<p>
</p>
<p>Oh my. Really? and Michigan is right? Infact i never met anyone who though michigan was prestigious until I came to CC. Its just a state school. A state school that caters for 26,000 people is not prestigious.</p>
<p>Michigan is not as prestigious as Duke. Come on really? Like we are talking of Duke here, not Tufts.</p>
<p>sefago, the USNWR is not a ranking I respect, so do not bother quoting it when you are trying to make a point with me. The only part of the USNWR I respect is the PA socre as it actually measures something important…what the most important men and women in the World of academe really think. I have said it before, any ranking of undergraduate research institituons that does not have Cal ranked between #6 and #9 and Michigan between #8 and #18 is not worth my time. That is only my opinion of course, just as it is your opinion that Michigan is not prestigious. I am fairly certain I will not convince you otherwise…nor will you do the same.</p>
<p>But I will respond to a couple of your points.</p>
<p>1) So what if Shapiro and Vest are affilitated to Michigan? A very significcant number of the most important people in academe are affiliated to Cal or Michigan in one way or another. Are their opinions unimportant? And how do you explain Casper’s comment? He did not attend Michigan either as a student or as a professor. And his comments were targeted purely at undergraduate education. He was writing to the USNWR Editor entirely about the USNWR undergraduate ranking. According to him, one can make a strong argument for either (Cal or Michigan) in the top half dozen." He was clearly referring to undergraduate education. Are you telling me that this Yale educated scholar who has served as Dean of Chicago’s Law School and as President of Stanford is clueless?</p>
<p>2) When I said Brown, Dartmouth and Vandebilt are not that prestigious, I was explicitly referring to the masses. Most people are not familiar with those schools. They will only know Harvard, maybe MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale, a few local schools and athletic powerhouses that are known nationwide (such as Duke, Michigan, Notre Dame, UNC etc…).</p>
<p>3) Michigan is as pretigious as Duke to the majority of academics and corporate executives and officers. Every single survey woudl suggest as much. It is as prestigious as Duke to the majority of Americans. Again, all known surveys say as much. It is as prestigious to the rest of the World. All World rankings have Duke and Michigan ranked in the same general vicinity. Admittedly, it is not as prestigious to a significant segment of college-seeking American high school students.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alexandre, you seem to think your opinion is supreme. I apologize but others do have valid opinions too. The PA ranking is not a ranking I respect so dont bother quoting it when making a point with me either. Infact, I get really irritated when I hear any mention of the PA. However I stand by the US NEWS which states unequivocally that Michigan is a beautiful and well-placed 29th position and not in the same class as Duke at the undergraduate level. </p>
<p>Cry me a river, but:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Casper is not a Yale educated scholar lol. Like he spent one year max at yale. Anyways read his argument carefully before you start pulling his statement out of context:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First he elaborates his skepticism about any sort of rankings. Infact he would be horrified that you are using his statement as an argument for Michigan or Berkeley’s rank. </p>
<p>He then points out that his next argument would be “prima facie” to set the ground for more debate not to use as evidence for a debate. Then he goes on to hint that based on his opinion (Yes his opinion which is no more valid than mine except by virtue of his position) and possible arguments (arguments he did not bother to provide) that he thinks Michigan and Berkeley could be ranked in the top dozen. </p>
<p>FYI, a strong argument could be made for why any College is the number 1 college in the world. But that argument is based on the biases of the individual. According to your biases, Michigan is 8-18. According to mine, its a solid 29-33 give or take. And its very far away from Duke</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the question is- are these opinions unbiased? </p>
<p>It would be difficult to argue a lack of bias, if for example a person works for company X, then is asked which company is the best in the world, that person states company X.</p>
<p>Or you ask the former president of company Y who moved to Y from company X, what does he think of company X. Obviously the president would praise company X, since doing otherwise would be directly insulting his or her own capabilities.</p>
<p>I dont see why the same cannot be applied to someone who got a degree from an institution or was the president of such an institution. Or the alumni of such an institution thinking his home institution is one of the best in the world.</p>
<p>You get the drift? Probably not, you are deadset that Michigan is right under Harvard, the same way I think Mich and Tufts are peers, so nothing is going to change lol.</p>
<p>Also this is irritating when I see it on CC. University presidents and administrators are not technically part of academia. Most are in an academic hiatus. Its difficult to be an administrator and do scholarly research at the same time. I don’t know why people keep calling the PA score a measure of how a university is viewed in academia. Infact most presidents are not actively involved in academia in the true sense of the word.</p>
<p>I dont bother correcting RML since he schooled in the UK, but I think I would have to correct Alexandre, since I would at least expect him to know better.</p>
