<p>i think we’re talking about “overall” elite colleges. Which means, overall difficultuy of entrance, faculty, etc. Not just for undergrad.</p>
<p>In that sense:</p>
<p>1) Harvard, Stanford
3) MIT, Berkeley
5) Yale
6) Princeton
7) UChicago, Columbia, Cornell, Upenn, Johns Hopkins
12) Northwestern, Duke, Michigan
15 and Beyond is a toss-up) Brown, Dartmouth, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but the idea that Northwestern, Duke, Michigan, Cornell, Penn, and JHU are more “elite” than Brown and Dartmouth is simply laughable. The idea that Stanford and Berkeley are more “elite” than Yale is equally laughable. </p>
<p>In fact this entire question is stupid beyond belief and I hate myself for posting on this thread.</p>
<p>Oh my goodness. The OP certainly opened a can of worms with this one! Only on CC would a question about elite colleges spawn a fierce debate about the very meaning of “elite”…a philosophical bunch, no?</p>
<p>It’s really not that difficult. Let’s use our common sense and consult Webster.</p>
<p>**elite<a href=“%5BI%5Dnoun%5B/I%5D”>/B</a> - the best of a class <superachievers who=“” dominate=“” the=“” computer=“” elite=“”></superachievers></p>
<p>So, that’s rather vague. How does one determine the “best” of a class? Is is the top 50 colleges? The top 30? Only one or two? It seems to me this is highly variable depending on the person, hence all the arguments on this thread. I really don’t think one can come up with a conclusive list.</p>
<p>
Why, thanks. </p>
<p><em>settles in with popcorn to watch the show</em>
<em>pulls out pom poms for people to use when trumpeting their own university</em></p>
<p>EDIT: Alas, I slightly misspoke [url=<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062135610-post55.html]earlier[/url”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062135610-post55.html]earlier[/url</a>]. It turns out Oklahoma is more elite than Syracuse!</p>
<p>modest,</p>
<p>How do you go about measuring undergraduate teaching excellence?</p>
<p>One place to start maybe looking at average SAT scores before entry and then look at admission rates into top graduate schools. Some of these “great undergraduate institutions” are likely just passing outstanding students through their system (with inflated grades, no less).</p>
<p>
The question asked asked at the beginning of this thread could use some clarification. Considered by who?
If were talking about the general population, look no further than this link:
[Harvard</a> Number One University in Eyes of Public](<a href=“Harvard Number One University in Eyes of Public”>Harvard Number One University in Eyes of Public)</p>
<p>But I think we all know that Caltech is better than most of the schools on that list.</p>
<p>RML, I didn’t mean to say only 5 universities could be considered elite, I just mean that an elite university should be pretty much unequivocally considred elite by the informed and logical. As it has become painstakingly obvious on this thread, posters on both sides are informed and logical about their view on Cal or Brown or Penn or Duke etc. You guys just come from different perspectives. Furthermore, I wouldn’t consider Caltech elite. First off, that view can be challenged pretty seriously (Caltech just doesn’t offer the breadth that the other schools do) and secondly, hyper-selectivity does not equal elite…look at Olin.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>incredible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are plenty of ways to do this. I’ll start with a really simple question that I think is worth asking and pondering.</p>
<p>You were very able to pull up the NAS numbers, but where is the equivalent organization for teaching skills? If it exists, why is it not something that institutions and professors show off and why isn’t it taken as seriously as NAS membership? If it doesn’t exist, what does that signal about the importance across academia of the largest population served by universities and colleges (undergraduates)?</p>
<p>There are many teaching awards out there, though I don’t believe there is one which is comparable to NAS and there should be and I think academia to not have this kind of professional organization. That’s one place to start to look at quality.</p>
<p>For science students, I think the question is, "What percentage of undergraduates are doing research? What is the view of X institution toward undergraduate research?</p>
<p>There’s a big difference between “available”, “accessible”, and “mandatory, integral parts of the curriculum”.</p>
<p>Top graduate schools are looking for extensive research experience as much as course work.</p>
<p>I think policies on allowing undergraduates to take graduate level courses is another interesting area.</p>
<p>Average research group size and average number of undergaduates versus graduate/post-docs in each research group would be a number worth checking out.</p>
<p>Amount of dollars awarded per students as a research stipend is another great measure.</p>
<p>For non-science students, what kind of opportunities are there for independent work and 1-1 collaboration with faculty?</p>
<p>There are ways to look at how accessible resources are, what the landscape of undergraduate educational opportunities is, and then purely, the quality of instruction provided on campus that I think are all measures of a top college.</p>
