Where would Liberal Arts schools fit into National University Ranking?

College Search & Selection
41

<p>Using giving rate severely underrates the state schools. If you were to just switch that to total fundrasing you would get a much different result. Most state schools don't bother with the constant mailings and calling that privates do as many of the alums live in the state and already pay taxes to support the school. They focus on landing the bigger fish.</p>

<p>Top institutions in total support
Stanford University $603,585,914
University of Wisconsin at Madison $595,215,891
Harvard University $589,861,000
University of Pennsylvania $394,249,685
Cornell University $353,931,403
Columbia University $341,140,986
University of Southern California $331,754,481
Johns Hopkins University $323,100,408
Indiana University $301,060,946
University of California at San Francisco $292,932,382
Yale University $285,706,955
University of California at Los Angeles $281,552,472
Duke University $275,815,542
University of Minnesota $265,498,507
University of Washington $259,118,639
University of Michigan $251,353,272
New York University $247,126,717
Massachusetts Institute of Technology $206,007,428
Ohio State University $204,598,172
University of California at Berkeley $198,863,654</p>

42

<p>I don't know how you can put </p>

<p>Chicago
Columbia
JHU
Cornell
Northwestern
Georgetown
Tufts</p>

<p>under schools like Colby and Wellesley; and at the same place as places like USC.</p>

43

<p>cough<conn college="">cough</conn></p>

44

<p>barrons,
I'm not sure I understand your post. Is that a list of which schools raised the most money in a recent year? If so, isn't that a bit biased due to the timing of various capital campaigns? Furthermore, don't you think investment management performance should count for something? I have heard that some schools, like Harvard, Yale and U Virginia (among others), have done very well with their investment returns and those annual investment gains actually are larger than most of the numbers you posted.</p>

45

<p>That is the last year but I can post the last 5--not much different. Alumni giving rate would have the same quibbles you mentioned. Capital campaigns, portfolio return etc. Note those annual returns quoted in most reports always include new capital added. It's not a pure return number.</p>

<p>Top Fund Raisers, 2003-4
Top institutions in total support
Harvard University $540,333,491
Stanford University $524,213,993
Cornell University $385,936,235
University of Pennsylvania $332,829,949
University of Southern California $322,090,595
Johns Hopkins University $311,573,165
Columbia University $290,618,180
Massachusetts Institute of Technology $289,838,445
Yale University $264,771,841
University of California at Los Angeles $262,148,586
University of Wisconsin at Madison $260,976,384
Duke University $254,999,006
University of Texas at Austin $252,175,348
Indiana University $248,458,068
University of Minnesota $245,682,841
New York University $214,863,578
University of California at San Francisco $213,996,780
University of Michigan $206,165,782
Ohio State University $203,273,515
University of Washington $195,762,442 </p>

<p>Top Fund Raisers, 2002-3
Related data: </p>

<p>Top institutions in total support
Harvard University $555,639,350<br>
Stanford University $486,075,131<br>
University of Pennsylvania $399,640,772<br>
University of Arkansas $365,307,446<br>
Johns Hopkins University $319,546,967<br>
University of California at Los Angeles $319,462,784<br>
Cornell University $317,042,889<br>
University of Washington $311,250,905<br>
University of Texas at Austin $309,483,833<br>
University of Southern California $305,981,845<br>
Duke University $296,827,299<br>
University of Wisconsin at Madison $286,914,546<br>
Columbia University $281,498,472<br>
University of Virginia $261,921,891<br>
Indiana University $249,988,250<br>
University of Minnesota $244,851,272<br>
Princeton University $227,532,267<br>
University of California at San Francisco $225,597,140<br>
Yale University $222,088,800<br>
New York University $207,932,051 </p>

