Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a great conference. No schools in it that aren't at least really solid. For overall academic quality, I'd tier it out like this:

Tier 1: NU, UCLA, UMich
Tier 2: Wisconsin, Washington, USC
Tier 3: Illinois, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Minnesota, Rutgers
Tier 4: IU, Michigan State
Tier 5: Iowa, Oregon, Nebraska

Obviously, there's a lot of variability across programs. The schools I put in Tier 3, for example, all have specific programs that clearly are first-tier.

Good list. But you need to break out the Tier 1. NU is way above UCLA and UMIch. It's in a category by itself for academics when compared to BIG10 schools

It's not. Some of its programs are great, others are merely very good--just like UCLA and Michigan.

Nope, vast majority of NU programs are better. It's a T10 school. UCLA and Michigan are not T10 material. It's also a 6-7K undergrad and private school. So obviously different than a massive state school in what it can offer.

If you're not just bloviating, identify the specific NU programs that are stronger than their UCLA and Michigan counterparts. I'll spot you journalism, but what else do you have? Seriously, I'll wait. NU's strengths around radio/film/TV/theatre fall short of UCLA's. Its engineering can't touch Michigan's. Across the pure academic departments, NU's faculty is no stronger than either UCLA's or Michigan's. Some kids benefit more from a smaller environment, for sure, but that's a question of fit, not of quality.

That person is definitely bloviating. Like most people on this thread who truly believe in some form ranking exactitude (e.g., "NU is way above UCLA and UMIch"), their opinion is likely based on less than 5 seconds of actual consideration. And that consideration is mostly a subconsciously sloppy mixture of historical USNWR rankings, idiosyncratic experience, and a bias in favor of private schools over public schools.

BS I look at more than just "USNWR" which is just "opinions for Undergrad major specific rankings"---at least for CS/Engineering that is just the opinions of other Deans around the country. So it's biased against larger universities (outside of CalTech/mit) And who knows the "negotiations " that go on between schools---so it's not a true ranking of facts.

Okay. What else do you look at? I wanna hear about these "facts" that you're ranking. Personally, I rank actual facts above Sean Spicer's alternative facts, but I'm willing to listen to other perspectives.

BTW, CalTech only has about 1,000 undergrads, so that might not be the best example of a large university.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a great conference. No schools in it that aren't at least really solid. For overall academic quality, I'd tier it out like this:

Tier 1: NU, UCLA, UMich
Tier 2: Wisconsin, Washington, USC
Tier 3: Illinois, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Minnesota, Rutgers
Tier 4: IU, Michigan State
Tier 5: Iowa, Oregon, Nebraska

Obviously, there's a lot of variability across programs. The schools I put in Tier 3, for example, all have specific programs that clearly are first-tier.

Good list. But you need to break out the Tier 1. NU is way above UCLA and UMIch. It's in a category by itself for academics when compared to BIG10 schools

It's not. Some of its programs are great, others are merely very good--just like UCLA and Michigan.

Nope, vast majority of NU programs are better. It's a T10 school. UCLA and Michigan are not T10 material. It's also a 6-7K undergrad and private school. So obviously different than a massive state school in what it can offer.

If you're not just bloviating, identify the specific NU programs that are stronger than their UCLA and Michigan counterparts. I'll spot you journalism, but what else do you have? Seriously, I'll wait. NU's strengths around radio/film/TV/theatre fall short of UCLA's. Its engineering can't touch Michigan's. Across the pure academic departments, NU's faculty is no stronger than either UCLA's or Michigan's. Some kids benefit more from a smaller environment, for sure, but that's a question of fit, not of quality.

journalism, Music, Theater to name a few

Classes are smaller for almost everything else at NU (outside of freshman Chem which has always been large) More opportunities to do research as an undergrad, largely due to smaller school.

+1.

Chemistry, econ also stronger at NU than either of the two publics.

Meh, econ is a wash across the three and all are good but none are tippy top.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a great conference. No schools in it that aren't at least really solid. For overall academic quality, I'd tier it out like this:

Tier 1: NU, UCLA, UMich
Tier 2: Wisconsin, Washington, USC
Tier 3: Illinois, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Minnesota, Rutgers
Tier 4: IU, Michigan State
Tier 5: Iowa, Oregon, Nebraska

Obviously, there's a lot of variability across programs. The schools I put in Tier 3, for example, all have specific programs that clearly are first-tier.

Good list. But you need to break out the Tier 1. NU is way above UCLA and UMIch. It's in a category by itself for academics when compared to BIG10 schools

It's not. Some of its programs are great, others are merely very good--just like UCLA and Michigan.

Nope, vast majority of NU programs are better. It's a T10 school. UCLA and Michigan are not T10 material. It's also a 6-7K undergrad and private school. So obviously different than a massive state school in what it can offer.

