<p>kk
The endowment data was provided by the link that USNWR provided as part of its on-line package. Undoubtedly, the information is old but I am surprised by the degree to which the information on Northwestern is wrong. I had thought that since all of the data was likely old, then the relationships of size would not have changed much, barring some major differences in fund raising or investment performance in a given year. Your catch on Northwestern (and I have since been told that Vanderbilt is well in excess of $3bn) further demonstrates the point that the Midwestern and Southern schools have large endowments and are not at much, if any, of a competitive disadvantage vs the Ivies not named HYP.</p>
<p>This is veering slightly off topic--because it applies to Stanford as much as to Harvard or Yale--but one wrinkle that hasn't been mentioned is faculty hiring. At the most elite universities, many faculty hires are at the senior level (with tenure); in other words, the very top schools frequently hire senior scholars only after they've established a national reputation at some other institution. Once you get out of the super-elite tier, it becomes increasingly common for faculty to work their way up through the ranks and be granted tenure at an institution where they began as an untenured faculty member. (This is changing at some super-elite institutions, but only slowly and recently.) </p>
<p>If you go to a HYPSM, the chances that a tenured prof. is both brilliant and a leader in his or her field is increasingly high. Some may be mediocre teachers, or they may not engage much with undergrads (but that's also true elsewhere). </p>
<p>Along with endowment, this kind of faculty selectivity seems to me to be a meaningful difference between the top research universities and even elite LACs or some schools slightly lower than the top 5-10 in college rankings when averaged across an entire institution.</p>
<p>hawkette,</p>
<p>i find it curious that you keep singling out the PA as the major culprit - how then do you explain the PA Free Rankings on another thread:</p>
<p>Here are the Top 20 schools according to the PA Free rankings run by willmingtonwave:</p>
<p>Harvard University 1
Princeton University 1
University of Pennsylvania 3
Yale University 3
Duke University 3
Stanford University 6
Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 6
Washington University in St. Louis 6
Dartmouth College 6
Brown University 10
California Institute of Technology 10
Columbia University 10
Northwestern University 10
University of Notre Dame 10
Cornell University 15
Rice University 15
University of Chicago 17
Johns Hopkins University 17
Emory University 17
Vanderbilt University 17
Tufts University 21
Georgetown University 21</p>
<p>According to the PA Rankings run above, the Ivies all take Top 10 positions (save Cornell which is 15). I've always argued as much (i.e. that the PA score hurts the non-HYP Ivies rather than help them). Note that for the most part Rice, Emory, Vanderbilt, etc. are ranked outside most Ivies in this PA-free ranking.</p>
<p>So, simply put, if PA is the major culprit bringing down those other non-Ivy schools, how do you explain the results of this PA-free ranking which demonstrate otherwise?</p>
<p>The PA drops Penn from 3 to 7? That's crazy...It seems to hurt Northwestern considerably also</p>
<p>^These were the old US rankings. I'm very interested in seeing the new ranking without PA.</p>
<p>This seems pretty simple to me. The first settlers set up colonies in the Northeast. The first states were established in the East. Some of the oldest colleges are in the Northeast. Notice that all the Ivies except for Cornell were established in/before the 1700s? That just means that much more time to establish reputation, do research, build up resources, improve, get more money/grants/funds/donations, etc. Hey, not ALL top schools are in the Northeast. That would be biased. But what about colleges like Stanford? CalTech? U Chicago? Northwestern? Duke? Berkeley? Besides, I don't think people can really concoct an "unbiased" ranking of colleges that does not have many Northeast colleges. I think there just happen to be some pretty darn good schools there.</p>
<hr>
<p>vicissitudes, age and tradition are certainly factors which cannot be completed dismissed. having said that, however, the same descriptions can be made of the other two non-Ivy, Colonial era colleges / universities:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_colleges%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_colleges</a>
- William & Mary (America's second oldest)
- Rutgers
and yet noone is going to argue that those two schools are amongst the absolute elite universities in the US. obviously age and tradition / headstart only proves so much. it seems that the Ivies have been doing something right... and that is not to discount in any way the tremendous strides certain schools have made in a relatively short time frame (Stanford in particular).</p>
<p>Looking at the arguments proferred - some of them, such as looking at the "top ten" highest graduation rates are, frankly, ridiculous.</p>
<p>For example - Prestige argues that based on lists of rankings (of various sorts) that Ivy League schools like Brown and Dartmouth are better than a school like Northwestern.</p>
<p>But with regard to "highest graduation rates" - NU is on par with Dartmouth (something he conveniently overlooks) and not really materially different from Brown, Columbia and Penn (does a 1-2% difference in graduation rates - which do fluctuate a bit every year- really make a credible argument as for which school is "better"?).</p>
