<p>According to The Princeton Review it looks like Rice University has the lowest S/F ratio at 5:1, but Yale is close behind at 6:1</p>
<p>Did I miss anyone?</p>
<p>Caltech (3:1)</p>
<p>Yes. I’d second that. Caltech claims to have the lowest student/faculty ratio in the U. S. </p>
<p>That may not correlate to average class size though. Some of those faculty may teach just one class and do mainly research.</p>
<p>Princeton has historically been at 5:1 and Caltech at 3:1, but I seem to remember one increasing recently.</p>
<p>CalTech at 2.8:1</p>
<p><a href=“http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2009.pdf[/url]”>http://finance.caltech.edu/budget/cds2009.pdf</a></p>
<p>Princeton at 5:1</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/princeton-university/780511-new-princeton-2009-2010-viewbook-available.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/princeton-university/780511-new-princeton-2009-2010-viewbook-available.html</a></p>
<p>each of those schools misreports its s/f ratio by omitting graduate students from the student half of the calculation. that said, they still have among the nations best s/f ratios… just at closer to 6/1 (caltech) or 8/1 (rice and princeton).</p>
<p>erica, is there anything in the common data set instructions that specifically states that only undergraduate students should be used in the calculation of student teacher ratio that you don’t understand?</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/708190-avg-class-size.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/708190-avg-class-size.html</a></p>
<p>Emory’s class sizes are outstanding… very small class sizes… I believe the average student to faculty ratio is either 6:1 or 7:1.</p>
<p>Please define “best faculty-to-student ratio”.</p>
<p>@alam1</p>
<p>You aren’t even at Emory yet. Anyone can cite a S/F ratio. OP is looking for something more.</p>
<p>“erica, is there anything in the common data set instructions that specifically states that only undergraduate students should be used in the calculation of student teacher ratio that you don’t understand?”</p>
<p>JohnAdams, whether or not the CDS specifically asks universities to count graduate students when calculating student/faculty ratios, it does not change the fact that most public universities include graduate students when calculating ratios whereas most private universities do not. For example, if Princeton counted graduate students in its calculations, its ratio would be 8:1 rather than the more impressive 5:1 listed in the USNWR. Princeton is actually not such a bad guy in this because it has a small graduate school relative to its undergraduate student population. Schools like Caltech, Chicago, Columbia and Harvard, where graduate students outnumber undergraduate students 2:1, are far worse. Harvard claims a student to faculty ratio of 7:1. If they included graduate students, their ratio would be 15:1. Graduate students SHOULD be included in the ratio because they too take much time away from faculty.</p>
<p>This is just one of the ways that private universities benefit from setting different standards in reporting data. Public universities have their hands tied and private universities just take cheap shots, claiming they offer a “far more personal” experience, throwing those manipulated figures at impressionable high schoolers and overly protective parents.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So the S:F ratio is simple in theory, but hard to count in practice. Accounting for graduate students is just one part of the problem. Another complication is all the part-time, intermittent and temporary people in the population (both students and faculty). In principle, it should be possible to aggregate them into “full time equivalents”, but this gets into both problems of definition and problems of actually carrying out a count. Then there is the matter of how to count research faculty. If they don’t teach, should they be counted at all? Or as fractions?</p>
