<p>And UVa’s faculty is far below the others as their own President and a prior internal study readily admitted–and nearly lost her job over–among other reasons.</p>
<p>“It just seems that a possessive pronoun should have a comma. ;-)”</p>
<p>I’m hoping this was meant to be a joke. Including an apostrophe in the possessive form is minor error, but it is seen as an acid test for intelligence by some people.</p>
<p>I suppose everybody has a quick method of identifying whether a college’s alumni are up to snuff. I think the correct use of the various forms of the word “alumni” is a good one, appropriately enough. I listen to a lot of sports talk radio in the Detroit area, and I never hear a caller say “I’m an alumnus[or alumna] of Michigan State.” It’s always, “I’m an alumni of Michigan State.”</p>
<p>“I’m hoping this was meant to be a joke. Including an apostrophe in the possessive form is minor error, but it is seen as an acid test for intelligence by some people.”</p>
<p>Of course it was meant to be a joke. That’s what the 
should have indicated to the reader. The ability to spot sarcasm is an acid test for intelligence by some people.</p>
<p>bluebayou, according to the ranking of undergraduate Engineering programs, Michigan is #7 and UCLA is #20. That’s not a big difference, but in an individual field, it is noteworthy. The rankings below will clearly show why Michigan is considered better than UCLA in Engineering. </p>
<p>OVERALL ENGINEERING RANKING:
Michigan #7
UCLA #20</p>
<p>AEROSPACE ENGINEERING:
Michigan #3
UCLA not ranked in the top 20</p>
<p>BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING:
Michigan #6
UCLA Not ranked in the top 20</p>
<p>CHEMICAL ENGINEERING:
Michigan #13
UCLA not ranked in the top 20</p>
<p>CIVIL ENGINEERING:
Michigan #7
UCLA not ranked in the top 20</p>
<p>COMPUTER ENGINEERING:
Michigan #7
UCLA #15</p>
<p>ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING:
Michigan #6
UCLA #13</p>
<p>ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING:
Michigan #5
UCLA not ranked in the top 20</p>
<p>INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING:
Michigan #2
UCLA not ranked in the top 15</p>
<p>MATERIALS
Michigan #4
UCLA not ranked in the top 20</p>
<p>MECHANICAL ENGINEERING:
Michigan #4
UCLA #18</p>
<p>NUCLEAR ENGINEERING (Only graduate level ranking available):
Michigan #1
UCLA not ranked in the top 15</p>
<p>The difference isn’t huge, but it is fairly clear.</p>
<p>Oivoiv – Quite a few CC posters who claim to be graduates of very prestigious colleges, including Ivy League schools, have said, “I’m/He’s/She’s an alumni of X.” I don’t know whether to doubt the posters’ academic credentials or doubt the colleges’ academic standards.</p>
<p>Alexandre:</p>
<p>I was looking at the Grad level rankings*, which are 8 & 16. As you note, the difference is not “huge” in any event. Is Michigan stronger across the board? No question. But the more serious question is whether 8-10 rankings points matter to an undergrad. I would submit that they should not, and would counsel someone to pick the school that has a better fit, for whatever reason. Perhaps its the Big House or the Beach, but a <10 rankings points? Not that meaningful, IMO.</p>
<p>*Personally, not a big fan of undergrad rankings, since they can be swayed by little/no data. For example, in your post above, you note that Mich has the #6 undergrad BME program, and that UCLA is UR. Yet, Mich grad is ranked ~12 and UCLA is ~19 for BME. Yes, Michigan has the stronger grad program, and likely undergrad. But still, UCLA clearly offers a high quality product (higher even than Hopkins).</p>
<p>I agree bluebayou. I am not sure anybody suggested that Michigan is leagues ahead of UCLA academically. But I do not think it is far fetched to say that Michigan is stronger than UCLA in Engineering.</p>
<p><a href=“Global Companies Rank Universities - NYTimes.com”>Global Companies Rank Universities - NYTimes.com;
<p>Here are how the schools in question fare…</p>
<p>UCLA: #45 (#16 among American schools)
Virginia: #91 (#25 among American schools)
Michigan: #96 (#28 among American schools)</p>
<p>Besides the puzzlingly high rating for Boston University, is anyone else surprised by how well this list correlates with the USNWR undergraduate rankings?</p>
<p>goldenboy, “ref=asia”… I think that’s all that needs to be said to discredit that “ranking”.</p>
<p>
Sorry…come again? I don’t comprehend your statement.</p>
<p>Hiring Managers in Europe, North America, & Asia ranked the schools in the order in which they believe produce the most accomplished graduates to add to their organizations presumably based on school reputation. Any surprise really that UCB beats out UCLA, UMich, UVA, etc.?</p>
<p>goldenboy, it is fairly obvious that Michigan State and Michigan were confused for each other in this survey, with Michigan State probably benefitting far more from the mix-up. Michigan State does not have much of a reputation internationally. The same goes for Penn and PSU. If the respondents were properly coached on the difference between Michigan and Michigan State or between Penn and Penn State, Penn would definitely have made the top 20 and Michigan probably the top 50. Not that it matters since this survey is clearly highly volatile. If I recall, Northwestern was among the top 10 last year and dropped out of the top 60 this year. </p>
<p>In principle, this is a great initiative, but as is often the case, the survey was likely conducted haphazardly and incompetently.</p>
<p>“goldenboy, it is fairly obvious that Michigan State and Michigan were confused for each other in this survey”…for those without an agenda. That obvious fact has been pointed out to goldenboy numerous times. </p>
<p>“Sorry…come again? I don’t comprehend your statement.”</p>
<p>Yes, that is quite obvious.</p>
<p>Another GIGO global ranking fueled by another sensational reporting from NYT … so what else is new.</p>
<p>Btw, it is interesting to note that Boston University (#17) grads are considered by “Hiring Managers in Europe, North America, & Asia” to be significantly more employable than Duke, Dartmouth, Penn and Cornell.</p>
<p>