If you're not just bloviating, identify the specific NU programs that are stronger than their UCLA and Michigan counterparts. I'll spot you journalism, but what else do you have? Seriously, I'll wait. NU's strengths around radio/film/TV/theatre fall short of UCLA's. Its engineering can't touch Michigan's. Across the pure academic departments, NU's faculty is no stronger than either UCLA's or Michigan's. Some kids benefit more from a smaller environment, for sure, but that's a question of fit, not of quality.

journalism, Music, Theater to name a few

Classes are smaller for almost everything else at NU (outside of freshman Chem which has always been large) More opportunities to do research as an undergrad, largely due to smaller school.

So SLACs are better than universities, right?

On what basis are you so confident that NU offers more research opportunities? Can you quantify that or are you working off a general assumption? Wouldn't superior research universities with more resources and more faculty have more research opportunities?

I wouldn't say NU is better than UCLA in music. It's probably stronger in classical music, but UCLA is stronger in more contemporary music. UCLA is incredibly strong in the arts across the board.

Look, I'm not saying that any of these schools is better than the other. I am just saying it's silly to say things like "NU is way above UCLA and UMIch."

Music and Theater at NU are great, but they're not better than (or even as good as) at UCLA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP, but the average caliber of undergraduates and the job options available to Northwestern grads is greater than those from UCLA or Michigan. If we're talking about the top 10% of undergrad populations from all three schools, however, they'd be quite equally matched.

Average caliber of undergraduates, maybe. Job options, no.

MBB and IB options, certainly.

No. Every one of those companies recruits at Michigan (and probably UCLA). Michigan is one of the largest Wall Street feeder schools in the country.

You guys just make stuff up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP, but the average caliber of undergraduates and the job options available to Northwestern grads is greater than those from UCLA or Michigan. If we're talking about the top 10% of undergrad populations from all three schools, however, they'd be quite equally matched.

The difference is that the top 60-75% at NU can compete with the Top 10% at UCLA or Michigan

Oh come on. The OOS kids at UCLA and Michigan are all the tippy top kids from their classes, largely valedictorian or close to it, 1500+ SATs, etc. Just stop it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a great conference. No schools in it that aren't at least really solid. For overall academic quality, I'd tier it out like this:

Tier 1: NU, UCLA, UMich
Tier 2: Wisconsin, Washington, USC
Tier 3: Illinois, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Minnesota, Rutgers
Tier 4: IU, Michigan State
Tier 5: Iowa, Oregon, Nebraska

Obviously, there's a lot of variability across programs. The schools I put in Tier 3, for example, all have specific programs that clearly are first-tier.

Good list. But you need to break out the Tier 1. NU is way above UCLA and UMIch. It's in a category by itself for academics when compared to BIG10 schools

It's not. Some of its programs are great, others are merely very good--just like UCLA and Michigan.

Nope, vast majority of NU programs are better. It's a T10 school. UCLA and Michigan are not T10 material. It's also a 6-7K undergrad and private school. So obviously different than a massive state school in what it can offer.

If you're not just bloviating, identify the specific NU programs that are stronger than their UCLA and Michigan counterparts. I'll spot you journalism, but what else do you have? Seriously, I'll wait. NU's strengths around radio/film/TV/theatre fall short of UCLA's. Its engineering can't touch Michigan's. Across the pure academic departments, NU's faculty is no stronger than either UCLA's or Michigan's. Some kids benefit more from a smaller environment, for sure, but that's a question of fit, not of quality.

journalism, Music, Theater to name a few

Classes are smaller for almost everything else at NU (outside of freshman Chem which has always been large) More opportunities to do research as an undergrad, largely due to smaller school.

+1.

Chemistry, econ also stronger at NU than either of the two publics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP, but the average caliber of undergraduates and the job options available to Northwestern grads is greater than those from UCLA or Michigan. If we're talking about the top 10% of undergrad populations from all three schools, however, they'd be quite equally matched.

Average caliber of undergraduates, maybe. Job options, no.

MBB and IB options, certainly.

Anonymous wrote:DP, but the average caliber of undergraduates and the job options available to Northwestern grads is greater than those from UCLA or Michigan. If we're talking about the top 10% of undergrad populations from all three schools, however, they'd be quite equally matched.

The difference is that the top 60-75% at NU can compete with the Top 10% at UCLA or Michigan

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a great conference. No schools in it that aren't at least really solid. For overall academic quality, I'd tier it out like this:

Tier 1: NU, UCLA, UMich
Tier 2: Wisconsin, Washington, USC
Tier 3: Illinois, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Minnesota, Rutgers
Tier 4: IU, Michigan State
Tier 5: Iowa, Oregon, Nebraska

Obviously, there's a lot of variability across programs. The schools I put in Tier 3, for example, all have specific programs that clearly are first-tier.

Good list. But you need to break out the Tier 1. NU is way above UCLA and UMIch. It's in a category by itself for academics when compared to BIG10 schools

It's not. Some of its programs are great, others are merely very good--just like UCLA and Michigan.

Nope, vast majority of NU programs are better. It's a T10 school. UCLA and Michigan are not T10 material. It's also a 6-7K undergrad and private school. So obviously different than a massive state school in what it can offer.

