<p>BOP~
I'm afraid you've taken me out of context. Perhaps I was less than clear, but when I say "meaningless," I mean "should be meaningless," or more accurately, USNWR rankings should be given A LOT LESS meaning than they get by the public at large. I'm sure the USNWR powers that be never understood their rankings to actually demarcate a school as being better than another because it ranks 8 vs. 14, or 12 vs. 18. It's a starting point. A rough guide as to how one formula would "rank" these schools with the understanding that specific interrests of a particular student might render this rough guide virtually meaningless. As an example, Cal Tech ranks in the single digits, UChicago in the teens -- would Cal Tech be a "better" school than Chicago for an English major? A history major? An economics major? Or, for a student looking for a diverse culture on a campus, could Cal Tech reasonably be called a "better overall" school? If not, what do the supposedly "meaningful" standings ... 7 vs. 14, or whatever ... actually tell anybody?</p>
<p>The fact that USNWR has a huge impact on prospective students is a shame -- it's more a reflection of a student's desire to find an easy answer to the "what school is best for me" issue (as if an easy answer were really possible), than adding any legitimacy to whether the ranking criteria itself is inherently meaningful or not. Stated differently, USNWR is meaningful because students, families, guidance counselors, etc. make it meaningful. In turn, the USNWR publishing machine and those who benefit from the USNWR rankings (favored USNWR schools -- Wash-U most definitely included) turn up the volume on their propaganda to add additional weight to the supposedly meaningful rankings.</p>
<p>The learned Fred Rogers might ask: Can you say "self-fulfilling prophecy?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
Excerpt from a recent report done at Colgate on USNews Ranking</p>
<p>"We estimate that moving up a place in the ranking of a top 5 school would increase their average yield by about 4% for aided students. For both aided and full-pay applicants an improvement in rank is associated with about a 2% increase in yield for schools ranked between 6 and 25.... Interestingly we found that the USNWR rank had no influence on the matriculation choice of full-pay students choosing among top 5 schools."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ironically you've just given schools like Wash-U the "thumbs-up," at least from the pure marketing perspective, that their efforts to "game" the USNWR ranking system is money well spent.</p>
<p>Your quoted Colgate report and the alleged manipulative practices of schools like Wash-U indicates that there should be LESS reliance on the USNWR, not more.</p>
<p>I've never claimed that the USNWR rankings have no meaning whatsoever, only that they've attained a "one stop shopping" kind of status that is ludicrous and was arguably never anticipated. The USNWR has become the 600 pound gorilla of the college comparison industry. That's unfortunate because it does provide a useful starting point for a student's analysis of potentially good fits for THAT student as well as the broad general parameters of distinctions between some of those schools.</p>
<p>~Mendy~
Seems like your original "which is better" question has been hijacked in order to debate marketing techniques and the pros and cons of the USNWR Rankings. Mea culpa for my part in this hijacking.</p>
<p>If you asked this question because you are (or hope to be) choosing between these two schools:</p>
<p>1 -- In most people's opinions, the schools are "ranked" closely enough by the known published rankings and general rankings of popular opinion that you should instead focus on which of these schools best suits YOU. Consider: anticipated major; possible majors if you change (most students do change their majors); campus life; focus on undergrads, etc.</p>
<p>2 -- One difference which I don't believe has been addressed is NU having trimesters while Wash-U is on semesters. Each academic calendar has its boosters and detractors. With trimesters, you'll have more opportunities to take more classes -- each class is shorter (10 weeks in duration, I believe, as opposed to 15 weeks for semester classes). A class you don't particularly like will be over quickly; a class you really enjoy will be over too quickly. Some students prefer the greater sampling they can do with trimesters. Others feel that with trimesters they are forever in "exam mode" -- finish midterms ... finals coming right up ... next set of midterms coming right up after that. This isn't a factor that concerns everybody, yet some people would definitely prefer one school over the other on this factor alone.</p>
<p>3 -- Finally ... if you're lucky enough to choose between these two schools ... RELAX. You can't make a wrong decision. These are two excellent schools. Do well and either school can be a springboard into top graduate schools or top jobs in your chosen field.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The major distinction we've seen is that virtually every Wash-U alum seemed to LOVE their entire undergraduate experience, in an almost zealous, moonie-like way. By comparison, the NU undergrads had mixed feelings about their undergraduate experiences -- some loved it (and the whole Evanston/Chicago/frat-sports vibe, others felt like undergrads were simply numbers in the big NU money-making machine. A common (not universal) criticism is that NU is NOT a wonderful place to be an undergrad, that a great deal of its rep is tied to amazing graduate departments.