<p>The numbers at small, selective, private liberal arts colleges are relatively straightforward. Almost all students are full-time residential students enrolled in 4 year degree programs. There are no (or few) grad students. Relatively many faculty members are full-time teachers. At Swarthmore, for example, the ratio of full-time to part-time faculty is 6:1 (according to stateuniversity.com).</p>
<p>At large public research universities, the picture becomes more complicated. There are grad students, relatively many PIT students, relatively many students who do not graduate in 4 years or who are not even enrolled in 4 year degree programs. Relatively many faculty teach part time, or don’t teach undergrads. At Wisconsin, the ratio of FT to PT is 2:1.</p>
<p>If schools like Caltech, Chicago, Columbia and Harvard don’t include graduate students in the count, you cannot necessarily conclude that the reported S:F ratios are inaccurate. You’d have to know the full details of the methods they use. At Chicago for example, faculty who teach undergraduates do so by virtue of being appointed to “The College”. So they may be excluding not only graduate students but also faculty not appointed to the College. I really don’t know. </p>
<p>Certainly, the S:F numbers warrant some skepticism. Because of all these issues, I think it is better to go by the number of classes in various size ranges (<20, >50, etc.). I think these numbers (as well as personal observations) do tend to corroborate the notion that private, selective schools like Caltech, Chicago, Columbia and Harvard generally offer smaller classes and more faculty attention than large public universities do. This translates to livelier discussion classes, fewer multiple choice tests, and more written assignments that come back not only with grades but also with detailed comments. At a good state university one can seek out the same experience in honors programs, small departments, or upper-level classes.</p>
<p>TK21769, elite publics, like Cal, Michigan, UVa etc… have very few part time students (less than 10% of the total undergraduate student population) and 90% of their students graduate on time.</p>
<p>As for class size, again, public universities have slightly larger classes, but not to the point that they lag private universities to the extent that it would disturb classroom discussion or force professors to resort to multiple choice exams. 70%-75% of classes at elite publics have 30 or fewer students, compared to 80%-85% at elite private universities and 10%-20% of classes at elite public universities have over 50 students compared to 5%-15% at elite private universities. The difference is not nearly as pronounced as one would think.</p>
<p>You also have schools like Williams that do specific classes (do they call the tutorials there?) which put two students with one teacher by design.</p>
<p>If you’re interested in the most intimate student-faculty relationship, I would say Princeton. You have the prestige to draw the top professors in, the good student-faculty ratio, and the lack of a huge number of graduate students as competition for the attention of professors.</p>
<p>But I think most of the HYPS schools are going to be very good in that regard across the board, including Harvard, Graduate students or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The second part of your claim is impossible because the SIX-year graduation rates for Cal and Michigan are 87% and 86%, respectively. (The six-year graduation rate for UVa is 93%, but we do not know how many of them graduated “on time.”) When you present false information (which contradict widely available data), you lose credibility.</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/343176-4-year-graduation-rates-should-they-more-broadly-disclosed.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-admissions/343176-4-year-graduation-rates-should-they-more-broadly-disclosed.html</a></p>
