<p>@patriotsfan1 - the comparison was clearly stated to be at the graduate level. And yes, at the graduate level, NU is, by a good margin, the superior school for economics. Rankings can’t always convey meaningful differences; this is certainly true for a field such as economics, which is dominated by a small number of schools. Some even draw distinctions between the quality of the econ programs at Princeton (top 3) and Stanford (top 5), even though both are top 5, as Princeton is still clearly the superior program. There is a significant difference between the quality of the programs at Northwestern and Duke (at the graduate level). However, I have already said that graduate program strength is less relevant to undergraduate education in a particular field:</p>
<p>" At the undergraduate level, most top universities have the resources to provide their undergraduates with an excellent education in nearly any field. "</p>
<p>Actually, mergers and acquisitions is a secondary role of the typical investment bank; underwriting and trading securities is an investment bank’s principal service. I’m not denying that economics is related to investment banking and that a fundamental knowledge of economics is necessary for success as an investment banker. Your internships, however, do not seem to relate enough to investment banking for you to make many qualified statements about IB as a profession. If you haven’t actually worked as an investment banker, you won’t have a feel for what the job really entails. Anyone can describe what an investment bank’s function is by reading up on the field or by talking to those with experience as investment bankers, but no one can actually relate to the field without having experienced it first-hand. You don’t KNOW that you want to do investment banking until you’ve actually DONE investment banking (i.e., through an actual IB internship). The same applies to most other careers. You need more experience with an actual field before you know that it’s your true calling; that’s why Pancaked and I have argued that it’s silly to decide between schools based on an edge in OCR. Most people change majors throughout college…it would be silly to make better IB placement the primary reason for choosing one school over another. </p>
<p>I agree that this discussion has really become bad quickly. Let me make reassure you that I hold Duke in very high regard, and that I acknowledge that it does have its advantages over Vanderbilt. If I were deciding between the two for a graduate degree, I would almost certainly choose Duke. However, I believe that, for the purpose of an undergraduate education, one can achieve what they want at either.</p>
<p>I think we all have the same agreement, both are great schools. As far as grad school economics go, I’d say the top Ivys/Chicago are the way to go, and business schools/graduate programs at Duke, NU, etc are a notch below. NU has a great grad school program, Duke isn’t really known for grad school econ, I’ll give you that, but it definitely is one of the top programs behind that top couple tiers of the elite Ivys and UChicago.</p>
<p>As prior posts have noted there have been great changes at Vanderbilt over the past ten years. The incoming freshman class has improved from 55% in the top 10% of their HS class to 97% in the top 10% with an average class rank of top 3%. The average SAT scores are up 200 points, selectivity is up from 50% to 13% of applications admitted and the number of applications are up 100%. While other schools are slipping in the USNR Vandy has moved from # 20 to # 17. Infastruture from classrooms to labs to dorms has and continues to improve. These things don’t randomly happen. You don’t need an “elite MBA” to see something special is happening at Vanderbilt.
Nashville is also going through some great changes and is ranked as a top city for business, healthcare, tech start ups, music, art, tourism, jobs, most livable city, etc…
It is a great time to be at Vanderbilt. Don’t let the haters keep you from visiting your dream schools. Come see why all these great things are happening at Vanderbilt. It’s a great community to be part of for college.</p>
<p>Vanderbilt has improved a lot and is definitely on the upswing. This is a silly debate; patriotsfan1 and I both think Vandy is a great school. It needs to improve its academic reputation though by hiring more renowned faculty members to start impressing those in the academic world since not everyone blindly follows USNWR. Also, increasing professional and graduate school placement key as people care about these sorts of statistics a lot and Vandy under performs while Duke punches above its weight here.</p>
<p>Again Vandy underperforms because of the upswing. Those stats are from 2003. The grad school chances of the class of 2003 and earlier is so vastly different than the class of 2012 that they can’t even be compared. Then Class of 2012 vs 2016-- again, monumental differences. </p>
<p>The class of 2014, 2015, 2016-- their grad school placement will rival that of top 15 schools. That’s what’s important when you’re deciding where you are going to school. With Vandy, the grad school placement TODAY, the placement of the class of 2012 (and certainly the placement of the class of 2003) is just not relevant because of the rapid upswing. With a school like Duke, who already had their upswing, the stats are not likely to budge much, and so they remain relevant.</p>
<p>I’m all for more great professors and rainmakers professors are needed to “play the reputation game”. I don’t believe one can define an undergraduate experience by how many students attend 15 graduate programs. The old boys Ivy club take care of each other…it’s good business.</p>
<p>Bud and Pancaked: That’s kind of true I guess. I don’t hear a lot of noise (I guess I mean “national”) about the faculty and professors at Vandy, even though they are really good. We have lots of great/really well-known profs. and stuff (that have been making headlines) and we don’t rank that well (I suppose we have decent law school placement, I guess…), but plenty of people who are actually here for the education like this aspect and it really adds (I suppose that Emory does not do well because it does not know how to market well and doesn’t get through to students that, “yo, we have an amazing faculty”. Either that, or we get students who don’t care about that, which is a problem we need to fix. Must recruit people who don’t merely see it as a nice name on a degree). Since Vandy already ranks well and is having an upswing (As in, students now recognize its more than just a nice name), y’all should perhaps “poach” some faculty members (or better highlight well-known academics or faculty members). That’s what we did, it makes this place way more interesting than what it would be without these key faculty members, most whom are in the liberal arts like Natasha Tretheway , but an increasing amount in the sciences on top of folks like Liotta and Frans de waal. This will make even more noise for Vandy and actually boost their international reputation without really having to chase the ranks or constantly worry about “placement”. Point is, it’ll become an even cooler place to be educated than it already is. Just don’t poach our faculty (or perhaps even Duke’s, even though I am sure Duke faculty have very competitive pay) because that would make (and them) sad lol.</p>
<p>Bernie12, I actually think that Vandy’s faculty compares quite well to Emory’s (correct me if I’m wrong; I know that we have some big names here too).
