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:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

You clearly have not been on tours or had a top kid do apps in the last 3 cycles. We have been through twice in that time, toured all ivies but one, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, WashU ,UChicago ,Hopkins, Wake, WM, UVA Williams Amherst Swarthmore Georgetown. Undergrad research is mentioned on every tour and info session, and at this level of school about 50-65% of undergrads do it, overall, stem and humanities. My T10 thirty yrs ago had a significant segment of undergrads do research with professors and over half my friends who did got published. We just were not paid as they are now.
Publishing is very doable: most work summer or during the year or both. Department halls showed undergrad posters on almost all of these tours. Resume building for premeds and any stem major has research at the center, yet it is also important in humanities: those professors have research at the center of their careers and are happy to share it with undergrads.
I agree with you about grad and undergrad intertwined and all of these schools having professors who lecture about research. The private schools are the best of both worlds: They can do meaningful research and their students can take grad classes as early as sophomore year, they can work with grad and professors in labs, and if they want to go to for phD they have grad students right on campus to advise them in ways that professors cannot. They are indeed great mentors.

No undergrads are publishing in the humanities. They are glorified RAs at best and might get their name in a footnote.

Kids at top privates are guaranteed a minimum of three publications as first or corresponding author per year of undergraduate study, haven’t you heard?! And they slide right into a 1.00 FTE position as freshmen, happily paid by the institution!

Not like at those dirty publics, what with their lectures containing 9,000 - 10,000 students and taking 32-35 years to graduate due to class unavailability!

Totally. Who needs publish or perish when you can be a sophomore at Yale cranking out refereed journal articles left and right that blow away people with decades of years in the field. After all, these kids have taken (checks notes)…intro classes! Original research is a dime a dozen anyway these days.

Makes sense, I guess. I assume these are the same kids who we hear are doing substantial research with world renowned professors while in high school!

Some of them are getting published in high school after taking advanced college classes in high school. it's not that far fetched in today's heightened competition environment.

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:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

You clearly have not been on tours or had a top kid do apps in the last 3 cycles. We have been through twice in that time, toured all ivies but one, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, WashU ,UChicago ,Hopkins, Wake, WM, UVA Williams Amherst Swarthmore Georgetown. Undergrad research is mentioned on every tour and info session, and at this level of school about 50-65% of undergrads do it, overall, stem and humanities. My T10 thirty yrs ago had a significant segment of undergrads do research with professors and over half my friends who did got published. We just were not paid as they are now.
Publishing is very doable: most work summer or during the year or both. Department halls showed undergrad posters on almost all of these tours. Resume building for premeds and any stem major has research at the center, yet it is also important in humanities: those professors have research at the center of their careers and are happy to share it with undergrads.
I agree with you about grad and undergrad intertwined and all of these schools having professors who lecture about research. The private schools are the best of both worlds: They can do meaningful research and their students can take grad classes as early as sophomore year, they can work with grad and professors in labs, and if they want to go to for phD they have grad students right on campus to advise them in ways that professors cannot. They are indeed great mentors.

No undergrads are publishing in the humanities. They are glorified RAs at best and might get their name in a footnote.

Kids at top privates are guaranteed a minimum of three publications as first or corresponding author per year of undergraduate study, haven’t you heard?! And they slide right into a 1.00 FTE position as freshmen, happily paid by the institution!

Not like at those dirty publics, what with their lectures containing 9,000 - 10,000 students and taking 32-35 years to graduate due to class unavailability!

Totally. Who needs publish or perish when you can be a sophomore at Yale cranking out refereed journal articles left and right that blow away people with decades of years in the field. After all, these kids have taken (checks notes)…intro classes! Original research is a dime a dozen anyway these days.

Makes sense, I guess. I assume these are the same kids who we hear are doing substantial research with world renowned professors while in high school!

