<p>Oh good lord, like there isn’t a thread on CC that doesn’t inevitably circle back around to a) Michigan, b) Berkeley, or c) Duke.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see the raw statistics on that site. </p>
<p>Anyways, if CP is interviewing 200-300 students per campus regardless of undergraduate population, they are not obtaining a consistent sample size…which could introduce bias to the data.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Would you mind if Morse also followed Xiggi’s opinion about presenting two separate rankings --with the principal one based solely on an expanded PA that is composed of clearly defined categories? You know, the second one could be a simple collection of hard date that customers of the online version could sort according to their most private wishes and … biases. </p>
<p>As far as Xiggi’s opinion … I only wish Morse would stop playing games with his customers’ intelligence and stop pretending there is “science” behind the rankings. The ONLY value of the USNEws is not that it provides a ranking … that is what sells magazines. The value is that it does a good job of presenting data that would take an individual a lot of time to compile. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the USNews as evidenced by its latest ULTRA MORONIC foray in ranking worldwide universities is clearly showing its affinity for poorly defined surveys and blatant misdirection. And this on top of the even dumber moves to changes the presentation of the online best college rankings. Although the USNEWS remains the “best we got” it is only because the other rankings are (and by far) even worse --a rare feat! </p>
<p>Would it really be all that hard to give us a Peer Assessment with criteria EVERYONE could understand (and check against other data.) I would LOVE to be able to trust the opinion of all those people who (supposedly) fill the survey and AGREE to sign a statement of accuracy to be displayed prominently on their school website! </p>
<p>Of course, fat chance to see anything like that happening. The mere VERIFIABLE signature would cause 50% of the survey to disappear. Requiring to post the completed online survey would leave just a handful who would not fear the transparency.</p>
<p>Perhaps, I should add a smiley here ===> 
although the current situation is really SAD!</p>
<p>More comparisons of factors that influence the learning setting:</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>Student/Faculty Ratio , School</p>
<p>3/1 , Caltech
5/1 , Rice
5/1 , Princeton
6/1 , U Chicago
6/1 , Yale
6/1 , U Penn
6/1 , Columbia
6/1 , Stanford
7/1 , Tufts
7/1 , Northwestern
7/1 , Emory
7/1 , Harvard
7/1 , MIT
8/1 , Duke
8/1 , Vanderbilt
8/1 , Dartmouth
8/1 , Brown
9/1 , U Rochester
11/1 , Carnegie Mellon</p>
<p>15/1 U MICHIGAN</p>
<p>Alex,
The comparison group is probably a bit unfair to U Michigan as this group is truly a Who’s Who of the best of the USA’s colleges. </p>
<p>Hopefully, the disparities that I have presented have helped you and others to understand the sharp differences in educational settings. IMO, these differences have a much larger impact on the academic experience of the average undergraduate student than whether a college has a strong research reputation within the world of academia.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Penn and Chicago do get their fair share! Although it is a lot less fun without Theodore “Ted” O’Neill and Lee Stetson around. Conversations about the last true intellectuals in the US and the Zuckerman conspiracy are not as interesting as they used to be. Now we all have to debate the inability of Berkeley and Michigan to crack the top 20, and Duke great difficulty in having *real *sub-20% admission rates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In which case it will be a really short “debate.” Sure, PA is 25% of the rankings composite, but the other 75% correlates well with wealth, which is not in the purview of the publics.</p>
<p>Hawkette, those figures are incorrect since private universities present data very differently from public universities. For example, did you know that according to Columbia and Harvard, not one of their 15,000 graduate students was included in the student to faculty ratios? You would expect at least 6,000 or 7,000 of them to be included. That alone would change their ratios from 6:1 and 7:1 to 12:1 and 13:1 respectively. </p>
<p>Nice try Hawkette, but as always, your data is flawed. When you are ready to count Cal and Michigan among the top universities in the nation, I will still be around and willing to discuss</p>
<p>A much better metric than student/faculty ratio would be average class size. Even average class size has a potential problem because at some universities there is more than one section number per class so, if you divide by number of section numbers, you would underestimate average class size. I can’t, for the life of me, figure out the purpose behind having two or more sections per class except to deliberately make your class sizes look smaller than they really are.</p>
<p>For example, course numbers 12-34-567-89 and 12-34-567-99 might actually be the same class.</p>
