Duke or penn

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke has no business being in the top 10, just look at their individual academic programs and make up your own mind.

+1

Which ones? Most of the subject ratings are graduate program ratings, not undergraduate.

Duke has top 10 outcomes for undergraduates.

+1 their mainstay is their undergrad program which is why it's a great place for college. They're also surrounded by many top 10 graduate programs which doesn't hurt either.

Graduate school rankings are generally the best measure of academics for a department. If a school does not rank well in a subject for graduate school, well that reflects on the quality of faculty and graduate students teaching undergraduate courses. The graduate school rankings are directly linked to the undergraduate programs.

It's great to have professors doing research (which is essentially what grad school rankings are all about) but for undergrads a much more relevant measure would be quality of undergrad teaching. You could have brilliant researcher not put much effort into teaching undergrads, which doesn't strengthen the undergrads at all.

That's why a school like Dartmouth is so strong for undergrad even though none of its graduate programs are really esteemed. They still educate the best of the best

The MBA program was just ranked 6th in the recent US News listing. And is top 10 on most lists. There are really only 2 other grad programs - Engineering and Medicine. All 3 are small.

Duke’s MBA is ranked #11 on USNWR. The graduate programs at Duke in business and medicine do not have departments that offer undergraduate degrees so are not relevant to undergraduate academics.

[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:Duke has no business being in the top 10, just look at their individual academic programs and make up your own mind.

+1

Which ones? Most of the subject ratings are graduate program ratings, not undergraduate.

Duke has top 10 outcomes for undergraduates.

+1 their mainstay is their undergrad program which is why it's a great place for college. They're also surrounded by many top 10 graduate programs which doesn't hurt either.

Graduate school rankings are generally the best measure of academics for a department. If a school does not rank well in a subject for graduate school, well that reflects on the quality of faculty and graduate students teaching undergraduate courses. The graduate school rankings are directly linked to the undergraduate programs.

It's great to have professors doing research (which is essentially what grad school rankings are all about) but for undergrads a much more relevant measure would be quality of undergrad teaching. You could have brilliant researcher not put much effort into teaching undergrads, which doesn't strengthen the undergrads at all.

This argument just doesn't hold. The idea that brilliant researchers are at odds with undergraduate teaching just isn't true. If you want to master a subject, it is better to learn from the top minds in your field. Every department measures undergraduate teaching and provides faculty feedback. The top departments have more faculty and graduate students that offer subject matter expertise and resources to provide better undergraduate courses.

What are at odds are focus and time. At a high level, a faculty member can devote time to 1) Research 2) Graduate Student Education 3) Undergraduate Education. The schools that are more research and graduate driven devote more time obviously to 1 and 2 to the detriment of 3. But it is worse than that. Schools have to come up with some part of overall research expenditure from institutional resources (20% or more). Although university finances are typically murky, it is a solid bet that some part of that is (unknowingly) paid for by undergraduates through tuition and fees.

Top faculty with expertise in their field to offer to undergraduate courses also all do research. If you want faculty that do not conduct research, that is more comparable to highly educated high school teachers.

Again, it is focus and time. Look at the extreme, if the faculty do nothing but research, they do not benefit undergraduate education in any meaningful way. Simple as that.

A real world example. Berkeley has great researchers and graduate programs. That is their focus. If you look over at Niche or Princeton Review to capture what undergraduate students say about their professors, the story doesn't look quite as great. They get comparatively low ratings for availability, effort, attention to success, etc.

I would attribute the problems at Berkeley to being a public university.

There are public universities with much better Princeton Review and Niche professor/teaching ratings than Berkeley.

True. Michigan, for example, ranks #16 in undergraduate teaching at USNWR.

Michigan doesn’t have the budget problems that Berkeley has.

I believe Berkeley gets more money per undergraduate in state FTE than Michigan. Berkeley really does not prioritize undergraduates.

[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:Duke has no business being in the top 10, just look at their individual academic programs and make up your own mind.

+1

Which ones? Most of the subject ratings are graduate program ratings, not undergraduate.

Duke has top 10 outcomes for undergraduates.

+1 their mainstay is their undergrad program which is why it's a great place for college. They're also surrounded by many top 10 graduate programs which doesn't hurt either.

Graduate school rankings are generally the best measure of academics for a department. If a school does not rank well in a subject for graduate school, well that reflects on the quality of faculty and graduate students teaching undergraduate courses. The graduate school rankings are directly linked to the undergraduate programs.

It's great to have professors doing research (which is essentially what grad school rankings are all about) but for undergrads a much more relevant measure would be quality of undergrad teaching. You could have brilliant researcher not put much effort into teaching undergrads, which doesn't strengthen the undergrads at all.

This argument just doesn't hold. The idea that brilliant researchers are at odds with undergraduate teaching just isn't true. If you want to master a subject, it is better to learn from the top minds in your field. Every department measures undergraduate teaching and provides faculty feedback. The top departments have more faculty and graduate students that offer subject matter expertise and resources to provide better undergraduate courses.