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:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

You clearly have not been on tours or had a top kid do apps in the last 3 cycles. We have been through twice in that time, toured all ivies but one, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, WashU ,UChicago ,Hopkins, Wake, WM, UVA Williams Amherst Swarthmore Georgetown. Undergrad research is mentioned on every tour and info session, and at this level of school about 50-65% of undergrads do it, overall, stem and humanities. My T10 thirty yrs ago had a significant segment of undergrads do research with professors and over half my friends who did got published. We just were not paid as they are now.
Publishing is very doable: most work summer or during the year or both. Department halls showed undergrad posters on almost all of these tours. Resume building for premeds and any stem major has research at the center, yet it is also important in humanities: those professors have research at the center of their careers and are happy to share it with undergrads.
I agree with you about grad and undergrad intertwined and all of these schools having professors who lecture about research. The private schools are the best of both worlds: They can do meaningful research and their students can take grad classes as early as sophomore year, they can work with grad and professors in labs, and if they want to go to for phD they have grad students right on campus to advise them in ways that professors cannot. They are indeed great mentors.

No undergrads are publishing in the humanities. They are glorified RAs at best and might get their name in a footnote.

Kids at top privates are guaranteed a minimum of three publications as first or corresponding author per year of undergraduate study, haven’t you heard?! And they slide right into a 1.00 FTE position as freshmen, happily paid by the institution!

Not like at those dirty publics, what with their lectures containing 9,000 - 10,000 students and taking 32-35 years to graduate due to class unavailability!

Totally. Who needs publish or perish when you can be a sophomore at Yale cranking out refereed journal articles left and right that blow away people with decades of years in the field. After all, these kids have taken (checks notes)…intro classes! Original research is a dime a dozen anyway these days.

Makes sense, I guess. I assume these are the same kids who we hear are doing substantial research with world renowned professors while in high school!

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:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

You clearly have not been on tours or had a top kid do apps in the last 3 cycles. We have been through twice in that time, toured all ivies but one, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, WashU ,UChicago ,Hopkins, Wake, WM, UVA Williams Amherst Swarthmore Georgetown. Undergrad research is mentioned on every tour and info session, and at this level of school about 50-65% of undergrads do it, overall, stem and humanities. My T10 thirty yrs ago had a significant segment of undergrads do research with professors and over half my friends who did got published. We just were not paid as they are now.
Publishing is very doable: most work summer or during the year or both. Department halls showed undergrad posters on almost all of these tours. Resume building for premeds and any stem major has research at the center, yet it is also important in humanities: those professors have research at the center of their careers and are happy to share it with undergrads.
I agree with you about grad and undergrad intertwined and all of these schools having professors who lecture about research. The private schools are the best of both worlds: They can do meaningful research and their students can take grad classes as early as sophomore year, they can work with grad and professors in labs, and if they want to go to for phD they have grad students right on campus to advise them in ways that professors cannot. They are indeed great mentors.

No undergrads are publishing in the humanities. They are glorified RAs at best and might get their name in a footnote.

Kids at top privates are guaranteed a minimum of three publications as first or corresponding author per year of undergraduate study, haven’t you heard?! And they slide right into a 1.00 FTE position as freshmen, happily paid by the institution!

Not like at those dirty publics, what with their lectures containing 9,000 - 10,000 students and taking 32-35 years to graduate due to class unavailability!

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:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

You clearly have not been on tours or had a top kid do apps in the last 3 cycles. We have been through twice in that time, toured all ivies but one, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, WashU ,UChicago ,Hopkins, Wake, WM, UVA Williams Amherst Swarthmore Georgetown. Undergrad research is mentioned on every tour and info session, and at this level of school about 50-65% of undergrads do it, overall, stem and humanities. My T10 thirty yrs ago had a significant segment of undergrads do research with professors and over half my friends who did got published. We just were not paid as they are now.
Publishing is very doable: most work summer or during the year or both. Department halls showed undergrad posters on almost all of these tours. Resume building for premeds and any stem major has research at the center, yet it is also important in humanities: those professors have research at the center of their careers and are happy to share it with undergrads.
I agree with you about grad and undergrad intertwined and all of these schools having professors who lecture about research. The private schools are the best of both worlds: They can do meaningful research and their students can take grad classes as early as sophomore year, they can work with grad and professors in labs, and if they want to go to for phD they have grad students right on campus to advise them in ways that professors cannot. They are indeed great mentors.