<p>For someone who seems so hung up on rankings based on lists (particularly those provided by USNWR) - Prestige also seems to conveniently overlook the fact that NU has consistently been ranked HIGHER than Brown and Cornell. Now, does this mean that NU is a "better" school than Brown or Cornell. Not really. The differences at this level are so minute that one can make "arguments" for every case possible.</p>
<p>Here are some other faulty arguments.</p>
<p>Rankings based on Wall Street Journal Best Feeder Colleges Rankings are somewhat misleading. </p>
<p>The law, biz and med schools that WSJ used as the basis for its rankings were overwhelmingly from the Northeast.</p>
<p>A more accurate portrayal would be to look at the top 10-15 schools for each discipline (in order to ameliorate regional bias) and to look at the rankings over a no. of years (since with a few exceptions - the nos. can fluctuate widely).</p>
<p>The Rutgers and Williams & Mary argument is also flawed. Unlike Ivy League schools, those 2 schools are PUBLIC universities and have very different mandates.</p>
<p>As for selectivity - while certainly a consideration, kk19131 does make a valid point as to class size.</p>
<p>Non-Ivy schools like Stanford, NU, Duke, etc. roughly pull from the same pool of applicants as the Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>If a school like NU were to cut its class size down to that of Princeton's (or if Princeton were to increase its class size to that of NU) - NU's acceptance rate would be more in line with that of Princeton and probably on par with that of some other Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>The argument that reducing or enlarging a class size (within reason) would impact the no. of applicants is, frankly, ridiculous.</p>
<p>The argument that the "Ivy League" began as a "humble sports conference" is also misleading - the Ivy League schools and in particular, HYP, were already regarded as the bastion of higher learning in America.</p>
<p>Prestige also basically contradicts himself. He acknowledges that there is such a thing as an East Coast bias in a numerous areas, but then proceeds to argue that there is no way such a bias applies to the Ivy League.</p>
<p>Now - is there an East Coast/Ivy League bias as some people here have argued? The answer is probably - yes (as to how much? who really knows.)</p>
<p>Prestige and reputation are generally based upon many different things - among them are: tradition, geography and marketing.</p>
<p>While all the Ivy League universities are top-notch institutions of higher learning - they do get a "lift" based upon the institutional advantages that they have (I think we all know or know of people who were desperate to get into ANY Ivy League school, particularly along the East Coast).</p>
<p>On a side note - the endowment figure for NU is way off (and it's not a recent development either).</p>
<p>*USNWR Slanted in favor of the Northeast *</p>
<p>That's not how I see it. </p>
<p>USNews favors private unis ? that?s what I see it is doing. Some of criteria they used such as ratio of faculty to students, ratio of this and that...etc., etc? are fallible. </p>
<p>Look, just because School X has a student to faculty ratio of 1:5 makes it a better school to School Y that has a ratio of 1:5.1??? Duh! </p>
<p>Another thing: the number one uni keeps on changing year after year. It says Princeton is the NUMBER ONE uni for undergrad this year. But last year was different -- it was Harvard. Five years or so ago, it was Caltech. So which school is really the number one???</p>
<p>Look, this is how that gets to me. Students who entered Harvard in year 2005-2006 were getting number one education. The next year, when they slipped in the ranking, their students were then getting number two education??? Isn?t that weird???</p>
<p>If Princeton is number one, what would that make other great schools like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, UPenn, Columbia??? Are they inferior schools to Princeton??? Come on!</p>
<p>Another thing, what if the student wants to major IT? Would that still make Princeton number one?</p>
<p>suggestion: assess each majors of the school. that's what would help the students more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Another thing: the number one uni keeps on changing year after year. It says Princeton is the NUMBER ONE uni for undergrad this year. But last year was different
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, last year wasn't different. Last year was the same as this year. and the year before, and the year before, and the year before...</p>
<p>Princeton has been no. 1 for the last seven years. In fact, over the last 15 years, Princeton has been either no. 1 or no. 2 for 14 of those years:</p>
<p>'07 - no. 1
'06 - no. 1
'05 - no. 1
'04 - no. 1
'03 - no. 1
'02 - no. 1
'01 - no. 1
'00 - no. 4
'99 - no. 1
'98 - no. 1
'97 - no. 2
'96 - no. 2
'95 - no. 2
'94 - no. 2
'93 - no. 2</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, just because School X has a student to faculty ratio of 1:5 makes it a better school to School Y that has a ratio of 1:5.1??? Duh!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>5 vs. 5.1? Nah.</p>
<p>an undergraduate class of 1,229 (Princeton) vs. 4,101 (Cal)? Yeah. Big difference. Huge.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Look, this is how that gets to me. Students who entered Harvard in year 2005-2006 were getting number one education. The next year, when they slipped in the ranking, their students were then getting number two education??? Isn?t that weird???