<p>Top Fund Raisers, 2001-2
Related data:<br>
» Capital Campaigns Database </p>

<p>Top institutions in total support
University of Southern California $585,161,932
Harvard University $477,617,144
Stanford University $454,769,878
Cornell University $363,031,766
University of Pennsylvania $319,742,070
Johns Hopkins University $318,687,392
University of Wisconsin at Madison $307,213,842
University of California at Los Angeles $282,343,369
Columbia University $271,231,231
Duke University $264,580,048
Yale University $256,342,000
University of Virginia $255,043,646
New York University $251,407,906
University of Minnesota $233,338,357
University of Washington $231,814,108
University of California at Berkeley $223,260,969
Massachusetts Institute of Technology $220,572,527
Michigan State University $211,629,395
Emory University $210,372,283
University of California at San Francisco $207,227,552 </p>

<p>TOP 20 INSTITUTIONS BASED ON TOTAL GIVING FY2001
1 Harvard U. (Cambridge, MA) $683,172,781
2 Stanford U. (Palo Alto, CA) $468,966,598
3 Columbia U. (New York, NY) $358,682,692
4 Yale U. (New Haven, CT) $350,122,800
5 Johns Hopkins U. (Baltimore, MD) $347,732,206
6 Cornell U. (Ithaca, NY) $309,472,937
7 Indiana U. (Bloomington, IN) $300,848,253
8 Emory U. (Atlanta, GA) $297,777,753
9 U. of Wisconsin at Madison (Madison, WI) $292,428,950
10 U. of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, PA) $285,595,522
11 U. of Southern California (Los Angeles, CA) $280,985,857
12 U. of California at San Francisco (San Francisco, CA) $271,565,196
13 Duke U. (Durham, NC) $264,424,566
14 U. of California at Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA) $263,652,406
15 U. of Washington (Seattle, WA) $231,918,169
16 U. of Minnesota-Twin Cities (Minneapolis, MN) $228,926,489
17 U. of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI) $218,114,223
18 Ohio State U. (Columbus, OH) $210,550,855
19 U. of California at Berkeley (Berkeley, CA) $202,607,331
20 Michigan State U. (East Lansing, MI) $202,006,722 </p>

<p>Top Fund Raisers, 1999-2000
RELATED DATA:<br>
» Capital Campaigns Database </p>

<p>Top institutions in total support
Stanford University $580,473,838<br>
Harvard University 485,238,498
Duke University 407,952,525
Yale University 358,102,600
Cornell University 308,676,394
Johns Hopkins University 304,043,508
Columbia University 292,267,910
University of Pennsylvania 288,152,160
University of Wisconsin at Madison 280,182,467
University of California at Los Angeles 253,764,625
University of Southern California 253,287,793
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 238,426,032
New York University 236,620,006
University of Michigan 230,605,282
University of Washington 225,575,162</p>

46

<p>I'm shocked that Indiana does so well.</p>

47

<p>Those fund raising lists are nice to look at and are somewhat useful to a point.</p>

<p>But bear in mind that comparing a large research university (regardless if it is public or private) say, Harvard, Yale, Stanford or Michigan vs. an undergraduate focused university, say, Princeton, Dartmouth or Brown is like comparing apples and oranges.</p>

<p>On average, the full research universities (i.e. those schools with a full scope of Medical, Business, Law and other grad programs) even within the Ivies average about 20,000 students (undergraduate + graduate) -- that's not even getting into the public unis that have upwards of 40,000 - 50,000. Compare that to, say, Princeton (total undergrad + grads about 6,000+) or Dartmouth (total undergrads + grads about 5,800+). So looking at that list, pound for pound, you've got to say Princeton punches way above its weight given that its aggregate total matches up with the big boys and yet its total entire student body is a mere fraction of the larger research dominated universities. I've said it before and I'll say it again, from purely an undergraduate perspective its hard to beat those undergrad focused unis such as Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown and the like.</p>

<p>So, let's look at some of these figures with the proper perspective.</p>

48

<p>


</p>

<p>I'm guessing that Mark Cuban donates a wee bit o' change to his alma mater. Add in the big time support for basketball, along with the excellent biz and music programs, and IU probably has a nice base of well-to-do alums.</p>