<p>Please provide a source for the first part of your claim. No one is just going to take your word for it, given your track record for making unsupported (and as seen above, untrue) statements.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(its eric, by the way) </p>
<p>the cds instructions are clear and explicit:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>per a prior step, research faculty are to be omitted, as are visiting faculty replacing those on leave, and others. so while i would imagine that there may be some challenges in determining what ‘regular’ teaching really is, or what you should do with a school of public health that offers a few undergraduate classes but no major… thats not whats going on.</p>
<p>schools are simply not including ANY graduate students in their calculations. for this to be an appropriate reporting decision, NO faculty providing graduate level assistance (through teaching, advising, whatever) could be counted. the presence of an undergraduate-appointed faculty simply means that youre not letting all of your professors teach undergraduates; it does not follow that those who are teaching undergraduates are failing to devote time and energy to graduate students, who would then need to be counted.</p>
<p>this is not a question of public versus private schools, either. plenty of private schools appear to report correctly. plenty of public schools fudge the numbers (the cds is not a federal reporting document, after all, but i will say that michigan appears to be in the clear at 15/1). and its not about coming up with the most appropriate s/f approximation for the number you post on your website. its about following the cds guidelines and reporting correctly there.</p>
<p>ccc,
That’s just alex being alex. LOL. Longstanding pattern. He regularly exaggerates and always to the benefit of the aggrieved U Michigan. Differences from accuracy are rarely huge (eg, like claiming 90% of U Michigan students graduate on time while the reported numbers is 86%), but the next time he makes a “mistake” that shortchanges his alma mater will be the first that I have seen. </p>
<p>Back to the topic. eric has made this point before and I think he raises some good points. My interpretation is not to take the reported data too precisely because there sometimes is fudging going on. But look at more than one data point to get a more rounded view. In this case, consider the S/F ratios with the class size data. Together I think you will get some sense of the degree of classroom intimacy that schools will provide and potentially the ease of access to individual profs. That’s not to say that you can’t get access in the larger S/F environments (for example, BYU has terrific access for students who actually make the effort), but you may to wait your turn a little longer than at someplace like Rice which has an extremely friendly faculty-student environment. </p>
<p>Below is a more comprehensive comparison of S/F ratios and class size data for both National Universities and LACs as taken from USNWR. </p>
<p>S/F , <20 , 20-50 , >50 , School</p>
<p>3/1 , 70.8% , 22.8% , 6.4% , Caltech</p>
<p>5/1 , 74.9% , 16.0% , 9.1% , Princeton
5/1 , 65.4% , 26.5% , 8.1% , Rice</p>
<p>6/1 , 78.5% , 14.3% , 7.2% , Yale
6/1 , 77.2% , 14.4% , 8.4% , Columbia
6/1 , 73.2% , 22.3% , 4.5% , U Chicago
6/1 , 72.9% , 19.8% , 7.3% , U Penn
6/1 , 72.2% , 16.1% , 11.7% , Stanford</p>
<p>7/1 , 96.3% , 3.7% , 0.0% , US Military Acad
7/1 , 77.1% , 14.8% , 8.1% , Harvard
7/1 , 75.3% , 17.7% , 7.0% , Northwestern
7/1 , 74.8% , 22.3% , 2.9% , Williams
7/1 , 74.2% , 17.1% , 8.7% , Wash U
7/1 , 72.8% , 22.1% , 5.1% , Tufts
7/1 , 68.2% , 24.8% , 7.0% , Emory
7/1 , 65.2% , 22.1% , 12.7% , MIT</p>
<p>8/1 , 85.1% , 13.8% , 1.1% , Claremont McK
8/1 , 80.0% , 17.9% , 2.1% , Haverford
8/1 , 75.1% , 23.0% , 1.9% , Swarthmore
8/1 , 71.7% , 28.1% , 0.2% , W&L
8/1 , 71.4% , 23.6% , 5.0% , Duke
8/1 , 70.6% , 20.2% , 9.2% , Brown
8/1 , 70.6% , 29.4% , 0.0% , U Richmond
8/1 , 70.3% , 29.2% , 0.5% , Vassar