No undergrads are publishing in the humanities. They are glorified RAs at best and might get their name in a footnote.

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:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

You clearly have not been on tours or had a top kid do apps in the last 3 cycles. We have been through twice in that time, toured all ivies but one, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, WashU ,UChicago ,Hopkins, Wake, WM, UVA Williams Amherst Swarthmore Georgetown. Undergrad research is mentioned on every tour and info session, and at this level of school about 50-65% of undergrads do it, overall, stem and humanities. My T10 thirty yrs ago had a significant segment of undergrads do research with professors and over half my friends who did got published. We just were not paid as they are now.
Publishing is very doable: most work summer or during the year or both. Department halls showed undergrad posters on almost all of these tours. Resume building for premeds and any stem major has research at the center, yet it is also important in humanities: those professors have research at the center of their careers and are happy to share it with undergrads.
I agree with you about grad and undergrad intertwined and all of these schools having professors who lecture about research. The private schools are the best of both worlds: They can do meaningful research and their students can take grad classes as early as sophomore year, they can work with grad and professors in labs, and if they want to go to for phD they have grad students right on campus to advise them in ways that professors cannot. They are indeed great mentors.

No undergrads are publishing in the humanities. They are glorified RAs at best and might get their name in a footnote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

You clearly have not been on tours or had a top kid do apps in the last 3 cycles. We have been through twice in that time, toured all ivies but one, MIT, Duke, Northwestern, Stanford, WashU ,UChicago ,Hopkins, Wake, WM, UVA Williams Amherst Swarthmore Georgetown. Undergrad research is mentioned on every tour and info session, and at this level of school about 50-65% of undergrads do it, overall, stem and humanities. My T10 thirty yrs ago had a significant segment of undergrads do research with professors and over half my friends who did got published. We just were not paid as they are now.
Publishing is very doable: most work summer or during the year or both. Department halls showed undergrad posters on almost all of these tours. Resume building for premeds and any stem major has research at the center, yet it is also important in humanities: those professors have research at the center of their careers and are happy to share it with undergrads.
I agree with you about grad and undergrad intertwined and all of these schools having professors who lecture about research. The private schools are the best of both worlds: They can do meaningful research and their students can take grad classes as early as sophomore year, they can work with grad and professors in labs, and if they want to go to for phD they have grad students right on campus to advise them in ways that professors cannot. They are indeed great mentors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

I think you guys are looking at the undergraduate-research dynamics the wrong way. Yes, it’s easier to get research opportunities at elite privates vs elite publics, but that’s not where having a great research/grad level benefits undergrads.

First of all, most students whether private or public don’t seek research experience. Why? Because it’s pretty pointless. You don’t have time to write a year-long research paper, and no one will ever take it seriously because it won’t even be published. Think about it, the first two years of college you’re learning the very basics of your major. You don’t get sort of deep into it until junior year. Most students focus on internships, as they should. And grad schools mostly care about your gpa and letters of rec (which you can easily get by kissing your professors’ butts)

Great research departments affect undergraduates indirectly in the form of GSIs/TAs and professors. You take classes from these folks in the midst of their research, which they often talk about in their lectures. Great grad programs mean you’re getting the best mentors.

I remember taking Robert Reich courses in Berkeley where he talked about stuff from his Netflix documentaries before it came out. Folks like David Card were teaching undergrads at berk as recent as 2009, way before he won Nobel prize. I would imagine he was teaching his students stuff you wouldn’t learn about anywhere else.

