Ranking the Best Academic Schools in the ACC

[Mudge]

On this board, I'd expect fairly universal acceptance of the notion that Duke is the best school academically in the ACC (I am focusing on undergrad colleges here only, and judging on the basis of the academic selectivity of the student body-- in other words, how hard is it to be admitted, and what percentage of the students admitted matriculate-- i.e.- the yield of those admitted from those offered admission).

I am curious to know what others think would be the rankings of the other ACC schools (current and future); I throw out my own rankings as follows:

1) Duke
2) Boston College
3) Virginia
4) North Carolina
5) Wake Forest
6) Georgia Tech
7) Maryland
8) Miami
9) Virginia Tech
10) NC State
11) Pittsburgh
12) Syracuse
13) Florida State
14) Clemson

I am not really that confident of the rankings after the first four schools; I would group Wake, GIT, Maryland, Miami, and VPI in one mid group, and NC State, Pitt, and Syracuse in another slightly lower group, with FSU and Clemson in the bottom group.

Also, while I think Virginia (and possibly UNC) might be more selective than BC for their out-of-state students only, I think BC is probably more selective than UV (and UNC), when the total student body (including the large majority of in-state students given preferential admissions treatment) is considered-- most of these in-state kids would not make it through the BC admissions process, in my opinion.

[devildeac]

On this board, I'd expect fairly universal acceptance of the notion that Duke is the best school academically in the ACC (I am focusing on undergrad colleges here only, and judging on the basis of the academic selectivity of the student body-- in other words, how hard is it to be admitted, and what percentage of the students admitted matriculate-- i.e.- the yield of those admitted from those offered admission).

I am curious to know what others think would be the rankings of the other ACC schools (current and future); I throw out my own rankings as follows:

1) Duke
2) Boston College
3) Virginia
4) North Carolina
5) Wake Forest
6) Georgia Tech
7) Maryland
8) Miami
9) Virginia Tech
10) NC State
11) Pittsburgh
12) Syracuse
13) Florida State
14) Clemson

I am not really that confident of the rankings after the first four schools; I would group Wake, GIT, Maryland, Miami, and VPI in one mid group, and NC State, Pitt, and Syracuse in another slightly lower group, with FSU and Clemson in the bottom group.

Also, while I think Virginia (and possibly UNC) might be more selective than BC for their out-of-state students only, I think BC is probably more selective than UV (and UNC), when the total student body (including the large majority of in-state students given preferential admissions treatment) is considered-- most of these in-state kids would not make it through the BC admissions process, in my opinion.

Don't know that much about BC academically but I might rank Work, err, Wake Forest between UVA and unc with BC a bit lower. But, I do have a bit of a bias in my perception;).

[cf-62]

On this board, I'd expect fairly universal acceptance of the notion that Duke is the best school academically in the ACC (I am focusing on undergrad colleges here only, and judging on the basis of the academic selectivity of the student body-- in other words, how hard is it to be admitted, and what percentage of the students admitted matriculate-- i.e.- the yield of those admitted from those offered admission).

I am curious to know what others think would be the rankings of the other ACC schools (current and future); I throw out my own rankings as follows:

1) Duke
2) Boston College
3) Virginia
4) North Carolina
5) Wake Forest
6) Georgia Tech
7) Maryland
8) Miami
9) Virginia Tech
10) NC State
11) Pittsburgh
12) Syracuse
13) Florida State
14) Clemson

I am not really that confident of the rankings after the first four schools; I would group Wake, GIT, Maryland, Miami, and VPI in one mid group, and NC State, Pitt, and Syracuse in another slightly lower group, with FSU and Clemson in the bottom group.

Also, while I think Virginia (and possibly UNC) might be more selective than BC for their out-of-state students only, I think BC is probably more selective than UV (and UNC), when the total student body (including the large majority of in-state students given preferential admissions treatment) is considered-- most of these in-state kids would not make it through the BC admissions process, in my opinion.

