40 Colleges & Universities Receive 5 Star Academic Rating

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is Northeastern????

Northeastern rated an impressive 4.5 stars (academic rating).

That’s equal to Berkeley and Michigan. That’s why this rating is a joke.

- SAT middle 50
Berkeley: 1290-1530
Michigan: 1360-1530
Northeastern: 1430-1550

- Acceptance rate
Berkeley: 11%
Michigan: much higher
Northeastern: Lower than Both

- Salary https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/
(received federal student aid and began college at this institution 10 years ago)
Berkeley:$80K
Michigan: $76K
Northeastern: $80K

Looks like peer schools to me.
Either Berkeley/Michigan are overrated/overranked or Northeastern is underrated/underranked.

Regarding the SAT scores, are they for the same year? What percentage of students enrolling in the fall submitted? What percentage of students are actually entering in the spring and don't have their SAT scores, if submitted, counted? Northeastern has a low percentage submitting scores now and also has a sizeable Spring start population which typically has lower stats.

Northeastern had similar scores for the past several years before the pandemic when scores were mandatory.
I know Berkeley and Michigan accept shit ton of students from community colleges and other places in Spring and Fall

In fact the the Spring accepted applicants are evaluated the same way at the same time, and their stats are not significantly lower at all.

Link to proof?

Check out the Northeastern Result forums including ones here.

Any proof beyond anecdotes?

It makes very logical sense.
They got close to 100K applications.
They accept some ED1, some ED2, some EA, some RD, and some in the guaranteed transfer(NUIn/Bound).
Their stats don't vary too much at all.
Some of the guaranteed transfer kids via RD have relatively higher stats than the ED applicants.
Obviously ED kids get significant advantage so they get by with lower stats.

Compare this to the quality of the transfer applicants without stats to Berkeley/Michigan.
You can easily imagine.

If you have a claim contrary to the logical sense, show me a proof.

That's not proof of anything.

Do you have a proof that stats for the transfer students to Berkeley/Michigan are higher than transfer students to Northeastern??
Logical sense tells me it's exactly the opposite, but go with the official records by the rules

- SAT middle 50
Berkeley: 1290-1530
Michigan: 1360-1530
Northeastern: 1430-1550

What are the the exact SAT scores for the students that Northeastern sends abroad to return as "transfers"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The book notes 5 star UCLA's strongest programs as:

Computer Science, Engineering, English, Fine Arts, Mathematics, Performing Arts, Political Science, and Psychology.

UCLA seems like an interesting community.

Overall, this college guidebook loves the UC system with 4 UCs receiving the second highest academic rating (4.5 stars) and one (UCLA) receiving a full 5 star rating for academics.

Many seem to underestimate the quality of the University of Virginia. Univ. of Virginia is an outstanding university.

When I wrote the first two posts in this thread, I thought that there would be strong reaction to rating the academics of UC-Berkeley the same as for Boston University and the Univ. of Florida, and Boston College.

To really stir things up, I will list the SLACs that earned a 4.5 star academic rating (same as UC-Berkeley) :

Smith College, Wesleyan University, Bucknell University, Bates College, Univ. of Richmond, Scripps College, Colgate University, Colby College, Colorado College, College of the Holy Cross, Lafayette College, Union College, Vassar College, & Grinnell College.

Th three authors of the book all have earned doctorates--two PhDs and an EdD.

The thing is, a bachelor's degree is just not a big deal. Nearly any school has adequate resources to teach bachelors level material. If a student can find engaged faculty and peers and access to the programs that they are interested in, they can do great from anywhere. While I would never advise a kid to choose BU or UVA over Cal for a PhD program in most sciences, they can absolutely get just as good of an undergraduate education at any of these schools, and many, many others.

Regarding the assertion that "a bachelor's degree is just not a big deal", my response is that it can be depending upon the particular school and upon the particular major.

There are certain majors and certain schools which are "a big deal" at the undergraduate level.

