why is georgetown ranked so low??

<p>Eagle, thank you for saying that...I was considering bringing it up, but I didn't want to be seen as some paranoid Catholic kid. It's true though; right after I saw Georgetown's peer assessment ranking, I looked at Notre Dame and BC and, sure enough, they were surprisingly low as well.<br>
It's no secret that the liberal secularists who more or less rule the realm of higher learning in this country aren't very fond of religion in general and Catholicism in particular, but to let that influence their rating of a school seems a little irresponsible to me.</p>

<p>RegisNYC,</p>

<p>You're mistaking correllation with causation. I would argue that the biggest thing holding back GTown is not the quality of its undergraduate education, but the fact that its PhD programs are simply not at the level of its professional programs. Remember that peer assessment is largely based on PhD programs, because academics love academics. There is a reason why Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Berkeley, Michigan, UCLA and others score higher in peer assessment- PhD programs.</p>

<p>I think that Georgetown is the best school to learn international affairs and get a ground level education in politics. Is it the best political science schools because of its location and great faculty? No. Why? Because political science is not the study of politics. Albright may be able to tell me a lot about how she worked as Secretary of State, but can she tell me how to build better game theories? I doubt it.</p>

<p>I do think Georgetown deserves a better reputation than it has, but to say that it's some left wing conspiracy is a bit foolish in light of the fact that it doesn't have the PhD placements to back up its stellar professional programs (and I mean STELLAR.)</p>

<p>There probably is something to be said for the influence that the quality of a school's graduate programs has on the perception of its undergraduate college, but that is only a small part of the picture. I think you may be overstating the effect that one has on the other. Princeton, for example, is far more revered for its undergraduate program than for any of its grad schools. Dartmouth, Brown, Vanderbilt - none have particularly strong or "famous" grad schools. I'll give you Michigan, Northwestern, UVA, and a few other schools in the top 25, but "the grad school effect" is not as pervasive as you would make it seem.
(All of this is ignoring, of course, the fact that it is completely moronic to have graduate schools have any influence whatsoever on the rankings for: America's Best COLLEGES 2005.)</p>

<p>Oh and just a note: it isn't a left wing conspiracy per se, just an anti-Catholic conspiracy.</p>

<p>RegisNYC,</p>

<p>Again, correllation is NOT causation. </p>

<p>And you do raise excellent points. I never agreed that the system makes complete sense, but that there are significant weaknesses with Georgetown outside of its stellar professional and undergraduate programs that may be bringing it down. And Dartmouth still has some great graduate programs. And Princeton has a good number of top 10 grad programs. But I digress, and admit that you are right on that count. </p>

<p>Besides, who doesn't think highly of Georgetown anyway? I think that fussing over rankings is a waste of time when you're in class with a Secretary of State.</p>

<p>I just don't see a conspiracy against Catholic schools. Otherwise, Georgetown would probably hurt a whole lot more, considering that it isn't kicking butt and taking names in PhD programs. I'd say that it's like most of the other top 25 programs- Could be anywhere from 15 to 25.</p>

<p>Ok, so the word 'conspiracy' is a little strong. So while we can agree that Georgetown's grad programs probably hurt it (though it seems we can also agree that that is pretty illogical), I still maintain that anti-Catholicism within the world of academia also hurts Georgetown's ranking.</p>

<p>I just don't see anti-Catholicism anywhere in academia. I mean, call me crazy, but I just don't see any evidence for it. If you can show me definite evidence otherwise, I'll be happy to agree though.</p>

<p>
[QUOTE]
but can she tell me how to build better game theories

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>Since when has the study of political science been represented, in it's entirety, by game theory? This is rediculous</p>

<p>Your right, lectures from heads of state are useless for future politicians and lawyers. The entire program should be devoted towards advancing the utility of game theory.</p>

<p>Of course all of political science isn't based on game theory, I was using that as an "example." I'm just saying that heads of state are not political scientists, they're politicians. There's a difference.</p>

<p>Georgetown's strength lies in political training, not political science training. There's a big difference. Now please quit with the needless hyperbole.</p>

<p>Political science is not the study of politics. At least not at the graduate level it isn't.</p>

<p>ok.. so lectures from current heads of state aren't useful to learrn about politics? that's really interesting, I think current heads of state can give you a completely different perception on a region of the world. Have you ever heard a head of state battle of an extremely tough question? tell me that isn't training for future diplomats... or maybe your right, maybe learning politics from 90 year old book worms is better! :P</p>

<p>No offense man, but did you read anything I said? Political science is not the study of politics. I'll repeat- Political science is not the study of politics.</p>

<p>Yes, Georgetown is the best (and I mean best) university for a hands-on, ground level political training, but politics is not political science.</p>

<p>Actually, UCLAri, "politics" is not something that is taught in universities - it is something that is experienced when one is engaged in the political arena. I am assuming that by "politics," you are referring to the interplay between various governmental entities (parties, individual candidates, NGOs, governmental organizations) and the strategy involved in gaining power. The only way to truly learn about this is to become involved - and I'm not talking about class elections (although GUSA can be pretty contentious sometimes).</p>

