What private schools would the top publics replace if USNWR ranked differently?

College Search & Selection
101

<p>I am not qualified to answer your first question. I do not know enough about Lehigh to explain, in any reliable way, why Michigan is so much better than it. I would assume it is a combination of faculty and facility quality, as well as curriculum and academic environment. But I really do not know enough about Lehigh to do it justice. </p>

<p>As for the PA, I am not going to bother discussing it in great detail. I have done so for close to 4 years. Those who chose to see its worth need no convincing. Those who do not believe in it, like you, will never be convinced. So why bother spending hours discussing an opinion that cannot be altered? Besdies, whether or not we chose to believe that the PA is meaningful or accurate really does not change the fact that in the eyes of the academic world, the PA is very real.</p>

102

<p>lfecollegeguy</p>

<p>These two quotes kinda contradict each other do you think?

[quote]
The biggest losers with the PA are also the top publics, shown here:
":-9 UC Berkeley
-10 U Wisconsin
-12 U Michigan
"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
The PA favors publics with top grad programs.

[/quote]
</p>

103

<p>Us news separate the rankings, but the reputation of the school as an entity is not so easily separated when you are asking all the Deans. Humans are not robots, the numbers are still skewed especially when you look at chart of biggest Losers/Winners if PA were removed.</p>

<p>The top 3 biggest losers are publics with amazing grad programs (and yes, I'll be the first to admit they are amazing grad programs). But Ugrad is a different matter. </p>

<p>"It may be true for their graduate programs, I don't here much about their undergrad programs. More of their graduate ones."</p>

<p>Not quite sure what you mean here but I agree if you are saying these 3 schools are great for Grad but you don't "hear" much about their undergrad programs.</p>

104

<p>Sorry, I meant WITHOUT the PA. I can see the confusion there. </p>

<p>The top 3 schools that lose the most WITHOUT the PA are Umich, Cal, Wisconsin. Thanks, haha, that would make no sense for my argument.</p>

105

<p>"I am not qualified to answer your first question. I do not know enough about Lehigh to explain, in any reliable way, why Michigan is so much better than it. I would assume it is a combination of faculty and facility quality, as well as curriculum and academic environment. But I really do not know enough about Lehigh to do it justice. </p>

<p>As for the PA, I am not going to both discussing it in great detail. I have done so for over 4 years. Those who chose to see its worth need no convincing. Those who do not believe in it, like you, will never be convinced. And whether or not we chose to believe that it is meaningful or accurate really does not change the fact that in the eyes of the academic world. the PA is very real."</p>

<ol>
<li><p>You kind of dodge the question. Fine, i'll say the same for Georgetown vs. UIUC then. I can't really judge UIUC but if it were, I'd say it is a basis off quality of student body (ugrad), opportunities (ugrad), and better facilities that Georgetown is better. The statistics for incoming freshman and admitted freshman are quite a bit higher. </p></li>
<li><p>Of course it is real, but it is simple fact that publics with strong Grad programs lose the most when PA is removed. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>"The biggest losers WITHOUT the PA are also the top publics, shown here:
":-9 UC Berkeley
-10 U Wisconsin
-12 U Michigan
" </p>

<p>PS: I believe in the PA, to an extent. Privates vs. Privates, it is fine. The problem arises when you throw publics into the mix, especially those with top grad programs.</p>

106

<p>the reason u think UIUC is not equal to Georgetown in academic reputation is because you think Georgetown is harder to get into, which is what most hs seniors on this board are concerned about. which is why they don't ask hs seniors to rate college reputations, because that will produce a ranking that resembles median SAT score rankings. (hawkette)</p>