<p>You are very much right! The name “University of Pennsylvania” or “University of Chicago” definitely not sounds prestigious - especially UPenn… In the US, the overwhelming majority of the public universities (mainly the flagships) have the name “University of…” and people associate with it. It’s surely not a coincidence, that in the US, Oxford and Cambridge mostly referred as “Cambridge or Oxford University”, not “University of Cambridge” (Although sometimes this version appears on Oxbridge homepages and even some buildings as well.) Simply, sounds better. Trust me, if the name of UPenn and Chicago could be, say, Kenny McCormick University and Cartman University, the prestige of the school would rise too. The name have nothing to do with the quality of the school, but prestige is a weird thing, and “University of…” simply not sounds cool enough. Universities named after people usually have a better name (Well, there are some terrible ones, indeed, like Ball State University for example 
and people knows, that these are mostly private institutions, while the “University of…” should be something public. </p>
<p>Simply, because it sounds better, Oxford have the edge over Cambridge. Cambridge beats Oxford in nearly every league table, and while Oxford is a world top 10 uni, Cambridge is top 5 (of course, not in all subjects: such uni don’t even exist, that is in the top 10 in everything), still, Oxford sounds more prestigious and cool among those who don’t know anything about their history and placement on the league tables, just the fact that both are ultra elite unis. (And of course Oxford is older than Cambridge, but frankly, who cares that Oxford is a bit more than 900 years old, and Cambridge is 801? :D) </p>
<p>Prestige is a weird thing, and it have much to do with the name - after a level, of course.</p>
<p>Sefago, I did not impose the PA on you as you impose the USNWR on me. I stated that it is the only part of the USNWR I am willing to consider. Since I know you do not agree with it, I did not bother to use it as evidence. You, on the other hand, are in fact using the USNWR to make your point.</p>
<p>But again, let us set a few things straight. </p>
<ol>
<li>Casper’s letter was 100% within the context of the USNWR…and his allusion to Cal and Michigan was 100% regarding their place within those rankings. </li>
</ol>
<p>“He then points out that his next argument would be “prima facie” to set the ground for more debate not to use as evidence for a debate.”</p>
<p>Are you sure? His exact words were “prima facie evidence”. Are you sure he did not intend to use Cal and Michigan and evidence? He did use the word “evidence” afterall.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I did not say that Michigan is right under Harvard (I suggested Cal, Caltech, Columbia and Chicago)…and I am not sure I see the connection with Tufts, though comparing Michigan to Tufts certainly is not a bad thing. Tufts is a great university in its own right. </p></li>
<li><p>Even if you choose to stick purely to the USNWR ranking, I am not sure how you can say that Duke and Michigan are not in the same class. That’s like saying that Columbia and Brown are not in the same class just because one is ranked #4 and the other is ranked #15. Or saying that Penn and Cornell are not in the same class because they are separated by 10 spots in the USNWR. Being ranked 10, 15 or 20 spots apart does not prove anything. Universities make leaps of 5 spots or more annually. That goes to show that 5 spots is completely insignifcant in the USNWR system…which makes sense since there are hundreds of universities in the US, dozens of which are excellent. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Finally sefago, you do not need to correct me. I know exactly what I am saying and I always admit when I am wrong. Your knowledge of US universities does not exceed my own.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually UK universities have caught on to that fact too. I was remember about two years ago University of Durham was started marketing itself as Durham University. It sounds more better, I dont know why though, but even to me doing so makes a university sound more prestigious.</p>
<p>@alexandre
</p>
<p>Really? It seems the piper likes to change his tune to fit the dance he wants. As I have said previously a 20 spot difference is quite different from 10 or even 15. Michigan is right under Duke. I have seen previous statements by Michigan affiliated people who make it sound that NYU or UIUC are not peers of Mich, but the rankings gap is like what maybe 8 or 9. Going by the USNEWs of course.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL, google the meaning of prima facie. Yes, i would agree from a cursory look as an administrator and former academic that Michigan and Berkeley would be considered great schools based on research excellence but you can see why high school students (who value undergraduate education more) do not see Mich or Berkeley in the same vein.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope, he was arguing for a ranking that fit his own perception of universities. He did not even bother to give us a reason for those perceptions. The same way people here like the PA because it fits their argument while expressing a dislike the USNEWS because it doesn’t fit their opinion. The onus is on him to prove why they should be in the top 6 period. We should not assume he is informed just because of his position as a president of Stanford.</p>
<p>I get convinced by articulated arguments. Not by someones position. </p>
<p>My argument is in two-parts. The first being that the USNEWS is appropriate for judging at best what a good undergraduate program is. Yes, although private institutions dominate, that is not necessarily a bad thing. It just means that private institutions are built to provide superior undergraduate education in the liberal arts and sciences. However, in specialized programs like engineering and to a lesser degree business maybe it might be better to look solely at other rankings if it suits the student. The second part, which summarizes why I dislike PA scores is that the graduate school ranking of a university is in no way relevant to the rigor or education it provides the student. Other measures should be taken to measure how strong the undergraduate curriculum is as opposed to the research output of a school.</p>
<p>
Well, I wouldn’t necessarily say name recognition and prestige are the same.