<p>"Political science" - or what Georgetown refers as the Government major or Public Policy minor - is the study of theory, comparative political systems, celebrated political thinkers, and so on. This is the same sort of material that is taught in every other program in the country. There is absolutely no such thing as a "Political Training" major at Georgetown - and I doubt there is such a thing anywhere else.</p>

<p>Georgetown does not teach you how to kiss babies, gladhand campaign contributors, canvass for votes or fundraise - you only learn that sort of thing in the real world.</p>

<p>In any case, Georgetown DOES have one of the best political science programs in the country. Our faculty and adjunct faculty are incredible, the governmental resources we have at our fingertips in DC are unparalleled by other universities, and the sheer number of successful public servants turned out by the CAS and SFS is enormous. Georgetown's Government program shares the top tier with JHU, Harvard, Princeton and Duke - there is simply no argument otherwise. Just remember - Bill Clinton, Bob Shrum, Antonin Scalia and GU's other illustrious alums may be politicians - but they probably wouldn't have come as far as they have without a vast and solid knowledge of Political Science.</p>

<p>I'm talking about the difference between what undergraduates and what graduates learn. Undergraduates learn politics, graduates learn political science. </p>

<p>I'm not arguing that the program is not good, would you guys give that a rest? I'm saying that it's not an academically political science geared program. That's not a bad thing.</p>

<p>I would love to attend GTown for grad school, because it offers a better professional training in IR than any school in America. Would I get my PhD in political science there if I wanted to go into academics? No, because the placements from GTown are not as good as they should be for a tenure-track position. Would I get my PhD there to do further work in civil service? In a heartbeat.</p>

<p>But what undergraduates learn is politics, what graduates learn is political science. That's the distinction that needs to be made.</p>

<p>And yes, there is such a thing as political training. Most master's degrees focus on politics as opposed to the more abstract theories of political science, and are therefore more political training than political science training.</p>

<p>You guys are the best at what you do, I'm not arguing otherwise. Jeez.</p>

<p>UCLAri, I'm saying that your logic and your ideas are flawed. Undergraduates and graduates alike BOTH learn political science. The difference between an undergraduate degree in political science and a Master's or PhD in Political Science is that graduate degrees tend to focus on more specific concepts or ideas. An undergraduate degree in Political Science is an arts degree (BA) at most schools - hence, it is not as focused as a grad degree. </p>

<p>Here, perhaps this will convince you - here's the homepage for UCLA's UNDERGRADUATE political science department:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Here's UCLA's Social Sciences department homepage:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/subpage/departments.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/subpage/departments.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Gee, I don't see anything about Politics or Political Training... just Political Science. Oh hey! And here's the graduate school department listing:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.gdnet.ucla.edu/departments2.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.gdnet.ucla.edu/departments2.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>What do you know? Political Science again. Fancy that.</p>

<p>People aren't TRAINED to be politicians like they are trained to be lawyers or doctors. There is no such thing as a program that specifically and intentionally grooms politicians (and nothing else).</p>

<p>Straight from the dictionary:
The study of the processes, principles, and structure of government and of political institutions; politics. (INTERESTING...) OK, UCLA, what is political science? the study of all the things that make up politics, and therefore, yes... wait for it... POLITICS! Forgive my sarcasm...lol</p>

<p>Look if haviving Madeline Halfbright or some third world Major Domo speak at your schools qualifies you to a top 20 rating then every school in the DC area would be there. World leaders plop through DC in droves and they give speeches all the time at all the DC area schools. There are 5 major universities in DC, George Mason in Northern Virginia and University of Maryland in College park. On top of that there are six or eight other smaller schools.</p>

<p>Politicians talk. That is what they do and there are few better places to talk than college campuses. The reason why Georgetown is not ranked higher is because it doesn't have a lot of strong academic departments, doesn't have an engineering school, and is particularly weak in the sciences. Case closed. End of story.</p>

<p>Guys, what I'm saying is that there is a huge gap between what undergrads and grads do in the field. If you don't believe me, then come do grad level quantitative analysis, and see if what you think is political science is the same. You'll be surprised. </p>

<p>I'm not arguing this, it's not worth it.</p>

<p>patuxent: When Victor Yushchenko came to Washington, he didn't choose to visit GW, he didn't choose to visit American, and he didn't choose to visit UMaryland at College Park. He choose to speak at Georgetown. Try and think about why.</p>

<p>People like Madeleine Albright, Jose Maria Aznar ("third world major domo"? come on), Tom Daschle, or George Tenet are on the Georgetown faculty and not the GW, American, Catholic University, or George Mason faculties for a reason. Try and think about why.</p>

<p>On the count of three, let's stop caring.<br>
Fellow Hoyas, Georgetown is a respected, prestigious school. No one needs to defend our reputation.
Any nice person you ask will have respect for Georgetown. It's only the Georgetown rejects or rival school students or argumentative stat whores that hate.</p>

<p>While making a nice statement about Georgetown being #1, your name kinda gives you away.</p>