<p>a school doesn't change because they enroll a class with a higher SAT score. When I was applying to colleges(8 years ago?), Vanderbilt had a median SAT score of 1300(i got in), and from memory the range was 1230-1400, with acceptance rate over 50%, at the time publics like Berkeley and Michigan had median SAT of 1270-1290, and I think most people would argue that Berkeley was a more selective school than Vanderbilt. Schools that hawkette loves are small schools, there's no doubt these schools will receive more applications per seat available than the larger schools, so overtime they will become selective, but is Vanderbilt a better school now(a mere 8 years later) because their median SAT is 1380, as opposed to Berkeley's 1330?</p>

107

<p>I do agree with lifecollegeguy. Most deans probably cannot discern the difference between the graduate and undergraduate levels given that much of the cutting edge research that is produced is typically produced by the graduate level class and you can't really find out much information about the undergraduate level system so they fudge and based it more on the quality of graduate level system.</p>

<p>Still, recognizing this fact, there are just as many enormous benefits of implementing a PA system where you actually have input from the academic world into this system of ranking instead of just having two or three Ivy league insiders shifting the data to whatever fits their mood at that time.</p>

<p>PAs are also important because they simply cannot be BSed by colleges wishing to play the college ranking game. Look at Wash U's PA scale compared those of Cornell, Hopkins, Darthmouth, Duke, UChicago.. its a vast difference!</p>

108

<p>Keefer: Not only higher SAT score. Higher GPA, higher rank, lower acceptance rate = better quality of student body, but whatever.</p>

<p>That's not my point though, I solved the school comparison in the last post where I adopted Alex's attitude.
The PA is my main argument and that still stands.</p>

<p>Phead: I totally agree (great example!) What I'm saying is, perhaps we should have separate PA for privates vs. privates and publics vs. publics. Right now it benefits publics with top grad programs, so if separating the PA is not possible, perhaps the PA for publics should be removed and be given another criteria which better relates them to privates.</p>

109

<p>Actually Ifecollegeguy, Illinois' facilities and undergraduate opportunities, particularly for research, are at least on par, if not superior, to Georgetown's. Like I said, you should do your research before coming to such conclusions. </p>

<p>And I am not dodging the question. I admit to not knowing the answer. How can I answer your question about Lehigh when I know almost nothing about it?</p>

110

<p>I don't understand how you can say Lehigh is more peer than xyz Michigan or UIUC is not as peer as xyz Georgetown...How are you arriving to these assumptions and what tool are you using to formulate these assertions? I surely hope its not purely based on academic reputation.</p>

<p>Surely, I guess the entire point is, We don't know enough about UIUC or Lehigh to make a smart and educated judgement about their programs. Anything more would be absurd, out of place, and ignorant..</p>

111

<p>I'm fine with that, more concerned with the PA part. Agreeing with your post, I was agitated that a poster said "He also thinks Lehigh is Michigan's peer. (The most outrageous crap i have ever heard)" and Alex did not address it while I was able to get him to address my comparison. </p>

<p>If that is "outrageous crap", then so is Georgetown being UIUC's peer. If that is not outrageous, I'm fine with them all being equal.</p>

112

<p>the biggest battle facing michigan/berkeley on these CC threads is the median SAT, michigan's % in top 10%, median GPA are all as good as many of the elite privates. </p>

<p>Michigan and Berkeley don't really give SATs that much consideration anyways, i think they should just make SATs optional, that'll boost the averages.</p>

113

<p>
[quote]
People in faculty, staff, and administrative figures know far more of the type of research that is going on and the types of publication that is being produced that we possibly can imagine.

[/quote]
But that's not what makes a school good for learning...

[quote]
Besdies, whether or not we chose to believe that the PA is meaningful or accurate really does not change the fact that in the eyes of the academic world, the PA is very real.