[quote=the_prestige]
The Difference Between “Prestige” vs. “Familiarity”:</p>
<p>I always like bringing this back to my “hamburger” analogy to illuminate this point:</p>
<p>99.9% of the American public will readily recognize (read: familiarity) Micky D’s Big Mac or Quarter Pounder (over a billion served!) vs., say, the “21” burger at the 21 Club (New York)… but does that Ronald McDonald more prestigious? Hardly.</p>
<p>Many people know (shop) at Wal-Mart vs. Bergdorf Goodman, but that hardly qualifies Wal-Mart to be categorized as “prestigious”.</p>
<p>Simply put, not anyone can afford to shop at Bergdorf or eat at the 21 Club, and conversely, nearly everyone “can” shop at Wal-Mart or eat at McDonald’s.</p>
<p>Similarly, not anyone can enroll into Harvard, but nearly anyone can enroll into a Community College - that’s what makes Harvard prestigious - and, more importantly, why it remains so (i.e. being founded nearly 150 years before America was even a country certainly has its “head start” advantages in building up your prestige level). For instance, if Harvard all of the sudden decided to increase its class size to 500,000 per year (say, by offering bonafide Harvard degrees online) i.e. admitting nearly anyone who applied - its “prestige” would drop like a stone overnight - people from Joe Blow Community College would just transfer to Harvard and pick up a degree. </p>
<p>This is what happens to certain “luxury” or “prestige” goods all the time - dilution of a brand which gets over-sold, over-licensed or discounted at mainstream department / warehouse stores (read: the Coach brand and even Armani to a certain extent).</p>
<p>Now to be certain, some brands have both “familiarity” AND “prestige” (e.g. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT) and some have “prestige” and less “familiarity” (e.g. Dartmouth, Brown, Caltech, Amherst) - but don’t confuse the two terms - less familiarity doesn’t = less prestige. Just because your neighbor hasn’t heard of Ch</p>
<p>At the undergraduate level, prestige is much more closely linked with selectivity than academics. That is why Deep Springs is extremely prestigious, for example, despite having fewer faculty members than one can find in a hallway at Ohio State. As another example, most rankings place academics at UNC at least on par with those at Brown, sometimes higher. Tell anyone that they are equally prestigious, however, and you’ll get a lot of raised eyebrows. (That said, I prefer UNC to Brown.)</p>
<p>Heck, I have no qualms about using my own university as an example, as I don’t particularly care what most people think of it. Ask anyone to pick the more prestigious between Brown and Duke or Duke and Dartmouth, and most people would pick the Ivies. Not for academics, where they are on par – rather, those two institutions are slightly more selective and consequently have more mystique.</p>
<p>Why so many posters are so wrapped up in proving their schools elite is beyond me; presumably nobody here is insecure enough to be seeking the approval of high school students. People on CC won’t be hiring you anytime soon, and realistically nobody’s opinions are going to be swayed one way or the other. Nobody thinks your school is prestigious? Follow Dave Barry’s example, when talking about his alma mater Haverford: “It’s ok, we haven’t heard of you either.”</p>
<p>“Heck, I have no qualms about using my own university as an example. Ask anyone to pick the more prestigious between Brown and Duke or Duke and Dartmouth, and most people would pick the Ivies.”</p>
<p>So now we have at least eight schools more prestigious than Duke, along with Stanford and MIT. See, Duke isn’t even a top ten school, just as I thought. Geez.</p>
<p>But Duke IS in the top 15 xD</p>
<p>“Why people, particularly public school supporters, are so wrapped up in proving their schools elite is beyond me.”</p>
<p>Warblersrule, your statement has two answers:</p>
<p>1) Public schools are more maligned and marginalized than private schools</p>
<p>2) I couldn’t care less about altering the opnions of people, but many posters on CC are seeking advice and advising them that a school like Cal is inferior is not doing them any favors.</p>
<p>Ranking is depending on the criteria. </p>
<p>For popularity (Beauty pageant)</p>
<p>…[The</a> 25 Most Desirable Schools - Newsweek - Education](<a href=“http://education.newsweek.com/2010/09/12/the-25-most-desirable-schools.all.html]The”>http://education.newsweek.com/2010/09/12/the-25-most-desirable-schools.all.html)</p>
<p>If rank according to number of Nobel Laureates, (Which is very objective data), here is the list:</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation</a></p>
<p>"“Why people, particularly public school supporters, are so wrapped up in proving their schools elite is beyond me.”</p>
<p>It seems every single one of these threads is started by someone trying to pump up their favorite PRIVATE school. I’d say warblersrule86 that it’s particularly the private school supporters who do this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LOL… This has got to be the most dramatic, sentimental line I have heard on CC to date. LOL…</p>
<p>sefago, you are clearly self-projecting. I believe it’s you who seem to think your opinion is supreme. In fact, you even think your personal opinion is more credible - and should therefore bear more weight - than those of the presidents of MIT, Stanford and Princeton, or of those of the collective view of the more than 2 thousand individuals that occupy seats in the academe. You’re probably not even a member of the academe yourself and thus do not have any clue of the things that you’re saying anything about academics.</p>
<p>^ dude we are talking about prestige, not academics</p>
<p>I love that “HYPSM” sounds like “hype-ism.”</p>
<p>dude, we are talking about school prestige. and as you very well know of, school prestige is hinged firmly on the strength of its academics. we are talking about the prestige of the academic institutions.</p>