However, the bigger names in academia have often been established through research which is not one of Vandy’s main focuses outside of medicine-related fields. Vandy provides tenure to faculty primarily based on undergraduate teaching ability, not research output.
Duke, however, definitely has the superior faculty. IIRC, Duke has 20-25 members of the National Academies while Vanderbilt has 8. I don’t think that either has a current Nobel Laureate on faculty. This also shows that both universities pale in comparison to a place like Stanford, which has around 250 members of the National Academies as well as 17 current Nobel Laureates on faculty. Of course, this is a rather cursory analysis, but you get the point.</p>
<p>I think so too, but I just don’t hear as much noise if you know what I mean. Our faculty affiliations seem to be spotlighted more (either by the institution itself or various media sources). Perhaps brochures and stuff could better highlight some key faculty members. I think I just mean that it seems as if we have faculty members that get a lot more spotlight and press, especially in the social sciences and humanities (and yes, the sciences, which is bound to happen as the place is a huge Health science Center and place for drug discovery). We certainly don’t have nobel prize winners (unless you count the Dalai Lama which I don’t think is fair), but we have about 11-12 national academy members. Not bad. The thing is, we have a really solid amount of faculty that are not part of the national academies that are extremely well-known (Liotta, for example, is not among these, but is responsible for Emtriva). Tretheway isn’t and she just had a HUGE accomplishment that made international press. Salman Rushdie is an very interesting affiliate and faculty member. I am not sure about the teaching/tenure thing. I know that many top 20s emphasize teaching by making the teaching score weighted more heavily than at say, a public institution, but research, especially in the science depts., still weighs a lot more. I do respect places like us and Vandy, that have many science depts. with the lecture track. At Emory, this has created some of the best, more rigorous and innovative environments for learning. I imagine it does the same at Vandy. I mean having a Nobel Laureate is nice, or even an Academy prof., but honestly, a lot of them don’t really teach that well. For example, as far as I know, the prof. who just got national academy of sciences here, does not get great reviews as a microbiology teacher (Bruce Levin). As far as I know, only Frans de waal gets decent reviews among the academy faculty members. I’d rather have someone like Dr. Eisen who is affiliated with various pedagogical initiatives teach my class (he still does scientific research, but is more into teaching, He makes cell biology awesome by relating biological phenomenon to everyday life. A true Liberal arts professor indeed), than Levin.</p>
<p>Duke is clearly the better school in almost all regards. Someone said Vanderbilt was catching up with duke because more people were applying, but duke also saw a huge increase in applicants and the acceptance rate was lower than 15% this year. Duke has more prestige and is better, anyone who says otherwise is deluding themselves, but Vanderbilt is still an excellent school.</p>
<p>Duke is an established institution of higher learning with phenomenal marks. Vandy, however, is right behind. Vanderbilt is a great university with fantastic programs and faculty. While Duke is amazing, Vanderbilt is not far behind.</p>
<p>I think people do concede that Duke is definitely better overall, as a university. But for undergrad. education, I truly doubt the educational outcomes will be that different. Given this, a driven student can get just as much out of going to Vandy as Duke. Just because a school is statistically better does not mean one should automatically choose it. If I were choosing between HPYS, MIT, Caltech, Columbia, Duke and Chicago, and actually cared more about the teaching I would get I would have a very tough choice (If I wanted a Ph.D in science, I would go to Caltech because that stands out). I wouldn’t just blindly choose Harvard because of its statistics. I would claim that Vandy and Duke have become similar in many aspects at the undergrad. level, but Duke is certainly better at sports and is more well-known for its successes. Also, to argue that Vandy isn’t catching up with Duke because Duke still sees app/ increases is faulty. The gap is no longer anywhere near as wide as it used to be, and the SAT scores are similar. In terms of renowned faculty and other measures of prestige and reputation, Vandy will naturally lag, but it’s in a solid position where it may indeed pique the interest of more of these faculty members. I suppose it can work on ethnic diversity (better than before…but still. However, this is a matter of opinion. This can, if not accommodated correctly cause harm.), though it’s doing much better in regional than ever before.</p>