[/quote]
<br>
Well this is obviously your experience. I have actually garnered quite different opinions from people that I have talked to (which is why I picked NU). In fact, Northwestern was recently voted #1 for overall undergraduate experience, so it just goes to show that the Northwestern undergraduate experience is far from what you make it out to be.</p>
<p>I think I carefully prefaced it as being my experience -- more accurately, the shared experience of many friends and relatives who have attended NU or Wash-U (more at NU). I think NU is a wonderful school -- I didn't "make it out to be" a negative thing. Far from it. I would have gladly attended NU in the mid 1970's if family financial circumstances would have allowed (in-state tuition at U of I was too attractive to turn down); and my S and one friend made the decision between these two schools and decided on Wash-U, while three other friends decided between the two and decided on NU. I've also had three friends on faculty at the school. I'm glad that your experience has been very positive.</p>
<p>As far as the "study" voting NU as the #1 overall undergraduate experience, I don't know anything about this study. Good for NU. Go Cats. Again, my comment (prefaced as being anecdotal from my friends and relatives) was that it's not uncommon for undergraduates at NU to feel as if they aren't at the center of the NU universe. This supposed "criticism" of NU can be found in virtually every published college guide and in web-based student comments. It's not something I've made up. To me, this is simply something to consider -- not an important point. I'm sure all undergraduates at research oriented universities feel this way, sometimes in the sciences more than in other fields. This would not have prevented my son from attending NU. Two of his best friends currently attend NU -- one feels this way, the other does not.</p>
<p>It's difficult to say which one is "better". But there's no question that Northwestern has a better reputation. I transferred from WashU to Northwestern 10 years ago (with a 3.9+ GPA on WashU transcript) and I don't deny prestige played a pretty big role; I was majoring in chemical engineering and NU's engineering program seemed more established and reputated. I did dislike some of the administrative people at NU; the two women working in the engineering office treated you sometime like a child instead of a smart young adult; I hope they are not there anymore. I also disliked the fact I had to go through red tape (gathering signitures) just to add/drop classes (probably different now) while at WashU, I could did it online all by myself. But those got little to do with what you'd learn inside the classrooms and at least when I told people where I went, they would at least said it's a good school. Sometime I did give more details and told people I did my freshman year at WashU and most people were like "where is it?". I guess that could be irritating because it's a good school. But WashU is no LACs; their profs are just as research oriented as those at NU; you'll find the profs that care about undergrads and those that don't in both schools. WashU students were more laid back while NU's students seemed more pre-professional; when I was a sophomore, I was suprised how many of my classmates already was in the co-op program while I was way behind in that regard. But that's 10 years ago, so things might be a bit different now.</p>
<p>~Sam~
Thanks for your input. My first comments in this thread basically said that a "best overall" designation was arbitrary, because (a) the schools were in the same general tier (in my considered opinion -- others differ about this), and (b) any "better" determination ultimately depends on a student's area of emphasis and what the student wants in a school. Because of both family and professional reasons, I'm quite familiar with the engineering department at NU. It's excellent. Across the spectrum of the various engineering disciplines, in my opinion NU would definitely be considered "better" than Wash-U (except in BME where both schools are good and getting more prominent). On the other hand, many would argue that strictly in engineering, both Illinois and Michigan are better than NU. If true (and I believe it is), just another reason why students must dig deeper than looking at the general USNWR rankings.</p>
<p>By the way, I agree that Wash-U is far from a LAC-style campus as far as professor attention to pure teaching is concerned. The "warm and fuzzies" at Wash-U come from the administration as a whole, the beautiful campus, and the facilities. From what I understand, Wash-U often suffers from the same lack of attention to undergraduate teaching common at many top research universities (although Wash-U doesn't appear to have nearly the issue with TA's -- sometimes non-English speaking TA's -- teaching courses as you find at some other research institutions).</p>
