Well, here are the 2008 rankings from U.S. News and World Report for Big East schools.
Football Schools (Tier 1)
50. Syracuse
59. Rutgers
59. Pitt
61. UCONN
Football Schools (Tier 3)
University of Cincinnati
University of Louisville
University of South Florida
West Virginia University
Basketball Schools (Tier 1)
19. Notre Dame
23. Georgetown
82. Marquette
Basketball Schools (Tier 3)
Depaul
Seton Hall
St. Johns
Basketball Schools (Top Northern Masters Category)
1. NOVA
2. Providence
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview..._brief.php
You know I wonder why they don't have a tier 2. I mean obviously there is the lower half of the first tier. Where do you think the average college faculty member would draw the line regarding tier 1 versus tier 2?
knight_01 Wrote:You know I wonder why they don't have a tier 2. I mean obviously there is the lower half of the first tier. Where do you think the average college faculty member would draw the line regarding tier 1 versus tier 2?
That's a great question!
tier1 is the top 50% of schools, so maybe 25-50% could be seen as tier 2? There are 124 schools in tier 1, so 1-62, then 63-124 tier 2?
I can see this is a tierful subject.
There was talk on the morning national news today about how poorly done and biased these college rankings are. They were discussing how certain aspects outweigh others.. One was college retention rate. How does this determine the education one gets if you stay? Naturally a city or urban college will have more kids leave after they start than a private or rural college. It also does not take into account that most Universities have colleges within that have their own rankings. You can be world class in one college like Design and just average in another. Many of the top rated schools have very little to offer outside a liberal arts offering. No Engineering, medical, law, etc.
I am pretty sure that 1-50 is considered Tier 1, 50-100(with ties so 124 or whatever it is) would be Tier 2.
TIGER-PAUL Wrote:tier1 is the top 50% of schools, so maybe 25-50% could be seen as tier 2? There are 124 schools in tier 1, so 1-62, then 63-124 tier 2?
That's roughly it.
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007TOP500list.htm This is a far more subjective ranking of universities from all over the world. Rutgers is ranked 47th in the world according to this as opposed to 59th in the nation according to US News and World Report. And I definitely take pride in this global ranking, makes me feel my degree is worth more after Kia Vaughn's lawsuit.
brista21 Wrote:TIGER-PAUL Wrote:tier1 is the top 50% of schools, so maybe 25-50% could be seen as tier 2? There are 124 schools in tier 1, so 1-62, then 63-124 tier 2?
That's roughly it. http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007TOP500list.htm This is a far more subjective ranking of universities from all over the world. Rutgers is ranked 47th in the world according to this as opposed to 59th in the nation according to US News and World Report. And I definitely take pride in this global ranking, makes me feel my degree is worth more after Kia Vaughn's lawsuit.
The University of Cincinnati is also ranked very highly in this global ranking. Frankly, I cannot understand how UC is only a Tier 3 school in the US News and World Report rankings. But all rankings are subjective, and you just have to find those rankings which show off your university in a favorable light.
brista21 Wrote:TIGER-PAUL Wrote:tier1 is the top 50% of schools, so maybe 25-50% could be seen as tier 2? There are 124 schools in tier 1, so 1-62, then 63-124 tier 2?
That's roughly it. http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007TOP500list.htm This is a far more subjective ranking of universities from all over the world. Rutgers is ranked 47th in the world according to this as opposed to 59th in the nation according to US News and World Report. And I definitely take pride in this global ranking, makes me feel my degree is worth more after Kia Vaughn's lawsuit.
Frankly, I find these rankings are somewhat bias and means jack &%$@ in the real life unless your school is in the top 20. The bottom line is going to any school depends on what kind of connection you make that will help you beyond college. This is where private schools like Stanford and Hartford really stand out.
As for the world ranking, I know it is already bias when I don't see certain schools on the list. Who knows how they did that rank and what do those rankings mean anyway?
I have mentioned that fairly recently (last few months) also knight. My best guess is that they lump 50% into tier 1 to simply calm and please more schools. For many schools, its much nicer to say you are Tier 1, while knowing you are near the bottom of that Tier 1 and have more in common with many Tier 3's than with a Princeton or Harvard, than to say you are Tier 2.
Also lumping public schools with private ones are not exactly apple to apple comparisons. I went to a public school for undergraduate and private one for graduate. I can tell you first hand the experience was very different. Schools themselves have a total different focus so it is hard to rank them really.
brista21 Wrote:That's roughly it. http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007TOP500list.htm This is a far more subjective ranking of universities from all over the world. Rutgers is ranked 47th in the world according to this as opposed to 59th in the nation according to US News and World Report. And I definitely take pride in this global ranking, makes me feel my degree is worth more after Kia Vaughn's lawsuit.
