[Papa John]

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...iversities

The top 10:
1. Princeton
2. Harvard
3 (tie). Chicago/Yale
5 (tie). Columbia/Stanford
7. MIT
8. Duke
9. Penn
10. Johns Hopkins

Clearly another example of East Coast bias.

[Papa John]

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...iversities

The top 10:
1. Princeton
2. Harvard
3 (tie). Chicago/Yale
5 (tie). Columbia/Stanford
7. MIT
8. Duke
9. Penn
10. Johns Hopkins

Clearly another example of East Coast bias.

[Papa John]

And just for the heck of it, here's how our football opponents rank:

K-State: #135 overall/#64 public
U.SC: #23
UCLA: #24/#2
UW: #54/#16
WSU: #143/#71
UND: #15
CU: #92/#38
UA: #124/#60
OSU: #143/#71
UO: #103/#46
Cal: #20/#1
Rice: #15

[Papa John]

And just for the heck of it, here's how our football opponents rank:

K-State: #135 overall/#64 public
U.SC: #23
UCLA: #24/#2
UW: #54/#16
WSU: #143/#71
UND: #15
CU: #92/#38
UA: #124/#60
OSU: #143/#71
UO: #103/#46
Cal: #20/#1
Rice: #15

[stupac2]

My wife had mentioned to me that USC beat out UCLA and Cal in these rankings, and I think there's no better evidence for how useless they are.

[stupac2]

My wife had mentioned to me that USC beat out UCLA and Cal in these rankings, and I think there's no better evidence for how useless they are.

[dabigv13]

USC is a different beast than most people on this board are aware of, academically. I'm most familiar with what it was like from 2006 to 2010, but I'm sure that the emphasis on academics that was placed then is only being more heavily emphasized now. I do have a cousin who's currently a sophomore on scholarship and her experience bears this out as well- they are heavily recruiting academically talented students and they are throwing money at them to come.

It's not a preeminent research facility like UCLA or Berkeley, but I bet most students would get a comparable or possibly better education at SC. I had several friends in high school who chose SC with scholarships over UCLA or Berkeley, and they don't regret it.

At football tailgates I would sometimes hear grumbling from older alums that the campus was changing, more "foreign" students (Asians), less California blondes. I think there are still remnants of the "Old SC", particularly in the Greek system, but it's a different university than 30 years ago.

[dabigv13]

USC is a different beast than most people on this board are aware of, academically. I'm most familiar with what it was like from 2006 to 2010, but I'm sure that the emphasis on academics that was placed then is only being more heavily emphasized now. I do have a cousin who's currently a sophomore on scholarship and her experience bears this out as well- they are heavily recruiting academically talented students and they are throwing money at them to come.

It's not a preeminent research facility like UCLA or Berkeley, but I bet most students would get a comparable or possibly better education at SC. I had several friends in high school who chose SC with scholarships over UCLA or Berkeley, and they don't regret it.

At football tailgates I would sometimes hear grumbling from older alums that the campus was changing, more "foreign" students (Asians), less California blondes. I think there are still remnants of the "Old SC", particularly in the Greek system, but it's a different university than 30 years ago.

[CornFed]

And just for the heck of it, here's how our football opponents rank:

K-State: #135 overall/#64 public
U.SC: #23
UCLA: #24/#2
UW: #54/#16
WSU: #143/#71
UND: #15
CU: #92/#38
UA: #124/#60
OSU: #143/#71
UO: #103/#46
ןɐɔ: #20/#1
Rice: #15

One thing that shocked me is Noter Damn being tied in academic rating with Rice.  Makes me question the whole thing.  I, personally, would far prefer an education from Rice to one from ND.

I really am not trying to say that the ND experience is dogmeat.  Au contraire, my perspective is the result of a perhaps-too-exalted estimation of Rice.  Whatever.