Mudge,

I don't know why you've decided to start these debates, but something seems terribly off here. Your criteria really have no bearing on whether a school is a better academic school or not. There are many kids from NC that WOULD get into Duke - if they applied. But they know they can go to UNC and get a similar education for 10% of the cost, so they don't apply. And if I KNOW I want to be an engineer after college, then unless it's Bio-Med, my list flips yours on its head - no Wake, no UNC, no Duke, no UVA. I'm applying to Clemson, State, V-Tech, and G-Tech.

During my four years at Duke, I know of ZERO NSF grant winners. Meanwhile, I know 2 from Clemson during that time. And while my high school salutatorian matriculated at Duke with me, our valedictorian, and the NEXT 2 - went to NC State, followed by a string of 3 or 4 that went to UNC without even applying to Duke.

Also, based on your stated criteria, wouldn't Miami be near the top - certainly higher than the public schools - for exactly the reasons you talk about?

Honestly, I find that when it comes to our conference, most of us that graduate, regardless of the actual school, are cut from the same cloth.

[OldPhiKap]

Really depends on what you're measuring.

Engineering? GT is a great school.

Ag Sciences? State and Clemson have outstanding programs.

I suspect that many of the large state schools also have honors programs that rival most private schools. Although the overall university may have looser admission standards because the mission is different (educating a large numer of the state's citizens, as opposed to education of a private group) the top students at all of them are top level.

Too many apples and oranges for me to make much of a real list.

[cspan37421]

Mudge,

I don't know why you've decided to start these debates, but something seems terribly off here. Your criteria really have no bearing on whether a school is a better academic school or not. There are many kids from NC that WOULD get into Duke - if they applied. But they know they can go to UNC and get a similar education for 10% of the cost, so they don't apply. And if I KNOW I want to be an engineer after college, then unless it's Bio-Med, my list flips yours on its head - no Wake, no UNC, no Duke, no UVA. I'm applying to Clemson, State, V-Tech, and G-Tech.

During my four years at Duke, I know of ZERO NSF grant winners. Meanwhile, I know 2 from Clemson during that time. And while my high school salutatorian matriculated at Duke with me, our valedictorian, and the NEXT 2 - went to NC State, followed by a string of 3 or 4 that went to UNC without even applying to Duke.

Also, based on your stated criteria, wouldn't Miami be near the top - certainly higher than the public schools - for exactly the reasons you talk about?

Honestly, I find that when it comes to our conference, most of us that graduate, regardless of the actual school, are cut from the same cloth.

I don't know what "cut from the same cloth" means but if you're referring to our common humanity, sure. If you're claiming that the level of academic achievement (at least before matriculation) is the same across the ACC regardless of school for those that ultimately graduate, I beg to differ. Also, I would not use anecdotal criteria to form an opinion in this matter. That you personally knew of no NSF grant winners does not mean there were not any at Duke. More importantly, there are many criteria beyond "# of NSF grant winners" to judge the quality of work done by matriculants at a school. You could look at Rhodes scholars, for one; published research among undergraduates for another. And many more - it would be very myopic to limit such a measure to one or two such criteria. Of course, you would have to adjust for size of school. Duke is not a large school - perhaps 2nd smallest in ACC, behind Wake, unless some of these "post-8 ACC" are smaller.

Certainly it sometimes happens that excellent students do not bother to apply because they have an excellent in-state choice. This is probably most pronounced in NC and VA, where the flagship public universities are of great selectivity. But if this happened to a great extent, Duke would not have the kind of entering class profile that it does.

I am not a fan of the USN&WR ranking system, which has a substantial subjective component that is subject to manipulation by the schools and editors. However, I am not opposed to rankings per se. I think each applicant should have their own criteria in mind and use them to rank the desirability of schools. To get back to Mudge's OP, there are some objective criteria why which the ACC schools may be ranked and there's nothing inherently wrong with considering such information.

