<p>
</p>
<p>It’s too bad he doesn’t have the ability to be able to say these are all great universities and the rankings don’t much matter one way or the other - at this level, it gets down to personal preference.</p>
<p>xiggi:</p>
<p>to paraphrase a former VP-candidate, “you betcha” it’s been short. There are those of us who KNOW, with absolute certainty, that UMich (and Cal) belongs in the company of the nation’s collegial elite, and everyone else. Heck, Michigan is even playing Ivy-level football nowadays. :D</p>
<p>Well said PG. It amazes me that anyone really thinks there is a meaningful difference academically between #8 and #18 (I did not look up who those are). You are right, it is just a matter of which of those schools, or probably any other on the first page or so, is right for that particular student.</p>
<p>fallenchemist, so you are saying that there is not much different between Columbia and Emory?</p>
<p>I think the “A+” schools do deserve relatively high grades. Should the grade be “A+”? Maybe not, an A or A- seems more realistic. Then bump the next schools down a half grade and you wind up at the same place.</p>
<p>Still, I don’t see student opinion polls as a huge improvement over President and Provost opinion polls. I want to see a completely data-driven process that a computer (or hawkette) can calculate without a trace of humanity in the output.</p>
<p>
These aren’t even valid opinion polls. CP does not release any methodology for the student interns to use in survey administration, so we have no way of knowing whether the samples are randomly selected. They don’t explain how they consolidate all their data into a letter grade, either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, BB, I agree and so does CC; they even created an entire CC forum to celebrate the accomplishment: </p>
<p>[Graduate</a> School - College Confidential](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/graduate-school/]Graduate”>Graduate School - College Confidential Forums)</p>
<p>John Adams - No I am not saying there is not much difference between Columbia and Emory overall, looking at all aspects. Please don’t drop my word academically. But academically only, for an undergraduate? Not as far as the quality of instruction, the strength of the student body, research opportunities, and other similar factors. There are positives to Emory (e.g. more undergraduate focused with regard to profs time) and positives for Columbia no doubt. There are many differences in the overall experience, of course.</p>
<p>Let me put it another way. I think the other factors involved in choosing a school so far outweigh whatever slight difference there might be between the academics at Emory vs. Columbia that it becomes a moot point.</p>
<p>Or “Graduate School” is just a place for the best students to take classes as an undergrad.</p>
<p>[Wisconsin</a> math conquers Britain Quomodocumque](<a href=“http://quomodocumque.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2010/02/11/wisconsin-math-conquers-britain/]Wisconsin”>Wisconsin math conquers Britain | Quomodocumque)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, not really. Not in any kind of long run. When you graduate in '12, you’ll begin to realize that. The differences that you’re so quick to try to parse for bragging rights really aren’t as big as you think they are.</p>
<p>The student choosing between Columbia and Emory (assuming we’re not talking about a given program where one is superior to the other) would be better suited to thinking through how much they like / prefer NY over Atlanta and other similar lifestyle concerns.</p>
<p>xiggi, I believe these forum links are also appropriate:
[CC</a> Top Universities - College Confidential](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/cc-top-universities/]CC”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/cc-top-universities/)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Isn’t that wonderful, Barrons. Shows that quality students can show up in the darnest places. Come to think about it, the winners of the 2009-2010 might actually make everyone in this thread happy. There are UC graduates, Michigan graduates, and even some who attend what your consider the ugly ducklings of education, you know those LACsimodos. </p>
<p>
[quote]
<a href=“http://winstonchurchillfoundation.org/index.php?hide=1§ion=Scholars&type=php[/url]”>http://winstonchurchillfoundation.org/index.php?hide=1§ion=Scholars&type=php</a>
2009-2010</p>
<p>Kristen Beck
University of Rochester
Physics</p>
<p>Ren</p>
<p>“Still, I don’t see student opinion polls as a huge improvement over President and Provost opinion polls. I want to see a completely data-driven process that a computer (or hawkette) can calculate without a trace of humanity in the output.”</p>
<p>tk21769, until the data presented by universities is reported in a uniform, standardized and completely honest way, adjusted for size and affiliation and audited for accuracy, data driven rankings would be pointless. </p>
<p>Furthermore, data will only tell part of the story. There must always remain a human element to the equation. The PA should be improved through more transparancy, but it should not be removed altogether.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ucb … 
:)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly! There is a place for both objective data and subjective interpretations. It is the current attempt to mix both into a ridiculous hodgepodge that is a source of contempt and dismay. </p>
<p>While I remain 100% against the abject boondoggle that is currently pushed down our throat, I am also 100% behind an improved version that would ferret out the bandits and lazy administrators who make a mockery of the system. </p>
<p>PS The student surveys are pure hogwash!</p>
<p>xig;</p>
<p>Mudd is a great school, no question. But how is the football team? Can they beat Smith? :)</p>
<p>pizzagirl, what is it about every post of yours that includes an attack on another person?</p>
<p>Are you not happy at home?</p>
<p>Were you not happy at Northwestern?</p>
<p>Are you not happy in your current work?</p>
<p>Why is it that every time you type a sentence, it has to have an insult and attack on another person?</p>
<p>You have to stop this behavior.</p>
<p>I asked a simple question to another person:</p>
<p>"fallenchemist, so you are saying that there is not much different between Columbia and Emory? "</p>
<p>and you immediately began your low life personal attack.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>xiggi, I agree with you entire post #154. Rankings need to be polished big time! The USNWR formula is fine in principle, but it lacks data integrity and transparency. Hopefully, they will boster their legitimacy by adding much needed checks and balances.</p>
<p>As for student surveys, they are completely unreliable and meaningless. The PR is a pefect example of this. According to student surveys, Brown is ranked #93 academically in the US. Cal, Caltech, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Micdhigan, Northwestern and Penn are not even ranked among the top 100. So much for students being the “experts”.</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd’s foortball team did ok last season:</p>
<p>[CMS</a> Athletics :](<a href=“http://www.cmsathletics.org/sports/fall/fball/2010-11/schedule]CMS”>2010 Schedule - Claremont Mudd Scripps)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>These things are not all as bad as some posts make them out to be.
The Common Data Set is uniform and standardized. Is it used in a completely honest way? Hard to say, and unfortunately a few schools (my own alma mater included) don’t publish one. But it does represent progress compared to the days when I was in school.</p>
<p>Citation ranking is an example of a data-driven metric that would be fairly hard to rig (a school could incentivize the publication of many minor articles but algorithms can account for that, and they would get few citations). It’s also not completely relevant to undergraduate quality but that is why you try to triangulate among several measurements that address complementary strengths. The usual suspects tend to bubble up to the top in measurement after measurement. It’s when we obsess over small differences that they seem so flawed (unless we are measuring from a completely different perspective such as the Washington Monthly Mother Theresa standards).</p>
<p>I think graduate peer-based department rankings by professors are inherently more reliable than undergraduate whole-school rankings by administrators. But I don’t know if they could be made feasible for undergraduate, department by department rankings without tremendous expense and oversight to ensure they are not based mostly on research production.</p>