[CornFed]

And just for the heck of it, here's how our football opponents rank:

K-State: #135 overall/#64 public
U.SC: #23
UCLA: #24/#2
UW: #54/#16
WSU: #143/#71
UND: #15
CU: #92/#38
UA: #124/#60
OSU: #143/#71
UO: #103/#46
ןɐɔ: #20/#1
Rice: #15

One thing that shocked me is Noter Damn being tied in academic rating with Rice.  Makes me question the whole thing.  I, personally, would far prefer an education from Rice to one from ND.

I really am not trying to say that the ND experience is dogmeat.  Au contraire, my perspective is the result of a perhaps-too-exalted estimation of Rice.  Whatever.

[Farm93]

To paraphrase a bit from what I read yesterday.

The Cardinals excel at golf and tennis and complete in the NCAA 1 conference.

::)

[Farm93]

To paraphrase a bit from what I read yesterday.

The Cardinals excel at golf and tennis and complete in the NCAA 1 conference.

::)

[fullmetal]

One thing that shocked me is Noter Damn being tied in academic rating with Rice.  Makes me question the whole thing.  I, personally, would far prefer an education from Rice to one from ND.

I really am not trying to say that the ND experience is dogmeat.  Au contraire, my perspective is the result of a perhaps-too-exalted estimation of Rice.  Whatever.

I think the STEM fields at Rice are generally stronger.  Rice engineering is well-respected.  Not sure about the humanities or social sciences.

[fullmetal]

One thing that shocked me is Noter Damn being tied in academic rating with Rice.  Makes me question the whole thing.  I, personally, would far prefer an education from Rice to one from ND.

I really am not trying to say that the ND experience is dogmeat.  Au contraire, my perspective is the result of a perhaps-too-exalted estimation of Rice.  Whatever.

I think the STEM fields at Rice are generally stronger.  Rice engineering is well-respected.  Not sure about the humanities or social sciences.

[CTcard]

[quote author=Papa John link=topic=15664.msg171063#msg171063 date=1473876811]
And just for the heck of it, here's how our football opponents rank:

K-State: #135 overall/#64 public
U.SC: #23
UCLA: #24/#2
UW: #54/#16
WSU: #143/#71
UND: #15
CU: #92/#38
UA: #124/#60
OSU: #143/#71
UO: #103/#46
ןɐɔ: #20/#1
Rice: #15

One thing that shocked me is Noter Damn being tied in academic rating with Rice.  Makes me question the whole thing.  I, personally, would far prefer an education from Rice to one from ND.

I really am not trying to say that the ND experience is dogmeat.  Au contraire, my perspective is the result of a perhaps-too-exalted estimation of Rice.  Whatever.
[/quote]

I think that the best way to read these rankings is to look at the specific information provided in the tables about various schools. You can get an idea of average class size, student to faculty ratios, entering test scores, and other useful stuff.

I think that the second best way to read these rankings is to look at large bins. You should probably put a +/- 5 on the rankings near the top, somewhat larger further down. So, Stanford at #5 probably means they are in the top 10 in whatever exactly US News is trying to rank.

In whatever way you look at the rankings, you should try to figure out what it is they are trying to rank. Much of the ratings are based on issues I would say relate to ... coziness. So, year on year retention, grad rates, class size, acceptance rates, spending per student, and percentage of alums who donate all tend to favor smaller private schools - at least those not going broke. So, almost all the top rated schools are smallish and private. There's relatively little in there that is explicitly academic: awards won by students, grad school placement of students, job placement of students, research opportunities available, etc.
Depending upon what you are looking for, it may in fact be that smaller private schools are better. Or, maybe not.

I think the worst way to look at these rankings is to think that Brandeis at #34 and NYU at #36 means that Brandeis is the better university in any meaningful way.
[I hope I have picked schools for which no one here has any particularly strong emotional attachment.]

[CTcard]

[quote author=Papa John link=topic=15664.msg171063#msg171063 date=1473876811]
And just for the heck of it, here's how our football opponents rank:

K-State: #135 overall/#64 public
U.SC: #23
UCLA: #24/#2
UW: #54/#16
WSU: #143/#71
UND: #15
CU: #92/#38
UA: #124/#60
OSU: #143/#71
UO: #103/#46
ןɐɔ: #20/#1
Rice: #15

One thing that shocked me is Noter Damn being tied in academic rating with Rice.  Makes me question the whole thing.  I, personally, would far prefer an education from Rice to one from ND.