Did you read the criteria for that stuff? Number of faculty who've won Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals?!?!? Articles published in Science and Nature?!?! It sure appears to me a school can have 1-2 great professors and score really well in this system, which would be flaky to me. At least the bulk of the criteria in the US News is something the Universities can have influence over, if not outright control.
Some folks who have been in research labs may have heard the same thing. Most researchers want to be published in Journals in their specific field (Bacteriology, Virology etc etc)
I always heard that the Journals Science and Nature were the cupcakes of scientific journals. Kind of like Popular Science.
The university is only part of the education. I know a complete moron who went to Yale.
GunnerFan Wrote:brista21 Wrote:That's roughly it. http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007TOP500list.htm This is a far more subjective ranking of universities from all over the world. Rutgers is ranked 47th in the world according to this as opposed to 59th in the nation according to US News and World Report. And I definitely take pride in this global ranking, makes me feel my degree is worth more after Kia Vaughn's lawsuit.
Did you read the criteria for that stuff? Number of faculty who've won Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals?!?!? Articles published in Science and Nature?!?! It sure appears to me a school can have 1-2 great professors and score really well in this system, which would be flaky to me. At least the bulk of the criteria in the US News is something the Universities can have influence over, if not outright control.
Unfortunately I've gone by what others have told me regarding it. I think alot of it is what you make of it.
Topcard91 Wrote:Some folks who have been in research labs may have heard the same thing. Most researchers want to be published in Journals in their specific field (Bacteriology, Virology etc etc)
I always heard that the Journals Science and Nature were the cupcakes of scientific journals. Kind of like Popular Science.
As a scientist, I can tell you that you heard wrong. Science and Nature (and for that matter, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) are considered to be among the most prestigious journals for publication of peer reviewed work. When your work is sufficiently important that it transcends your area of expertise, then and only then is it worthy of publication in one of these journals. Meanwhile, Popular Science is more about scientific education than cutting edge research.
USFFan
brista21 Wrote:GunnerFan Wrote:brista21 Wrote:That's roughly it. http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007TOP500list.htm This is a far more subjective ranking of universities from all over the world. Rutgers is ranked 47th in the world according to this as opposed to 59th in the nation according to US News and World Report. And I definitely take pride in this global ranking, makes me feel my degree is worth more after Kia Vaughn's lawsuit.
Did you read the criteria for that stuff? Number of faculty who've won Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals?!?!? Articles published in Science and Nature?!?! It sure appears to me a school can have 1-2 great professors and score really well in this system, which would be flaky to me. At least the bulk of the criteria in the US News is something the Universities can have influence over, if not outright control.
Unfortunately I've gone by what others have told me regarding it. I think alot of it is what you make of it.
Seriously, anyone can come with some weird criteria to make a school look good. While those rankings are ok, but reality is it is real difficult to rank a school. Does it mean someone graduated from a lower ranked school won't be as successful as someone from a top school? If that's the case, most Asian American in this country would all be millionaires. In the real world, there is also discrimination and "old boys" network, which has far more influence than what school someone went to. It is still a who you know world out there.
bitcruncher Wrote:The university is only part of the education. I know a complete moron who went to Yale.
DING! DING! DING!!!
I am amazed at all of the academic smack talking that goes on, because at the end of the day, what you DO with your education means so much more than where you get it. As bit says, I've known brilliant people who started out in community colleges and also known graduates from a number of the top schools on either of the lists given here who were just not very bright.
Take, for example, organic chemistry. The subject is the same whether it is taught at Harvard or Hardee Community College. Just because you have a Nobel Prize winner explaining the subject to you doesn't mean you've learned the subject any better. In fact, in some cases, the faculty who aren't as wrapped up in their research such that they look at teaching as a necessary evil instead of as their primary job don't take the time to make sure their students understand the subject.
Now, with that said, a serious student who wants a career in organic chemistry could avail themselves of additional opportunities to conduct undergraduate research with said Nobel Prize winner and thus get much more out of their experience than anybody at the community college could. This is where the difference is made. However, bestowing that same level of "honor" to all students is unfair.
USFFan
Big East has 4 tier 1 schools in football. 50% pretty good, but they passed up on tier 1 schools like Miami-Oh, Ohio, and Buffalo and added Depaul a tier 3 private school with no D-A football team. Depaul has failed to reach NCAA tournament in two years in the Big East.