<p>the whole thing about prestige is that its about the various opinions of random people, zephir. prestige is not about data</p>
<p>what kind of research is better than asking other students from those countries? I think we can all make a clear decision that Harvard is indeed the most prestigious school in the US. Is there any research necessary? No, not really. Same with international prestige. With most of my family still living in Taiwan, China, and Japan, I have some pretty good experience with college knowledge in those countries. You dont need a nobel laureate to take a survey of what schools are the most prestigious. Anyone can do it. I dont think anyone really refutes the fact that Harvard is the most prestigious university in the world tho....</p>
<p>"prestige is that its about the various opinions of random people"</p>
<p>What about the peer rating in the USNews standings, the one on the 5-point scale?</p>
<p>At some point, shouldn't we just let certain threads die... especially
long after they are even remotely useful or relevant?</p>
<p>Princeton, Princeton, Princeton!1!!</p>
<p>A college's prestige is like college rankings for the ignorant (not that they don't usually line up with other rankings).</p>
<p>Rankings like USNews only support people's misguided assertions about higher education.</p>
<p>If Harvard or Princeton were ranked #5, there would be riots in Cambridge and at Old Nassau. But yet somehow fuzzy components like "faculty resources" appear to justify incorrect rankings.</p>
<p>No riots at Stanford, I suppose, because they are so ... what's the cliche ... "laid back"!</p>
<p>hahaha. who would have thought Byerly has a sense of humour?
anyway zephyr, I'm sure that if Stanford were ranked #1, you wouldn't be *****ing about the USN rankings that much.
1. Stanford
2. Harvard
Princeton
4. Yale
5. University of Pennsylvania
now that's a "correct" ranking, isn't that right zephyr?</p>
<p>No, it's not. The correct ranking looks more like this, in my mind:
1. Stanford
1. Harvard
3. Yale
4. Princeton
5. MIT
6. Penn
7. Columbia
...and so on. But ever mind. </p>
<p>My unhappiness with the ranking is not singular--almost everyone else seems to be judging by the Penn & Duke bashing all over CC. I'm no more of a Stanford booster than the various Old Nassau and Cambridge types I see around here. </p>
<p>But again, USNews will never reflect that. The subscribers to the magazine want to see their impressions of higher education rewarded--the rankings will have less credibility is HYP aren't at the top. If the top three were Stanford, Duke and Penn, would people believe it like they believe the current standings? I think not. Interesting though, that in a Gallup poll, Stanford came tied for second (with Yale) in a general poll of the American populace, and came in a very close second among the highly educated (something like 29%-27%). I can't cite a link because you have to create an account, but it's easy to find once you do. </p>
<p>Stanford, like Chicago, has a different college-admissions philosophy from the hyper-competitive HYP. You're right, we are laid back, and people seem to like that. As the mirror cliche goes, are Harvard students too "self-absorbed" to notice we're catching up?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardindependent.com/media/paper369/news/2004/10/07/Forum/From-Cambridge.To.Cali-747111.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.harvardindependent.com/media/paper369/news/2004/10/07/Forum/From-Cambridge.To.Cali-747111.shtml</a>
"In 50 years, Stanford may no longer be known as the Harvard of the West. Rather, we may become the Stanford of the East. Until then, a few of us will guiltily pray before John Harvard's statue that another California energy crisis will force the technology and innovation back to the old East."</p>
<p>
[quote]
USNews will never reflect that. The subscribers to the magazine want to see their impressions of higher education rewarded--the rankings will have less credibility is HYP aren't at the top. If the top three were Stanford, Duke and Penn, would people believe it like they believe the current standings? I think not
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, let's give USNews a little bit of credit. It's not like they ALWAYS just hand HYP the top 3 spots without fail. Don't you guys remember the year that Caltech was #1? I certainly do, because that was the year my brother got into Caltech on a full merit scholarship + stipend (Caltech being one of the few top schools that offer true merit scholarships). Is USNews so conspiratorially biased against Stanford that it would rather deviously hand Caltech the #1 spot, but not Stanford? You gotta admit, that strains credulity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Interesting though, that in a Gallup poll, Stanford came tied for second (with Yale) in a general poll of the American populace, and came in a very close second among the highly educated (something like 29%-27%). I can't cite a link because you have to create an account, but it's easy to find once you do.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock in that Gallup poll that you cite. After all, that's the same Gallup poll that discovered that Penn State was tied as the 5th best school as determined by the American populace, tied with Yale. You gotta admit, any survey that determines that Yale is tied with Penn State is pretty sketchy.