I really am not trying to say that the ND experience is dogmeat.  Au contraire, my perspective is the result of a perhaps-too-exalted estimation of Rice.  Whatever.
[/quote]

I think that the best way to read these rankings is to look at the specific information provided in the tables about various schools. You can get an idea of average class size, student to faculty ratios, entering test scores, and other useful stuff.

I think that the second best way to read these rankings is to look at large bins. You should probably put a +/- 5 on the rankings near the top, somewhat larger further down. So, Stanford at #5 probably means they are in the top 10 in whatever exactly US News is trying to rank.

In whatever way you look at the rankings, you should try to figure out what it is they are trying to rank. Much of the ratings are based on issues I would say relate to ... coziness. So, year on year retention, grad rates, class size, acceptance rates, spending per student, and percentage of alums who donate all tend to favor smaller private schools - at least those not going broke. So, almost all the top rated schools are smallish and private. There's relatively little in there that is explicitly academic: awards won by students, grad school placement of students, job placement of students, research opportunities available, etc.
Depending upon what you are looking for, it may in fact be that smaller private schools are better. Or, maybe not.

I think the worst way to look at these rankings is to think that Brandeis at #34 and NYU at #36 means that Brandeis is the better university in any meaningful way.
[I hope I have picked schools for which no one here has any particularly strong emotional attachment.]

[JJJ]

To paraphrase a bit from what I read yesterday.

The Cardinals excel at golf and tennis and complete in the NCAA 1 conference.

::)

Agreed that it's hard to place too much faith in their ratings when that's their depth of knowledge.

[JJJ]

To paraphrase a bit from what I read yesterday.

The Cardinals excel at golf and tennis and complete in the NCAA 1 conference.

::)

Agreed that it's hard to place too much faith in their ratings when that's their depth of knowledge.

[larkinforever]

I think the worst way to look at these rankings is to think that Brandeis at #34 and NYU at #36 means that Brandeis is the better university in any meaningful way.
[I hope I have picked schools for which no one here has any particularly strong emotional attachment.]

Go Judges! Screw the Violets!

[larkinforever]

I think the worst way to look at these rankings is to think that Brandeis at #34 and NYU at #36 means that Brandeis is the better university in any meaningful way.
[I hope I have picked schools for which no one here has any particularly strong emotional attachment.]

Go Judges! Screw the Violets!

[CornFed]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15664.msg171103#msg171103 date=1473894652]
I think the worst way to look at these rankings is to think that Brandeis at #34 and NYU at #36 means that Brandeis is the better university in any meaningful way.
[I hope I have picked schools for which no one here has any particularly strong emotional attachment.]

Go Judges! Screw the Violets!
[/quote]

That may not have been the most elegant choice of verbs!!!  ::)  ;D

[CornFed]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15664.msg171103#msg171103 date=1473894652]
I think the worst way to look at these rankings is to think that Brandeis at #34 and NYU at #36 means that Brandeis is the better university in any meaningful way.
[I hope I have picked schools for which no one here has any particularly strong emotional attachment.]

Go Judges! Screw the Violets!
[/quote]

That may not have been the most elegant choice of verbs!!!  ::)  ;D

[paloalto]

I read the academic message boards far more than sports forums.  U. S. C. is notorious for "gaming" the US News & World rankings.  They admit their best students in the fall semester and defer the others until spring semester.  US News only evaluates freshman students beginning fall semester.  That is just one example.  There are plenty other methods employed by U. S. C., University of Chicago, and other schools rapidly climbing in the US News yearly rankings. 

Having said that U. S. C. is an outstanding school and has done many good things for academics in the last ten years.