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A wise man once said, if this is really going to get to you, I'd steer clear of reading about situations like Darfur...</p>
<p>
[quote]
If Princeton is number one, what would that make other great schools like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Berkeley, UPenn, Columbia??? Are they inferior schools to Princeton??? Come on!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, I kind of agree. Princeton isn't superior to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Penn or Columbia... oh wait - did you slip Cal in there? Princeton is definitely superior to Cal, come on!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Another thing, what if the student wants to major IT? Would that still make Princeton number one?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Right on. ITT Technical Institute all the way baby.</p>
<p>the_prestige,</p>
<p>I questioned the criteria, the methodology, the formula and the distribution of percentages, the selection of which criterion is more important than the other criterion, etc, etc., even the motives of this magazine. </p>
<p>For one thing, the formula didn't account the strength of the programs. Instead, it weighted the selection process more, the student body, etc... that is why the ranking does not jibe with the scores made by academic presidents/profs. </p>
<p>I once said it was also deceiving. why?</p>
<p>say a student wants to major chem and his options are berkekey and duke. according to USNews, duke is number 7(??) while berkeley is # 21(!!!!). now, if the student would rely on the ranking made by USNews, he would logically pick duke. but we all know that the chem at berkeley is superior to duke's. so where is justice there? as i can see, the only reason why duke became superior to berkeley was because it has a slightly higher SATs. but should that be a more reason to pick a school? No.</p>
<p>according to their formula, a school that has a smaller student to faculty ratio is more superior. Now let's try some exercises:</p>
<p>School A = 1: 8
School B = 1: 8.2
School C = 1: 11
School D = 1: 14</p>
<p>Now here are my questions: can we really conclude that School A is superior to school B,C & D because it has a smaller faculty to student ratio??
Wouldn't you learn as much if you're in school D as compared to school A?</p>
<p>what happened was, princeton edged out all the rest including harvard and yale because it has the stat similar to school A. but is that a conclusive gauge/measure? No.</p>
<p>Now, let's go the figures you provided:</p>
<p>'01 - no. 1
'00 - no. 4
'99 - no. 1
'98 - no. 1</p>
<p>A student entered princeton in 2001 and he receives top 1 education. the following year, the education he received became #4. on his 3rd year at princeton, his education became top 1 again. what's the sense of all that? </p>
<p>Another question, are all departments at princeton identical in academic standard? If its english dept is number one, are all the rest of the depts number one too? the USNews does not answer such a question.</p>
<p>so many more flawed and highly questionable processes which USNews has done to come up with a ranking. though its interesting to read the mag, they're rather deceiving than a help to their readers...</p>
<p>Another major thing:</p>
<p>What’s the basis for giving more points to schools which have higher SATs? Do people with slightly higher SAT stats imply that they're better people, better contacts, richer, more likely to become richer, kinder?? What???</p>
<p>vangie,</p>
<p>its hard to make the argument that USNews favors privates over publics. While some statistics they pick favor private schools, like student faculty ratio, some favor publics like peer assessment score. Some could argue that publics have an advantage because they receive a higher peer assessment score versus where they lay in the rankings.</p>
<p>You must realize that the USnews ranks schools in one and only one thing, how well they do under USnews's methodology. You could easily change any one of those items chosen, or the weights of the categories and come up with a different arrangment of the schools.</p>
<p>Also, you need to take the rankings with a grain of salt. I truly believe some of the private schools, maybe don't lie - but fudge their data. For example, I believe Upenn, at the very least, fudges their s/f ratio. Upenn claims to have a student faculty ratio of like 4 or 5:1 - but notice how UPenn doesn't release a common data set (much like the underinformative Notre Dame). Who knows if that 4:1 or 5:1 s/f ratio includes non teaching research staff, or professional school faculty, or counting T.A.'s as full time instructors (none of these supposed to be included in that ratio). I can't speak for first hand knowledge as I've never attended there, but common sense dictates that a school with 10000 undergrads and 10000 grad students can't be sporting smaller class sizes and student faculty ratios 50% lower than schools like swarthmore which has much more money per student and a student body 1/10 the size - and no heavy research to fund.</p>
<p>Also SAT scores are important because they tell you how strong the student body is. Its just common sense that people who do better on the SATs are more likely to be smarter than people who did worse. Now is someone who scores a 1410 smarter than someone with a 1380...no. Is something with a 1500 dumber than someone with a 1550...no again. But if say my schools 25%ile SAT is 1300, and your schools 75%ile is 1300, you don't agree that overall, my school has a stronger student body than your school?</p>
<p>I wouldn't consider Penn, Columbia, or Princeton Northeast. New York City and New Jersey are in a region by themselves and Pennsylvania is Mid Atlantic. </p>
<p>There are just so many more colleges in the Northeast. </p>
