<p>Hopeman, Cal does not have many more TA-led classes than Harvard, Penn, Chicago or Stanford. And I stand by my statement, in the case of research universities, undergraduate and graduate education are identical. Separating the two is a gimmick used by schools with poor graduate programs to compete with the big boys.</p>
<p>It's obvious that HYP aren't as good as some universities for engineering. However, the fact that their weakest area is still among the best in the world goes to show how strong of a university they are.</p>
<p>graduate: heavily based on research, criteria different from ug in accepting students
ug: not so. few research, mostly instruction
both not identical. separate entities. period.</p>
<p>Int'l, have you gone to graduate school? I didn't think so. I did. Your first 2 years of graduate school are mainly instruction based. And if you guys at UVA do not do research as undergrads, it is your loss. About half of the undergrads at Michigan are involved in research. But the bottom line is simple, if a school has a graduate program, its graduate and undergraduate departments are identical. The same faculty teaches both undergrads and grads. At least it was the case at Michigan and Cornell.</p>
<p>Okay, I haven't gone to grad school, but it is obvious that UG and grad schools are not ranked using the same methods. As far as I know, grad rankings are largely based on faculty research. Also, the criteria for accepting students at UG and grad are different. Example: Cal's undergrads (on average) are not of a super-high caliber, for grad students the situation is different.
If grad and UG ranks are identical, why should there be separate ranks in the first place? Tells me that they're more or less different.</p>
<p>BTW I don't do research, but a large # of UVA undergrads do research.</p>
<p>The USNEWS Engineering Ranking I posted was for UG.</p>
<p>Undergraduate programs and graduate programs are ranked separately for two reasons:</p>
<p>1) Undergraduate education is broad rather than deep. Students take a broader range of courses and hone their analytical skills and general knowledge base. Graduate school is more specific to a subject...or in most cases a sub-subject. So a graduate student will want to go to a university that is very strong in her/his intended field or sub-field of study because she/he will spend most of their time concentrating on that field. On the other hand, undergrads will take many subjects accross the academic spectrum. So it is better to go to an undergraduate insitution that is strong in most subjects than to go to an undergraduate institution that is amazing in only one subject and weak in everything else. However, if a university is strong in a subject or discipline at the graduate level, it WILL be strong at the undergraduate level...in that subject or discipline. </p>
<p>2) There are separate rankings for graduate and undergraduate institutions because the powers that be want to sell more magazines and books. Also, many undergraduate institutions do not have graduate schools.</p>
<p>I agree that universities should be written about in great detail so that students can better determine which school is best for them. But ranking universities by undergraduate and graduate levels is unnecessary, unless we are talking about LACs, which do not have graduate programs. </p>
<p>Also, rankings have nothing to do with quality of education. Quality of education cannot be measured. It is a human obsession to measure verything. But some things cannot be measured and learning is one of them. It is up to the individual. I have said it once, I have said it 173 times. An undergraduate student does not need a top 5 or top 10 department to learn a great deal. What undergrad needs is initiative and a desire to learn.</p>
<p>"The USNEWS Engineering Ranking I posted was for UG."</p>
<p>CotodeCasa, </p>
<p>Such ranking based only on peer assessment is not a good one for undergraduate level. Let's face it, the professors only see if they can find their peers in a particular school rather than rank its undergraduate program.</p>
<p>I don't recall saying anywhere that Michigan wasn't a top 20 school.</p>
<p>About ranking again...</p>
<p>Excerpt from CRS ranking (<a href="http://www.rankyourcollege.com/%5B/url%5D">http://www.rankyourcollege.com/</a>)</p>
<p>Why does CRS rank colleges?</p>
<p>It's a controversial question with a simple answer. We do it because you want us to do it. We are all insecure creatures at heart, needing the reassurance that the decisions we make are the right ones.</p>
<p>With regard to college choice, we give you that reassurance. And it warms our hearts to know that we are providing you the best ranking service that the world can ever hope to obtain.</p>
<p>Private Money pouring into UCLA.</p>
<p>Though a decade-long fund-raising campaign that ends next year has more than doubled the flow of private money pouring into UCLA, officials say a trend of shrinking government funding of public universities means UCLA will depend even more on private donations in years to come. </p>