For my source, I use the 2011 Princeton Review "Best 373 Colleges" guide which I have at hand. Acceptance rates show significant differences:

School Acceptance
Duke 0.22
BC 0.30
UNC 0.32
UVA 0.32
WFU 0.38
MD 0.42
Miami 0.44
NCSU 0.55
GT 0.59
Pitt 0.59
Syr 0.60
FSU 0.61
Clem 0.63
VT 0.67

By incorporating yield, you really get some separation. Divide yield by acceptance rate; one could infer that the higher ratios reflect selectivity and desirability:

School Yield/Accept
Duke 1.95
UNC 1.69
UVA 1.50
WFU 0.92
MD 0.83
BC 0.83
NCSU 0.82
FSU 0.69
GT 0.68
VT 0.54
Clem 0.52
Pitt 0.49
Miami 0.48
Syr 0.43

You could rank based on median test scores, the % of students who were in the top 25% of their class, etc. IMO there are significant differences, though mostly among the median performing students at each school. The top students at each school would probably be tops at most if not all of the other schools as well.

There was one very interesting ranking study done in 2005 by Avery et al (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105##) that appears to be no longer freely available on the web unless you subscribe to certain journals. It constructs a revealed preference ranking by looking at many pairwise comparisons between schools for which a given student gained acceptance, and which school the applicant chose. By doing so, the authors hoped to take into account the fact that some students chose a less selective school because of any number of factors - such as cost after scholarships/financial aid, location, the existence of particular programs of study, legacy ties, etc. It purports to "reveal" the preferences of students based on actual matriculation statistics and came up with a weighted average rank based on matriculation patterns when there were such head-to-head choices made by students. Note that this is NOT by design a selectivity thing, except to the extent that applicants are making the selection. It is also hard for the schools to manipulate the rankings.

19. Duke
20. UVA
25. GA Tech
32. UNC-CH
49. U-MD
52. WFU
57. BC
58. Miami
73. FSU
108. Syracuse

Apparently they did not get data from NCSU, Pitt, Clemson, or Va Tech. It's pretty interesting that Notre Dame comes in at #13, well above Duke, but when you realize how the selection effects work, it's not so surprising. A student applying to ND (or Georgetown, #16) may be particularly interested in attending a Catholic school, so in head-to-head, they may win out more than you would think based strictly on test scores, admission rates, etc. Similarly, Wellesley at #11 comes as a bit of a shock until you consider who might apply there and how they might consider head to head choices between schools. That said, these few are the exceptions - the ranked list begins mostly as you might expect, with Harvard, Caltech, Yale, MIT, Stanford, Princeton....

[Mudge]

Mudge,

I don't know why you've decided to start these debates, but something seems terribly off here. Your criteria really have no bearing on whether a school is a better academic school or not. There are many kids from NC that WOULD get into Duke - if they applied. But they know they can go to UNC and get a similar education for 10% of the cost, so they don't apply. And if I KNOW I want to be an engineer after college, then unless it's Bio-Med, my list flips yours on its head - no Wake, no UNC, no Duke, no UVA. I'm applying to Clemson, State, V-Tech, and G-Tech.

During my four years at Duke, I know of ZERO NSF grant winners. Meanwhile, I know 2 from Clemson during that time. And while my high school salutatorian matriculated at Duke with me, our valedictorian, and the NEXT 2 - went to NC State, followed by a string of 3 or 4 that went to UNC without even applying to Duke.

Also, based on your stated criteria, wouldn't Miami be near the top - certainly higher than the public schools - for exactly the reasons you talk about?

Honestly, I find that when it comes to our conference, most of us that graduate, regardless of the actual school, are cut from the same cloth.

I started the debate, because I was interested in what other readers here think about the relative academic merits of the other schools in the ACC, and also in the relative academic merits of the highest profile athletic conferences vs. the ACC. I readily admit that what I am trying to measure is selectivity of the schools in their admission of students, not necessarily the quality of the various academic departments at the schools-- I am trying to figure out who is admitting the most selective (in toto, not some skimming of the cream for the honors program at the top of the barrel) cohort of students, at these colleges.

