<p>Anyway, the tier approach still has the problem of those at the bottom of one tier being almost indistinguishable from those at the top of the next lower tier. Months ago I proposed an approach that minimizes that problem: that schools in any given tier are to be seen as at the same level as any other ADJACENT tier. In other words, if one was using the tiers as shown in post #79, there would be no implied significant difference between those in tiers 1 and 2, nor any difference between those in tiers 2 and 3. But between tiers 1 and 3, yes, a difference.</p>
<p>Of course this approach was misinterpreted and savagely attacked. I explained the approach using for-demonstration-purposes-only tiers of colleges, and people attacked the tiers, even though I was explaining the “no significant difference between adjacent tiers” approach, and WASN’T making ANY claims about which schools should be in which tiers… it was just a proposed solution to the problem of, for EXAMPLE, Dartmouth not being SIGNIFICANTLY lower in quality than Princeton, and Dartmouth not being SIGNIFICANTLY higher in quality than Northwestern, but Princeton being significantly better than Northwestern. (colleges chosen FOR DEMONSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY).</p>
<p>But I actually agree with your approach. Although I disagree with Princeton being significantly better than Cornell or Northwestern for that matter. Maybe in prestige and recognition. </p>
<p>But not in undergraduate quality. So how about adding that no difference policy to two adjacent tiers?</p>
<p>“Granted, I am a very proud alum of Wake Forest, so I am more sensitive to this than others, but it is very pretentious and even obnoxious to make remarks like that. My classmates and I worked very hard to get into Wake Forest and are proud to have attended the school. I would never make the same comment about Michigan or whatever, because I recognize it is also a very good school.”</p>
<p>With all due respect will, your school hasn’t taken a precipitous drop from once being ranked in the top 10 to almost not even a top 30 school according to the USNWR. It is insulting to be dropped lower almost every year because the formula keeps getting tweaked to hurt large public schools, no matter how great they are academically.</p>
<p>^Michigan was only top 10 once or twice when USNWR first started and was very volatile. </p>
<p>Michigan certainly does not have the characteristics of a modern top 10 university in regards to student demographic and a fair RATIO of award winning faculty to students.</p>
<p>The “precipitous” drop is more fairly calculated from 24 or 25, where the university’s rank had historically been maintained.</p>
<p>
None of the public universities have suffered as much as Michigan. UCLA’s rank has even been largely unchanged for over a decade. Instead of blaming the formula, you should take a good unbiased look and ask ‘Why Michigan?’</p>
<p>“But I actually agree with your approach. Although I disagree with Princeton being significantly better than Cornell or Northwestern for that matter. Maybe in prestige and recognition.”</p>
<p>I couldn’t care less which schools are in which tier or whether it’s for prestige, recognition, or quality of intramural leapfrog. I’m putting forth a MODEL of how things of differing value might be viewed so that minor ordinal differences might be ignored, while significant differences in tiers might be accepted. TWO tiers instead of one is fine. At least you apparently get the concept. </p>
<p>"If there’s anything more sad than an old parent trying to put down the younger generation…
You make me sick. "</p>
<p>Hey, butch it up a little bit…and lay off the ad hominems. They’re bad for you.</p>
<p>“Michigan was only top 10 once or twice when USNWR first started and was very volatile.” </p>
<p>Hence my “once” remark. </p>
<p>“Michigan certainly does not have the characteristics of a modern top 10 university in regards to student demographic and a fair RATIO of award winning faculty to students.”</p>
<p>So now we are discussing “fair” ratios of award winning faculty? I never said that Michigan should have remained a top ten school, but that remark seems pretty tenuous. </p>
<p>“None of the public universities have suffered as much as Michigan. UCLA’s rank has even been largely unchanged for over a decade. Instead of blaming the formula, you should take a good unbiased look and ask 'Why Michigan?”</p>
<p>Other publics have droppped even moreso than Michigan, so that is false. UCLA gets over 75,000 applications/year thanks to the ability of students to just simply check off which UC’s they want to attend in a state of 35 million. No wonder they have such a low admit rate, which is probably the main reason they haven’t dropped.</p>
<p>Rest assured, it’s only Michigan which has lost 4 to 5 ranks amongst “peers”.</p>
<p>Among it’s public “peers” Michigan has the highest Peer Assessment, save Berkeley. That hasn’t really changed since the beginning. The only thing that has drammatically changed over the past twenty or so years is the criteria used by USNWR.</p>
<p>Berkeley and UCLA are in a state with a huge population. UCLA get’s over 75,000 applicants each year for example! UVA, on the other hand, is a much smaller school in a state with a large population. The difference in the selectiveness and therefore the main reason why Michigan has dropped behind is atttributed to this main factor. Michigan has been behind Berkeley for quite some time, as well as UVA. UCLA is really the only public school that has recently overtaken it.</p>