<p>It’s far from impossible to come up with many interesting bits of data that when observed together form a picture of the quality of undergraduate education and the level of dedication to undergraduate education.</p>
<p>
Sure, but most teaching awards are in-house. Berkeley has them…<em>gasp!</em></p>
<p>USNWR has a far better ranking methodology than many of you. I doubt many of you have spent the time to look at every iota of every institutions being to asses which is better. Even the “CC Top Colleges (assuming you add the top LAC and IVY to that)” are flawed. </p>
<p>By what the public considers most “bestest” it would be Harvard. Chances are if you go to a Sudanese village, more would have heard of Harvard than Princeton or Yale. Does that make Harvard better… no? If you look, though, HYPSM have consistently been in the top five of “National Universities”. </p>
<p>There are many realms of “elite”, most of us cannot asses that. The worst ivy is a bloody hell of a lot better than 99% of the colleges. The best non ivy is probably just as good as many ivies. On here you are going to hear people who go to NYU try to say that it is the “most elite”. On a general consensus it is not, many accept that. Yet many aspects of NYU maybe better. You will just see a bunch of people advocating where they go to.</p>
<p>There are some that are not in-house and there should be more, that’s what I’m saying. The general blind eye to undergraduate education is something I view as a problem. Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post, I guess that’s a sign I made my point, when you only offer a single criticism that’s relatively superficial relative to the point of the argument I’m making.</p>
<p>In light of viola’s post, I just wanted to make the point that while I’m using Brown as an example, I think that there are many schools whose commitment and success as undergraduate institutions has been underrated and under-appreciated in this thread and on CC. Top graduate programs and employers alike recognize these as elite colleges and I think that they’re being cast in a bad light in this thread relative to other places which are more successful as graduate institutions but lag, sometimes quite a bit, when it comes to undergraduates.</p>
<p>I agree with that wholeheartedly. I did not mean to cast NYU in a lower light than others, it is a hell of a lot better than many colleges. My point was it is tough for us to asses.</p>
<p>Modest,
Haha…don’t get so offended. I was busy doing work and that’s what immediately dropped into my mind when I read your post.</p>
<p>Sure, maybe there should be more undergraduate teaching awards for national recognition. Unfortunately, it isn’t going to make a college elite. There are many good teachers out there.</p>
<p>NYU model, “pillars of excellence”, makes it particularly tough to compare to other places.</p>
<p>Well… In the long run a good, yet not well known, business school may not provide the same level of scholarly experience as, say Wharton. Just my humble opinion.</p>
<p>
assess… not mulitple derrieres</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I guess I like procrastinating more than you do :D. That being said, I disagree that this would not make a college elite. It certainly would be as good a measure as say, NAS members, if done properly. The more elite professors teaching undergraduates at a college per student, the better the overall teaching environment and more likely than not, the more that university views teaching as a central role for its professors.</p>
<p>Think of it like the “scholar-athlete” principal. Sure there are many great scholars, there are many great athletes, but there are an elite group of true “scholar-athletes” that excel in both areas. Some schools want great scholars (say, Caltech), other schools are focused more on great athletes (your choice), and some schools have found a balance of both that’s truly remarkable (Stanford). Why not look for these same models in academic institutions. Who is the research powerhouse? Who is the teaching powerhouse? Who manages to excel at both?</p>
<p>Most people would surely say that while Stanford’s football team may suffer, the quality across multiple D1 teams and the quality of their students make up for compromises in some areas. I bet you many undergraduate focused universities may fall in a similar vein.</p>
<p>Right now, that kind of importance on undergraduate education isn’t really appreciated nationwide, but I think with the movement towards greater accountability in K-12 and more people going to college these days, these kinds of better measures are not long off.</p>
<p>@IBclass06: I meant that there can be a good handful of great colleges added onto there.</p>
<p>What do you all think of Swarthmore? And College of William and Mary?</p>
<p>@Modest:</p>
<p>Yes, you have a point. You want a prof that is renowned in his/her field and a great teacher…that is the best of both worlds. I agree.</p>
<p>The award would have to be a combination of teaching and scholarly merit, IMO, to be worthy. If the award is only based on teaching ability, that doesn’t present any distinction…how would it be different vs. the great high school physics teacher?</p>