Those kids who could/would get into Duke, but choose UNC for cost, help UNC's data-- that is reflected in what I am trying to measure-- but many, if not most, UNC students (and particularly those who are NC residents) most certainly would not have been admitted to Duke.

I also acknowledge that, if you want to study engineering AND actually work as an engineer, there are top programs at some of the otherwise low-ranked schools in my list. However, at most top schools, other than the CalTechs and MITs (where I'd bet a good majority of students who plan to work as engineers go on to get advanced engineering degrees), a large portion of engineering majors either have no intention of working as engineers, or end up not working as engineers-- they are like people who go to law school, with no intention of practicing law-- they just wanted the legal training, to create certain mental disciplines and understanding, but do not want to be lawyers. In my experience, a vast majority of the Duke engineers that I went to school with were not working as engineers, within only 5 years of graduation-- and I'd bet this is true of engineering majors from Harvard, Wash U, Stanford, etc.-- those that do, generally have gone on for graduate engineering degrees, but it is much more common for them to get some other kind of advanced professional degree (MBA, JD, MD), and to not be working as an engineer at all.

However, the fact that undergraduate engineering programs might be higher ranked at some of the more pedestrian large state universities does not tend to support the idea that the students admitted to those large schools, by and large, are on par with those admitted to Duke, or Virginia, or UNC, or BC, etc. Texas A&M has the absolute top-ranked program in the country in petroleum engineering-- if you want to work in the energy business, in that end of it (and extremely lucrative business, by the way), you can't do better than that-- but TAMU students as a whole do not compare, on a mental horsepower basis, with the students Duke admits. I think that there is a substantive difference in the "average student" at Duke vs. say, NC State, and the average student tends to be the one that gives the school its reputation and perception out in the world.

[Mudge]

Really depends on what you're measuring.

Engineering? GT is a great school.

Ag Sciences? State and Clemson have outstanding programs.

I suspect that many of the large state schools also have honors programs that rival most private schools. Although the overall university may have looser admission standards because the mission is different (educating a large numer of the state's citizens, as opposed to education of a private group) the top students at all of them are top level.

Too many apples and oranges for me to make much of a real list.

You are right about engineering being another kettle of fish (e.g.- see Texas A&M for petroleum engineering, Colorado School of Mines for geology, etc.)... and while there are many brilliant farmers (and many rich ones), generally, agriculture programs are not attracting the best and brightest of America's graduating HS seniors.

That is why I am confining my inquiry to the selectivity of the entire cohort of students admitted to the school-- how selective (on academics) is the school, and how does that work out in terms of the grades and test scores of the mean and the middle 50% of the student body that matriculates (two data points often quoted by the schools themselves).

[Wander]

It all depends on the context. If you're talking graduate education in the arts and sciences the most important factor is probably your individual faculty advisor. If you're talking something like med, business, or law school the most important factor is probably your department/school's reputation. For most sorts of undergraduate degrees it's probably the university's reputation as a whole. That doesn't necessarily equate to a better (or worse) education; I had a teacher in high school who remarked that you get out of any education what you put into it, provided some minimal level of quality in the institution (which all ACC schools easily meet). But all other factors being equal an undergraduate degree from Duke will hold more reputation points to most employers and grad schools than a degree from, say, Florida State, even if you majored in something that FSU is pretty good at.

[Mudge]

I don't know what "cut from the same cloth" means but if you're referring to our common humanity, sure. If you're claiming that the level of academic achievement (at least before matriculation) is the same across the ACC regardless of school for those that ultimately graduate, I beg to differ. Also, I would not use anecdotal criteria to form an opinion in this matter. That you personally knew of no NSF grant winners does not mean there were not any at Duke. More importantly, there are many criteria beyond "# of NSF grant winners" to judge the quality of work done by matriculants at a school. You could look at Rhodes scholars, for one; published research among undergraduates for another. And many more - it would be very myopic to limit such a measure to one or two such criteria. Of course, you would have to adjust for size of school. Duke is not a large school - perhaps 2nd smallest in ACC, behind Wake, unless some of these "post-8 ACC" are smaller.