If you're not just bloviating, identify the specific NU programs that are stronger than their UCLA and Michigan counterparts. I'll spot you journalism, but what else do you have? Seriously, I'll wait. NU's strengths around radio/film/TV/theatre fall short of UCLA's. Its engineering can't touch Michigan's. Across the pure academic departments, NU's faculty is no stronger than either UCLA's or Michigan's. Some kids benefit more from a smaller environment, for sure, but that's a question of fit, not of quality.

That person is definitely bloviating. Like most people on this thread who truly believe in some form ranking exactitude (e.g., "NU is way above UCLA and UMIch"), their opinion is likely based on less than 5 seconds of actual consideration. And that consideration is mostly a subconsciously sloppy mixture of historical USNWR rankings, idiosyncratic experience, and a bias in favor of private schools over public schools.

BS I look at more than just "USNWR" which is just "opinions for Undergrad major specific rankings"---at least for CS/Engineering that is just the opinions of other Deans around the country. So it's biased against larger universities (outside of CalTech/mit) And who knows the "negotiations " that go on between schools---so it's not a true ranking of facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a great conference. No schools in it that aren't at least really solid. For overall academic quality, I'd tier it out like this:

Tier 1: NU, UCLA, UMich
Tier 2: Wisconsin, Washington, USC
Tier 3: Illinois, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Minnesota, Rutgers
Tier 4: IU, Michigan State
Tier 5: Iowa, Oregon, Nebraska

Obviously, there's a lot of variability across programs. The schools I put in Tier 3, for example, all have specific programs that clearly are first-tier.

Good list. But you need to break out the Tier 1. NU is way above UCLA and UMIch. It's in a category by itself for academics when compared to BIG10 schools

It's not. Some of its programs are great, others are merely very good--just like UCLA and Michigan.

Nope, vast majority of NU programs are better. It's a T10 school. UCLA and Michigan are not T10 material. It's also a 6-7K undergrad and private school. So obviously different than a massive state school in what it can offer.

If you're not just bloviating, identify the specific NU programs that are stronger than their UCLA and Michigan counterparts. I'll spot you journalism, but what else do you have? Seriously, I'll wait. NU's strengths around radio/film/TV/theatre fall short of UCLA's. Its engineering can't touch Michigan's. Across the pure academic departments, NU's faculty is no stronger than either UCLA's or Michigan's. Some kids benefit more from a smaller environment, for sure, but that's a question of fit, not of quality.

journalism, Music, Theater to name a few

Classes are smaller for almost everything else at NU (outside of freshman Chem which has always been large) More opportunities to do research as an undergrad, largely due to smaller school.

Anonymous wrote:DP, but the average caliber of undergraduates and the job options available to Northwestern grads is greater than those from UCLA or Michigan. If we're talking about the top 10% of undergrad populations from all three schools, however, they'd be quite equally matched.

Average caliber of undergraduates, maybe. Job options, no.

DP, but the average caliber of undergraduates and the job options available to Northwestern grads is greater than those from UCLA or Michigan. If we're talking about the top 10% of undergrad populations from all three schools, however, they'd be quite equally matched.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UCLA and USC underrated in this thread, Wisconsin vastly overrated.

USC is Syracuse with better weather.

Lol 😆 No. compare the freshmen stats.

Yeah, the incoming freshmen at USC have higher SAT scores. They don't get a better education, though, just better weather.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's a great conference. No schools in it that aren't at least really solid. For overall academic quality, I'd tier it out like this:

Tier 1: NU, UCLA, UMich
Tier 2: Wisconsin, Washington, USC
Tier 3: Illinois, Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Minnesota, Rutgers
Tier 4: IU, Michigan State
Tier 5: Iowa, Oregon, Nebraska

Obviously, there's a lot of variability across programs. The schools I put in Tier 3, for example, all have specific programs that clearly are first-tier.

Good list. But you need to break out the Tier 1. NU is way above UCLA and UMIch. It's in a category by itself for academics when compared to BIG10 schools

It's not. Some of its programs are great, others are merely very good--just like UCLA and Michigan.

Nope, vast majority of NU programs are better. It's a T10 school. UCLA and Michigan are not T10 material. It's also a 6-7K undergrad and private school. So obviously different than a massive state school in what it can offer.

If you're not just bloviating, identify the specific NU programs that are stronger than their UCLA and Michigan counterparts. I'll spot you journalism, but what else do you have? Seriously, I'll wait. NU's strengths around radio/film/TV/theatre fall short of UCLA's. Its engineering can't touch Michigan's. Across the pure academic departments, NU's faculty is no stronger than either UCLA's or Michigan's. Some kids benefit more from a smaller environment, for sure, but that's a question of fit, not of quality.

That person is definitely bloviating. Like most people on this thread who truly believe in some form ranking exactitude (e.g., "NU is way above UCLA and UMIch"), their opinion is likely based on less than 5 seconds of actual consideration. And that consideration is mostly a subconsciously sloppy mixture of historical USNWR rankings, idiosyncratic experience, and a bias in favor of private schools over public schools.