<p>Why are you posting an 8-year old article?</p>
<p>The hedge fund article is from last month and the private equity study was done by a poster on this site a couple of years ago. What article are you referring to that’s 8 years old?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, maybe, but I don’t think there’s much the LSAT tests for that would be influenced one way or the other by the content of one’s undergrad courses, degree of interaction with professors, and so on. As long as you’re a good standardized test-taker, are good at analytical and logical reasoning, and read well, you should do fine on the LSAT. My guess is the higher LSAT scores (relative to SAT scores) at these schools are a function of which subset of students takes the LSAT, which could be different at different schools.</p>
<p>Thanks for the SAT ranking data, though. It looks like these LACs’ SAT rankings more closely match their rankings in the WSJ survey than do their LSAT rankings. But SAT rankings also closely correspond to WSJ rankings for larger universities, which for the most part maintain pretty similar rankings in SAT scores, LSAT scores, and the WSJ survey. (Could also be just a larger sample of LSAT-takers at the universities, so less variance from total student body SAT scores). In any event, my main point still holds: the most selective schools do best in the WSJ survey because they have, on average, the best test-takers. Hard to draw any conclusions about the value added of the undergraduate education from that.</p>
<p>Far be it from me to say where you go to school as an undergrad, or what your study, doesn’t matter. It matters tremendously for building the intellectual tools, stores of knowledge, and skills you’ll draw on for the rest of your life. But for getting to top professional schools? Well, it really doesn’t matter. If you’re a top test-taker and get good grades, you’ll get into a top law, medical, or business school, whether you go to Harvard or East Podunk State. If you’re not a top test-taker, you won’t get in, whether you go to Harvard or East Podunk State. </p>
<p>But grades matter, too. I just happened to have a conversation earlier this week with the dean of a top 20 law school, and mentioned that my D1 has had some thoughts about law school. He told me at his school it is possible to get in with an LSAT score below their median (which is also their current target level) if your undergraduate GPA is at their target level of 3.8 or better. "To be admitted, you need to help us either with our LSAT median or with our GPA median, " he said. “If you have a 3.81 from North Texas State, that helps us; if you have a 3.79 from MIT, that doesn’t help us and we won’t admit you unless you have a stellar LSAT score,” he said. “The candidates who help us most, obviously, are those who are above our medians in both GPA and LSAT scores, but we need to compete with other schools for those students, and it gets expensive [meaning they need to give merit aid to attract those students]. My candid advice for someone looking to get into a top law school would be to go where you’ll get the best grades—and given grade inflation, that might actually be Harvard these days, unfortunately—and take the easy classes, to keep your GPA up. That’s terrible life advice, I know, but if you want to get into a top law school, that’s the surest way to go.” </p>
<p>Sad, but I’ve heard enough similar things from people in the legal academic world to believe it’s true.</p>
<p>At some grad schools (UC Berkeley, specifically) GPA’s are indexed relative to a gold-standard mean GPA, specifically Swarthmore’s, where grade inflation is minimal and an “A” actually reflects an outstanding level of achievement.</p>
<p>Why hasn’t Deep Springs been mentioned already? If we are going to evaluate undergrad quality there’s evidence to show (although very hidden since the college is so secretive) that Deep Springs is perhaps even better at helping students succeed than any other US institution based on where their students end up transferring after their stay at DS College.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? According to [url=<a href=“http://gradeinflation.com/swarthmore.html]this[/url”>http://gradeinflation.com/swarthmore.html]this[/url</a>], Swarthmore has just as much grade inflation as others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Heck no, they got with the program. :D</p>
<p>While I wholly agree with the statement made in the OP, I admit the study cited to come to this conclusion does not appear very sound.</p>
<p>So, if you are doing your own personal survey/ranking to ascertain quality of undergraduate teaching, what numbers do you look for and how do you avoid falling for the flim-flam answers regarding supposed class size, use of TAs etc.</p>
<p>Clearly visiting, asking students etc. would be desirable, but what numbers would you ask for, how would you get them and how would you weight them in your own ranking system?</p>
<p>^And, that’s why these rankings by non-academic media are frivoulous. And, why there is no easy observation, even within academia. At DH’s school, they can’t even agree on a teaching standard. The guy who shares test questions, grades on a monstrous curve, lets discussions meander and routinely brings in homemade cookies gets great student evaluations. Serious grading standards can still lead to student complaints. You’ve got to think back to your own experiences. </p>
<p>It’s very difficult to quantifyy- what is it? The teacher who requires longer papers and more citations is better than another? The prof who offers a research experience that looks good when you apply to grad school? </p>
<p>As has been noted, you can cut and paste metrics umpteen ways. And, colleges themselves do that. It’s all in how you spin it.</p>