<p>I did consider UIUC and Michigan. UIUC was out of the question right away because they had a strange (discriminatory) policy of not accepting international applicants. The only way to get around that for a foreign student like me would be to apply to another major and then transfer but there's no guarantee. Michigan for foreign students was surprisingly as expensive as private peers. Given my limited knowledge of public universities and the thought (probably baseless and distorted) that I would be fighting for facilites and computer use..etc with zillion others, I didn't see the cost was justified. NU's industrial engg, mat sci, bme, and civil are actually on par with both schools. Chicago was a lot more attractive than Ann Arbor anyway.</p>
<p>Between Wash. U. and NU, I would give the slight edge to Northwestern. Northwestern is one of the top 3 universities in the Midwest (the other two being Chicago and Michigan) and one of the top 15 universities in the nation. </p>
<p>Washington U. is a great university (top 25 nationally), but it is not quite as strong as the three schools mentioned above. It is more on par with Notre Dame, UIUC and Wisconsin-Madison.</p>
<p>But at the end of the day, it really doesn't make a difference. Wash. U. can provide as good an education as any university in the nation...without exception.</p>
<p>The NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH constructed a ranking of U.S. undergraduate programs based on students' actual preferences. When a student makes his matriculation decision among colleges that have admitted him, he chooses which college "wins" in head-to-head competition. The NBER ranking exploits the information contained in thousands of these wins and losses, and produces a highly scientific ranking that is difficult for a college to manipulate, unlike the USNews ranking.</p>
<p>In this ranking, Norhwestern is 21; WashU is 62. This means that given the choice, an overwhelming number of students pick NWestrn over Wash U, despite the merit scholarship money Wash U lavishes on the top admits.</p>
<p>while i agree that they are practically on the same level of academics, i do also agree that it dependw son your major and what u want out of school. even though people are saying that NU has more prestige, I would think that for a top level job that many people pursue after these universities, both are well known.
also IF POSSIBLE CAN WE PLEASE ADD EMORY INTO THE DEBATE. i love NU but since they did not offer EDII i only applied rd but for wash u and emory i debated heavily on which to applyt to. after choosing emory for edII i am having some feelings of regret. what do u guys think, do u think emory is about eqeual also or is it a level below thanks.</p>
<p>Anyone interested can read thread after thread about the "Revealed Preferences Rankings" and what it does or does not reveal. Suffice it to say that the merit of looking at these supposed head-to-head battles and therefore the ranking, predicated as it is on popularity largely derived from the existing cottage industry of school ranking information (primarily USNWR), is humorously suspect. Moreover, the study disregards the real preference issues which drive students to choose one school over another, or, to apply and gain acceptance to one school and not even bother applying to another. Most top humanities oriented students would prefer hundreds of other schools over M.I.T., CalTech, or Harvey Mudd; many math/sci oriented kids would prefer Illinois, GaTech, and Purdue over Brown, Bowdoin, or Vassar. This study takes simple popularity, ascribes new variables to these factors, emphasizes certain other factors in its own idiosyncratic way, and, voila, a new ranking. Quoth TheDad: "The same old baloney, re-sliced."</p>
<p>I live in a part of the country where most informed people seem to believe these two schools are ranked closely enough that it's important for students to choose between the two based on preferences rather than rankings (good advice generally). If your world has more certainty and objectivity because you ascribe more meaning to these rankings, then good for you.</p>
<p>The OP asked for opinions about these two schools. He has them. He also has other opinions which have been formalized and manipulated into something that some call "studies." I trust the OP will weigh the opinions and studies as he sees fit.</p>
