Why The Strength of Departments/Faculty Isn't Relevant to Undergraduate Education

College Search & Selection
41

<p>C’mon now guys and/or gals. The senior members here who have been commenting on UCB’s remark should be well aware by now that his comment was made tongue-in-cheek. Geez…</p>

42

<p>I like and respect LACs. I like the idea of outcome-oriented measurements. However, the WSJ study is at best a crude, one-off indicator of the kinds of schools that seem to do well at what it purports to measure. Most of the 50 feeder schools share important similarities whether they are universities or LACs. Almost all are very selective, with small average class sizes and excellent faculty.</p>

<p>The study was done only once and by now is rather dated. The basket of target schools is small and biased toward the Northeast. Most importantly, the study only counted the number of matriculations adjusted for school size. This would be fine if students at all the ranked schools applied to the target programs at equal rates. They surely don’t. For all we know, some schools at the bottom of the list had higher admit rates than some schools at the top of the list. There is a lot we don’t know such as year-to-year fluctuations and degree completion rates.</p>

43

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, you’ve got to compare apples to apples, which the WSJ survey doesn’t do. My undergrad alma mater, the University of Michigan, did respectably well in that survey, placing #30 among all LACs and universities, just a smidge behind Wesleyan at #27 and ahead of the likes of Vassar, Notre Dame, Emory, Macalester, Bates, Barnard, Trinity, Grinnell, Tufts, Colby, WUSTL, and Reed. </p>

<p>But at Wesleyan and (as far as I know) all the LACs in that group, all the undergrads are liberal arts majors, the people most likely to apply to top medical, law, and business schools. At Michigan only about 60% of the undergrads are liberal arts majors; the rest are mainly in undergraduate pre-professional schools like engineering, business, nursing, and the like. An undergrad BBA from a top business school like Michigan gets you more or less what an MBA does; very few of those people go into MBA programs. Engineering majors become engineers; most begin their professional careers upon graduation, some go to grad school in engineering, and only a vanishingly small handful go to business, law, or medical school. Nursing students become nurses. So when US News divides the number of Michigan grads entering its “top 15” medical, law, or business schools by the total size of the graduating class, it’s just not counting the same thing as when it divides the number of LAC grads by the size of the LAC’s graduating class. A fairer comparison would be to calculate the percentage of Michigan LS&A (liberal arts) grads who go on to “top” medical, law, and business schools. And if you did that, you’d get a figure around 4.5%—enough to push Michigan into the top 20, slightly ahead of Haverford and Bowdoin, and well ahead of CMC, Middlebury, Bryn Mawr, Wesleyan, etc. </p>

<p>“Better mentoring”? I don’t know. Look, in all fairness, one of the reasons Michigan does as well as it does in this survey is that its law school is listed as one of the WSJ “top 15” professional schools, and lots of Michigan undergrads end up going to Michigan Law—and why not? It’s a great law school in a great college town, they don’t need to give up their season tickets for football, they don’t even have to move, and if they’re Michigan residents they get a bit of a break on tuition (not much, though), and possibly a bit of a break in admissions. On the other hand, a lot of Michigan grads end up going to Michigan Medical School or Michigan (Ross) Business School, too, both top programs in their respective fields but not included in the WSJ top 15, so maybe that cancels out the law school effect somewhat. But compare that to UC Berkeley which has law and business schools comparable to Michigan’s, but no listings in the WSJ top 15, and . . . well, you start to see how stupid this WSJ survey really is.</p>

44

<p>

This isn’t a valid argument since unlike undergraduate programs, professional school reputation is driven almost entirely by prestige and people aren’t as geographically constrained. I can see how you would pick Michigan undergrad over Harvard undergrad since how successful you are out of undergrad depends on your performance and not as much on how good your school is but you would be a fool to pick Michigan Law over Harvard Law since your employment prospects take a definable hit. Where you go to law school correlates almost completely with how prestigious your first job out of law school will be or if you get a clerkship. There are some clerkships, international legal opportunities and Big Law jobs that you will simply be shut out of if you don’t attend Harvard or Yale Law.</p>

<p>The WSJ only picked 5 programs for each professional discipline so what do you suggest they do? Not include Harvard in all 3 measures when its arguably the best in each category (besides Yale Law)?</p>

<p>

Alright lets break this down and see what programs that WSJ chose that should without a shadow of a doubt be included in the WSJ study for it to retain credibility.</p>