[paloalto]

I read the academic message boards far more than sports forums.  U. S. C. is notorious for "gaming" the US News & World rankings.  They admit their best students in the fall semester and defer the others until spring semester.  US News only evaluates freshman students beginning fall semester.  That is just one example.  There are plenty other methods employed by U. S. C., University of Chicago, and other schools rapidly climbing in the US News yearly rankings. 

Having said that U. S. C. is an outstanding school and has done many good things for academics in the last ten years.

[larkinforever]

The U.S. News rankings are the academic equivalent of the AP college football poll. We're the highest ranked Pac 12 school (which also means we'd be the fourth best Ivy [SEC] school if we were in the Ivy League [SEC] (actually... tied for fourth)!  :D

[larkinforever]

The U.S. News rankings are the academic equivalent of the AP college football poll. We're the highest ranked Pac 12 school (which also means we'd be the fourth best Ivy [SEC] school if we were in the Ivy League [SEC] (actually... tied for fourth)!  :D

[stupac2]

Interesting take on USC's ranking from a USC fan in the reddit post-game thread:

[USC President Max Nikias is] a PR machine, but he's got a loser mentality. He is good at gaming the rankings of US News by deferring admits to Spring to make our acceptance rate lower, raising money, and hiring foreign professors who don't speak english to pump out research at the expense of our students. We're ranked just under Berkeley, but realistically we are nowhere near their level.

Meanwhile, in rankings where you can't cheat, USC MBA is down 15 ranks since he joined due to poor hiring, USC MFA completely collapsed as the entire class dropped out, and our class sizes are inflated to historical and national highs.

Not to mention he has the charisma of a dead animal. The guy is good at one thing, getting a bunch of money and building new buildings to make it seem like "progress." Riding on the coattails of Sample. Nikias caused Haden, and now he caused Swann. Two inexperienced, unproven hires.

[stupac2]

Interesting take on USC's ranking from a USC fan in the reddit post-game thread:

[USC President Max Nikias is] a PR machine, but he's got a loser mentality. He is good at gaming the rankings of US News by deferring admits to Spring to make our acceptance rate lower, raising money, and hiring foreign professors who don't speak english to pump out research at the expense of our students. We're ranked just under Berkeley, but realistically we are nowhere near their level.

Meanwhile, in rankings where you can't cheat, USC MBA is down 15 ranks since he joined due to poor hiring, USC MFA completely collapsed as the entire class dropped out, and our class sizes are inflated to historical and national highs.

Not to mention he has the charisma of a dead animal. The guy is good at one thing, getting a bunch of money and building new buildings to make it seem like "progress." Riding on the coattails of Sample. Nikias caused Haden, and now he caused Swann. Two inexperienced, unproven hires.

[gocard14]

While USC is nowhere near Cal or UCLA as a research university, IMO the small private environment likely provides a better undergraduate education. The fact of the matter is that almost all undergraduate courses are at a relatively rudimentary level in that specific field, otherwise there would be no need for graduate school. That means that the quality of the course is much more related to the teaching ability and accessibility of the professors and TAs then the knowledge or research chops of the professor. Most of us had the experience of learning from a nobel laureate who was a terrible teacher, or an unknown prof who was excellent. while I have no specific experience with USC's classrooms, the size and faculty/student ratios at smaller private schools is extremely favorable.

[gocard14]

While USC is nowhere near Cal or UCLA as a research university, IMO the small private environment likely provides a better undergraduate education. The fact of the matter is that almost all undergraduate courses are at a relatively rudimentary level in that specific field, otherwise there would be no need for graduate school. That means that the quality of the course is much more related to the teaching ability and accessibility of the professors and TAs then the knowledge or research chops of the professor. Most of us had the experience of learning from a nobel laureate who was a terrible teacher, or an unknown prof who was excellent. while I have no specific experience with USC's classrooms, the size and faculty/student ratios at smaller private schools is extremely favorable.