Certainly it sometimes happens that excellent students do not bother to apply because they have an excellent in-state choice. This is probably most pronounced in NC and VA, where the flagship public universities are of great selectivity. But if this happened to a great extent, Duke would not have the kind of entering class profile that it does.

I am not a fan of the USN&WR ranking system, which has a substantial subjective component that is subject to manipulation by the schools and editors. However, I am not opposed to rankings per se. I think each applicant should have their own criteria in mind and use them to rank the desirability of schools. To get back to Mudge's OP, there are some objective criteria why which the ACC schools may be ranked and there's nothing inherently wrong with considering such information.

For my source, I use the 2011 Princeton Review "Best 373 Colleges" guide which I have at hand. Acceptance rates show significant differences:

School Acceptance
Duke 0.22
BC 0.30
UNC 0.32
UVA 0.32
WFU 0.38
MD 0.42
Miami 0.44
NCSU 0.55
GT 0.59
Pitt 0.59
Syr 0.60
FSU 0.61
Clem 0.63
VT 0.67

By incorporating yield, you really get some separation. Divide yield by acceptance rate; one could infer that the higher ratios reflect selectivity and desirability:

School Yield/Accept
Duke 1.95
UNC 1.69
UVA 1.50
WFU 0.92
MD 0.83
BC 0.83
NCSU 0.82
FSU 0.69
GT 0.68
VT 0.54
Clem 0.52
Pitt 0.49
Miami 0.48
Syr 0.43

You could rank based on median test scores, the % of students who were in the top 25% of their class, etc. IMO there are significant differences, though mostly among the median performing students at each school. The top students at each school would probably be tops at most if not all of the other schools as well.

There was one very interesting ranking study done in 2005 by Avery et al (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=601105##) that appears to be no longer freely available on the web unless you subscribe to certain journals. It constructs a revealed preference ranking by looking at many pairwise comparisons between schools for which a given student gained acceptance, and which school the applicant chose. By doing so, the authors hoped to take into account the fact that some students chose a less selective school because of any number of factors - such as cost after scholarships/financial aid, location, the existence of particular programs of study, legacy ties, etc. It purports to "reveal" the preferences of students based on actual matriculation statistics and came up with a weighted average rank based on matriculation patterns when there were such head-to-head choices made by students. Note that this is NOT by design a selectivity thing, except to the extent that applicants are making the selection. It is also hard for the schools to manipulate the rankings.

19. Duke
20. UVA
25. GA Tech
32. UNC-CH
49. U-MD
52. WFU
57. BC
58. Miami
73. FSU
108. Syracuse

Apparently they did not get data from NCSU, Pitt, Clemson, or Va Tech. It's pretty interesting that Notre Dame comes in at #13, well above Duke, but when you realize how the selection effects work, it's not so surprising. A student applying to ND (or Georgetown, #16) may be particularly interested in attending a Catholic school, so in head-to-head, they may win out more than you would think based strictly on test scores, admission rates, etc. Similarly, Wellesley at #11 comes as a bit of a shock until you consider who might apply there and how they might consider head to head choices between schools. That said, these few are the exceptions - the ranked list begins mostly as you might expect, with Harvard, Caltech, Yale, MIT, Stanford, Princeton....

Thanks for all the information and research-- this is exactly the kind of commentary I was looking for-- you have taken my inquiry in exactly the spirit that I intended...

One question on dividing the yield by the acceptance rate-- is that a widely accepted metric for measuring the combination of selectivity and desirability, or did you create that one yourself? Either way, could you discuss the mechanics of that stat a bit-- why it would be a really good and appropriate way to measure that concept?

