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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Econ major and wants to go into banking or consulting then Penn may have a slight advantage but only very slight

Oh is it? As in the brand name or the internships and other on campus opportunities or in terms of academics quality and education received there ?

Don’t get it twisted. Penn is in the Harvard/Yale/Stanford tier for banking and consulting. Duke is in the Georgetown/Vanderbilt/UVA tier. Nothing wrong with that. But it’s apples and oranges, in terms of comparison.

HYPSM
Penn/Duke/Caltech, mayyybe Berkeley
Wash U/Columbia/Cornell/Notre Dame etc

Those tiers don’t apply to banking and consulting. Penn is considerably higher than Duke in that regard. Top tier. Duke is lower tier. Anyone with experience in those industries would know this.

Every ranking I have seen places them same . But Duke preps you better

Consulting (WSJ):

RANK
COLLEGE
ANNUAL SALARY PREMIUM
MANAGEMENT CONSULTING % OF GRADUATES
AVERAGE YEARLY SALARY
2019-2020 AVERAGE NET PRICE
1 Harvard University $61,042 7.59% $155,051 $18,037
2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology $58,083 4.11% $152,092 $19,998
3 Princeton University $56,117 6.38% $150,126 $18,685
4 Yale University $53,192 7.37% $147,201 $17,386
5 Dartmouth College $50,950 6.14% $144,959 $24,525
6 Stanford University $48,290 4.47% $142,299 $20,023
7 Duke University $44,985 5.56% $138,994 $26,932
8 University of Pennsylvania $44,344 6.19% $138,353 $24,167
9 Williams College $42,627 4.92% $136,636 $22,356
10 Rice University $42,025 4.15% $136,034 $19,215