Vanderbilt
65.4% , Rice
65.2% , MIT
64.1% , Carnegie Mellon
62.5% , Dartmouth
61.1% , U Rochester</p>
<p>45.9% U MICHIGAN</p>
<p>Some more comparisons of the settings:</p>
<p>GRADE OF A±–Caltech, Dartmouth, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, U Chicago </p>
<p>GRADE OF A—Brown, Carnegie Mellon, Columbia, Duke, Emory, Harvard, Northwestern, Rice, Tufts, U Penn, U Rochester, Vanderbilt, Yale </p>
<p>GRADE OF B+
U Michigan</p>
<p>% of classes with > 50 students , School</p>
<p>4.5% , U Chicago
5.0% , Duke
5.1% , Tufts
6.4% , Caltech
6.6% , Vanderbilt
7.0% , Northwestern
7.0% , Emory
7.2% , Yale
7.3% , U Penn
8.1% , Harvard
8.1% , Rice
8.4% , Columbia
8.7% , Dartmouth
9.1% , Princeton
9.2% , Brown
11.0% , Carnegie Mellon
11.7% , Stanford
12.7% , MIT
12.7% , U Rochester</p>
<p>17.8% U MICHIGAN</p>