<p>Notre Dame is very Catholic and strong so it is unique in that way. And no, Emory, Vandy, Notre Dame, Rice, and others are all right up there with the Ivies in education and degrees and opportunities. I can say that the older Northeastern schools are more popular choices among Northeastern students because the Northeast is their comfort zone and they have established networks there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I wouldn't consider Penn, Columbia, or Princeton Northeast. New York City and New Jersey are in a region by themselves and Pennsylvania is Mid Atlantic.</p>
<p>There are just so many more colleges in the Northeast.</p>
<p>Notre Dame is very Catholic and strong so it is unique in that way. And no, Emory, Vandy, Notre Dame, Rice, and others are all right up there with the Ivies in education and degrees and opportunities. I can say that the older Northeastern schools are more popular choices among Northeastern students because the Northeast is their comfort zone and they have established networks there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I get what you are saying, but technically speaking, those schools (Columbia/Penn/Princeton) / states (NY, NJ, PA) are a part of the "Northeastern US" as defined by the US Census Bureau:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Northeast%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Northeast</a></p>
<p>Basically, if you are limiting your region to no states south of CT or west of Vermont, you aren't talking about the "Northeast" - you are talking about New England. In other words, New England is a subset of the Northeast (just as the Northeast is a subset of the East Coast) - and by that definition, those schools mentioned can be in the "Northeast" but be excluded from the New England region.</p>
<p>Anything to feel right, eh prestige?</p>
<p>it's not about "feeling" right, it's about clarifying a term which is often misunderstood.</p>
<p>While some statistics they pick favor private schools, like student faculty ratio, some favor publics like peer assessment score. Some could argue that publics have an advantage because they receive a higher peer assessment score versus where they lay in the rankings.</p>
<p>Hi Jags861.</p>
<p>I honestly couldn?t see how PEER ASSESSMENT favors the public schools. As you can see, not all public schools were rated very highly, but only those that are really good in academic and research such as Berkeley, Michigan, Virginia, UCLA, Illinois, Texas, Wisconsin, Georgia Tech and UNC which is just acceptable, logical and fair. </p>
<p>You must realize that the USnews ranks schools in one and only one thing, how well they do under USnews's methodology. You could easily change any one of those items chosen, or the weights of the categories and come up with a different arrangment of the schools.</p>
<p>I don?t really see the point raking the schools 1 to last. That discriminates even the really good ones. For example, Stanford peeps use it a reason to condescend those people at Duke because they rank higher then Duke in ranking games. I mean, that?s utterly disgraceful because to begin with, both are excellent schools and belong to the same league. That was why I insist for a per course/major assessment so that aspiring students will be guided more towards their major and not the school. I asked this one, I will ask it again: if you want to major chemistry and your options are just two, Berkeley and Duke, would you go to Duke just because USNews ranked it higher overall than Berkeley? </p>
<p>**Also, you need to take the rankings with a grain of salt. I truly believe some of the private schools, maybe don't lie - but fudge their data. For example, I believe Upenn, at the very least, fudges their s/f ratio. Upenn claims to have a student faculty ratio of like 4 or 5:1 - but notice how UPenn doesn't release a common data set (much like the under informative Notre Dame). Who knows if that 4:1 or 5:1 s/f ratio includes non teaching research staff, or professional school faculty, or counting T.A.'s as full time instructors (none of these supposed to be included in that ratio). **</p>
<p>This is another reason why I do not support USNews because there are so many issues even in ?fudging? of data. Who knows Duke did the same thing to make it appear higher in the ranking. Maybe Princeton did the same thing too to edge out Harvard. </p>
<p>**Also SAT scores are important because they tell you how strong the student body is.[/i* </p>
<p>But should SATs weigh more than GPAs? SAT was just a one day test. Your GPA was a product of your whole high school. There are hundreds of factors too when you take an exam thus we really cannot say it is a conclusive measure. For example, you take the SAT today and score 650. Do it after a month?s review and you?ll score differently. It may go up but it could also go down. So, it does not really reflect one?s intelligence conclusively. And if that is so, how can it be more important than the other criteria used by USNews? Besides, we?re talking about very small points difference here. I mean, in the case between Berkeley and Duke, that was the case. And Berkeley?s lack in SATs was compensated by its high GPAs. So it?s really very hard who has the smarter bunch of students. </p>
<p>Its just common sense that people who do better on the SATs are more likely to be smarter than people who did worse. Now is someone who scores a 1410 smarter than someone with a 1380...no. Is something with a 1500 dumber than someone with a 1550...no again. But if say my schools 25%ile SAT is 1300, and your schools 75%ile is 1300, you don't agree that overall, my school has a stronger student body than your school?</p>
<p>I would give you an answer after you provide what their GPA average is. For all you know, not all valedictorians/salutatorians do end up having higher SATs than the rest of their classmates.</p>