<p>
Just curious…did YOU think they were good teachers?</p>
<p>
One was excellent, or at least, would have been excellent. He liked to do things differently but had not yet perfected how to go about doing that so many students were frustrated with him and it was not wise to have one of his two undergraduate courses be our intro chem class. But as a mentor he was fantastic and in the classroom he really had the right idea but was inexperienced. My understanding was he was told he’d have to improve his student reviews if he expected to get tenure in a year or two and he became frustrated with the whole thing and went back to industry.</p>
<p>The other professor I never had in class, but I hear horror stories and I know he didn’t care at all about the teaching side of his job.</p>
<p>modestmelody, I think the common trend at all research universities, regardless whether they are LAC like i.e. Brown/dartmouth or big, i.e. Harvard or Columbia, is that there are great professors and not-so-great professors as well. Both types are prominent at just about every top research university. No school is completely immune to this.</p>
<p>modestmelody,</p>
<p>I’m sorry if this reply seems detached. I was about six paragraphs into my original reply when I accidentally hit the close button. Said six paragraphs now down the drain.</p>
<p>Anyway, my original reply included your obvious bias towards teaching standards and Student Selectivity. Whilst they are good criteria, they should not encompass other more important criteria. When you put too much weight on student quality in the expense of school prestige and academic quality, you neglected the true value and asset of the school. And, since we are talking about schools not students, we should emphasize school prowess, not students’. For example, those schools that are able to turn students from average to excellent are better than those schools that are just maintaining the caliber of their students. It requires more innovative approach, effort and time to do the former than the latter. But that’s just an example. </p>
<p>When I made my ranking/table, I was actually thinking of these criteria with their assigned weight.</p>
<p>**School Prestige - 30% <a href=“This%20is%20the%20most%20important%20criterion,%20for%20this%20is%20the%20product%20of%20the%20efforts%20put%20up%20by%20the%20university%20into%20the%20school.%20This%20determines%20the%20success%20or%20failure%20of%20the%20efforts%20made%20by%20the%20admin/staff%20of%20the%20school.%20The%20prestige%20of%20the%20school%20would%20create%20a%20domino%20effect.%20The%20better%20the%20prestige%20of%20the%20school%20is,%20the%20better%20for%20its%20faculty%20and%20students.%20This%20is%20also%20the%20hardest%20to%20accomplish.%20It%20takes%20a%20lot%20of%20time,%20effort,%20money%20or%20resources%20to%20gain%20prestige%20and%20respect%20amongst%20peers.”>/b</a></p>
<p>**Academic Strength of the subject/course/program: 20%
Faculty Caliber - 20%
Facilities - 15%
Student Quality - 5%
Financial Resources - 5%
Opportunities After Graduation - 5% **</p>
<p>Now, basing on these criteria and their assigned weight, your beloved Brown would not make it on the SUPER ELITE league.</p>
<p>MODERATOR’S QUESTION: </p>
<p>Is this thread enjoyable for other readers or is it turning into a personal conversation that should be taken to private messaging?</p>
<p>^ My apologies, super moderator. </p>
<p>I believe my comment on criteria would make some posters here rethink that they’re probably missing the very subject of this discussion. </p>
<p>When we’re asked to rate the school, we should rate the school – its prestige, accomplishments, assets, funds and capabilities.</p>
<p>When we’re asked to rate the students - we should rightly do so too. </p>
<p>And, since this thread asks about the school, I think it’s just fair to rate the school. :)</p>
<p>Personally, for me, this is a very enjoyable thread to watch. I have already learned a great deal about the schools that I was unable to find anywhere else. Please continue =)</p>
<p>Okay, I guess I wasn’t still clear. </p>
<p>For me, the thread title is synonymous to asking, what are the best auto industries in America?</p>
<p>When you’re asked about companies – the entities–, you analyze and study closely the companies. You ask questions like: What makes Ford or Toyota the best? How strong is the company from being bankrupt? How stable is that company? How much does it make? If I would decide to make tie-ups with them, would my investments be safe with them? Who manages the company? How capable and talented are their staff? How reliable are their products? I think those stuffs are would determine the result of your investigation rather than basing your assessment on the buyers. After all, you’re asked to assess the company, not the buyer/customer.</p>
<p>From my perspective, the most impressive aspect of Brown is its students. Nothing else really stands out.</p>
<p>Theoretically, though, over a few decades I feel the students and the institution should approach equilibrium…</p>
<p>Honestly Elite is what you make it? Does cost make a school elite, the number of nobel prize winners, professors? Like everything else its based on perception.</p>
<p>I agree with ilovebagels, in terms of alumnis achievements, Brown and Dartmouth are just mediocre, nothing stands out!</p>
<p>There are tons of schools including some small LACs have done much better than Drown and Dartmouth. </p>
<p>Their students are indeed very impressive though, they are indeed on top in terms of admission selectivity.</p>
<p>Dartmouth just went need-blind for international students. Another factor to consider, for only the SUPER ELITE can afford that kinda money.</p>