Also, on the paired comparisons, how was that done? Is there enough data available to make all of those paired comparison rankings for all of the millions of permutations of school combinations-- and still have a large enough data set to be statistically significant for each of the pair comparisons? I'm not saying there isn't-- I'm just wondering more about the nature of the underlying data and how extensive it is...

One more question on the paired comparisons: does the availability of greater or lesser amounts of financial aid (changing the total cost) tend to corrupt the absolute preference data (by making someone choose a less selective school over a more selective one, simply over cost), or is that "right and just" that the final cost should be factored into the preference data, and therefore simply appropriate that these cost-driven choices are incorporated into the final relative pair-comparison rankings? In other words, is financial aid, and final total cost simply one more factor in creating desirability, or should it be set aside as a data corruptor, that ruins the true comparisons of the selectivity/desirability of schools? (Sort of like somebody saying "I'd really like to own/drive a Ferrari, but the cost of owning one and maintaining it is so much higher than a Corvette that I am going to go with the Corvette instead, when, costs aside, I'd really rather have the Ferrari.")

[Mudge]

It all depends on the context. If you're talking graduate education in the arts and sciences the most important factor is probably your individual faculty advisor. If you're talking something like med, business, or law school the most important factor is probably your department/school's reputation. For most sorts of undergraduate degrees it's probably the university's reputation as a whole. That doesn't necessarily equate to a better (or worse) education; I had a teacher in high school who remarked that you get out of any education what you put into it, provided some minimal level of quality in the institution (which all ACC schools easily meet). But all other factors being equal an undergraduate degree from Duke will hold more reputation points to most employers and grad schools than a degree from, say, Florida State, even if you majored in something that FSU is pretty good at.

Agree, 100%-- and it has been my experience as well.

By the way, I am focusing on the undergraduate education at these schools.

[cf-62]

Again, the ultimate motivation for your question is unknown. You've started some interesting debates - and I find some the information extremely interesting.

But the truth is that a Duke, UNC, or NC State DEGREE will mean mostly the same to an employer - in Charlotte.
A Duke or UVA degree will mean mostly the same thing - to an employer from Richmond.
A Duke or FSU DEGREE will mean mostly the same thing - to an employer from Tampa.

Why? Because, as you said, the reputation of the school does precede the candidate, but it's based on more than just the "average" student. It's based on what the employer knows. So in NC, when you work at IBM, or Lenovo, or Glaxo, or Bank of America, you run into many many talented and smart Duke grads, and UNC grads, and State grads.

So you tend to not put as much weight on one school from another - rather you focus on the fact that they finished their degree.

What makes Duke special is that a Duke degree will land you on that list, along with a handful of other non-ivy schools - no matter where it is. From that perspective, your rankings seem to be fairly accurate.

Now when you're up for that new hire financial analyst job at Goldman-Sachs, does the Duke degree carry more weight than State? Absolutely! But it has to do with a lot of factors, including a BIG one - that there are many MANY G-S analysts from Duke, and have proven themselves (and our education, I guess) for years.

As for the engineering / engineer debate, you're correct - most Duke Engineering Degree holders aren't engineers (nor did we intend to be). Duke Engineering was a great stepping stone to Accenture, MBAs, Law Degrees, and MDs. The faulty argument you make of most great engineers receiving their advanced training at Cal-Tech and MIT aside, the fact is that most of the EEs at State want to be professional engineers. Most at Duke do not.

[cspan37421]

One question on dividing the yield by the acceptance rate-- is that a widely accepted metric for measuring the combination of selectivity and desirability, or did you create that one yourself? Either way, could you discuss the mechanics of that stat a bit-- why it would be a really good and appropriate way to measure that concept?

Also, on the paired comparisons, how was that done? Is there enough data available to make all of those paired comparison rankings for all of the millions of permutations of school combinations-- and still have a large enough data set to be statistically significant for each of the pair comparisons? I'm not saying there isn't-- I'm just wondering more about the nature of the underlying data and how extensive it is...