<p>Law: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago</p>

<p>There should be no disagreement here that these 4 should have been included since they are 4 of the 5 best law schools in the country. If they happen to all be in the Northeast, then so be it since they are the most elite and draw the best prelaw students from all over the country. Even Berkeley, Michigan and UVA undergrads would turn down their law schools to go to these 3 since the difference in prestige and graduate opportunities is apparent.</p>

<p>The WSJ also used Chicago and Michigan which probably overrepresents the Midwest a bit in this category but Chicago is definitely a top 5 law school. Michigan Law should not have been used here though since its not top 6 (NYU is 6th) and Stanford, the 3rd best law school in the country, should have been included instead.</p>

<p>Medicine: Harvard, Hopkins, UCSF</p>

<p>These 3 are no-brainers as well and consistently rank among the top 5 med schools in America. It doesn’t matter that Harvard and Hopkins are located in the NE like I’ve said before, they’re too strong to not be included. The same goes with UCSF but its located in the West so finally there’s one school represented there.</p>

<p>Yale’s a top 5 medical school according to USNWR but they probably should have used Duke instead to give the South some representation. Also, Columbia is the misnomer in this ranking system and should also have been substituted with Duke or Stanford.</p>

<p>Business: Harvard, Wharton, Chicago</p>

<p>These 3 are all definite top 5 business schools in any credible system. Instead of MIT and Dartmouth, WSJ should have used Stanford and Kellogg though to give the West and Midwest some more representation.</p>

<p>So, in conclusion, this is how WSJ should have chosen the professional schools in all areas to ensure that high quality as well as geographical diversity are taken into account.</p>

<p>Law: Harvard, Yale, Chicago, Columbia, Stanford
Medicine: Harvard, Hopkins, UCSF, Stanford, Duke
Business: Harvard, Wharton, Chicago, Stanford and Kellogg</p>

<p>That’s 3 in the Midwest, 4 in the West and 8 in the East but my whole point in this analysis is that this is not too different from the original WSJ study and would not have changed the results much whatsoever. </p>

<p>Stanford would have moved up to #2 after Harvard with all 3 of its professional programs included.
Duke might have moved past Williams to get the #5 spot after HYPS.
Northwestern would have moved up about 5 spots since I’m sure a ton of its alums attend Kellogg.
Michigan would have dropped out of the top 50 altogether since it needed the help of 60 Wolverines enrolled in Michigan Law to even crack the top 50.
Berkeley might move up another 5-10 spots to make the top 30 since its alums are probably more represented at Stanford than top East Coast schools but this is just guesswork at this point.</p>

<p>The entire thesis of your geographical argument is henceforth inaccurate since the truly super elite professional programs that draw students from all over the nation reside almost entirely on the Northeast.</p>

<p>Fixing the WSJ methodology would only help Duke and Stanford, which are both in the top 6 already amazingly, its not really going to help Michigan, Berkeley or UCLA’s case too much.</p>

45

<p>The WSJ study is a quick and dirty confirmation that all the usual suspects do more or less as well in placing graduates as they do in attracting applicants. That’s about it. As a basis for differentiating any two schools on the list, it’d be pretty weak.</p>

<p>The choice of target schools isn’t its biggest problem. It’s the fact that it does not compare application rates, especially across very different kinds of feeder schools.</p>

46

<p>College rankings for the most part are a ponzi scheme. It does not give you the nuts & bolts. It all depends on what stick is being measured. Many prestigious universities are geared to research–not instruction. Many of the magazine surveys are also biased. In recent years i have heard that berkely is bleeding students to out of state schools due to rising tuition rates. California as we all know has had budget deficits for years now. The axe falls when courses are cut either for lack of enrollment or whatever. Yes most of the top schools are in the east section, but one should not dismiss the california ivies or the southern ivies. In all reality, if you’re in uchicago or nyu as a med student-there is no difference you have prestige. But likewise if you are very bright & get into u arizona for med school, you will be fine.</p>

47

<p>Xiggi, something as subjective as good teaching and/or dedication to teaching deserves a subjective answer.</p>

<p>You just happen to not agree with the subjective survey results so you continue to stamp your feet in protest.</p>

<p>With regards to TAs, all research universities utilize them in the same way…(ie lead lab and discussion sections). Shouldn’t top grad programs have better TAs? Perhaps that’s where research and grad program rankings come into play for undergrads.</p>

