Which college is tops for actual education?

<p>"Thank you unalove for the kind of specific answer I was looking for.</p>

<p>Interesting you should say that ‘education is the school’s only real draw’ for Chicago. I would think that its reputation and the fact that it is in Chicago would also be attractions. </p>

<p>BTW, what do you think of your neighbor- Northwestern?"</p>

<p>Sadly, I think among educated people in top businesses or jobs, like professors, wallstreet journalists, or anything academia or science really, Chicago is incredibly well known. And it has great international prestige.</p>

<p>Problem is, most people don’t have one of the above jobs, and generally are the kind of people who think all college education is equivalent in course rigor, or brilliance of professors etc. They usually are the ones that think a crappy mcCrap state education is equivalent harvard. These people usually have never heard of Chicago. Pity, the name does not hold weight with the “elite” or informed.</p>

<p>I also live in california if that makes a difference. I think people in California are stupid when it comes to higher education. Ide say the average person in California thinks Harvard and Stanford are the two best schools in the world, and that Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, UCDavis, Cal Poly SLO, San Diego State, and Chico State are equally as good, and nobody knows anything about Pomona, Caltech, Claremont McKenna, or Harvey Mudd.</p>

<p>I really find it pitiful. Im a senior in High School, and just last week I was signing up at community college to take a class next semester, and at orientation, the lady was going on about how all “higher education” was equally as difficult. She had this whack idea that 2 years at community college is as difficult as 2 years at Berkeley, UCLA,Stanford, Caltech, etc. And the whole time i was thinking of how stupid she was.</p>

<p>Here’s my trouble, balletgirl…</p>

<p>The methodology behind your list seems about as good as we’ll get in this thread. But I took numerous classes at one of the schools on that list–I worked with professors, I was friends with students, I’m familiar with campus requirements–and yet I feel like I received a “better” education than many students there, even though my own school is ranked about 20 spots lower. I still think that the school belongs on your list, as it certainly provides its students with an excellent academic experience, but then it’s important to realize the narrowness of the list–the fact that it represents six of many viable contenders, and not necessarily the top six, at that.</p>

<p>Obviously, an educational approach or environment that’s “better” for me isn’t necessarily “better” for someone else, and I think we all realize that that is the biggest hurdle here. But beyond that is the fact that this is just not an easily quantified thing. We can look at things like PhD production, overall ranking, average class size, student:faculty ratio, core curriculum, etc. and use them to “get a feel” for whether or not a school is likely to provide a good academic experience, but I just don’t see us putting together a list that could even begin to feel comprehensive, let alone ordered.</p>

<p>It seems safe to say that “any of the top 15-20 universities or LACs would provide, within the context of other aspects of ‘fit,’ the best education for a particular student,” and indeed, I’m sure that this is true. But it’s still far too narrow. I have an exceptionally intelligent friend who went to a college with a 98-99% admit rate, and she’s quite sure that she received a top-notch education there. At my school, ranked outside of the top 20, I’m also quite sure that I enjoyed not only an excellent academic experience, but also one on par with those offered by multiple higher-ranked institutions, including at least one that’s made a few of these tentative lists (and I know this not by assumption, but by actual experience). Since some posters will know which particular schools I’m discussing in this post, I want to reiterate the fact that I’m not attempting to make objective claims about quality. Never has “To each, his own” been more true than in discussions such as this one.</p>

<p>One of the founding principles of my own school was that “living and learning are not only compatible, they are inseparable.” It’s largely for this reason that I see any attempt to ignore “fit” as futile. I definitely understand the purpose of the original post, but I think that the best way for the OP to go about answering the question is to compile a general set of schools that interest him/her (potentially using lists of notoriously quirky, intellectual, or “elite” schools as a jumping-off point, as desired), and then asking current students specific questions about intellectual environment, core program, or whatnot.</p>