[Mick]

While University of Seventh Choice is nowhere near ןɐɔ or UCLA as a research university, IMO the small private environment likely provides a better undergraduate education. The fact of the matter is that almost all undergraduate courses are at a relatively rudimentary level in that specific field, otherwise there would be no need for graduate school. That means that the quality of the course is much more related to the teaching ability and accessibility of the professors and TAs then the knowledge or research chops of the professor. Most of us had the experience of learning from a nobel laureate who was a terrible teacher, or an unknown prof who was excellent. while I have no specific experience with University of Seventh Choice's classrooms, the size and faculty/student ratios at smaller private schools is extremely favorable.

Have to agree with GoCard 14.  I didn't get to learn from Nobel laureates, and the Jesuits weren't brilliant, but they were sure good at teaching undergrads.

[Mick]

While University of Seventh Choice is nowhere near ןɐɔ or UCLA as a research university, IMO the small private environment likely provides a better undergraduate education. The fact of the matter is that almost all undergraduate courses are at a relatively rudimentary level in that specific field, otherwise there would be no need for graduate school. That means that the quality of the course is much more related to the teaching ability and accessibility of the professors and TAs then the knowledge or research chops of the professor. Most of us had the experience of learning from a nobel laureate who was a terrible teacher, or an unknown prof who was excellent. while I have no specific experience with University of Seventh Choice's classrooms, the size and faculty/student ratios at smaller private schools is extremely favorable.

Have to agree with GoCard 14.  I didn't get to learn from Nobel laureates, and the Jesuits weren't brilliant, but they were sure good at teaching undergrads.

[winflop]

I had several friends in high school who chose SC with scholarships over UCLA or Berkeley, and they don't regret it.

I would too, in part because I could graduate in four years.  These days any UC school is pretty much five years - at a minimum.  What's interesting to see is how many of the west coast private colleges, as well as other public schools like Oregon State, are aggressively marketing this against the UC's.  Pacific has a "four-year guarantee" where if you can't graduate in four years (other than for grades) they will pick up your entire tuition/room/board for any additional time you need to finish your bachelor's.

[winflop]

I had several friends in high school who chose SC with scholarships over UCLA or Berkeley, and they don't regret it.

I would too, in part because I could graduate in four years.  These days any UC school is pretty much five years - at a minimum.  What's interesting to see is how many of the west coast private colleges, as well as other public schools like Oregon State, are aggressively marketing this against the UC's.  Pacific has a "four-year guarantee" where if you can't graduate in four years (other than for grades) they will pick up your entire tuition/room/board for any additional time you need to finish your bachelor's.

[82 Card]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15664.msg171069#msg171069 date=1473878398]
I had several friends in high school who chose SC with scholarships over UCLA or Berkeley, and they don't regret it.

I would too, in part because I could graduate in four years.  These days any UC school is pretty much five years - at a minimum.  What's interesting to see is how many of the west coast private colleges, as well as other public schools like Oregon State, are aggressively marketing this against the UC's.  Pacific has a "four-year guarantee" where if you can't graduate in four years (other than for grades) they will pick up your entire tuition/room/board for any additional time you need to finish your bachelor's.
[/quote]

I think the difficulty of graduating in 4 years from UC is way overblown. A lot of kids in our town go to UC schools. I'm not aware of a single one of my daughter's friends that took more than 4 years. The people I work with from Berkeley and UCLA graduated in 4 years. Four-year graduation rates at C.al, UCLA, Stanford and SC are 73%, 74%, 75% and 77% respectively. That's not a strong argument for private schools in California. If you want higher 4 year graduation rates, head east to where the weather makes students eager to leave. [Source: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...-grad-rate]

[82 Card]

[quote author=dabigv link=topic=15664.msg171069#msg171069 date=1473878398]
I had several friends in high school who chose SC with scholarships over UCLA or Berkeley, and they don't regret it.