48

<p>UCB, we have been discussing the same issues for so long that it is easy to identify our differences. </p>

<p>As you know, I give NO credibility to the outcome of the TYPE of survey used by USNews. I probably would change my opinion if the surveys were expanded and made public. Expanded to clearly identify the areas a distinguished excellence and dedication to teaching. Made public to avoid the lack of integrity displayed by officials at Wisconsin, Clemson, and the countless ones that were not exposed.</p>

<p>The current survey is simply a meaningless and misleading exercise in futility. If one wanted to measure the dedication to teaching, this should be expressed through an analysis of the various levels of professors per capita and per hour of education. While this does not necessarily represent a yardstick for QUALITY of education, it represent an easy to follow AND compute criterion. The same should apply to quantify the EXACT impact of TA with clear differences made when they lead sections, or engage in often denied class development and grading, and further divisions made between basic classes and advanced classes. </p>

<p>The obvious result of the above would be to isolate the researchers from the true educators. While it is entirely possible that a world class researcher might also be a great a teacher, his or her DEDICATION to teaching can and should be expressed in hours in the classroom, and DEDICATION to teaching undergraduates in hours per UG capita. </p>

<p>And speaking about the obvious, I do not think that it is surprising that the supporters of research universities and obscure rankings prefer to rely on different metrics, as the evidence of what I would like to see measured is visible and tangible on every campus.</p>

49

<p>

</p>

<p>This makes many erroneous assumptions. For one, who says that these aren’t relevant to undergraduates? You assume that the students don’t value these measures, when many of them do. They may want a stronger department so they’ll go to the school that has a higher-rated department.</p>

<p>Here’s the logic behind that: grad and undergrad are not as distinct as some people on this forum would like to think. They necessarily overlap. Thus, at the top departments (according to grad standards), you’ll find many resources that also affect undergrads: top faculty, a variety of courses, strong facilities, lots of funding for research and other endeavors, availability of internships, etc.</p>

<p>I can’t find a single case where a department is top-rated in grad rankings but somehow offers an inferior undergraduate education in that department. It just doesn’t happen. That’s also not to say that schools without grad divisions can’t also offer a strong education in that field.</p>

<p>You also make a nebulous claim about what ‘undergraduate education’ means. What does it mean to you? If you’re the kind of student who just wants to take the classes and get your degree, and that’s all, then most schools will offer an adequate undergraduate education in that department and the difference would come down to personal preferences (small vs. large classes, etc.).</p>

<p>But many students - esp. those at top universities - want more than that. They often want research and leading faculty and internships and cutting-edge facilities to work in and vast library holdings in their subject. These come with top-rated departments, even if those ratings are for graduates.</p>

<p>Finally, faculty strength is extremely important for many such students. Grad rankings tend to favor larger departments; it’s almost always the case that larger departments are favored over smaller ones, even if taken on a per-capita basis. The reason is that larger departments have more faculty and thus cover a greater diversity of areas in the field; this effectively increases the ‘reach’ of the department so that it’s highly rated. For many students this is important: these faculty as a whole have a greater breadth and depth of expertise, which reflects in their research, the facilities, and especially the course offerings. The more renowned departments tend to have vast course offerings (which I think we can agree is relevant to undergraduate education), often in niche areas that other schools lack. </p>

<p>For me, this was monumentally important: my area of expertise is very much a niche, so I chose a school that had lots of faculty in it, a variety of courses, internships, top research, and amazing resources (e.g. extremely high-performance computing clusters dedicated solely to research/experimentation in this niche). It worked out great for me, as it got me into desired grad schools. I know for a fact that I would not have been exposed to all that had I gone to a school that didn’t have a top-rated department in my field. It’s because the relevant departments are top-rated that they had the faculty I was looking for, and the research I wanted to do, and the courses that I wanted to take, and so on.</p>

<p>Essentially, faculty strength is very important for many students because it has the strongest influence on certain factors relevant to their undergraduate education.</p>

50

<p>As the rankings you love to ignore are the MOST accepted in the world I think you have the problem. Most everyone else is fine with them. Most countries don’t even have LAC’s and don’t care about them one tiny bit. Measuring educational impact by “contact hours” is 3rd grade level analysis.</p>