My position is that if accepted to any of these schools, one should do everything within reason to attend:

Princeton, MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Yale, CalTech, Carnegie Mellon University, Harvey Mudd College, USMA at West Point, USNA at Annapolis, & the USAFA at Colorado Springs.

With respect to Selective Liberal Arts Colleges (SLACs):

If accepted to Amherst, Williams, Harvey Mudd, Claremont McKenna, any of the three main service academies, one should do everything within reason to attend assuming that the students accepted to Williams and/or Amherst are not also accepted to any of Harvard, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Chicago, Duke, UPenn--especially the Wharton School of Business, or to any other top 25 National University including Georgetown and Virginia.

For some students, sure. For others, I would advise almost exactly the opposite. It comes down to matching the individual student to the environment that best fits their needs, imo.

I know some that thrive in large, anonymous environments. Or who want to go to a large school for a particular major (eg, engineering or a specialized business program.) Or who have no intention of being a top student in college and want to coast a bit more than some on reputation and “networking.” (No judgement!)

I know others who prefer small classes, or having long conversations with professors after class, or who want a small residential community where everyone lives on campus but without the fraternities/sororities of larger private schools.

There’s outcome data supporting top LACs (like grad school placement and even long term satisfaction in the form of alumni giving or reunion attendance) and there’s data supporting top universities (salary, particularly early, though the availability of engineering in universities might skew that some.)

It’s not one size fits all, and perhaps that’s a good thing.

I started this thread.

I agree with the above post except for one distinction:

A 2014 study done at Vanderbilt University broke down schools into 4 categories. I recall the top 3 categories as "Private National Universities", "Liberal Arts Colleges", and "Public National Universities".

The 2014 Vanderbilt study revealed that a higher percentage of students at major Private National Universities attend graduate school, next was SLACs, then major Public National Universities.

https://archive.ph/s0K2w Why You Can't Catch Up by Nancy Hass Aug. 1, 2014 citing a study done by Vanderbilt University economics and law professor Joni Hersch

Thanks for the interesting link.

I searched for the full paper and found this from 2019 (same author and title, just longer and more current):

https://deliverypdf.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=240069002121076005084000120114078075017073054032033092074008012074008126004024065069126000025041062008124018121065118085113126007080012013002115081114029027120003058038123017087018076029001030098119121069117102102095072104108126120024098108003098&EXT=pdf&INDEX=TRUE

If you look through the schools used for the groupings, you can find 40 in their tier 1 private research universities (r1 and r2) and 159 in the liberal arts college category! The 159 set is not what I meant by “top LACs.” Basically, they authors are comparing a group of universities that have already gone though a vetting to achieve r1 and r2 status to pretty much any school that wants to consider itself an LAC. Needless to say, this pulls down the LAC averages.

It’s hard to find reliable and consistently updated data for grad school placement, but I think the NSF comes closest with its PhD baccalaureate origins tables. Swarthmore does a nice service for the entire higher ed community summarizing it each year. I will post the link below. Note 20 of the top 30 for the all PhDs category are LACs (adjusted for school size of course.)

https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/institutional-research/Doct%20Rates%20Top%20100%20Tot%20Sci%20Rankings%20-Summary%20to%202020.pdf

The obvious limitation here is not everyone is interested in a PhD. But it’s a good starting point for comparing grad school placement. Anecdotally, there seems to be fair correlation between most of the schools on this list with professional grad program placement. Which shouldn’t be surprising as PhD programs are among the most selective, in part cause they are generally funded… But of course everyone should check the schools their kids are interested in for themselves!

The Swarthmore study is interesting and presented well. However, because the study is adjusted for school size, it presents only a partial portrait. While you correctly note that, when adjusted for school size, 20 of the top 30 PhD producing schools are small schools, it distorts the reality that the overwhelming number of PhD holders come from National Universities, not LACs or other small schools. And, as you noted, not everyone is interested in earning a PhD.