8/1 , 70.1% , 26.7% , 3.2% , Amherst
8/1 , 70.1% , 28.9% , 1.0% , Pomona
8/1 , 69.2% , 28.2% , 2.6% , Bryn Mawr
8/1 , 68.6% , 30.6% , 0.8% , Wellesley
8/1 , 67.7% , 25.7% , 6.6% , Vanderbilt
8/1 , 65.2% , 34.4% , 0.4% , Yeshiva
8/1 , 62.5% , 28.8% , 8.7% , Dartmouth
8/1 , 61.1% , 38.9% , 0.0% , US Naval Acad</p>
<p>9/1 , 75.7% , 23.9% , 0.4% , Bard
9/1 , 73.6% , 25.8% , 0.6% , Whitman
9/1 , 70.3% , 21.9% , 7.8% , Barnard
9/1 , 69.6% , 28.0% , 2.4% , Middlebury
9/1 , 68.8% , 31.0% , 0.2% , Occidental
9/1 , 68.7% , 24.7% , 6.6% , Brandeis
9/1 , 68.7% , 27.9% , 3.4% , Bowdoin
9/1 , 68.5% , 27.2% , 4.3% , Smith
9/1 , 68.3% , 28.6% , 3.1% , Oberlin
9/1 , 65.8% , 33.9% , 0.3% , Carleton
9/1 , 65.6% , 34.4% , 0.0% , Grinnell
9/1 , 65.2% , 29.7% , 5.1% , Tulane
9/1 , 63.5% , 25.3% , 11.2% , USC
9/1 , 62.6% , 32.9% , 4.5% , Wesleyan
9/1 , 61.1% , 26.2% , 12.7% , U Rochester
9/1 , 58.8% , 34.2% , 7.0% , Harvey Mudd
9/1 , 48.4% , 41.6% , 10.0% , Lehigh</p>
<p>10/1 , 78.5% , 21.0% , 0.5% , Scripps
10/1 , 75.2% , 24.4% , 0.4% , Hamilton
10/1 , 71.5% , 28.5% , 0.0% , Davidson
10/1 , 71.4% , 28.3% , 0.3% , Sewanee
10/1 , 68.9% , 30.1% , 1.0% , Macalester
10/1 , 67.0% , 31.2% , 1.8% , Kenyon
10/1 , 66.8% , 28.9% , 4.3% , Bates
10/1 , 64.0% , 33.8% , 2.2% , Colgate
10/1 , 64.0% , 33.2% , 2.8% , Mt. Holyoke
10/1 , 62.9% , 37.1% , 0.0% , Colorado College
10/1 , 62.9% , 34.3% , 2.8% , Trinity
10/1 , 59.5% , 37.4% , 3.1% , Colby
10/1 , 59.4% , 29.7% , 10.9% , Case Western
10/1 , 58.1% , 25.1% , 16.8% , Cornell
10/1 , 54.6% , 44.5% , 0.9% , Holy Cross</p>
<p>11/1 , 64.7% , 24.2% , 11.1% , Johns Hopkins
11/1 , 64.1% , 24.9% , 11.0% , Carnegie Mellon
11/1 , 59.3% , 40.7% , 0.0% , Furman
11/1 , 57.6% , 40.3% , 2.1% , Lafayette
11/1 , 56.4% , 38.1% , 5.5% , Georgetown
11/1 , 55.8% , 42.0% , 2.2% , Wake Forest
11/1 , 54.8% , 42.9% , 2.3% , Bucknell
11/1 , 51.7% , 42.9% , 5.4% , U Miami
11/1 , 44.7% , 47.9% , 7.4% , WILLIAM & MARY
11/1 , 34.9% , 48.1% , 17.0% , U WASHINGTON</p>
<p>12/1 , 59.7% , 28.9% , 11.4% , NYU
12/1 , 58.1% , 34.5% , 7.4% , SMU
12/1 , 55.0% , 35.6% , 9.4% , Notre Dame
12/1 , 39.8% , 47.8% , 12.4% , U DELAWARE</p>
<p>13/1 , 56.4% , 33.4% , 10.2% , George Washington
13/1 , 49.5% , 49.5% , 1.0% , Fordham
13/1 , 47.2% , 45.2% , 7.6% , Boston College
13/1 , 35.0% , 46.2% , 18.8% , OHIO STATE</p>
<p>14/1 , 68.8% , 22.0% , 9.2% , Worcester
14/1 , 67.8% , 29.5% , 2.7% , Pepperdine
14/1 , 52.6% , 37.1% , 10.3% , Rensselaer
14/1 , 48.8% , 39.7% , 11.5% , CLEMSON
14/1 , 44.3% , 45.2% , 10.5% , U N CAROLINA
14/1 , 41.5% , 37.5% , 21.0% , RUTGERS
14/1 , 39.7% , 38.5% , 21.8% , GEORGIA TECH
14/1 , 36.8% , 48.2% , 15.0% , PURDUE</p>
<p>15/1 , 63.4% , 28.8% , 7.8% , Syracuse
15/1 , 60.3% , 24.6% , 15.1% , UC BERKELEY
15/1 , 55.7% , 34.2% , 10.1% , Boston University
15/1 , 50.0% , 36.0% , 14.0% , U VIRGINIA
15/1 , 49.7% , 40.8% , 9.5% , U IOWA
15/1 , 45.9% , 36.3% , 17.8% , U MICHIGAN
15/1 , 44.5% , 39.5% , 16.0% , U PITTSBURGH</p>
<p>16/1 , 54.1% , 25.5% , 20.4% , UCLA
16/1 , 23.6% , 55.0% , 21.4% , MICHIGAN ST</p>
<p>17/1 , 48.7% , 33.9% , 17.4% , UC S BARBARA
17/1 , 44.7% , 40.6% , 14.7% , U CONNECTICUT
17/1 , 43.8% , 36.9% , 19.3% , U WISCONSIN
17/1 , 38.7% , 42.9% , 18.4% , U ILLINOIS
17/1 , 36.3% , 40.4% , 23.3% , U TEXAS
17/1 , 32.0% , 50.4% , 17.6% , PENN STATE
17/1 , 24.3% , 54.3% , 21.4% , VIRGINIA TECH</p>
<p>18/1 , 44.7% , 34.4% , 20.9% , UC S CRUZ
18/1 , 36.6% , 51.9% , 11.5% , U GEORGIA
18/1 , 35.2% , 51.1% , 13.7% , U MARYLAND
18/1 , 33.8% , 47.4% , 18.8% , INDIANA U</p>
<p>19/1 , 44.3% , 36.8% , 18.9% , UC IRVINE
19/1 , 43.0% , 41.1% , 15.9% , U MINNESOTA
19/1 , 41.9% , 28.6% , 29.5% , UC SAN DIEGO
19/1 , 33.9% , 38.1% , 28.0% , UC DAVIS
19/1 , 21.9% , 55.8% , 22.3% , TEXAS A&M</p>
<p>20/1 , 47.1% , 42.5% , 10.4% , BYU
20/1 , 39.8% , 38.1% , 22.1% , U FLORIDA</p>
<p>CCC, I was referring to 6-year graduation rates. UVa’s 6-year graduation rate is 93%, W&M’s is 91 %, Cal’s is 90% and UCLA’s and Michigan’s are 89%. That’s not lagging elite private schools, which have 6-year graduation rates that hover aroung 88%-95%.</p>