<p>During my own college search, I could’ve spent all the time I wanted pouring over rankings and statistics and program descriptions. Instead, I found schools that “felt” interesting–some more highly ranked than others–and during visits, I stopped current students and asked them questions such as “Is it common for students to get excited and spend free time talking about stuff from their classes?” At some schools, everyone I asked got confused or rolled their eyes, telling me not to worry, that they weren’t nerds. At other schools, students absolutely lit up at my questions. Responses weren’t necessarily correlated with ranking. I found exactly the answers I needed. Of course, there are risks involved in this method as well, and maybe I’m not actually understanding the info that the OP is looking for. But this is what worked for me, and I think I was attempting a similar search.</p>

<p>BIGTWIX’s post made me think of one more point, which is the important difference between the two questions</p>

<p>(1) Which schools offer the best academic experience?</p>

<p>(2) At which schools can a student receive the best academic experience?</p>

<p>At some schools, you’ll be hard-pressed to avoid learning. Your classmates will be incredible, your professors will be widely renowned, and the coursework will be challenging, no matter how little effort you want to put into it. But speaking anecdotally again, I have a good friend who’s at a community college for personal reasons, and is soon planning to transfer to a nearby non-flagship state university. This girl is an exceptional student…very passionate, incredibly self-motivated, and a true lover of learning. She has turned every one of her CC assignments into a major endeavor, putting more effort into each than I’ve ever been able to fathom. In return, she’s caught the eyes of most of her teachers, and has been able to assist them with research, meet with them privately, do special projects, access special facilities and privileges, and squeeze an unimaginable level of personalization from her time in a CC. Interestingly, but only as a side-note, this girl dated a top-LAC grad while she was at CC, and she marveled at his closed-mindedness toward education…his unwillingness to even consider the validity of educational routes less “elite” than his own…</p>

<p>I personally could never pull something like this girl’s path off. As good of a student as I can be, I just don’t have the self-discipline. But my friend was determined not to let circumstances dictate her experience, and she’ll come out of CC with more actual book-knowledge than most “elite” grads…think Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting. Now, I do think that there’s a great value to factors such as interaction with classmates/faculty of the caliber more often (but not exclusively!) found at top schools than elsewhere, but this is off-topic from BIGTWIX’s claim, which was about difficulty of curricula.</p>

<p>Regardless, BIGTWIX, the woman you’re referring to was probably less stupid than you seem to believe. A challenging, worthwhile academic experience may not be inescapable at a lower-tier or community college, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t obtainable.</p>

<p>I know I’m talking about exceptions to the rule, but hey…still a nice story, I think ;)</p>

<p>williams and amherst</p>

<p>If you rule out selectivity (input), then the best objective measure of academic quality is the US News over- and under-performance. Using this measure of quality for the top 50, controlling for selectivity (input), then the best education can be found at:
Harvard
Johns Hopkins
Notre Dame
Berkeley
Georgetown
Virginia
UCLA
Michigan
Tufts
Brandeis
Lehigh
William and Mary
Boston College
Illinois
U Washington
UC Santa Barbara
Texas
Syracuse</p>

<p>Penn State has a graduation rate that is 22% higher than expected for their selectivity. I think they are lying about their graduation rate. </p>

<p>The state schools have that low tuition advantage. Is that part of educational quality? Maybe in a costs-benefits sense.</p>

<p>Among the LACs, the best would be:
Amherst
Wellesley
Carleton
Grinnell
Vassar
Colgate
Hamilton
Smith
Naval Academy
West Point
Colorado College
Mt Holyoke
Bucknell
Kenyon
Holy Cross
Lafayette
Occidental
Union
Connecticut College
Skidmore
Gettysburg
DePauw
Pitzer</p>

<p>But, I don’t think you can accurately identify educational quality while ignoring selectivity. Is St. Michaels College in Vermont (+ 14% overperformance) better academically than Harvard? Without taking selectivity into account, you are left with “Which schools do the best job with the students they get?”.</p>