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I agree with your basic point that Stanford is advancing quickly, and that USNews may simply be a lagging indicator. But I don't think it is as bad as you are implying. Keep in mind that Stanford is only a shade more than a century old, and for most of the first half of its existence was basically a regional, poverty stricken backwater of little consequence, especially in light of a certain competing behemoth public university across the Bay which was, in those days, clearly the dominant school in California. Stanford was not born an elite school, it became one only relatively recently. So if Stanford really does continue to advance, it is only inevitable that Stanford will rise even higher in the polls. The fact that Stanford is #5 is a testament that USNews has recognized its advancement over the last half-century. Seriously, if there was a USNews ranking in, say, the 1940's, Stanford would have ranked far far lower.</p>
<p>Stanford probably deserves to be in front of U Penn, but not #1. Though its a great (maybe the best) graduate institution, it's not quite as good at an undergraduate level as HYP yet. Of course, at this level, the differences between the schools are really hardly noticeable</p>
<p>This has been an interesting thread. About ninety percent of the posts were clueless assertions by individuals unaffiliated with any of the top schools they mentioned. </p>
<p>About ten percent were thought-provoking, enlightened views by posters with first hand experience of the institutions.</p>
<p>Although I attended both Caltech and Harvard, my expertise in the humanities and business is modest. </p>
<p>I will stick with what I truly know; math and science, specifically with regards to undergraduate education and research opportunities.</p>
<p>For this, Princeton, Harvard, Caltech, and MIT are a cut above other schools. To anyone mentioning Stanford; you are wrong. </p>
<p>Their math department is extremely weak, their physics department is significantly worse, and the chemistry division very mediocre when compared to any of these four schools.</p>
<p>The only field where they really have strong departments are in computer science and biology. Yet, in biology, they are still clearly inferior to Harvard, and weaker than at least MIT in computer science. I can't say that these two departments are necessarily stronger than any of the other schools eithers. </p>
<p>To anyone wishing to respond, please don't spout useless rankings by large media-industrial companies.</p>
<p>LOL! Those "useless rankings by large media-industrial companies" are based largely on surveys of supposedly knowledgable university faculty and administrators!</p>
<p>How are these surveys conducted? Is it a self-selected sample, like most such surveys? (thus making it intrinsically flawed) </p>
<p>Which administrators or professors do they ask? Do they give equal weight to each of them? Are the final rankings a pure representation of the results of the surveys? What are the questions on this survey, or are they informal interviews? Is there any input from students? Do they consider textbooks, a resource arguably more valuable in undergraduate education than any professor?</p>
<p>How about research opportunities and summer internships in the chosen field, are they included?</p>
<p>Somehow, I think a truthful response to most of these questions would expose these rankings as woefully inaccurate.</p>
<p>Why?</p>
<p>Because myself and every math/science major I know at one of the discussed universities laughs at how wrong these polls and surveys are.</p>
<p>I'll do your research for you:</p>
<p>USNews methodology:</p>
<p>Sciences Methodology</p>
<p>Rankings of doctoral programs in the sciences are based on the results of surveys sent to academics in each discipline during the fall of 2001 (or, in the case of geology, during the fall of 1998). Rankings were first published the following spring. The questionnaires asked individuals to rate the quality of the program at each institution on a 5-point scale: outstanding (5); strong (4); good (3); adequate (2); or marginal (1).</p>
<p>Individuals who were unfamiliar with a particular school's programs were asked to select "don't know." Scores for each institution were totaled and divided by the number of respondents who rated that school.</p>
<p>Surveys in the biological sciences, chemistry, computer science, mathematics, applied mathematics, and physics were conducted by T. E. Systems Inc. The National Science Foundation report "Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 1999" was the source for the lists of programs surveyed in each of these disciplines. In the biological sciences, graduate programs may be offered in a university's medical school as well as its college of arts and sciences. In those cases where the NSF report showed two separate program listings at a university, the U.S. News survey did also. Otherwise, schools were listed only once on the survey, even though they may have programs in the biological sciences that are housed in separate institutional units.</p>
<p>Questionnaires were sent to the department heads and deans or directors of graduate studies at each program in each discipline. Response rates were as follows: for the biological sciences, 31 percent of those surveyed responded; for chemistry, 46 percent; for computer science, 57 percent; for mathematics, 43 percent; for applied mathematics, 40 percent; and for physics, 50 percent.</p>
<p>The survey of graduate programs in geology was conducted by Synovate. For geology, the survey covered all schools that had granted a total of five or more doctorates in the field during the five-year period from 1992 through 1996. Fifty-two percent of those surveyed responded.</p>