One more question on the paired comparisons: does the availability of greater or lesser amounts of financial aid (changing the total cost) tend to corrupt the absolute preference data (by making someone choose a less selective school over a more selective one, simply over cost), or is that "right and just" that the final cost should be factored into the preference data, and therefore simply appropriate that these cost-driven choices are incorporated into the final relative pair-comparison rankings? In other words, is financial aid, and final total cost simply one more factor in creating desirability, or should it be set aside as a data corruptor, that ruins the true comparisons of the selectivity/desirability of schools? (Sort of like somebody saying "I'd really like to own/drive a Ferrari, but the cost of owning one and maintaining it is so much higher than a Corvette that I am going to go with the Corvette instead, when, costs aside, I'd really rather have the Ferrari.")

Excellent questions. There was a time when NBER or SSRN or whomever had the Avery, et al (Hoxby among one of them, if you're familiar with her) study online downloadable in PDF form. That has been taken down, so presumably it's protected by copyright now. I would have to re-read the study but I believe that they developed a mathematical model and estimated the covariance matrix using some graduation (smoothing) or LSE techniques, etc. But you're right, that matrix would be huge. I think it was based on over 3000 actual applicants, so although that does generate a lot of pairwise comparisons, it could be small enough of a number to explain the absence of the 4 ACC schools I mention above.

The ratio of yield/acceptance is just one I made up to incorporate the two measures together. By using a multiplicative (inverse), you get a bit more separation from top to bottom. I could have gone additive by taking (yield - acceptance). That would capture the same idea but you do get a slightly different ordering as well as a tighter spread of the ratio. For instance, by taking the difference UNC would be #1 and Duke #2, driven largely by UNC's 54% yield. I think that relates to selection effects of in-state applicants (84% of UNC-CH students are from NC, so I think comparing UNC yield to Duke yield is not really an apples to apples comparison). You can make a case for either method or create another way of combining acceptance rates and yield. It should be noted that Princeton Review does combine additional factors like test scores and HS class rank into an overall selectivity score. They don't say how they do it, but the end result is fairly tight: the range is only 10 points, top to bottom (88 - FSU; 98 - Duke and UVA). This strikes me as a bit of a Lake Wobegon result and I don't find the scaling very credible or informative. [A big reason why the ACC only had a 10 point range may be that the entire book's 373 colleges are stuffed into a scale range of 60-99.]

If you look at those individual components in selectivity (admit%, yield, test scores, HS class rank), there are very substantial differences between the schools. If anything there ought to be more separation when you combine them, not less.

The study explicitly wanted to capture the "revealed preferences" of applicants taking into account ALL factors, especially cost. If a school attracted students because of generous aid packages, they wanted to know that, and let the appeal of such a school be reflected in higher rankings. Keep in mind, such effects would only be relevant in pairwise comparisons. It really wasn't so much that the study's authors felt that it was "right and just" that final cost be taken into account. They wanted to take into account ANYTHING that a student, admitted to both schools, might take into account in making a final choice. Cost is a big one, but not the only one. Reputation. Location. Campus vibe. Size of school. Athletics. Existence of specialized programs. etc. So they did not rank quality or selectivity in the traditional sense. They effectively ranked popularity among their group of top students, but top students were only allowed to vote with their feet (by actually choosing where to matriculate, among schools to which they were accepted). So if you applied to Duke, UNC, and Wake, you would not contribute anything about the ranking of Harvard or Yale. If you applied to Amherst, Pomona, and Carleton, you would not contribute a vote about anything with respect to Duke, UNC, Wake, Harvard or Yale. If, however, you applied to Yale, Duke, and Carleton, and chose Yale, and another student applied to Davidson, Duke, and Furman, and chose Duke, well, now we're starting to get some relationships. The study goes well with other recent research indicating that on various measures of "success" after graduation, it matters more where you got in to college, not where you attended.

[sagegrouse]

I have three comments:

1. Thank goodness this is off the EK Board. This is an uncomfortable topic, measuring schools in a conference by any measure where the host school is presumed to be #1. I would actually feel better if it were addressed on some other school's fan site. I mean, quoting the fictional Hokie, doesn't this sound like something those awful Dukies would do?