<p>And, Tech schools are at a disadvantage then because their curricula are harder.</p>

<p>Collegehelp, unfortunately, the downfall of the graduation under/overperformance is that it does start with establishing that performance through the original … selectivity of that class. In other words, the lower the selectivity, the lower the expectation of performance. The second problem is that the graduation rate is directly proportional to the potential leniency of a school. In so many words, as the USNews rankings clearly demonstrates, schools with lower selectivity, easier curriculum, or rampant grade inflation do much better than highly selective schools that happen to maintain superior expectations for their highly qualified students. </p>

<p>This explains why Harvey Mudd has been ranked DEAD LAST in the category of underperforming in the expected graduation rate. All the while, the school still bests every other LAC (and most doctoral universities) in the selectivity ranking, continues to rival with MIT and Caltech for providing the very best undergraduate engineering education, and continues to be among the best 1 to 3 schools in the PhD production --if that matters! </p>

<p>If we want to borrow from the USNews reports, it would be hard to beat a recompilation of all their criteria, minus the over/underperformance, the alumni donations, and most importantly the peer assessment that distorts the final rankings so aptly. </p>

<p>PS I noted that you mentioned the issues of selectivity and difficulty of curriculum at technical schools.</p>

<p>Student615 is right on the mark. Its impossible to rank academic quality using statistics, regardless of methodology. Its really such a subjective matter. I suggest that it doesnt matter if a school is better academically for my neighbor. The only thing that is relevant is what is the best school for me or my children. Even using the number of PhD’s produced by various schools is an incomplete measure. How about measuring the number of CEO"s? Perhaps the best measure is who does the best job of educating whole human beings with strong values and ethics, who can be productive in the workplace and who become successful adults and parents contributing to society through service to others?</p>

<p>^ everyone can start a company and make oneself a ceo but it’s impossible to give yourself a phd unless you really earn one.</p>

<p>There are many valuable ways in which one can spend the four years in which one is between the ages of 18 and 22. Depending on who you are, what you know about yourself, and what you want to accomplish in your life, a valuable educational experience is highly subjective.</p>

<p>However, when the OP talked about a liberal arts education, my impression is that they were specifically referring to the kinds of nose-in-a-book, Socratic discussion, Dead Poets Society version of an education. </p>

<p>What, then, defines a high-quality liberal arts education?</p>

<p>To me, a liberal arts education necessitates some kind of core curriculum/distribution requirement. If somebody goes to the gym and only works on muscle tone in their arms, are they a fit person? If somebody goes to a college and focuses his or her studies in only one area (or, more likely, only areas in which he or she already has a level of interest in), is he or she an educated person in the liberal arts sense, even if the classes in the subjects taken were good classes?</p>

<p>I am, of course, inclined to say no, as I quite badly wanted to go to a school with a core curriculum for exactly this reason. While other people want to be doctors and lawyers and teachers and bankers, I just want to be educated.</p>

<p>In addition to a core/extensive distribution requirements, I think that one has to consider in what ways the material tends to be presented. This sounds kind of silly, I guess, as most schools present most of the material the same way, but I think that sometimes slight variations say a lot about a school. I haven’t found Chicago to be as deviant in teaching style/teaching philosophy/grading philosophy as I have found it to be deviant in its course offerings. Chicago tends not to offer survey or introductory courses, and when it does, these courses take a more theoretical approach (my “Introduction to Art History” course would have been better titled “Introduction to discussing Art”) and probably half of the undergraduate course catalog is cross-listed with the graduate school. This is all very cool for me, and all contributes to my own understanding of what I want my undergraduate experience to be like.</p>

<p>On a side note, I haven’t found my classes at Chicago quite as difficult as I expected them to be so far, and much more lecture-driven than I would like. (I’m a year and a third in). That’s probably because I’ve been mostly in the wading pool, even at this point, and come this winter I’m expecting a much more intense courseload, as I’m taking higher level courses and courses in subjects I have no familiarity in.</p>