<p>My personal opinion of WUStl is that it is overhyped, a rankings whore, and has very little substance as an actual institution of higher learning or research. Northwestern would be my choice, by a mile, and I wouldn't think twice about it. Anyone who tells you that WUSTL is the equivalent of Northwestern is a person who learned about colleges by memorizing U.S. News and World Report rankings. USNWR is the <em>only</em> place I have <em>ever</em> seen Washington in St. Louis mentioned as a top university.</p>
<p>Emory is a nice school, too. It would definitely be between NW and Emory for me, with somewhat of an edge to Northwestern..</p>
<p>Breeze, talk to some WUSTL grads about their experiences. I lived in Evanston for years and know a fair amount about Northwestern. You must put aside WUSTL's marketing techniques. It's also helpful to put the US News rankings in a radioactive cylinder at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.</p>
<p>Breeze, I disagree with you. Emory is not nearly as good a school as WUSTL or Northwestern. Also, the quality of life, from What I have heard AND EXPERIENCED FROM VISITS, is far better at WUSTL than Norttwestern. NW students seemed to be very caught up in their studying, cut-throat, and anti-social. At WUSTL, the students were not olny intelligent but also socialable and extremely inviting. Your personal opinion has no value unless you actually have experienced these two campuses.</p>
<p>Breeze ~
It sounds like it's you that is using USNWR to form your opinions, in this case by latching on to Wash-U as an example of how USNWR can be manipulated and exploited. Yep. It can be. Wash-U has done so in a carefully orchestrated way, as have Penn, Emory, Vanderbilt, Duke, Tufts, Tulane, and HYP by the way. UChicago and Cornell have not done this -- and have unfairly suffered a "reputation" hit by the uninformed (or simply lazy) people who form opinions about schools based on USNWR.</p>
<p>But "rankings whore," "overhyped," "little substance?" You are confusing a marketing technique that seemingly bothers you with a critical analysis of the school itself. What do you really know about Wash-U? Are you aware that it went beyond an entire generation -- perhaps mid 1960's to mid 1990's -- generally regarded by most in academic circles as one of the unknown gems of college education. They have an incredible endowment, are always disproportionately high on the research funding/production end of things, and have always had a decent undergraduate focus (few TA's, many teachers who teach, etc.) for a research university. Factor in tremendous facilities (and improving constantly due to the gains realized by the "hated" marketing approach), an excellent and improving student body (again -- dang that cursed marketing), a student body demonstrating a little more midwestern friendliness and less overtly cut-throat competition, a student body more concerned with being at a quality institution instead of just a "name" or ranking number on a chart (ironically, the one factor that might be taking a "hit" because of their marketing), and a beautiful campus. It's no wonder that Wash-U has many, many admirers.</p>
<p>Prefer other institutions if you will; prefer many others. You're entitled to your opinion. But to disregard Wash-U entirely as a quality UNDERGRADUATE institution based on marketing and USNWR manipulation simply shows that YOU can't get past USNWR as a way to analyze colleges.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Suffice it to say that the merit of looking at these supposed head-to-head battles and therefore the ranking, predicated as it is on popularity largely derived from the existing cottage industry of school ranking information (primarily USNWR), is humorously suspect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. The theory is that markets are exceptionally good at incorporating all available information. It's the basis of modern decision analysis.</p>
<p>However, a market depends on information that isn't bogus and irrelevant. US News receives far too much reverence and the imputed precision of their rankings is ludicrous.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, a market depends on information that isn't bogus and irrelevant. US News receives far too much reverence and the imputed precision of their rankings is ludicrous.
[/quote]
So you are saying that the revealed prefernce rating relects (too much) the bogus USNews rankings. Interesting point. I think that may be true for schools like Duke, Wash U and a few others that are ranked surpringly high in USNews in a way that makes knowledgeable people say huh?, Probbaly this is because they are not as famous the USNews provides more of the publicly available knowledge of them than say of Harvard Yale Princeton and the other Ivies and top LACs. Not many pople will argue that Harvard is not #1, no matter what USNews says.</p>