I don’t understand why private school fans won’t admit that grad school and undergraduate levels are intertwined. Thats why I’m so much more interested in times ranking than us news.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

That is a stark difference . Research at the ivies is just as described in that Stanford post: easy to get. The Berkeley process seems insane to put any undergrad through that, and then most to be shut out

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your priority is to see your child experience the best of all worlds (elite education, strategic networking and preparing for graduate school and/or professional endeavors, career outcomes, and especially the overall social experience), the large public institutions like the Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC and Virginia are far ahead of the one- or two-dimensional environments that define all of the privates in the Top 25.

If you’re treating your child’s college experience as essentially a trade school where they are there exclusively to train for a specific career in finance or software development or civil engineering, sure, feel free to take the WSJ rankings seriously. But if you have any interest in college being the transformative experience for your child that it often is for those who get the most from it, flagship public over private all day, every day.

This assertion is not in any way supported by facts.

Look at any survey of college students for your facts.

OK. I looked at Niche surveys for academics and the top 25 privates do better than Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Florida, Texas, UNC, and Virginia.

DP: your source is Niche ratings. Seriously?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

I actually disagree. Undergraduates have better access to research opportunities in well funded and endowed SLACs or smaller universities. Do you know how cash strapped some of the departments in these universities are that they accept foreign money to "do research"? Just google and you will find some of these top 10 schools guilty of taking foreign money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If these were comparable schools, they would enroll comparable students. Let's see:

UMich class of 2027:

https://obp.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/pubdata/factsfigures/firstyearsprofile_umaa.pdf

102 national merit finalists out of 7500 freshman

SAT: 1350 to 1530
ACT: 31 to 34


Cornell (least selective ivy stats from 3 years ago):

https://irp.dpb.cornell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Profile2021-first-year.pdf

SAT range: 1450 to 1540
ACT: 33 to 35

Duke:

SAT: 1520 to 1570
ACT: 34 to 35

https://admissions.duke.edu/our-students/

119 national merit finalists out of 1700 freshman

Keep telling yourself it's close

This thread is about a ranking of the quality of universities, not the SAT scores of undergrads. That some of you conflate the two goes a long way to explaining your frustration.

and quality has a lot to do with the quality of students that get enrolled. after all, smarter peers result in more challenging curriculums being taught and association with smarter classmates

Except these rankings are mostly about graduate schools, where SATs do not matter. Grad students are a different kettle of fish.

And research, which gets a huge amount of weight in the rankings. Because, ya know, “research universities.” It’s sort of their thing.

Then we agree. These rankings are not a reflection of undergrad rank.

Research and funding for said research absolutely affects the undergraduate experience. If you have been on the tours of the US colleges who are top20 and beyond, they all emphasize research opportunities for undergraduates. Everywhere from MIT to William and Mary mentioned it because it is a very important resume builder for all fields. Most internships are not available before junior year. The most resourced schools with the lowest student-faculty ratios get students in all fields into research. These top universities in the world
rankings correlate highly with the % of undergraduate research that is paid. Talk to students at these schools and talk to faculty who have taught at one of the top 10-15 US ones versus below a top 60 —they are very different! Almost 100% of undergraduate research is paid at many of these top places. The ability to conduct real research with faculty and get paid is an incredible opportunity for undergraduates.

There's not enough research opportunities for publics vs top privates by virtue of student faculty ratios. So by that logic, again, publics are down there somewhere. Not top 20 IMO.

https://www.reddit.com/r/berkeley/comments/14lefqe/how_to_secure_undergraduate_research_at_uc/

Contrast to this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/stanford/comments/tsn4k8/doing_research_at_stanford/

Anonymous wrote:Duke is #27 (#17 among just US schools).

Northwestern at #31 (the #18 US school).

NYU is #33/#19.

Georgia Tech #40/#20.

U Illinois is #46 overall and #21 among just US schools.

LSE (London School of Economics) is #50 overall.