51

<p>Barrons: Who are you directing your comments to?</p>

52

<p>

</p>

<p>Lots of truth in that. Test scores are an important limiting factor in admissions to top professional schools. Most people say LSAT scores and undergrad GPA is pretty much the entire ballgame in law school admissions these days, but whether that’s the case or not, test scores are going to limit how many of an undergraduate college’s grads will get into the most competitive medical, law, and business schools. And it’s pretty darned competitive at the top. On the law school side (which I’ve studied a bit because my D1 has expressed some interest in law school), Harvard undergrads have the highest LSAT scores, with an average of 166. But a 166 won’t get you into any of the top law schools in WSJ’s “top 5.” Here are the 25th-75th percentile LSAT scores for entering students at those 5 schools:</p>

<p>Yale 171-176
Harvard 171-176
Columbia 170-175
Chicago 168-172
Michigan 168-171 (or substitute Stanford, 167-173, same thing)</p>

<p>So the average Harvard undergrad who is contemplating law school (and got as far as taking the LSAT) is in all probability not going to get into a top 5 law school. Same on the GPA side. The average Harvard undergrad GPA is 3.45, pretty high by national standards. But that’s not good enough to get into a top law school. Here are the 25th-75th percentile GPAs:</p>

<p>Yale 3.81-3.96
Harvard 3.78-3.96
Columbia 3.61-3.82
Chicago 3.59-3.87
Michigan 3.57-3.85 (or Stanford, 3.74-3.94)</p>

<p>So it’s reasonable to assume that only something like the top third of the class at Harvard–possibly less–has both the grades and the LSAT scores to be competitive in admissions to a top 5 law school. And it gets tougher from there. Here are the average (mean) LSAT scores at some top undergrad institutions:</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard 166</li>
<li>Yale, Swarthmore, Princeton, Pomona 165</li>
<li>Williams, Stanford, Amherst 164</li>
<li>Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, MIT, Penn 163</li>
<li>Carleton, Chicago, CMC, Rice 162</li>
<li>Cornell, Georgetown, Haverford, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Reed, Washington & Lee, Wesleyan 161</li>
<li>William & Mary 160</li>
<li> Brigham Young, Bryn Mawr, Colby, Emory, Johns Hopkins, NYU, UC Berkeley, Vanderbilt 159</li>
<li>Boston College, Brandeis, Georgia Tech, St. John’s College, UCLA, U Dallas, Michigan, UVA, WUSTL 158</li>
</ol>

<p>Now notice a couple of things about this list. As you go down this list, the school’s average LSAT core recedes farther and farther below the level that’s required to get into top law schools; which almost certainly means that as you go down the list, a declining percentage of the graduating class has the top LSAT scores required to get into top law schools. But also notice that, with a few outliers, this list closely tracks the WSJ list of “top feeder” schools: 1) Harvard, 2) Yale, 3) Princeton, 4) Stanford, 5) Williams, 6) Duke, 7) Dartmouth, 8) MIT, 9) Amherst, 10) Swarthmore, 11) Columbia, 12) Brown, 13) Pomona. 14) Chicago, 15) Wellesley, 16) Penn, 17) Georgetown, 18) Haverford, 190 Bowdoin, 20) Rice, 21) Northwestern, 22) CMC, 23) Middlebury, 24) Johns Hopkins, 250 Cornell, 26) Bryn Mawr, 27) Wesleyan, 28) Caltech, 29) Morehouse, 30) Michigan. And I’ll bet if you ranked these schools by entering freshman SAT scores (which I don’t have time to do at the moment), you’d get a pretty similar order, too.</p>

<p>Which all raises the question, are the undergraduate schools really adding value to the prospects of their undergrads in getting into top law schools? The best test-takers are the best test-takers, both coming into college and moving on to professional school. Only the best of the best test-takers will get into top law schools, but they are predictably concentrated at the schools that had the strongest entering class (as measured by test scores) from the outset. And that’s all the WSJ survey shows, geographic bias aside.</p>

<p>The one qualification to that is this: some schools underperform on their WSJ “feeder school” rankings relative to the strength of their students’ LSAT scores. And surprisingly, some of the biggest underperformers are LACs. Pomona, for example, is tied for #2 in LSAT scores, but only #13 as a WSJ “feeder.” Sawrthmore is #2 in LSAT, #10 on WSJ. CMC is tied for #15 in LSAT scores but #22 on the WSJ list. Carleton is #15 in LSAT scores but doesn’t make WSJ’s top 50. Wesleyan is #19 LSAT, #27 WSJ. Washington & Lee #19 LSAT, #48 WSJ. Reed #19 LSAT, #50 WSJ. The only universities with real disparities are Penn, #9 LSAT, #16 WSJ; and Notre Dame, #19 LSAT, #35 WSJ. There may be explanations for this, but I’m not sure what they are. When you examine the data in this light, many LACs don’t seem to be doing so well after all.</p>