<p>Haters gonna hate on university rankings.</p>
<p>You wouldn’t care about the ranking systems if you were #1, I’ll tell you that much.</p>
<p>The strength of the graduate program has minimal effect on the quality of undergraduate education, at least for the sciences and engineering.</p>
<p>1) Professors get promoted by publishing papers, not by teaching.</p>
<p>Professors have no incentive to teach well, they’re here to publish papers and forward their career.</p>
<p>2) Full professors don’t teach. </p>
<p>They’re too busy researching so TA’s, associate professors, and graduate students take up the task. Not a bad thing, but it shows that strength of research does not mean quality teaching.</p>
<p>3) Genius professors don’t realize the difficulty of the material. They get it, though a lot of undergraduates don’t.</p>
<p>While geniuses may naturally be better teachers, chances are that they are people who understand the material intuitively, without ever having to take the time that average (even Ivy League/MIT) students would take.</p>
<p>Gripe/Complaint: Tuition ends up providing free labor (professors, TA’s, Ph. D students) for the university.</p>
<p>Tuition ends up paying for “teaching” costs. How long do professors and graduate students end up teaching or planning for their week? Definitely not long enough to warrant a 40 hour salary. Hence, at graduate and research focused universities, tuition is used to subsidize the labor cost for research.</p>
<p>If you truly care about your child’s education, I encourage you to look far beyond the prestige factor. Many smaller colleges offer an excellent education and do not necessarily perform notably in the various rankings despite their high quality (with their many limitations, well-documented here). Other measures you might research are where their grads are working, what employers think of the program or college, the reputation of the program among those actually working in the field, the opinions of current students and graduates of the program, etc.</p>
<p><beard tax=“”> is pretty much full of it. I checked several tenured faculty at my school and every one had won at least one teaching award and taught undergrad clesses. And had a great research record and many honors. Here’s a typical one.</beard></p>
<p>[Dumesic</a>, James A.](<a href=“http://www.engr.wisc.edu/che/faculty/dumesic_james.html#courses]Dumesic”>http://www.engr.wisc.edu/che/faculty/dumesic_james.html#courses)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is incorrect. Faculty of all ranks (including tenured full professors) teach courses, including undergraduate courses.</p>
<p>Profiles of professors who have won the University of Chicago’s highest award for undergraduate teaching since 2006:</p>
<p>[Award-winning</a> teachers find the unexpected | The University of Chicago](<a href=“http://www.uchicago.edu/features/20110527_quantrell/lipson.shtml]Award-winning”>http://www.uchicago.edu/features/20110527_quantrell/lipson.shtml)
[Edwin</a> Ferguson, Professor in Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology](<a href=“http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/090528/quantrell-ferguson.shtml]Edwin”>Edwin Ferguson, Professor in Molecular Genetics and Cell Biology)
[Jonathan</a> Hall, the Phyllis F. Horton Professor in Classics, History and the College](<a href=“http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/090528/quantrell-hall.shtml]Jonathan”>Jonathan Hall, the Phyllis F. Horton Professor in Classics, History and the College)
[Stuart</a> Kurtz, Professor in Computer Science and the College](<a href=“http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/090528/quantrell-kurtz.shtml]Stuart”>Stuart Kurtz, Professor in Computer Science and the College)
[Michael</a> Kremer, Professor in Philosophy and the College](<a href=“http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/080529/quantrell-kremer.shtml]Michael”>Michael Kremer, Professor in Philosophy and the College)
[Janos</a> Simon, Professor in Computer Science and the Physical Sciences Collegiate Division](<a href=“http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/080529/quantrell-simon.shtml]Janos”>Janos Simon, Professor in Computer Science and the Physical Sciences Collegiate Division)
[Thomas</a> Pavel, Gordon J. Laing Distinguished Service Professor in Romance Languages & Literatures and the College](<a href=“http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/070524/quantrell-pavel.shtml]Thomas”>Thomas Pavel, Gordon J. Laing Distinguished Service Professor in Romance Languages & Literatures and the College)
[Heinrich</a> Jaeger, Professor in Physics and the College](<a href=“http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/060525/quantrell-jaeger.shtml]Heinrich”>Heinrich Jaeger, Professor in Physics and the College)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I just chuckled on this one. If anything, associate and assistant professors have more incentive to research more. Associate professors want to get promoted and assistant professors bear the full pressure to get the tenure. My instructors for my science and engineering courses were a good mix of full, associate, and assistant profs. TAs did NOT teach in any of my classes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong, and wrong. At the University of Michigan, for example, professors vie for 5-7 Thurnau Professorships awarded each year for excellence in undergraduate teaching. Each Thurnau Professorship carries a $20,000 stipend. It’s one of the most prestigious and coveted awards on campus.</p>
<p>[Six</a> faculty named Thurnau professors](<a href=“http://www.ur.umich.edu/update/archives/110218/thurnau]Six”>http://www.ur.umich.edu/update/archives/110218/thurnau)</p>