Nevertheless, the Swarthmore list does show that bright, hardworking, dedicated students can be found at a variety of institutions regardless of size of enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is Northeastern????

Northeastern rated an impressive 4.5 stars (academic rating).

That’s equal to Berkeley and Michigan. That’s why this rating is a joke.

- SAT middle 50
Berkeley: 1290-1530
Michigan: 1360-1530
Northeastern: 1430-1550

- Acceptance rate
Berkeley: 11%
Michigan: much higher
Northeastern: Lower than Both

- Salary https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/
(received federal student aid and began college at this institution 10 years ago)
Berkeley:$80K
Michigan: $76K
Northeastern: $80K

Looks like peer schools to me.
Either Berkeley/Michigan are overrated/overranked or Northeastern is underrated/underranked.

Regarding the SAT scores, are they for the same year? What percentage of students enrolling in the fall submitted? What percentage of students are actually entering in the spring and don't have their SAT scores, if submitted, counted? Northeastern has a low percentage submitting scores now and also has a sizeable Spring start population which typically has lower stats.

Northeastern had similar scores for the past several years before the pandemic when scores were mandatory.
I know Berkeley and Michigan accept shit ton of students from community colleges and other places in Spring and Fall

In fact the the Spring accepted applicants are evaluated the same way at the same time, and their stats are not significantly lower at all.

Link to proof?

Check out the Northeastern Result forums including ones here.

Any proof beyond anecdotes?

It makes very logical sense.
They got close to 100K applications.
They accept some ED1, some ED2, some EA, some RD, and some in the guaranteed transfer(NUIn/Bound).
Their stats don't vary too much at all.
Some of the guaranteed transfer kids via RD have relatively higher stats than the ED applicants.
Obviously ED kids get significant advantage so they get by with lower stats.

Compare this to the quality of the transfer applicants without stats to Berkeley/Michigan.
You can easily imagine.

If you have a claim contrary to the logical sense, show me a proof.

That's not proof of anything.

Do you have a proof that stats for the transfer students to Berkeley/Michigan are higher than transfer students to Northeastern??
Logical sense tells me it's exactly the opposite, but go with the official records by the rules

- SAT middle 50
Berkeley: 1290-1530
Michigan: 1360-1530
Northeastern: 1430-1550

What are the the exact SAT scores for the students that Northeastern sends abroad to return as "transfers"?

Google and let me know for all the schools have transfer programs.
This is not even unique to Northeastern. Many schools have similar transfer programs.

https://safe.menlosecurity.com/doc/docview/viewer/docN9AE7CB1278BF34b290ced102da2937215710cc6e24e7df5f0a9f199d08378d310453043d5799
"Every year almost a third of newly enrolled undergraduates at UC Berkeley are transfer students. Over 90% of these students matriculate from California community colleges and enter the university as juniors."

So every year UCB has almost 1/3 of students coming in from community colleges without stats
It's almost suicidal to bring up stats for transfer students lol

Northeastern has very good reasons for the transfer program when big chunks of students coming in and out every semester for it's coop program.
The guaranteed transfer students come in after competing exactly same way as other students. If the stats are lesser, only slightly less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is Northeastern????

Northeastern rated an impressive 4.5 stars (academic rating).

That’s equal to Berkeley and Michigan. That’s why this rating is a joke.

- SAT middle 50
Berkeley: 1290-1530
Michigan: 1360-1530
Northeastern: 1430-1550

- Acceptance rate
Berkeley: 11%
Michigan: much higher
Northeastern: Lower than Both

- Salary https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/
(received federal student aid and began college at this institution 10 years ago)
Berkeley:$80K
Michigan: $76K
Northeastern: $80K

Looks like peer schools to me.
Either Berkeley/Michigan are overrated/overranked or Northeastern is underrated/underranked.