[/quote]
Well, it does count for 25% of U.S. News's overall ranking.</p>

114

<p>
[quote]
"The US News ranking formula gives greatest weight to the opnions of those in a position to judge a school's undergraduate academic excellence. The peer assessment survey allows the top academics we consult -presidents, provosts and deans of admissions - to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication and teaching."</p>

<p>Yes, it is an opinion, but then again, what are we all doing on this forum? We too are stating mere opinions. However, those Presidents, Provosts and Deans are specifically asked to consider undergraduate education. Whether they are capable of following such a complex instruction remains to be seen of course.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The issue is if they are --or should be capable of following complex instructions but if they are willing to. When it comes to most public schools, it is blatantly obvious that little care is given to the differences between graduate and undergraduate reputation and that the "instruction" to consider dedication to ... **teaching **is all but ignored. Gigantic classes, faculty is only present in name, armies of TAs with preparation and language skills that are extremely variable, and focus on research hardly represent dedication to teaching undergraduates! </p>

<p>We DO know what the purpose of the PA and what its impact is on the rankings of the largest and best known public RESEARCH university. We DO know because Mr. Morse told the world that the purpose of the PA is to ... level the playing field and boost the rankings of public schools though "intangibles." </p>

<p>And last but not least, the oft-repeated statements about Presidents, Provosts and Deans being the individuals filling the surveys are highly questionable. I sincerely doubt that the Presidents, Provosts and Deans who *might *sign their name at the bottom of the PITA survey have read the forms in the past decade. </p>

<p>The PA is a complete joke.</p>

115

<p>"Gigantic classes, faculty is only present in name, armies of TAs with preparation and language skills that are extremely variable, and focus on research hardly represent dedication to teaching undergraduates!"</p>

<p>You just described a number of universities, including Cornell, Harvard, Northwestern and Stanford. Why are you merely singling out public elites? </p>

<p>"We DO know what the purpose of the PA and what its impact is on the rankings of the largest and best known public RESEARCH university. We DO know because Mr. Morse told the world that the purpose of the PA is to ... level the playing field and boost the rankings of public schools though "intangibles."</p>

<p>Strange how the USNWR ranking itself started off merely as a PA score. All the other criteria were added later. If you ask me, they were added in order to level the playing field for private universities, not the other way around. Actually, it is pretty evident that the USNWR added all those other criteria to boost sales on the East Coast...far and away its greatest market. I am sure the majority of northeasterns would love to have schools like Cal, Chicago and Michigan ranked among the top 6 or 7 in the nation!</p>

<p>"And last but not least, the oft-repeated statements about Presidents, Provosts and Deans being the individuals filling the surveys are highly questionable. I sincerely doubt that the Presidents, Provosts and Deans who might sign their name at the bottom of the PITA survey have read the forms in the past decade."</p>

<p>Interesting accusation. I can only speak for a handful of people who actually fill the PA annually. They take it very seriously. I am sure many others do not. I am sure some purposely downgrade universities for personal reasons. I am sure many do not. Good thing the USNWR identifies and leaves out the outliers.</p>

<p>"The PA is a complete joke."</p>

<p>I agree that the PA leaves much to be desired. It is, afterall, merely an opinion of the collective. But if the PA is deemed worthy of a "complete joke", what does that make the rest of the criteria used by the USNWR?</p>

116

<p>"Strange how the USNWR ranking itself started off merely as a PA score. All the other criteria were added later. If you ask me, they were added in order to level the playing field for private universities, not the other way around."</p>

<p>If this is true, why are the top 3 losers if the PA were removed, all publics (Cal/Michigan/Wisconsin) and the latter 50% of the biggest losers are predominantly publics?</p>

117

<p>That's the point Ifecollegeguy. The USNWR first started ranking universities in 1983. The other criteria used by the USNWR were added in the late 1989. In the first few rankings, Cal was always ranked between #3 and #5, Chicago was always ranked between #5 and #7 and Michigan was always ranked between #6 and #9. Schools like UCLA, UNC, Wisconsin, UVa and yes, even Illinois, were ranked among the top 25. When the other criteria were added those schools all dropped in favor of private, mostly east coast, schools. I wonder for whom the playing field was leveled!</p>

