<p>NO WAY is McGill below the top 20 in N. America. McGill is a world-class university that draws from the best in Canada and the world, much more so than several of the schools that USNWR lists in its flawed top 20 (schools like ND, Emory or Wash U St Louis.) To put McGill in the 40-60 range is pure provincialism.</p>
<p>From what I gather, I think I would put McGill, Toronto, UBC, and Queens in that order, between 30 and 40 on USNEWS</p>
<p>I wouldn't go as far as to say that McGill is one of the top 20 universities in North America. But I definitely believe it is a top 30 university.</p>
<p>Canada has about the same population as California. Drawing from the best and brightest there can probably be concerned to what UCs draw. Though an arguement can be made that much of Canada is unsophisticated compared to Clali. Certainly not top 25.</p>
<p>There are students here from Canada (internationals) and while they are both asian they both claim it is very easy to get into McGill and state that the really smart Canadian kids go to U.S colleges (not McGill).</p>
<p>suze, I've lived in CA and in Canada, for a long time, and I can tell you that the average Canadian is more sophisticated than the avg Californian. Especially in the Windsor-Quebec corridor (where about 2/3 of Canadians live.) San Francisco (easily the most sophisticated part of California) is no more sophisticated than Montreal. As well, the high school system is better in Canada. I also took a couple of classes at McGill and know dozens of students and alums.</p>
<p>I would put the quality of the education and caliber of students at McGill above that of say Rice or Vanderbilt, Virginia, UCLA or Wisconsin, about the same as Penn, Michigan or Dartmouth.</p>
<p>I must agree with Cal on this one. Canadians are generally cultured and well educated. I have dealt with many Canadsians at all levels and they are defenitely well versed in the intellectual disciplines.</p>
<p>CalX, you seem to have lots of love for large stae run schools. Have you spent time at any undergrad focused smaller schools? Canad is a beautiful country, I spent many summers there as a child. While there is certainly some sophistication, it is a small country in terms of breadth in many ways. In my experience, Canadians who can afford it in general can't wait to cross the border. McGill equal to Dartmouth? Not a chance in he**!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>Suze, have you studied at larger state schools?</p>
<p>Actually suze, in terms of international reputation, McGill is very far ahead of Dartmouth. That much is clear from the Times and other international rankings. That's important because about a fifth of its student body is not Canadian. McGill is definitely comparable to Dartmouth in terms of academic standards.</p>
<p>McGill is not that huge, the main campus only has about 12,000-14,000 undergraduates spread across many colleges and majors (there is another campus that serves a few majors like environmnetal sciences and agriculture.) It feels like a medium-sized school. BTW, I did take classes at Georgetown, which is a smaller school. </p>
<p>Sweden or Finland are small countries too, actually much, much smaller than Canada, yet they're quite sophisticated. How is Canada "a small country in terms of breadth"? Canada is closer to Europe culturally, has a bicultural heritage and a very dynamic immigrant mix (which tends to be more white-collar than that of California or the US.)</p>
<p>acceptedalready: yes, some of the wealthier top Canadian students do study in top American universities, but many stay. The price to quality ratio of Canadian universities can't be beat in North America.</p>
<p>Culture and sophistication don't increase a school's academic prowess.... I really hate when people say places like Canada are soooo much more sophisticated than the US when culturally, those places are nearly indistinguishable from the US.</p>
<p>McGill isn't exactly Ivy-level. But name-wise, it's as recognizible as an Ivy in the States, and education-wise, it's in the top 30--meaning it still delivers a quality education. So deal!</p>
<p>In terms of reputation, I'd say top 10-20</p>
<p>In terms of academics 25-30</p>
<p>In terms of entry standards I'd say between 30-40</p>
<p>McGill is one of the top 3 Canadian universities. As such, placing it below the 30th American university shows a definite provincialism.</p>
<p>Peachy, for one thing, about a quarter of Canadians speak a different language than that of the US. That's a fairly distinctive feature if you'd ask... Drastically different crime rate, habits and outlooks as well. Western Canada is more like the US, but the majority of the country lives in the Windsor-Quebec corridor.</p>
<p>Living in a culturally stimulating environment and interacting with students and faculty that are more cultured and more aware about the rest of the world adds to the college experience IMHO. That's what makes a place like Cambridge or Oxford for example so stimulating. The cultural environment around a college permeates it.</p>