Regarding the SAT scores, are they for the same year? What percentage of students enrolling in the fall submitted? What percentage of students are actually entering in the spring and don't have their SAT scores, if submitted, counted? Northeastern has a low percentage submitting scores now and also has a sizeable Spring start population which typically has lower stats.

Northeastern had similar scores for the past several years before the pandemic when scores were mandatory.
I know Berkeley and Michigan accept shit ton of students from community colleges and other places in Spring and Fall

In fact the the Spring accepted applicants are evaluated the same way at the same time, and their stats are not significantly lower at all.

Link to proof?

Check out the Northeastern Result forums including ones here.

Any proof beyond anecdotes?

It makes very logical sense.
They got close to 100K applications.
They accept some ED1, some ED2, some EA, some RD, and some in the guaranteed transfer(NUIn/Bound).
Their stats don't vary too much at all.
Some of the guaranteed transfer kids via RD have relatively higher stats than the ED applicants.
Obviously ED kids get significant advantage so they get by with lower stats.

Compare this to the quality of the transfer applicants without stats to Berkeley/Michigan.
You can easily imagine.

If you have a claim contrary to the logical sense, show me a proof.

That's not proof of anything.

Do you have a proof that stats for the transfer students to Berkeley/Michigan are higher than transfer students to Northeastern??
Logical sense tells me it's exactly the opposite, but go with the official records by the rules

- SAT middle 50
Berkeley: 1290-1530
Michigan: 1360-1530
Northeastern: 1430-1550

What are the the exact SAT scores for the students that Northeastern sends abroad to return as "transfers"?

Google and let me know for all the schools have transfer programs.
This is not even unique to Northeastern. Many schools have similar transfer programs.

https://safe.menlosecurity.com/doc/docview/viewer/docN9AE7CB1278BF34b290ced102da2937215710cc6e24e7df5f0a9f199d08378d310453043d5799
"Every year almost a third of newly enrolled undergraduates at UC Berkeley are transfer students. Over 90% of these students matriculate from California community colleges and enter the university as juniors."

So every year UCB has almost 1/3 of students coming in from community colleges without stats
It's almost suicidal to bring up stats for transfer students lol

Northeastern has very good reasons for the transfer program when big chunks of students coming in and out every semester for it's coop program.
The guaranteed transfer students come in after competing exactly same way as other students. If the stats are lesser, only slightly less.

Deflection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is weak in STEM. So much for academic ratings. Another BS ranking.

Rankings are BS. No doubt about that. But why do DCUM people say UVA is weak in STEM? I’m not saying it is strong, I just don’t know. The same way I dint know about 99% of colleges.

Because they are ignorant. Or their kid didn't get in and it's sour grapes. Or they are old and haven't kept up. Or they are UVA's rivals, Virginia Tech students and love posting stuff like this.

Perhaps a school with a top 25 ranking should have at least a few STEM offerings rated in the top 25.

Not only is it in top 25 for our nation's universities, it is no. 3 for all publics. It's also the greatest producer of Rhodes Scholars amongst the public and no. 8 right after the Ivies. It also has a lot of STEM programs in the top 50 (of 4,000 instiuttions in the u.S I think that's pretty impressive). And it sent my engineering kid to Princeton for a PhD in Electrical Engineering. As to why UVA developed this way, it's because the Commonwealth also has Virginia Tech, duh. Also, as others have pointed out, you don't need a wind tunnel for undergrad aerospace engineering work. My DD is in the UVA aerospace engineering program now. Being taught by a woman astronaut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is weak in STEM. So much for academic ratings. Another BS ranking.

And, out comes the UVA troll…

Uva is really good at the easy subjects. Sucks at the rigorous stuff.

Odd. Berkeley has only 18 Rhodes Scholars. UVA has 56.

How many from Cal applied vs UVA? If not a lot apply then it stands to reason why there are only 18.