118

<p>
[quote]

"Strange how the USNWR ranking itself started off merely as a PA score. All the other criteria were added later. If you ask me, they were added in order to level the playing field for private universities, not the other way around."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is very true! </p>

<p>hehe. If you kept the PA score of the public and private and removed the rest of the factors, I read somewhere by the Dean of Admissions at UC Berkeley that 3 publics would rise to the top 10 and 7 publics would rise to the top 20 if the rest of the factors outside of PA was removed....</p>

<p>UC</a> in US News and World Report College Ranking</p>

<p>Read that.</p>

<p>Publics do worst off that privates in financial resources, faculty resources, retention, and alumni giving rates says President of UC system, who says "Compared with private institutions, public universities have fewer financial resources per student, higher student-faculty ratios, larger undergraduate classes, lower six-year graduation rates, and lower rates of alumni giving. These differences account for the lower rankings public universities tend to receive in this survey."</p>

119

<p>Ah okay, I get your point Alex, but that also confirms that the PA score does indeed favor publics. Also, removing the other factors (data) makes much less sense than removing opinion (PA). Imagine if all we had was the PA and deans thought George Mason was a 4.5 based off a professor winning a Nobel Prize and also it winning a miraculous NCAA championship after being in the final 4, while its acceptance rate increased to 90% and its students avg 2.0 GPA with a 1000 out of 2400 SAT. Should it be ranked in the top 10 along with Princeton/Stanford/MIT?</p>

120

<p>PA measures "distinguished" undergraduate programs (majors). </p>

<p>The same publication that publishes the PA also publishes rankings for certain undergraduate programs (majors).</p>

<p>Best Undergraduate Business Programs
Rank/School Peer assessment score (5.0 = highest)</p>

<ol>
<li> University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) 4.9 </li>
<li> Massachusetts Inst. of Technology (Sloan) 4.7
3. University of California–Berkeley (Haas) * 4.5
3. University of Michigan–Ann Arbor * 4.5 </li>
<li> New York University (Stern) 4.3 </li>
<li> U. of North Carolina–Chapel Hill (Kenan-Flagler) * 4.3 </li>
<li> Carnegie Mellon University (PA) 4.2 </li>
<li> University of Texas–Austin (McCombs) * 4.2 </li>
<li> Univ. of Southern California (Marshall) 4.1 </li>
<li> University of Virginia (McIntire) * 4.1 </li>
<li> Indiana University–Bloomington (Kelley) * 4.0 </li>
<li> Cornell University (NY) 3.9 </li>
<li> Emory University (Goizueta) (GA) 3.9 </li>
<li> Ohio State University–Columbus (Fisher) * 3.9 </li>
<li> U. of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign * 3.9
12. Univ. of Wisconsin–Madison * 3.9</li>
<li> Washington University in St. Louis (Olin) 3.9</li>
</ol>

<p>Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs
(At schools whose highest degree is a doctorate)
Rank/School Peer assessment score (5.0 = highest)</p>

<ol>
<li> Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 4.9 </li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) 4.7
2. University of California–Berkeley * 4.7 </li>
<li> California Institute of Technology 4.6 </li>
<li> Georgia Institute of Technology * 4.5 </li>
<li> U. of Illinois–Urbana-Champaign * 4.5 </li>
<li> Cornell University (NY) 4.4
7. University of Michigan–Ann Arbor * 4.4 </li>
<li> Carnegie Mellon University (PA) 4.2 </li>
<li> Purdue Univ.–West Lafayette (IN)* 4.2 </li>
<li> University of Texas–Austin * 4.2 </li>
<li> Princeton University (NJ) 4.1
13. Univ. of Wisconsin–Madison * 4.0 </li>
<li> Johns Hopkins University (MD) 3.9 </li>
<li> Northwestern University (IL) 3.9 </li>
<li> Virginia Tech * 3.9</li>
</ol>