<hr>
<p>Also see HERE for the anwers to some questions apparently in your mind about the graduate rankings which you were afraid to ask!</p>
<p>"Though its a great (maybe the best) graduate institution, it's not quite as good at an undergraduate level as HYP yet. Of course, at this level, the differences between the schools are really hardly noticeable"</p>
<p>Saying "HYP" is extremely laughable to me. As if Yale and Princeton were so much above other schools that they are on par with Harvard but above the rest of the "rabble." More realisticaly, the acronym should be H by itself and YPSM in another category. Don't try to ride off of Harvard's prestige to make YP seem so much better. YP are definitely on par with Stanford, MIT, and Caltech. YP are not on par with Harvard if you think SMC are not on par with Harvard. Let's face it, Harvard is in a league by itself and YPSMC are in a separate league by themselves. Saying "HYP" without including SMC is just plain misleading. If you really want to make the dividing line, here is where you should do it H----YPSMC.</p>
<p>Doing it like HYP---SMC doesn't make sense.</p>
<p>First, All of these posts about how HYP is better than anything else supports my point about public perceptions. USNews, to a large extent, wants to sell subscriptions, not make an academic, statistically sound, ranking. The rankings aren't created by statisticians but instead my journalists with a small sampling of the higher education establishment, which, to a certain extent, has an East Coast bias. </p>
<p>Second, in regards to Harvard Alum's state that "Princeton, Harvard, Caltech, and MIT are a cut above other schools. To anyone mentioning Stanford; you are wrong...Their math department is extremely weak, their physics department is significantly worse, and the chemistry division very mediocre when compared to any of these four schools."
Do you have any data or supporting evidence for that?</p>
<p>Here's some that might clarify things:
<a href="http://www.stat.tamu.edu/%7Ejnewton/nrc_rankings/area31.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/area31.html</a>
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/phy_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/phy_brief.php</a>
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/mat_brief.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdsci/brief/mat_brief.php</a>
<a href="http://www.stat.tamu.edu/%7Ejnewton/nrc_rankings/area28.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/area28.html</a>
I think those sites are much more credible than anecdotal assertions. </p>
<p>Third, collegeperson 12 said "Let's face it, Harvard is in a league by itself and YPSMC are in a separate league by themselves." I think at the undergraduate level especially, that's completely false. Again, how can one bash Stanford's undergraduate program, because Stanford has excellent graduate schools, but Harvard, because it's Harvard, gets away with the same "graduate focus"? That makes little sense. This, however, does: "Doing it like HYP---SMC doesn't make sense."</p>
<p>Fourth, Byerly's posting of the graduate school (for the sciences) methodolgy is informative, and Stanford seems to earn much more respect in graduate rankings, including a deserved #1 spot in the biological sciences. Stanford's biology department is unmatched both at the undergraduate and graduate levels, especially with the newest legislation in California offer billions for stem-cell research. Advantages to being on the West Coast, for sure! Stanford CS is certainly not worse than MIT. </p>
<p>"Stanford probably deserves to be in front of U Penn, but not #1. Though its a great (maybe the best) graduate institution, it's not quite as good at an undergraduate level as HYP yet."
How is Stanford not a good undergraduate institution? What is lacking in the education that the great triumvirate of HYP seem to possess?</p>
<p>The Gallup polls (it's quite interesting, I think)</p>
<p>This one was done in 1999:
Harvard 16%
Stanford 4
MIT 3
Princeton 3
Yale 2
Notre Dame 2
Duke 2
Univ. of CA/Los Angeles 2
Others with 2 or less
Other 33
No opinion 24 </p>
<p>And this one in 2003:
"All in all, what would you say is the best college or university in the United States? (open-ended responses)"
Best/Second Best%</p>
<p>Harvard University 24
Stanford University 11
Yale University 11
MIT 6
University of California at Berkeley 4
Notre Dame University 4
Princeton University 4
University of Michigan 3
Duke University 3</p>
<p>And with those with post-graduate education:
Harvard 29
Stanford 27
Yale 14
MIT 11
Berkeley 7
Princeton 7
Michigan 7</p>
<p>Harvard's lead in the West, 24-19 over Stanford, is the smallest among the four regions. HYS run 18-10-9 in the South, 21-11-10 in the Midwest, and HYPS run 36-16-7-5 in the East, respectively. </p>
<p>Here's the link: <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=9109&pg=1%5B/url%5D">http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/?ci=9109&pg=1</a></p>
<p>All I can say is that I find it ridiculous to think people with post-graduate degrees are going to come to collegeconfidential.com and post. Perhaps I'm totally off and/or paranoid, but I just assume every HarvardAlum'98 or whatever is some random kid faking.</p>
<p>Can't we just assume that Harvard/Princeton/Yale/Stanford/MIT/CTech/whatever else are all good and that no one school is going to make you a better physicist/biologist/chemist/whatever?</p>