Uh, Cal is a LOT bigger than UVA. And you apparently don't know how Rhodes seleciton works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe anyone is trying to compare UCB to UVA in academics. UCB is easily a top ten university worldwide. UVA isn’t even top 100.

Berkeley top 10 worldwide for grad study overall? Sure. Maybe even top 5. But for undergrad? Not sure Berkeley is even top 5 in California. Would depend on the student.

I have huge respect for Berkeley and its students. Especially any STEM major who got out in 4 years without changing to something else. The biggest problem is all the extra obstacles involved in doing that.

(Not defending the ranking putting any other public uni higher for undergrad, which makes no sense to me. Just responding to the top 10 worldwide comment.)

THis. It takes five or six years because you can't get all the classes you need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Northeastern in Boston is massively overrated. And their boosters/grads are the most delusional and obnoxious of any I’ve encountered.

Most delusional is reserved for UVA boosters/grads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where is Northeastern????

Northeastern rated an impressive 4.5 stars (academic rating).

That’s equal to Berkeley and Michigan. That’s why this rating is a joke.

- SAT middle 50
Berkeley: 1290-1530
Michigan: 1360-1530
Northeastern: 1430-1550

- Acceptance rate
Berkeley: 11%
Michigan: much higher
Northeastern: Lower than Both

- Salary https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/
(received federal student aid and began college at this institution 10 years ago)
Berkeley:$80K
Michigan: $76K
Northeastern: $80K

Looks like peer schools to me.
Either Berkeley/Michigan are overrated/overranked or Northeastern is underrated/underranked.

Regarding the SAT scores, are they for the same year? What percentage of students enrolling in the fall submitted? What percentage of students are actually entering in the spring and don't have their SAT scores, if submitted, counted? Northeastern has a low percentage submitting scores now and also has a sizeable Spring start population which typically has lower stats.

Northeastern had similar scores for the past several years before the pandemic when scores were mandatory.
I know Berkeley and Michigan accept shit ton of students from community colleges and other places in Spring and Fall

In fact the the Spring accepted applicants are evaluated the same way at the same time, and their stats are not significantly lower at all.

Link to proof?

Check out the Northeastern Result forums including ones here.

Any proof beyond anecdotes?

It makes very logical sense.
They got close to 100K applications.
They accept some ED1, some ED2, some EA, some RD, and some in the guaranteed transfer(NUIn/Bound).
Their stats don't vary too much at all.
Some of the guaranteed transfer kids via RD have relatively higher stats than the ED applicants.
Obviously ED kids get significant advantage so they get by with lower stats.

Compare this to the quality of the transfer applicants without stats to Berkeley/Michigan.
You can easily imagine.

If you have a claim contrary to the logical sense, show me a proof.

That's not proof of anything.

Do you have a proof that stats for the transfer students to Berkeley/Michigan are higher than transfer students to Northeastern??
Logical sense tells me it's exactly the opposite, but go with the official records by the rules

- SAT middle 50
Berkeley: 1290-1530
Michigan: 1360-1530
Northeastern: 1430-1550

What are the the exact SAT scores for the students that Northeastern sends abroad to return as "transfers"?

Google and let me know for all the schools have transfer programs.
This is not even unique to Northeastern. Many schools have similar transfer programs.

https://safe.menlosecurity.com/doc/docview/viewer/docN9AE7CB1278BF34b290ced102da2937215710cc6e24e7df5f0a9f199d08378d310453043d5799
"Every year almost a third of newly enrolled undergraduates at UC Berkeley are transfer students. Over 90% of these students matriculate from California community colleges and enter the university as juniors."

So every year UCB has almost 1/3 of students coming in from community colleges without stats
It's almost suicidal to bring up stats for transfer students lol

Northeastern has very good reasons for the transfer program when big chunks of students coming in and out every semester for it's coop program.
The guaranteed transfer students come in after competing exactly same way as other students. If the stats are lesser, only slightly less.