<p>Campaign UCLA, launched publicly in May 1997, reached its target earlier this year of raising $2.4 billion for campus entities including professional schools, athletics and the library. University charts show the average annual private donations to UCLA stand at $250 million, up from $100 million prior to the current fund-raising effort. </p>
<p>The campaign will last through Dec. 31, 2005, and Rhea Turteltaub, assistant vice chancellor for development, said the money goes toward everything from research to faculty chair endowments. While the fund-raising push has achieved success beyond initial ambitions, the university now needs to narrow its focus, she added. </p>
<p>Chancellor Albert Carnesale said in a meeting with the Daily Bruin this month that as California continues to suffer budget woes, UCLA must concentrate on strengthening its floundering ability to compete with private universities in recruiting graduate students, faculty and researchers. </p>
<p>Turteltaub said this "competitiveness gap" was the principal motivation behind creating the Initiative to Ensure Academic Excellence, a UCLA fund-raising effort started this spring to raise $250 million over the next five years, and "to provide a laser sharp focus on the needs of students and faculty."</p>
<p>
XANATOS, endowment is not very telling in terms of spending per student. Budgets are more telling. Take Brown and Michigan for example. Brown has 7,500 students and has a budget of $600 million ($70,000 per student). Michigan has 40,000 students and a budget of $2.5 Billion ($60,000 per student). I don't think there is such a significant difference between the two schools.
I disagree, simply because there are many economies of scale that affect college expenitures - fixed administrative costs, president's salary, resources such as databases and libraries, recruiting costs for both students and faculty, etc. Also, career networking opportunities would be greater for a large school than a small school of the same quality.</p>
<p>
[quote]
About ranking again...</p>
<p>Excerpt from CRS ranking (<a href="http://www.rankyourcollege.com/%5B/url%5D">http://www.rankyourcollege.com/</a>)</p>
<p>Why does CRS rank colleges?</p>
<p>It's a controversial question with a simple answer. We do it because you want us to do it. We are all insecure creatures at heart, needing the reassurance that the decisions we make are the right ones.</p>
<p>With regard to college choice, we give you that reassurance. And it warms our hearts to know that we are providing you the best ranking service that the world can ever hope to obtain.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did you actually read the rest of the website, bowtoserenity? It's a joke.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Did you actually read the rest of the website, bowtoserenity? It's a joke.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did you really read the rest of the website, Xanatos?</p>
<p>Check their disclaimer:
<a href="http://www.rankyourcollege.com/disclaimer.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.rankyourcollege.com/disclaimer.html</a></p>
<p>Yeah, it is a joke. But it is a sad joke carries much weight.</p>
<p>Personally, I think it's sad to base one's self-esteem on one's school's rankings. It must feel horrible when your school moves down in any ranking. Boo hoo...</p>
<p>The ones who love to use rankings seem to be the ones who have the most to prove. It's like your position in the world pecking order is tied to your school's placement. Aren't there more important things to worry about in the world than where your school stands - especially for those who've already graduated from college? I mean really?</p>
<p>Globalist, you don't seem to like it too much when people say that a school is better than yours. It has nothing to do with insecurity. It has to do with pride. Every hot blooded alum would defend her/his school.</p>
<p>No, that's not true. No school is perfect, and certainly my alma mater has its weaknesses and is not the best option for everyone. </p>
<p>The thing I find irritating is when people use rankings (which are often based on stupid criteria - like research productivity when we're talking about undergrad education) to rate schools that are so different from each other. None of us have visited and taken classes at every school that we rank, so how do we know one school is definitely better than another in a particular field? Because some magazines said so? I doubt their editors have visited every school and can honestly rate every department.</p>
<p>Why does this thread still live????</p>
<p>KK, to understand that question would require expert knowledge of String Theory, dark energy, Rogerian psychology, the writings of Hobbes and Dante, refutations of Hegel, and a deep understanding of why Adam Sandler isn't funny.</p>
<p>Suffice to say, in short form, that mere nanoseconds after the space-time continuum as we experience it sprang into existence after certain quantum numbers aligned to produce Something out of Nothing in what we call the Big Bang, an obsession with rankings harder to kill than a vampire coalesced into an ineradicable lump in this era of our history.</p>