<p>I would like to take a second to thank everyone contributing to this discussion of academic rankings. I'm just happy that the subject is being addressed. After reading through many of your posts, it's obvious that there's a myriad of opinions regarding the polls. There are actually more polls out there than the 5 to which I've made reference. YaleSocietyMember, actually the Institute of Higher Learning's poll of the world's top universities does list the USN&WR undergrad poll as one of its sources. It did consider the undergrad programs. I'm not sure of the Times of London poll though. </p>
<p>The only 2 major sources of undergrad program ranking are the USN&WR & Gourman polls. We can argue in circles as to which poll is more accurate, but I dismiss both as invalid. It doesn't matter whether one poll has better defined criteria than the other. If biased criteria are used, then such a poll should be dismissed as invalid. If any academic poll is to be respected, it would be the NRC Report. There are no if, ands, or buts. This is the most respected source of ranking in academia. Contrary to what I wrote previously, the NRC Report required 4 years to complete, not 2. </p>
<p>I could live with a poll which divided the universities into 3 categories, as some have suggested....major research universities, the inbetweens, and the LAC's. It's important to consider avg. SAT scores, graduation rate, etc. However, I believe that the quality of faculty, curriculum & programs, libraries, & research should be more heavily weighed than the "quality" of the student body in the major research schools category. Just for the record, I object to avg. SAT scores being used as the sole measure of student "quality". Some of you are suggesting that only the students with high SAT scores are quality students. Yet many students who don't have relatively high SAT scores may be extremely talented and accomplished in a particular discipline. Ie. I don't think too many people give a damn about Arthur Miller's SAT score. He was an extraordinarily talented writer, who won the Hopwood Award while studying at Michigan. I don't think math scores on the SAT are significant in this case. </p>
<p>The purpose of these undergrad program polls should be to give prospective undergrad applicants an idea of which schools will offer them the best quality education. How can you ignore the quality of departments & programs, libraries, & research resources when assessing the quality of education? These vital criteria are missing from most of the polls. Actually I would love to see just one of these polls use the NRC Report as its primary source for quality of departments. Unfortunately, some of you refuse to acknowledge that any given department is only as good as its graduate program, yet this is a common perception. The most highly regarded departments will have the top faculty, world class research, best grad students, and more accolades (Nobel Prize winners, citations, etc.) relative to others. Also the top departments normally have many, many more course offerings for its undergrad students. I have a problem with every poll other than the NRC Report. Even the international polls favor the schools that excel in science with the most Nobel Prize winners. However, many of those schools are lacking strong departments across the board, so why are they ranked among the top universities in the world? Ie. Cal-San Francisco? I thought it was exclusively a medical center. Go figure. </p>
<p>Devil Cry, if you actually believe that Michigan's status as a top academic institution is something of the past, you better get a reality check. Michigan actually had the 3rd highest avg. score across the 41 disciplines evaluated by the NRC Report. In regard to number of NRC top 10 programs, Michigan placed 10th. Duke placed 19th in this category. However, it should be noted that Michigan had 38 out of 41 programs ranked. In contrast, most of the other schools placing in the top 10 for most NRC top 10 programs had significantly less numbers of programs ranked overall. Many of those schools had numerous zero scores which lowered their averages across the 41 disciplines. <a href="http://www.stat.tamu.edu/%7Ejnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc1.html#TOP60%5B/url%5D">http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc1.html#TOP60</a>. However, the NRC Report didn't evaluate professional programs. In addition to its strong academic departments across the board, Michigan has the following professional schools ranked in the top 10:</p>
<p>School of Pharmacy
Ford School of Public Policy
Law School
Medical School
School of Education
School of Information
School of Engineering
School of Music
School of Nursing
School of Public Health
School of Social Work
Ross School of Business</p>
<p>Michigan also had a top 10 ranked dental school according to the USN&WR until the ADA decided to protest the publication. ADA accredited schools are no longer permitted to send information to USN&WR. Of course, Michigan is still one of the top dental schools. All things considered, I believe Michigan is grossly underrated by the international polls. It's one of the most complete universities in the world. As you can see, Michigan is still going strong. And just for the record, Michigan is 5th for alumni giving in regard to the amount of money donated by alums annually. However, USN&WR chooses to list alumni giving in terms of % of alums donating. This is yet another criterion that favors smaller schools.</p>