53

<p>

</p>

<p>“government” grads? I guess they are special because many govt jobs are easy, 9-5, with ridiculous “overtime” pay (would have been just regular hours in private sectors) and benefits funded by taxpayers. Oh yea, you pretty much need to be walking around naked to get fired. </p>

<p>jhaverford, you need to show us that LACs don’t have larger fraction of students applying to those professional schools. My guess is LACs actually do since a lot of these LACs don’t offer anything preprofessional (unlike engineering, accounting, business, journalism…etc) and for practical reason, probably more would try to get into law & med schools. </p>

<p>At Northwestern, students from the college of liberal arts and sciences are much more likely to be premeds and prelaws than their peers in the five other specialty schools, which make up half the students population.</p>

54

<p>Can we throw an idea out there? That there are no agreed standards for what makes a good college teacher. Some schools define it by an emphasis on teaching; others insist on some research (whether lab based or academic, publications and etc) so faculty stay abreast and competitive in their fields; some are happy to simply hire the folks who do nothing but research, but have high name recognition. The first is supposed to say something about the dedication to student learning, thinking and analysis skills. The second can keep the U vital in terms of how it’s faculty is exposed to others in their fields and the response to their own academic work. The last is, IMO, more a matter of prestige and the opportunity to attract bigger research dollars.</p>

<p>And, even in a school with a teaching focus, who says any two teachers are equally good? Whenever there is any peer assessment, even within a school, it subjectively reflects what a given person knows about that faculty at that school.</p>

<p>I’m curious what OP’s relationship is to American universities- student, grad, parent?</p>

55

<p>You advocate wsj over ncr?</p>

<p>Regardless, this ENTIRE DISCUSSION based on results like LSAT scores and graduate school representation IS MOOT. You will never know the value added by different schools on their students. Perhaps the small number of those UC Berkeley / U Michigan students going to top grad/prof schools would never have had those opportunities without the education of their school over those of the Ivies, for whatever reason you want to advocate. Or perhaps the opposite is true, and many more students at Cal/Mich would have excelled had they gone to Ivies, for the classic CC reasons which are often completely wrong/exaggerated. Point is: none of these rankings/surveys take into account what the school does to the student. Your arguments only advocate the selections of those institutions, and not what their actual effects are. I assume you care only about the effects of these undergraduate programs, because that’s the point, right?</p>

<p>I REPEAT, looking at grad/prof representation, and/or average LSAT scores, etc, only advocates the selections made by those institutions, and not what their actual effects are.</p>

<p>It amazes me how many people fail to realize something so logical and simple…</p>

<p>This thread is pointless.</p>

56

<p>

</p>

<p>Well again, since we don’t know the application rates, we don’t really know that they are underperforming. By choosing LACs, students already are showing a preference for slightly unorthodox schools. This propensity might telegraph through to the choice of professional schools. </p>

<p>Now compare the rank for LSAT scores with the rank for SAT scores:
School … SAT Rank* … LSAT Rank
Pomona … 6 … 2
Swat … 17 … 2
CMC … 27 … 15
Carleton … 32 … 15
Wes … 31 … 19
W&L … 35 … 19
Reed … 39 … 19

<p>If anything, LACs seem to be adding value by boosting student test performance.</p>

57

<p>jhaverford4587, a big LOL on your post. You probably are the only “educated” Indian I know who think Berkeley isn’t famous world-wide, and who think Williams in more famous than Berkeley. LOL … While Williams is a good college, it is not as famous as Berkeley in the USA, let alone outside of the USA. </p>

<p>So, again, lol on your post. Seriously, I was laughing hard when I saw your post.</p>

58

<p>[Top</a> Feeder Colleges to Harvard B-School | Poets and Quants](<a href=“http://poetsandquants.com/2011/08/15/top-feeder-colleges-to-harvard-business-school/2/]Top”>http://poetsandquants.com/2011/08/15/top-feeder-colleges-to-harvard-business-school/2/)</p>