<p>Other schools that I think uphold the liberal arts tradition quite highly and emphasize the academic aspect of the undergraduate experience (even without a core in place):
–Barnard
–Bryn Mawr
–Beloit
–Oberlin
–Princeton
–Knox
–Earlham
–Yale
–Reed
–Wellesley
–Hampshire, Marlboro (for opposite reasons from Chicago)
–Swarthmore</p>

<p>excellent post on this topic re US News 1995 edition which actually ranked by quality of teaching. Top 5 were Dartmouth,Brown,William & Mary,Rice ,Princeton. <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/384217-focused-teaching.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/384217-focused-teaching.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Swish 14,</p>

<p>The schools you listed were from the rankings of top universities. LACs were ranked separately with the top 5:</p>

<p>TOP NATIONAL LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES

  1. Carleton College (Minn.)
  2. Swarthmore College (Pa.)
  3. Williams College (Mass.)
  4. Grinnell College (Iowa)
  5. Amherst College (Mass.)</p>

<p>Head of the class: Top-ranked universities and colleges for undergraduate instruction</p>

<p>U.S. News & World Report (Sept 18, 1995)</p>

<p>In recognition of the widespread public concern about the quality and effectiveness of teaching on the nation’s campuses, U.S. News this year for the first time asked presidents, provosts and deans of admission to select the 10 schools in their category where the faculty “has an unusually strong commitment to undergraduate teaching.” </p>

<p>Here are the colleges and universities that received the most votes:</p>

<p>TOP NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES </p>

<ol>
<li>Dartmouth College (N.H.) </li>
<li>Brown University (R.I.) </li>
<li>College of William and Mary (Va.) </li>
<li>Rice University (Texas) </li>
<li>Princeton University (N.J.) </li>
<li>Stanford University (Calif.) </li>
<li>Duke University (N.C.) </li>
<li>Miami University at Oxford (Ohio) </li>
<li>University of Notre Dame (Ind.)</li>
<li>Yale University (Conn.)</li>
<li>University of Virginia</li>
<li>University of Chicago (Ill.)</li>
<li>Emory University (Ga.)</li>
<li>Univ. of California at Santa Cruz</li>
<li>Vanderbilt University (Tenn.)</li>
<li>Boston College (Mass.)</li>
<li>Harvard University (Mass.)</li>
<li>Northwestern University (Ill.)</li>
<li>California Institute of Technology</li>
<li>Wake Forest University (N.C.)</li>
<li>Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill</li>
<li>Brigham Young U. at Provo (Utah)</li>
<li>Washington University (Mo.)</li>
<li>Georgetown University (D.C.)</li>
<li>Tufts University (Mass.)</li>
</ol>

<p>TOP NATIONAL LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGES </p>

<ol>
<li>Carleton College (Minn.) </li>
<li>Swarthmore College (Pa.) </li>
<li>Williams College (Mass.) </li>
<li>Grinnell College (Iowa) </li>
<li>Amherst College (Mass.) </li>
<li>Earlham College (Ind.) </li>
<li>Haverford College (Pa.) </li>
<li>St. John’s College (Md.) </li>
<li>Colorado College</li>
<li>Davidson College (N.C.)</li>
<li>Oberlin College (Ohio)</li>
<li>Pomona College (Calif.)</li>
<li>Wellesley College (Mass.)</li>
<li>Bowdoin College (Maine)</li>
<li>St. Olaf College (Minn.)</li>
<li>Bryn Mawr College (Pa.)</li>
<li>Macalester College (Minn.)</li>
<li>Bates College (Maine)</li>
<li>Middlebury College (Vt.)</li>
<li>Reed College (Ore.)</li>
<li>Kenyon College (Ohio)</li>
<li>Spelman College (Ga.)</li>
<li>Smith College (Mass.)</li>
<li>University of the South (Tenn.)</li>
<li>Centre College (Ky.)</li>
</ol>