49

<p>keep in mind that the list I posted is simply a way of ranking schools based on certain factors: you may be shocked at the results, but when it comes to basing ranking solely on SAT midscore and alum giving rate, that's what it looks like.</p>

<p>Oh, and no matter which way I've tried looking at it, Princeton ALWAYS wins.</p>

50

<p>I rate Berkeley, Stanford, and Cornell as the nation's top three universities, due to my attendance there. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton I rate lowest in the country, due to following factors:</p>

<ol>
<li>They all rejected me.</li>
<li>My first girlfriend, who dumped me in high school, eventually graduated from Harvard and Yale.</li>
<li>A girl who was occasionally mean to me in elementary school, and who was several inches taller than I was, is now a tenured Princeton professor who published a peer reviewed article last year in which she demonstrated that short people make less money than tall people because tall people tend to be smarter than short people.</li>
</ol>

<p>My rating system may be a bit subjective. But really, aren't they all?</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
she demonstrated that short people make less money than tall people because tall people tend to be smarter than short people.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>there is nothing to suggest (either empirically or otherwise) that tall people are smarter than short people. the phenomenon of taller people earning more than shorter people is a physical bias that tends to favor taller people in the workplace -- whether it be for promotions, raises, etc. but this has nothing to do with intelligence or ability (e.g. women make less than men, but there is nothing to suggest that men are smarter than women - again this is a gender bias which exists in the system rather than a reflection of a lack of ability by women).</p>

52

<p>Greybeard, lol.</p>

<p>I'm so disappointed. I thought if I used objective measures, my ranking system would be objective. :)</p>

<p>Yeah, the research on short people vs tall people really pi**ed me off. ;)</p>

53

<p>Prestige--you might not be up to date on the research.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2148759/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.slate.com/id/2148759/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/why-short-people-suffer-the-height-of-prejudice/2006/12/15/1166162317468.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/why-short-people-suffer-the-height-of-prejudice/2006/12/15/1166162317468.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

54

<p>Interesting articles, barrons! I wonder if at least part of the alleged intelligence differential can be ascribed to teachers subconsciously lavishing more attention on taller students during the formative years?</p>

<p>Wait - what were we talking about as the original subject of this thread, and how did we get here? ;-)</p>

55

<p>Barrons, I've read up on the latest research. I just don't buy it.</p>

<p>Personally, I'm average - not too short, not too tall. My own anecdotal evidence comes from my own experiences (from prep school onto grad school and into the workplace)... nothing i've seen suggests to me that taller people are smarter -- and this cuts through a myriad of different people, backgrounds, religions, nationalities, socio-economic ranges, genders, etc... the preeminent science minds of the last century, Einstein and Stephen Hawkings are both average to short in height... Bill Gates? Average at 5'10"... by this theory they should be 7 feet tall... it's bogus. again, i don't buy it.</p>

56

<p>I think the research is also wrong and gender biased. Tall females don't get the same advantage that tall men get. Short women still get called cute. Tall women get called amazons.</p>

57

<p>With women, I thought it was good looking women have the advantage, regardless of height.</p>

<p>the_prestige, the intelligence debate was really focused on malnutrition and not reaching your potential height because you didn't get the optimum nutrients. If you reach your potential height, you're fine, even if you aren't that tall.</p>

58

<p>I thought that taller people had an advantage because they seemed more commanding and that helps in whatever. But it is certainly not a consistent thing, more of a general trend.</p>

59

<p>i don't want to hijack this thread into the "height debate", but yeah, I agree that taller people tend to earn more, get more opportunities, get faster promotions, higher raises, etc... but, again, this is explained by physical bias rather than intelligence.</p>

<p>you can chop, slice and dice data any way you want to come up with the conclusion you want... lies, damn lies and statistics... again i don't buy it...</p>

60

<p>I feel the same way about global warming.</p>