<p>In another thread, in discussing ratings design, I included the rule: if Harvard is not #1, move it to #1 or else you will have no credibility. That said tongue in cheek. I certainly think that Harvard's #1 ranking is largely a stance of "everybody knows it is" and would not necessarily be #1 depending on what criteria you use and how you weight them; US News' criteria, as has been discussed on this board, heavily reflects as "wealth effect" (size of endowments tracks the rankings very closely) whose direct connection to undergrad educational quality is dubious. Moreover, you can not convince me that the "Peer Rating" doesn't include the aura of an institution's graduate programs.</p>
<p>Alexandre,</p>
<p>Congrats, you now become a moderator :). Did it come automatically as your post > 900 hehehe ?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Moreover, you can not convince me that the "Peer Rating" doesn't include the aura of an institution's graduate programs.
[/quote]
I think your point is quite insightful on this. It's hard for me to separate the two in my mind, even though I see your point. I guess my thinking is that if you go to Harvard, for example, you do have the chance to study under and meet the star profs. Some don't teach undrgrads much, but many of the big humanities types do. Obviously, it puts the LACs at real disadvantage, if grad depats are considered when they shouldn't be.</p>
<p>One of the serious flaws in US News ranking is "selectivity" which plays a huge role on where schools are ultimately ranked. It only looks at the acceptance rate without looking at how some schools have far more self-selective applicant pools than others. Schools like U of Chicago and Northwestern use their own essay questions/applications instead of "common application" and only those that are truly interested and willing to invest their time and energy for just ONE school would apply (there's no guarantee for admission with all that investment). For Northwestern, instead of copying and pasting, you have to write a different personal statement, a "why Northwestern" essay, and answers to 4 additional short questions. The volume of applicants for these schools are "artificially" suppressed. For Chicago, the essay questions are pretty intellectual. It's ironic that the schools that try harder to find their "match" students are penalized by US News.</p>
<p>I could not agree more with what DudeDilligence said. Well said Dude.</p>
<p>Northwestern has much stronger overall programs than WUSTL. They have a top-ranked business school, law school, medical school, journalism school, and a very good school of music. WUSTL just doesn't quite match that strength across the board. However, no one said that WUSTL isn't a great school (as Dude was implying) because it is a very fine institution.</p>
<p>UC~
Thanks for your post. I really wasn't implying anything. I thought I was pretty clearly stating that Wash-U is an excellent school for UNDERGRADUATE education (caps intentional to show EMPHASIS). This thread, indeed most of the threads on CC, was about undergraduate colleges for the high school students of the world.</p>
<p>I would never say that Wash-U is even close to NU on the GRADUATE level. It isn't. NU has some of the top graduate departments in the country (those that you mention, theatre, and some others). My God, I can't even begin to count all of the M.D.'s, J.D.'s, M.B.A.'s, and Ph.D.'s I know -- virtually all of whom are VERY successful -- who have worked their way through NU's grad schools. Both of my kids have "NU Grad School" penciled in as part of their very long-range educational path. NU is way beyond Wash-U as far as being a grad school. To my knowledge, Wash-U's only preeminent grad department is its medical school -- which isn't good, it's outstanding, running neck and neck with Harvard for #1 medical school in the country over the past decade.</p>
<p>So if by "best overall," someone means really good undergraduate PLUS really good graduate departments, then it's NU. Obviously. My comments have always been limited to the UNDERGRADUATE end of things alone. What is better for an undergraduate experience. It's here where I say that they are both excellent, the determination of which is "better" really coming down to majors and intangibles. As the sage Yogi Berra supposedly said: "They're similar, but their similarities are different."</p>
<p>Perhaps it's the lack of absolutely top-end graduate departments (again with the exception of medicine) which accounts for Wash-U's excellence in undergraduate education (more attention on undergrads because less competition from grad students, more opportunities for undergrads to get involved in research, mentoring, etc., less TA's). It's a controversial subject around here, but many think schools like Harvard and Stanford aren't necessarily the best place for an undergraduate education (compared to other top of the line schools) because of the disproportionate emphasis on the graduate programs. Some (again not all) think NU might be similar to Harvard and Stanford in this regard. Wash-U doesn't have this problem. In this way, it's college cousin might be a school like Dartmouth -- excellent overall reputation for undergraduate studies, much less so for graduate work (Thayer Business being one obvious exception).</p>