<p>Graduating in six years =/= Graduating “on time”</p>
<p>Colloquially speaking, when someone says s/he graduated “on time,” s/he means in FOUR years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The lag is more obvious when we’re talking about 4-year graduation rates. Admittedly, many students do not graduate “on time” due to finances. So that excuses UC Berkeley and UCLA to a certain extent, given that approximately one-third of their students receive Pell Grants. But why the lag for UVa and Michigan (where 8% and 12.5% receive Pell Grants, respectively), which are no more socio-economically diverse than the elite privates?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/pellgrant.pdf[/url]”>http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/pellgrant.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools[/url]”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/national-economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools</a></p>
<p>In this demanding financial environment and with most college prices in the stratosphere, four-year graduation rates are a very underrated statistic. Below is USNWR data on this measurement along with the % of students on each campus who are receiving financial aid. </p>
<p>4 Yr Graduation Rate , % of students getting FA , School</p>
<p>92% , 54% , Holy Cross
92% , 34% , Davidson
91% , 52% , Haverford
91% , 50% , Williams
91% , 47% , Notre Dame
90% , 58% , Yale
90% , 57% , Princeton
90% , 54% , Carleton
90% , 51% , Pomona
90% , 45% , Claremont McK
90% , 40% , Georgetown</p>
<p>89% , 50% , Wesleyan
89% , 39% , W&L
88% , 60% , Harvard
88% , 49% , Swarthmore
88% , 48% , Middlebury
88% , 43% , U Penn
88% , 42% , Duke
88% , 39% , Boston College
87% , 56% , Vassar
87% , 48% , Columbia
87% , 39% , Cornell
87% , 32% , Colgate
86% , na , US Naval Acad
86% , 55% , Lafayette
86% , 54% , Brandeis
86% , 49% , U Chicago
86% , 49% , Dartmouth
86% , 40% , Northwestern
86% , 40% , Tufts
85% , 51% , Amherst
85% , 48% , Whitman
85% , 46% , Bates
85% , 42% , Bucknell
85% , 42% , Kenyon
85% , 41% , Hamilton
85% , 38% , Wash U
85% , 27% , U VIRGINIA</p>
<p>84% , 64% , Macalester
84% , 58% , Wellesley
84% , 44% , Brown
84% , 42% , Vanderbilt
84% , 41% , Bowdoin
84% , 40% , Colby
83% , 58% , Smith
83% , 56% , Harvey Mudd
83% , 29% , Wake Forest
82% , 69% , MIT
82% , 52% , Occidental
82% , 44% , Barnard
82% , 42% , U Richmond
82% , 41% , Emory
82% , 35% , Rice
82% , 28% , WILLIAM & MARY
81% , 69% , Grinnell
81% , 49% , Caltech
81% , 48% , Johns Hopkins
81% , 48% , Bryn Mawr
81% , 43% , Trinity
80% , 42% , Furman</p>
<p>79% , 61% , Mt. Holyoke
79% , 50% , Stanford
79% , 44% , Scripps
78% , 43% , Colorado College
77% , na , US Military Acad
77% , 53% , NYU
76% , 42% , George Washington
75% , 61% , Fordham
75% , 32% , U N CAROLINA</p>
<p>74% , 56% , U Rochester
74% , 54% , Pepperdine
74% , 47% , Boston University
73% , 39% , Sewanee
72% , 43% , Lehigh
70% , 72% , Worcester
70% , 59% , Syracuse
70% , 52% , Carnegie Mellon
70% , 50% , U MICHIGAN</p>
<p>69% , 53% , Oberlin
69% , 43% , USC
68% , 58% , Bard
67% , 39% , U DELAWARE
65% , 49% , UCLA</p>
<p>64% , 66% , Rensselaer
64% , 54% , UC S BARBARA
64% , 50% , U ILLINOIS
64% , 46% , UC BERKELEY
64% , 46% , U Miami
63% , 48% , U MARYLAND
60% , 47% , PENN STATE</p>
<p>59% , na , Tulane
59% , 32% , SMU
58% , 71% , Case Western
57% , 53% , U PITTSBURGH
57% , 52% , UC IRVINE
56% , 58% , UC SAN DIEGO
56% , 50% , U CONNECTICUT
56% , 46% , U FLORIDA</p>
<p>53% , 52% , UC S CRUZ
52% , 43% , VIRGINIA TECH
51% , 43% , INDIANA U
51% , 40% , U WASHINGTON
51% , 32% , U WISCONSIN
51% , 30% , U GEORGIA
50% , 43% , CLEMSON</p>
<p>49% , 48% , RUTGERS
48% , 60% , U TEXAS
47% , 57% , UC DAVIS
47% , 45% , MICHIGAN ST
45% , 55% , Yeshiva</p>
<p>42% , 51% , OHIO STATE
41% , 51% , U MINNESOTA
41% , 40% , TEXAS A&M
40% , 55% , U IOWA</p>
<p>38% , 48% , PURDUE</p>
<p>31% , 31% , GEORGIA TECH
31% , 21% , BYU</p>