<p>Sorry, the numbers I posted were for the National Academy of Sciences. To be precise, Duke has 22 members of the NAS, Vanderbilt has 8, and Emory has 5. I don’t know how they compare in the other areas of the National Academies. Also, the number that I gave for Stanford is the total of its NAS and National Academies of Engineering members. I really botched that.</p>
<p>Emory’s faculty clearly does have more exposure, though, given that it can claim people like the Dalai Lama and Sanjay Gupta. Emory’s actually a unique case, however, because its faculty aren’t getting exposure for work they’ve done at Emory.</p>
<p>Also, I’m just going to ignore the twinkies guy because Vandy has an acceptance rate below 15% as well. Clearly very knowledgeable about the subject.</p>
<p>Yeah that’s true (we have 6 NAS now. Again, Levin. I always heard of his lame teaching so was shocked to hear that he was an innovative researcher. If only that ability could also be applied to his teaching). Some get exposure for stuff they do here, some don’t, but regardless, they hold plenty of events here and are a presence on campus when they are here, so still have an impact (like I believe Rushdie teaches when he is here). I mean, we set up the Tibet-Science initiative w/the Dalai Lama, so as long as the ties are close, things are built upon these relations, and everyone knows it, you get press or at least kudos. I have no idea what category Tretheway falls in, though I think she has done a lot of work here. I think we get to count Gupta because he works at Grady and Emory and Morehouse essentially own Grady lol. Best believe that when someone is doing their work at Emory, we expose the hell out of them (Jaap De Roode, Frans de waal, Bruce Levin, Liotta. Only 1 is NAS, but we constantly rub in how many drugs Liotta has designed, with special emphasis on Emtriva). Let’s not talk about Jimmy Carter. I also think an advantage we have is CNN (yuck! I’m surprised, it, Fox, or MSNBC, can be called news. I guess CNN is slightly better than the other two, but other than a few legit news, foreign policy oriented shows, yuck!) being in Atlanta. That means that if there is a well-known faculty member that is an expert or is making headlines on a pressing issue, we could in theory just send them on down to midtown. However, I don’t think we should be counting Robert Spano. I don’t know if he will be here for long. Vandy’s Ph.D programs and prof. schools have graduated future Nobel Prize Winners. I say, rub it in more than throwing it on a Quick Fact page (not to suggest that being a UG at Vandy will inspire someone to win a Nobel Prize b/c a Ph.D candidate did, but still…). </p>
<p>Yeah, that comment about the 15% is stupid and false. There are still many top 20 USNWR national U’s that accept more than 15% (or about 15%) and wouldn’t be quickly judged as “inferior to Duke”. You know, such as Chicago, JHU, NU.</p>
<p>So now Duke is not a peer of Stanford, but it is a peer of the Ivies? Stanford is above HYP now? I’m pretty sure that they are all equal. The Ivies + Stanford and MIT are in a league of their own, which does not include Duke. That is not to say it isn’t an excellent university, but it’s just behind Ivies+. Vanderbilt may be slightly behind Duke, but the difference is so small that it is negligible, other than in very specific cases such as Investment Banking placement. </p>
<p>Heh, I think we do our fair share of rubbing our stuff in too. Every time I go to our website to check my email I see a new article touting some research or a new faculty hire. Some of it’s not always significant, but hey, it’s news, and news must be rubbed in
Tbh, all of the southern elites, including Duke (though to a lesser extent in its case), suffer from being southern. It’s just the way things are. And it’s a shame, really, because I think these schools (I guess most would say Duke, Emory, Rice, and Vandy, although pretty much every school in the south surely takes some flack) have a lot to offer that some people just refuse to acknowledge. Emory’s problem might actually not be its southern character, which I understand is not as prevalent as that at Vandy. Emory may simply suffer from a lack of exposure, such as that which Duke and Vandy have gained through sports. </p>
<p>@alwaysleah, goldenboy8784 probably meant that Duke can compete with some of the schools in the ivy league. It’s definitely not a peer of HYP, and I actually don’t think that even goldenboy would argue that it is. I don’t know if I completely agree with your grouping either; I think that the general consensus is that HYPSM are clearly a leg above the rest, but that schools like Duke actually can hold their own against the non-HYP ivies. Duke beats Cornell in cross-admits and wins between 40 to 60% of those whom it shares with Columbia, Penn, Brown, and Dartmouth.
I personally share the belief that HYPSM are in a league of their own, but I think that there are then maybe 15 schools that are all of approximately equal caliber. You could definitely draw distinctions within this group of 15 schools, such as arguing that Penn, Duke, Columbia, UChicago, and Dartmouth are above the other ten, but the real, not-so-subtle drop in quality happens right after HYPSM.</p>