What are at odds are focus and time. At a high level, a faculty member can devote time to 1) Research 2) Graduate Student Education 3) Undergraduate Education. The schools that are more research and graduate driven devote more time obviously to 1 and 2 to the detriment of 3. But it is worse than that. Schools have to come up with some part of overall research expenditure from institutional resources (20% or more). Although university finances are typically murky, it is a solid bet that some part of that is (unknowingly) paid for by undergraduates through tuition and fees.

Top faculty with expertise in their field to offer to undergraduate courses also all do research. If you want faculty that do not conduct research, that is more comparable to highly educated high school teachers.

Again, it is focus and time. Look at the extreme, if the faculty do nothing but research, they do not benefit undergraduate education in any meaningful way. Simple as that.

A real world example. Berkeley has great researchers and graduate programs. That is their focus. If you look over at Niche or Princeton Review to capture what undergraduate students say about their professors, the story doesn't look quite as great. They get comparatively low ratings for availability, effort, attention to success, etc.

I would attribute the problems at Berkeley to being a public university.

There are public universities with much better Princeton Review and Niche professor/teaching ratings than Berkeley.

True. Michigan, for example, ranks #16 in undergraduate teaching at USNWR.

Michigan doesn’t have the budget problems that Berkeley has.

I believe Berkeley gets more money per undergraduate in state FTE than Michigan. Berkeley really does not prioritize undergraduates.

Berkeley gets more money per undergraduate from the state of California than Stanford, which of course gets nothing. Why does that even matter? If a school is underfunded, the undergrads end up getting the short end of the stick.

[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:Duke has no business being in the top 10, just look at their individual academic programs and make up your own mind.

+1

Which ones? Most of the subject ratings are graduate program ratings, not undergraduate.

Duke has top 10 outcomes for undergraduates.

+1 their mainstay is their undergrad program which is why it's a great place for college. They're also surrounded by many top 10 graduate programs which doesn't hurt either.

Graduate school rankings are generally the best measure of academics for a department. If a school does not rank well in a subject for graduate school, well that reflects on the quality of faculty and graduate students teaching undergraduate courses. The graduate school rankings are directly linked to the undergraduate programs.

It's great to have professors doing research (which is essentially what grad school rankings are all about) but for undergrads a much more relevant measure would be quality of undergrad teaching. You could have brilliant researcher not put much effort into teaching undergrads, which doesn't strengthen the undergrads at all.

This argument just doesn't hold. The idea that brilliant researchers are at odds with undergraduate teaching just isn't true. If you want to master a subject, it is better to learn from the top minds in your field. Every department measures undergraduate teaching and provides faculty feedback. The top departments have more faculty and graduate students that offer subject matter expertise and resources to provide better undergraduate courses.

What are at odds are focus and time. At a high level, a faculty member can devote time to 1) Research 2) Graduate Student Education 3) Undergraduate Education. The schools that are more research and graduate driven devote more time obviously to 1 and 2 to the detriment of 3. But it is worse than that. Schools have to come up with some part of overall research expenditure from institutional resources (20% or more). Although university finances are typically murky, it is a solid bet that some part of that is (unknowingly) paid for by undergraduates through tuition and fees.

Top faculty with expertise in their field to offer to undergraduate courses also all do research. If you want faculty that do not conduct research, that is more comparable to highly educated high school teachers.

Again, it is focus and time. Look at the extreme, if the faculty do nothing but research, they do not benefit undergraduate education in any meaningful way. Simple as that.

A real world example. Berkeley has great researchers and graduate programs. That is their focus. If you look over at Niche or Princeton Review to capture what undergraduate students say about their professors, the story doesn't look quite as great. They get comparatively low ratings for availability, effort, attention to success, etc.

I would attribute the problems at Berkeley to being a public university.

There are public universities with much better Princeton Review and Niche professor/teaching ratings than Berkeley.

True. Michigan, for example, ranks #16 in undergraduate teaching at USNWR.

Michigan doesn’t have the budget problems that Berkeley has.

I believe Berkeley gets more money per undergraduate in state FTE than Michigan. Berkeley really does not prioritize undergraduates.

Berkeley gets more money per undergraduate from the state of California than Stanford, which of course gets nothing. Why does that even matter? If a school is underfunded, the undergrads end up getting the short end of the stick.

Non sequitur

[Anonymous]

Since he is more inclined to Duke, he should apply to Duke

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke has no business being in the top 10, just look at their individual academic programs and make up your own mind.

+1

Which ones? Most of the subject ratings are graduate program ratings, not undergraduate.

Duke has top 10 outcomes for undergraduates.

+1 their mainstay is their undergrad program which is why it's a great place for college. They're also surrounded by many top 10 graduate programs which doesn't hurt either.