<p>
Ummm, if it can be verified or “fact-checked” by some data, I would prefer to use that data versus someone’s interpretation of the data - along with silly weightings.</p>
<p>But when the question is asked to rank a college’s academic programs between “distinguished” (5) or “strong” (4), opinions are bound to differ. And there is no right or wrong answer…strategic voting included.</p>
<p>IMHO, only a handful of colleges can offer distinguished academic programs…because if too many do, then a school, by definition, loses its distinction.</p>
<p>Alex,
I know you want to knock down the data, but you’re going to have to convince all of us that the 19 colleges referenced above (as well as a few others) are serial fabricators of their data. Yes, that’s it. They’re liars! Why don’t we just knock all of them aside and install your school as # 1? :rolleyes: </p>
<p>As for your statement that Cal and U Michigan are among the top universities in the nation, including graduate programs, I’ve never posted otherwise. But for undergraduate students, there are lots of better options and especially so for OOS students. </p>
<p>There are several dozen colleges in the USA (including nearly all of the 19 that graded A+ or A for teaching quality) that deserve to be ranked higher for undergraduate education. The best colleges are exceptionally strong destinations for undergraduate students and have stronger assemblies of
- excellent student bodies
- small classes
- better teaching in the classroom; and
- more financial resources and a willingness to spend them on undergrads</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BB, but has the debate been short? Or are you telling me that this endless debate has been about something different from the perceived relative low ranking of the best state universities in the country? By the way, I have to give credit to our friend RML for making few attempts to hide his profound dismay with the rankings of schools such as Notre Dame, Emory, Rice, or Vanderbilt. Aren’t those the first hurdles to jump on the way to supreme recognition and … just desserts? </p>
<p>Could have fooled me. :)</p>
<p>I agree collegehelp, average class size would be a much better metric than faculty to student ratios or classes with fewer than 20 students and classes with over 50 students. But again, what qualifies as a “class” must be clearly defined and all data must be closely scrutinized if a fair comparison is to be made.</p>
<p>Hawkette, I never claimed Michigan was #1. Anybody who has read my posts over the last few years knows that I believe Cal should be ranked in the top 10 and Michigan in the top 15 or top 20. </p>
<p>But your criteria for what makes a university great are not universally accepted. I personally value other things above them. Who are you to impose your values on others? </p>
<p>And as I have always maintained, the data you use to validate your criteria, have NEVER been properly standardized or audited.</p>
<p>With all its budget problems, how could Cal be in the top 10?</p>
<p>
Increase PA score weighting, cut medical school spending from the “Financial Resources Rank”, drop the alumni giving and we’re well on our way… ;)</p>
<p>
Opinion of approx. 2,000 academics think it should be squarely in the Top 10. Go talk to them.</p>
<p>
I agree with your point, PG, since it essentially is the same one I am making. However, as a matter of accuracy I should point out that I was born and raised in Missouri, lived there another 7 years after finishing grad school, and I interact with people from universities all over North America on a fairly regular basis and have a chance to discuss various aspects of their schools with them from time to time. But I am in an unusual situation in this regard. I agree with your argument 100%. I think PA is worthless, trying to rank colleges is worthless, and having a term “Best College” is worthless. Other than that, I have no strong feelings on the subject.</p>
<p>BuddyMcAwesome, all universities have felt the pinch of late. Private universities, which depend far more on their endowments than public universities, have seen their endowments shrink by 20%-30% over the last two years. Nobody knows how Cal will emerge from the financial crisis or how it will emerge from from California’s current budget problem. But for now, Cal remains a top 10 university.</p>
<p>Look, I know nothing about Cal, and I am not a Cal-basher or anything like that. But, when I read about all these protests going on at the UCs over class cutting etc. it just seems like while the academics for regents students may be great, for the average student there, the red-tape and bureaucracy made worse by the near bankruptcy of the state is a hell-hole</p>
<p>^ Proposed CA budget restores UC funding. <em>Fingers crossed it gets passed</em></p>
<p>I also believe UC officials have complained the loudest and probably overstated the consequences. Hence that enhances the perception that UC has a big problem. In actuality, it presents opportunity as well - a chance to become more efficient and less beauracratic - which are steps in the right direction.</p>