<p>My final comment in this thread:</p>
<p>RML, we’ll have to disagree on what matters here. I am very proud of the fact that I “overrate” teaching quality and the student body. Cal has almost 25,000 undergraduates. There are 1700 faculty members and 10k graduate students. Cal’s undergraduate body is the main component of their population and those 25k undergraduates are the future representatives of Cal out there in the world where they are applying their education. I’m perfectly fine with saying that undergraduate quality and the success of their learning experience is a huge portion of what makes a university a top school.</p>
<p>That’s my personal opinion-- undergraduate education matters quite a bit. If the 6k + students who graduate each year from Cal are going out into the world and are not considered top quality people for jobs/graduate school, or whatever, you’d be damn sure to see it’s reputation get hurt. Just the same, strong undergraduates will act as strong ambassadors of the university when they leave and have a huge effect on the reputation.</p>
<p>Lastly, since we’re not on the graduate school search side of this page and the original question included colleges, my assumption that I’ve maintained throughout the thread is that we’re talking about elite quality which can somehow translate to undergraduate experience and success afterwards.</p>
<p>Considering our lists differ by the placement in tiers by maybe 4 schools out of 20, I’m not sure our differences are so wide RML, but I suspect that your experience being abroad has changed how you perceive prestige being translated because in the states some of these schools are able to maintain extremely strong reputations (like Swarthmore) while remaining relatively unknown to foreigners.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The selectivity of Brown and Dartmouth is relatively recent. Wait until a few decades and you will see a lot of impressive alumni.</p>
<p>Then they’d better be called elite in a few decades.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except that those are ridiculous rankings. Making the faculty quality (which is much harder to objectively measure) 4x more important than student quality seems out of whack to me and certainly not what I was most concerned about. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This isn’t remotely true. Dartmouth and Brown have been among the top 10 schools in terms of selectivity for DECADES.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a more ridiculous claim on CC and that’s saying a lot. Ever heard of Immelt, Paulson or Geitner before? If what they’ve accomplished is mediocre to you, what do you consider impressive?</p>
<p>Today marks the day that CC’ers move on from trashing Cornell and have moved on to trashing a different Ivy! Hallelujah!</p>
<p>Quoto:</p>
<p>"I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a more ridiculous claim on CC and that’s saying a lot. Ever heard of Immelt, Paulson or Geitner before? If what they’ve accomplished is mediocre to you, what do you consider impressive? "</p>
<p>not saying there are not outstanding people from them, just too fewer compared to their peers, </p>
<p>Can you mention any Nobel winners, any US president? or event a few vice presidents? Wellesley is more elite I would say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That should hardly be a determinant of what is a better college, although Rockefeller was from Dartmouth, not that such a fact is requisite to allow Dartmouth on the same level as Penn. For those saying that Dartmouth and Brown have not been selective until recently, Penn is way more in that category as until this decade, the acceptance rate at Penn was in the 30-50% range historically.</p>
<p>modestmelody, now you’re talking about the products. Let me say what my take on this one.</p>
<p>In terms of alumni roaster, Cal grads have gone on to occupy very important positions in government, large industries and organizations in the US and in other countries. There are many more Cal grads that are in the “who’s who” list in the world than there are Brown grads. In short, the alumni achievements of Cal are better than Brown’s. Even the salary of Cal grads are higher than Brown grads despite Cal’s larger number of graduates. </p>
<p>Compare which alumni roaster have significant contributions to the society and are considered to have contributed more important matters to society or the world. Compare the depths and importance of their positions. Compare their popularity.
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_California,_Berkeley_alumni[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_California,_Berkeley_alumni</a>
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brown_University_people[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brown_University_people</a></p>
<p>University of California, Berkeley $59,900 $112,000
Brown University $56,200 $109,000
[Top</a> State Universities By Salary Potential](<a href=“2024 College Rankings by Salary Potential | Payscale”>2024 College Rankings by Salary Potential | Payscale)
[Best</a> Ivy League Schools By Salary Potential](<a href=“2024 College Rankings by Salary Potential | Payscale”>2024 College Rankings by Salary Potential | Payscale)</p>
<p>So, you see, even on matters that are important to you, Cal is superior to Brown. The only aspect where Brown is superior to Cal is the average SAT scores. Other than that, Cal is superior to Brown. And, again, Cal does not weigh SAT scores as much as Brown does.</p>
<p>Let me re-post some strong or likely Brown admits that have been rejected at Cal:</p>
<p>
</p>