Deflection

Seriously LOL
asking about stats for Northeastern guaranteed transfer students when 30% Berkeley students come from community colleges.


Give Berkeley some break, and just go with the official
- SAT middle 50
Berkeley: 1290-1530
Michigan: 1360-1530
Northeastern: 1430-1550

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is weak in STEM. So much for academic ratings. Another BS ranking.

Rankings are BS. No doubt about that. But why do DCUM people say UVA is weak in STEM? I’m not saying it is strong, I just don’t know. The same way I dint know about 99% of colleges.

Because they are ignorant. Or their kid didn't get in and it's sour grapes. Or they are old and haven't kept up. Or they are UVA's rivals, Virginia Tech students and love posting stuff like this.

Perhaps a school with a top 25 ranking should have at least a few STEM offerings rated in the top 25.

Not only is it in top 25 for our nation's universities, it is no. 3 for all publics. It's also the greatest producer of Rhodes Scholars amongst the public and no. 8 right after the Ivies. It also has a lot of STEM programs in the top 50 (of 4,000 instiuttions in the u.S I think that's pretty impressive). And it sent my engineering kid to Princeton for a PhD in Electrical Engineering. As to why UVA developed this way, it's because the Commonwealth also has Virginia Tech, duh. Also, as others have pointed out, you don't need a wind tunnel for undergrad aerospace engineering work. My DD is in the UVA aerospace engineering program now. Being taught by a woman astronaut.

UVA STEM programs are underwhelming to say the least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t believe anyone is trying to compare UCB to UVA in academics. UCB is easily a top ten university worldwide. UVA isn’t even top 100.

Berkeley top 10 worldwide for grad study overall? Sure. Maybe even top 5. But for undergrad? Not sure Berkeley is even top 5 in California. Would depend on the student.

I have huge respect for Berkeley and its students. Especially any STEM major who got out in 4 years without changing to something else. The biggest problem is all the extra obstacles involved in doing that.

(Not defending the ranking putting any other public uni higher for undergrad, which makes no sense to me. Just responding to the top 10 worldwide comment.)

THis. It takes five or six years because you can't get all the classes you need.

My kid graduated from Berkeley in 3 years with a degree in CS without any summer classes and without changing major thanks to AP credits. Don't believe rumors.

[Anonymous]

If it’s not already clear, it’s not worth your time communicating with the UVA troll. They post regularly in this forum and especially on ranking threads. Clearly, they have an emotional hang up with the school that no one on here is going to cure. Glad he’s not an alum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is weak in STEM. So much for academic ratings. Another BS ranking.

And, out comes the UVA troll…

Uva is really good at the easy subjects. Sucks at the rigorous stuff.

Odd. Berkeley has only 18 Rhodes Scholars. UVA has 56.

Odd. Berkeley has only 18 Rhodes Scholars. UVA has 56.

Odd. Berkeley has 107 Nobel Laureates. UVA has 9.

You tell me which is more impressive? After all we are discussing academic ratings here.

Has UVA had any Nobel Laureates who graduated from the school or were associated as an academic when they won the award or when they were doing their award winning work? I think the answer is no.

(W. Wilson was only at UVA in law school for a semester.)



Completely irrelevant fact for undergrad admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is weak in STEM. So much for academic ratings. Another BS ranking.

That's not true. It's far more selective with STEM admits than the college.

But that doesn't necessarily mean the programs are strong.

UVA is no 37 in Engineering in the US per USNWR. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-engineering-schools/eng-rankings

[Anonymous]

If people want to argue about rankings, why don’t they argue about a ranking’s methodology or one school’s stats on an included variable vs. another school’s? Instead, most arguments go AWOL pretty quickly. Typically, a poster gets p*ssed about their school’s ranking or that of another one they don’t like. Then they bring in variables that aren’t included in the ranking methodology, like the number of Nobel laureates. Why don’t these people pause to consider why the methodology is the way it is and argue about that? Quit throwing tantrums and act educated.