<p>F_vck, if Vanderbilt and Emory, both located in that paragon of sophistication called 'the South', can make the top 20, U of Toronto and McGill are definitely top 25 to say the least.</p>
<p>Dwincho, the main problem with McGill and Toronto is their tiny endowment relative to their overall size. Compare them to say Vanderbilt and Emory and you will quickly see what I mean:</p>
<p>Emory University
Endowment: $4,400,000,000
12,000 students
Faculty: 2,700
Endowment per student: $370,000</p>
<p>Vanderbilt University
Endowment: $2,600,000,000
12,000 students
Faculty: 2,800
Endowment per student: $225,000</p>
<p>McGill University
Endowment: $750,000,000
31,000 students
Faculty: 1,500
Endowment per student: $25,000</p>
<p>University of Toronto
Endowment: $1,200,000,000
63,000 students
Faculty: 5,000
Endowment per student: $20,000</p>
<p>McGill and Toronto have excellent faculties and research, but given their tiny endowments, low tuition rates and relatively non-existant fund raising abilities and huge student bodies, those two excellent universities lack the resources (facilities and faculty) to serve their undergrads well.</p>
<p>Indeed the size of endowment is one of the strengths that american Unis have over all other universities in the world, Apparently Oxbridge is having some financial trouble at the time.</p>
<p>Alexander, are you saying these universities are better at the graduate level, and not undergrad friendly at all?</p>
<p>And those numbers you're giving include both graduate and undergraduate, graduate programs usually get more money than undergrad so the endowment per undergrad student is actually less.</p>
<p>McGill won't be in the top 30 for the same reason that world class universities such as U. Wisconsin or UIUC are not there.</p>
<p>Sebma, small differences in endwoment per students don't make a difference, especially if a university is much larger, benefiting from economies of scale, and receives money from the government. However, when a university has an ednowment per student 10 times smaller than other universities, there is reason for concern. </p>
<p>As for OxBridge, their endowment per student is actually quite good. I think both have endowments of roughly $6 billion, and both have fewer than 20,000 students.</p>
<p>Alexandre, the correlation between funding and quality of the education is far from linear. Other factors are present. </p>
<p>If you look at placement for instance, McGill's placement office is a small and dinky operation, a tiny run-down office in a nondescript building off-campus. But they do get all the top employers in Canada because they are among the very best in Canada. They don't need to build fancy offices, have a big staff or do much outreach to place all their grads, because they have the 7th or 8th largest economy in the world all for themselves. In contrast, schools like Emory and Vanderbilt have to compete with two dozen more prestigious universities for attention.</p>
<p>The same dynamics apply to the quality of their faculty. Something like 3/4 of the top canadian faculty stays in canada, and they want to go to the most prestigious and best universities. Places like Vandy and Emory have a harder time prying away top faculty because they are in less attractive environments and have to contend with three dozen schools that have better reputation. A lot of faculty members at berkeley for instance can get raises by moving to some of these colleges, but prefer to stay.</p>
<p>There are as well a lot of economies to scale which very much mitigate the difference in funding level. If you look at class size distribution, a lot of the larger schools don't fare much worse. For instance, while Vanderbilt's endowment is 10x bigger than McGill's, that difference doesn't translate into a much different student to facutly ratio. that ratio is 12.7 to 1 at McGill, vs 10 to 1 at Vanderbilt...</p>
<p>In many ways, it's not Harvard's endowment that makes Harvard, its large endowment is a consequence of its reputation and strength, more so than the other way around.</p>
<p>One of my friends (a French philosophy prof who studied under Derrida) is a faculty member who was recruited to Vanderbilt from Cal State. He lasted one semester and moved on, hated Nashville, which he felt was an intellectual wasteland. He's probably going to end up at the U of Toronto next Fall.</p>
<p>I think people need to have some perspective on universities beyond the framework of USNWR and not brush off larger prestigious schools under the "nouveau riche" small privates based on budgets alone. There are limits to their buying their way to the top. </p>
<p>Oxbridge is another great example. Cambridge is nowhere as well-funded as Vanderbilt or Duke, but the quality of the education at Cambridge dwarfs that of Vandy or Duke because of the quality of the student body and faculty, and the superior cultural standards at Cambridge, which translate into superiro academic standards. It's just a much worldier campus.</p>
<p>Hey Alexander are you sure about the 1.2 Billion endowment for U of T?</p>
<p>I've seen websites say 1.4 and others over 1.5 Billion</p>