There is no way to conduct such a survey accurately or even competently. Who are these “top recruiters”? How would recruiters from global companies (e.g., Royal Dutch Shell) know which university undergrads their company recruit globally?</p>
<p>Steffen Laick, a “top recruiter” at Ernst & Young, is the only name mentioned in the article. Does E&Y recruit fresh accounting grads globally? How would Laick (UK based) know which universities E&Y prefer to recruit in the US, much less the rest of the world?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wonder, what draws such distinguished faculty to Cal? Must be those dilapidated buildings :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup, here’s the 2011 ranking for comparison:</p>
<p><a href=“Education - Image - NYTimes.com”>Education - Image - NYTimes.com;
<p>Even more confusing is the large jump of Peking and Goethe universities in 2011 (129 and 123 respectively) to their place in 2012 (11 and 10 respectively)</p>
<p>I don’t see how such huge differences in a ranking from one year to the next are possible, unless the inclusion of Asian business leaders had a amagnanimous effect or the survey respondents were confused. If the former, the title should really be 'what Asian business leaders say; if the latter, the ranking should be disregarded.</p>
<p>“The ability to spot sarcasm is an acid test for intelligence by some people.”</p>
<p>RJK, sorry for my mistake, and good luck in your efforts to master it’s/its. Even though you haven’t gotten the hang of it in your first several decades of life, I’m confident you’ll figure it out in the next several decades.</p>
<p>“RJK, sorry for my mistake”</p>
<p>Apology accepted.</p>
<p>
This is essentially a “Peer Assessment” poll Alexandre and its purely based on what hiring managers from top companies constitutes the top colleges that produce the most desirable new hires.</p>
<p>As far as your comments…</p>
<ol>
<li><p>PSU didn’t make the top 150 universities on this list as far as my eyes can see so how exactly does that influence UPenn which ranks extremely high? If PSU got any mentions by these hiring managers at all, it must have been negligible</p></li>
<li><p>Your statement that internationals tend to mistake MSU for UMich totally contradicts your other remark that MSU doesn’t have much of an international presence. If recruiters don’t know the difference between the two schools, then neither is prestigious at all. Familiarity precedes recognition.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>If you ignore all the international universities and focus on just the American schools, you won’t find too much volatility between the two studies. Penn ranks #14 among American universities and Northwestern ranks #18. NU suffered maybe a 10 spot drop but it looks like its reputation is weaker in Asia since the difference between the two surveys is the inclusion of the opinions of hiring managers from 10 Asian countries.</p>
<p>
These rankings polled two different groups of people; the first asked European and North American CEOs/executives while the second polled ** Asian/European/North American hiring managers**. Obviously, the surveys are going to yield different results with the latter boosting Asian and even other European schools noticeably since hiring managers probably know less about non super-elite American universities than international CEOs.</p>
<p>
The same comments can be applied to the USNWR Peer Assessment and Counselor Assessment as well as all of the magazine’s graduate and professional school rankings. Its based on a combination of perception, prestige, and first-hand knowledge.</p>
<p>Rankings should be never be interpreted literally and are meant to be used merely as a rough guide. </p>
<p>
Anything, certainly including universities, associated with the city Boston or New York is considered absolutely top of the line. Even educated international residents are very impressed with NYU and BU since they assume that any institutions affiliated with these elite cities must be top-of-the-line themselves.</p>
<p>Notice how the Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, and Columbia shine brighter than even schools with famous city associations like BU and NYU.</p>
<p>
Glad you agree … Garbage In-Garbage Out.</p>
<p>“1. PSU didn’t make the top 150 universities on this list as far as my eyes can see so how exactly does that influence UPenn which ranks extremely high? If PSU got any mentions by these hiring managers at all, it must have been negligible.”</p>
<p>Not really. Given the wild fluctuations from one year to the next (universities leaping 50-100 spots), it is likely that other outside the top 3 or 4, most universities received very few votes to start with. Even a small number of votes going to PSU that were intended for Penn would likely have resulted in a significantly higher ranking for Penn.</p>
<p>“2. Your statement that internationals tend to mistake MSU for UMich totally contradicts your other remark that MSU doesn’t have much of an international presence. If recruiters don’t know the difference between the two schools, then neither is prestigious at all. Familiarity precedes recognition.”</p>
<p>It does not contradict anything. That was my point. It is obvious that many of those recruiters thought Michigan State was in fact Michigan. If the two universities were properly identified, Michigan have been much higher in the ranking as well while MSU would probably not have made the top 100. If there was Cornell College and Cornell University or Duke University and Duke State University in the survey, you would also have confusion. Cornell, Duke, Michigan and Penn are certainly respected institutions internationally, at least within corporate and intellectual elites, but do not expect their exact names to be known to the majority of people. Stephen Hawking referred to Michigan as “Michigan University”, not the University of Michigan in a recent interview. Your attempt to sugest that Michigan is not known internationally is laughable. The University has been ranked among the top 25 in the world and among the top 15 in the US according to the majority of international rankings.</p>
<p>Like I said, the WSJ survey is an interesting initiative, but it was likely poorly conducted.</p>