Graduate school rankings are generally the best measure of academics for a department. If a school does not rank well in a subject for graduate school, well that reflects on the quality of faculty and graduate students teaching undergraduate courses. The graduate school rankings are directly linked to the undergraduate programs.

It's great to have professors doing research (which is essentially what grad school rankings are all about) but for undergrads a much more relevant measure would be quality of undergrad teaching. You could have brilliant researcher not put much effort into teaching undergrads, which doesn't strengthen the undergrads at all.

This argument just doesn't hold. The idea that brilliant researchers are at odds with undergraduate teaching just isn't true. If you want to master a subject, it is better to learn from the top minds in your field. Every department measures undergraduate teaching and provides faculty feedback. The top departments have more faculty and graduate students that offer subject matter expertise and resources to provide better undergraduate courses.

What are at odds are focus and time. At a high level, a faculty member can devote time to 1) Research 2) Graduate Student Education 3) Undergraduate Education. The schools that are more research and graduate driven devote more time obviously to 1 and 2 to the detriment of 3. But it is worse than that. Schools have to come up with some part of overall research expenditure from institutional resources (20% or more). Although university finances are typically murky, it is a solid bet that some part of that is (unknowingly) paid for by undergraduates through tuition and fees.

Top faculty with expertise in their field to offer to undergraduate courses also all do research. If you want faculty that do not conduct research, that is more comparable to highly educated high school teachers.

Agree 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke has no business being in the top 10, just look at their individual academic programs and make up your own mind.

+1

Which ones? Most of the subject ratings are graduate program ratings, not undergraduate.

Duke has top 10 outcomes for undergraduates.

+1 their mainstay is their undergrad program which is why it's a great place for college. They're also surrounded by many top 10 graduate programs which doesn't hurt either.

Graduate school rankings are generally the best measure of academics for a department. If a school does not rank well in a subject for graduate school, well that reflects on the quality of faculty and graduate students teaching undergraduate courses. The graduate school rankings are directly linked to the undergraduate programs.

It's great to have professors doing research (which is essentially what grad school rankings are all about) but for undergrads a much more relevant measure would be quality of undergrad teaching. You could have brilliant researcher not put much effort into teaching undergrads, which doesn't strengthen the undergrads at all.

This argument just doesn't hold. The idea that brilliant researchers are at odds with undergraduate teaching just isn't true. If you want to master a subject, it is better to learn from the top minds in your field. Every department measures undergraduate teaching and provides faculty feedback. The top departments have more faculty and graduate students that offer subject matter expertise and resources to provide better undergraduate courses.

What are at odds are focus and time. At a high level, a faculty member can devote time to 1) Research 2) Graduate Student Education 3) Undergraduate Education. The schools that are more research and graduate driven devote more time obviously to 1 and 2 to the detriment of 3. But it is worse than that. Schools have to come up with some part of overall research expenditure from institutional resources (20% or more). Although university finances are typically murky, it is a solid bet that some part of that is (unknowingly) paid for by undergraduates through tuition and fees.

Top faculty with expertise in their field to offer to undergraduate courses also all do research. If you want faculty that do not conduct research, that is more comparable to highly educated high school teachers.

Top researchers are great but there’s a term for professors focused on teaching: “professors of practice.” I think schools with a good balance of both are great for undergrads. I believe schools like duke and Dartmouth have a good balance of those.

[Anonymous]

I think Duke has a great balance between a research focus and an undergraduate focus. However, this doesn’t mean that their research is “subpar” in any way, and they consistently rank in the top schools for research funding. And yes while I do realize a lot of this funding goes to graduate schools like the med school, I still think it shows a helpful data point.

For 2022, the top private schools for R&D expenditures were:
Johns Hopkins-3.181
UPenn-1.631
Stanford-1.274
Harvard-1.254
Duke-1.237
Cornell-1.183
Yale-1.165

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think Duke has a great balance between a research focus and an undergraduate focus. However, this doesn’t mean that their research is “subpar” in any way, and they consistently rank in the top schools for research funding. And yes while I do realize a lot of this funding goes to graduate schools like the med school, I still think it shows a helpful data point.

For 2022, the top private schools for R&D expenditures were:
Johns Hopkins-3.181
UPenn-1.631
Stanford-1.274
Harvard-1.254
Duke-1.237
Cornell-1.183
Yale-1.165

https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd

Those research expenditures are overwhelmingly in the medical school by faculty who have zero interaction with undergrads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which one should my child ED to? He loves both but more inclined to duke. Econ major . Where does Ed maximize your chance?

Take a look at the most recent college destination list from your kid's high school. If you are from the DMV, you will undoubtedly see that admissions to Penn and Duke for otherwise unhooked kids have been brutal recently. There are so many very bright, very hardworking, very motivated kids in the Mid-Atlantic who want to go to either Duke or Penn. Stanford is probably an easier admit from this area. It's tough out there. I would look at your school's data set and use that ED card very strategically.