<p>If you conflated all the lists cited in this tread (Ph.D productivity; USN&WR Over/Under; USN&WR Best Teaching and the Princeton Review Academic Rating of 99 or 98) and selected out the top schools that overlap (excluding MIT and Harvey Mudd due their specialized technical focus) you end up with only two schools:</p>

<p>Carleton College
Grinnell College</p>

<p>Swarthmore, Reed, Chicago and Pomona drop out because they are not included on every list.</p>

<p>Who is the winner folks?</p>

<p>Did Newsweek have it right in 2004?</p>

<p>[Newsweek/Kaplan:</a> Grinnell College Is ‘Best All-Around’](<a href=“http://www.collegenews.org/x2783.xml]Newsweek/Kaplan:”>http://www.collegenews.org/x2783.xml)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh, that is pretty easy: Anyone who doesn’t pay any attention to the “outcome” of this thread and the ridiculous attempts to cull a “winner” for “best education” from a mumbo-jumbo of lists.</p>

<p>xiggi,</p>

<p>You take yourself so seriously!! It’s a joke!!! </p>

<p>LOL</p>

<p>Thanks all for participating. My summary of the opinions expressed so far:</p>

<ol>
<li> “Education quality” is not so easy to measure, but some of the usual suspects and other not-so-usual suspects keep turning up on peoples’ lists.</li>
<li> What may be good for one student may not be good for another student.</li>
<li> Xiggi thinks this thread is pointless.</li>
</ol>

<p>I wish more people would talk about quality of teaching instead of rankings based (mostly) on research reputations.</p>

<p>Vicarousparent, this thread is not pointless. What is pointless is the attempt to reduce a reasonable question to a simple list. </p>

<p>A definition of your own criteria of a “great education” would generate something worth debating, even if based solely in opinions.</p>

<p>xiggi, By ‘education’ I am thinking of just standard stuff you expect out of college- a broad base in humanities and sciences followed by concentration in a major (to be chosen during college, hence the need to have a college that offers breadth and depth). Stimulating classes, high standards. Most colleges claim to provide it. Some just do a better job. I’m trying to find out which ones do a great job.</p>

<p>Fair enough. Thank you, vicariousparent, for clarifying :)</p>

<p>For someone who’s interested in a LAC environment, I’d strongly suggest looking into the Claremont Colleges (<a href=“http://www.claremont.edu)%5B/url%5D”>www.claremont.edu)</a>. Part of what makes the situation so unique is the consortium environment, which means that students are ensured individual attention, focus on undergrads, small classes, etc., but they also have access to facilities and resources greater than those at most comparably sized colleges. Also, each college has its own areas of academic emphasis, so there are top-notch programs across the board, and all are pretty widely accessible…a “more than the sum of its parts” arrangement, in a sense. Academically speaking, the situation allows all the benefits of a LAC, but eliminates a fair number of the commonly cited drawbacks. The consortium is remarkably cooperative and accessible, unlike some; the students really do live and work across multiple campuses.</p>

<p>Among the five undergrad colleges, most/all (HMC being a possible exception, but still notable to a heavy-duty math/science student who wants a well-rounded education) of which I think warrant further research based on the OP’s own criteria, I’d make specific note of Scripps. I say this due to its exceptional core program, interdisciplinary approach to all subjects, relatively high academic expectations, engaged students, and “breadth of study” GE requirement (Pomona has a similar “breadth of study” requirement). My Scripps classes also tended to be the most discussion-based, although this was common throughout Claremont.</p>

<p>I can only compare the 5 schools to one another, and not to other institutions, but I do speak from personal experience…not just the belief that “these schools are good, so you can probably expect _______.” Based on that and on your specific criteria, here’s a big nod to Claremont :)</p>