<p>[Top</a> Feeder Schools To Wharton’s MBA Program | Poets and Quants](<a href=“http://poetsandquants.com/2011/08/07/top-feeder-schools-to-whartons-mba-program/]Top”>http://poetsandquants.com/2011/08/07/top-feeder-schools-to-whartons-mba-program/)</p>

59

<p>I can think of any number of fields where the local and regional reputation of an undergraduate program at a college or university (or even of a trade school) are indeed absolutely critical for a student. For many, many students in this country the rankings of USNWR, WSJ and the others are moot. Any analysis of the quality of undergraduate education that ignores this reality is one that all reasonable minds should reject.</p>

60

<p>Hedge Funds
[Top</a> U.S. Hedge Fund Feeder Schools | HFObserver](<a href=“http://hfobserver.com/news/top-u-s-hedge-fund-feeder-schools/]Top”>http://hfobserver.com/news/top-u-s-hedge-fund-feeder-schools/)

  1. Penn
  2. Cornell, NYU
  3. Duke
  4. Stanford
  5. Princeton
  6. Harvard
  7. Yale
  8. Syracuse</p>

<p>Private Equity Firms
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/454731-university-representation-largest-private-equity-firms-4.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/454731-university-representation-largest-private-equity-firms-4.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<h1>1 Harvard University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 62
Graduate: 165
TOTAL: 227 (#1 overall)</p>

<h1>2 University of Pennsylvania</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 61
Graduate: 52
TOTAL: 113 (#2 overall)</p>

<h1>3 Princeton University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 35
Graduate: 1
TOTAL: 36 (#6 overall)</p>

<h1>4 Dartmouth College</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 27
Graduate: 11
Total: 38 (#5 overall)</p>

<h1>5 Duke University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 24
Graduate: 7
TOTAL: 31 (#8 overall)</p>

<h1>6 Cornell University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 23
Graduate: 6
TOTAL: 29 (#12 overall)</p>

<h1>7 Yale University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 22
Graduate: 8
TOTAL: 30 (#10 overall)</p>

<h1>8 Georgetown University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 21
Graduate: 6
TOTAL: 27 (#14 overall)</p>

<h1>9 University of California-Berkeley</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 20
Graduate: 6
TOTAL: 26 (#15 overall)</p>

<h1>10 Stanford University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 17
Graduate: 48
TOTAL: 65 (#3 overall)</p>

<h1>10 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 17
Graduate: 14
TOTAL: 31 (#8 overall)</p>

<h1>12 Brown University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 16
Graduate: 1
TOTAL: 17 (#18 overall)</p>

<h1>13 Columbia University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 15
Graduate: 33
TOTAL: 48 (#4 overall)</p>

<h1>14 University of Virginia</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 12
Graduate: 9
TOTAL: 21 (#16 overall)</p>

<h1>15 New York University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 11
Graduate: 21
TOTAL: 32 (#7 overall)</p>

<h1>16 Boston College</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 10
Graduate: 0
TOTAL: 10 (#20 overall)</p>

<h1>17 University of Texas-Austin</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 9
Graduate: 9
TOTAL: 18 (#17 overall)</p>

<h1>18 Northwestern University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 7
Graduate: 21
TOTAL: 28 (#13 overall)</p>

<h1>18 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 7
Graduate: 4
TOTAL: 11 (#19 overall)</p>

<h1>20 Emory University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 6
Graduate: 0
TOTAL: 6</p>

<h1>20 University of Chicago</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 6
Graduate: 24
TOTAL: 30 (#10 overall)</p>

<h1>20 University of Notre Dame</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 6
Graduate: 0
TOTAL: 6</p>

<h1>20 Williams College</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 6
Graduate: 0
TOTAL: 6</p>

<h1>24 Middlebury College</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 5
Graduate: 0
TOTAL: 5</p>

<h1>24 Syracuse University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 5
Graduate: 1
TOTAL: 6</p>

<h1>24 University of California-Los Angeles</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 5
Graduate: 4
TOTAL: 9</p>

<h1>24 Vanderbilt University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 5
Graduate: 0
TOTAL: 5</p>

<h1>24 Washington & Lee University</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 5
Graduate: 0
TOTAL: 5</p>

<h1>29 SUNY system (including Albany, Binghampton and Oswego):</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 12
Graduate: 3
TOTAL: 15</p>

<h1>30 United States Academies (Air Force, Military and Naval combined)</h1>

<p>Undergraduate: 10
Graduate: 0
TOTAL: 10</p>