I would too, in part because I could graduate in four years.  These days any UC school is pretty much five years - at a minimum.  What's interesting to see is how many of the west coast private colleges, as well as other public schools like Oregon State, are aggressively marketing this against the UC's.  Pacific has a "four-year guarantee" where if you can't graduate in four years (other than for grades) they will pick up your entire tuition/room/board for any additional time you need to finish your bachelor's.
[/quote]

I think the difficulty of graduating in 4 years from UC is way overblown. A lot of kids in our town go to UC schools. I'm not aware of a single one of my daughter's friends that took more than 4 years. The people I work with from Berkeley and UCLA graduated in 4 years. Four-year graduation rates at C.al, UCLA, Stanford and SC are 73%, 74%, 75% and 77% respectively. That's not a strong argument for private schools in California. If you want higher 4 year graduation rates, head east to where the weather makes students eager to leave. [Source: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...-grad-rate]

[French Rage]

Why is a UC 5 years?  Is it because it is difficult to schedule the right classes in 8 semesters given the student body size?

[French Rage]

Why is a UC 5 years?  Is it because it is difficult to schedule the right classes in 8 semesters given the student body size?

[Mick]

Why is a UC 5 years?  Is it because it is difficult to schedule the right classes in 8 semesters given the student body size?

My two sons toured UCB and UCLA as high school juniors in 2009 and 2013.  During the 2009 tour (prior to the 2009 admissions date), the Berzerkley tour guide told the kids to plan on five years, but that four years was certainly doable.  Five months later, at the start of his senior year, I was talking to one of the counselors at his high school who told me that the counselors had to tell 80 families (out of a graduating class of 330, almost all of whom went to four year schools) that they weren't going to get into the UC that had been considered likely for them.  Their annual average up to that point was disappointing between three and six families, and twelve was the prior record.

Eighty students were told that they weren't getting into their target UCs, and forget about reach UCs.  The bar raised that much in a year.  UC Santa Cruz's acceptance rate went from the mid 80s to the low 60s in a year.  Part of that may have been because of the dismal economy and shrinking college funds.

My son had six close friends who went to Berzerkley in 2010.  Two of the six graduated in 2014.  One of them told my older son that it meant having to do a lot of things he'd prefer not to do, and included two summer sessions, scheduling classes he didn't want to take, scheduling classes at times he didn't want to take and in at least two instances pestering professors until they allowed him into the class.

By the 2013 Berzerkley tour, my younger son was told to count on five years minimum for most majors, and not to be surprised if it was six years.  Not coincidentally, the smaller private colleges were selling the fact that the net cost of four years in private schools was equal to or less than five years at public schools, once you included private school discounts (available for the asking at many schools) and factored in an additional year of working outside of school.  One of my younger sons attended a well known nondenominational Northern California private university for $17k annually, all in.

[Mick]

Why is a UC 5 years?  Is it because it is difficult to schedule the right classes in 8 semesters given the student body size?

My two sons toured UCB and UCLA as high school juniors in 2009 and 2013.  During the 2009 tour (prior to the 2009 admissions date), the Berzerkley tour guide told the kids to plan on five years, but that four years was certainly doable.  Five months later, at the start of his senior year, I was talking to one of the counselors at his high school who told me that the counselors had to tell 80 families (out of a graduating class of 330, almost all of whom went to four year schools) that they weren't going to get into the UC that had been considered likely for them.  Their annual average up to that point was disappointing between three and six families, and twelve was the prior record.

Eighty students were told that they weren't getting into their target UCs, and forget about reach UCs.  The bar raised that much in a year.  UC Santa Cruz's acceptance rate went from the mid 80s to the low 60s in a year.  Part of that may have been because of the dismal economy and shrinking college funds.

My son had six close friends who went to Berzerkley in 2010.  Two of the six graduated in 2014.  One of them told my older son that it meant having to do a lot of things he'd prefer not to do, and included two summer sessions, scheduling classes he didn't want to take, scheduling classes at times he didn't want to take and in at least two instances pestering professors until they allowed him into the class.

By the 2013 Berzerkley tour, my younger son was told to count on five years minimum for most majors, and not to be surprised if it was six years.  Not coincidentally, the smaller private colleges were selling the fact that the net cost of four years in private schools was equal to or less than five years at public schools, once you included private school discounts (available for the asking at many schools) and factored in an additional year of working outside of school.  One of my younger sons attended a well known nondenominational Northern California private university for $17k annually, all in.