2. If you look at acceptance rates, you are making some assumption about the underlying applicant pool. Fact is, applicants at Stanford are probably more highly qualified than applicants at every state university. Therefore, what does the acceptance rate mean? Moreover, I can imagine a world where, e.g., a Caltech becomes so fearsome that only the most highly qualified ever think of applying and the acceptance rate is correspondingly high.

3. To measure the brains in the student body. I would be more inclined to look at other measures that directly capture the quality of the student body, such as SAT scores, % entering in HS top ten percent, etc.

I have a few other points but promised myself I would stick to three.

sagegrouse

[hurleyfor3]

Does this thread have a point other than to remind ourselves how wonderful we are for having attended Duke? Where would Lehigh rank if it were in the ACC?

[hurleyfor3]

I would actually feel better if it were addressed on some other school's fan site. I mean, quoting the fictional Hokie, doesn't this sound like something those awful Dukies would do?

I'd be much less sanguine if this thread had popped up before the job interview I had last month in Blacksburg. Which I didn't get anyway, but that's beside the point.

[Mudge]

Again, the ultimate motivation for your question is unknown. You've started some interesting debates - and I find some the information extremely interesting.

But the truth is that a Duke, UNC, or NC State DEGREE will mean mostly the same to an employer - in Charlotte.
A Duke or UVA degree will mean mostly the same thing - to an employer from Richmond.
A Duke or FSU DEGREE will mean mostly the same thing - to an employer from Tampa.

Why? Because, as you said, the reputation of the school does precede the candidate, but it's based on more than just the "average" student. It's based on what the employer knows. So in NC, when you work at IBM, or Lenovo, or Glaxo, or Bank of America, you run into many many talented and smart Duke grads, and UNC grads, and State grads.

So you tend to not put as much weight on one school from another - rather you focus on the fact that they finished their degree.

What makes Duke special is that a Duke degree will land you on that list, along with a handful of other non-ivy schools - no matter where it is. From that perspective, your rankings seem to be fairly accurate.

Now when you're up for that new hire financial analyst job at Goldman-Sachs, does the Duke degree carry more weight than State? Absolutely! But it has to do with a lot of factors, including a BIG one - that there are many MANY G-S analysts from Duke, and have proven themselves (and our education, I guess) for years.

As for the engineering / engineer debate, you're correct - most Duke Engineering Degree holders aren't engineers (nor did we intend to be). Duke Engineering was a great stepping stone to Accenture, MBAs, Law Degrees, and MDs. The faulty argument you make of most great engineers receiving their advanced training at Cal-Tech and MIT aside, the fact is that most of the EEs at State want to be professional engineers. Most at Duke do not.

I absolutely agree with the part in bold, where you mention the ability of Duke to have a positive effect, sight unseen, in many locales (and in some very tough ones, as well.)

I did not, however, say that "most great engineers received advanced training (i.e.- graduate degrees) at CIT or MIT"-- what I said was, that more of the undergrads at those schools (than at most other highly selective schools which offer undergrad engineering majors) actually intend to work in science/engineering, and many more of them actually continue on to get graduate degrees, perhaps at CIT/MIT, perhaps elsewhere.

[Mudge]

I have three comments:

1. Thank goodness this is off the EK Board. This is an uncomfortable topic, measuring schools in a conference by any measure where the host school is presumed to be #1. I would actually feel better if it were addressed on some other school's fan site. I mean, quoting the fictional Hokie, doesn't this sound like something those awful Dukies would do?

2. If you look at acceptance rates, you are making some assumption about the underlying applicant pool. Fact is, applicants at Stanford are probably more highly qualified than applicants at every state university. Therefore, what does the acceptance rate mean? Moreover, I can imagine a world where, e.g., a Caltech becomes so fearsome that only the most highly qualified ever think of applying and the acceptance rate is correspondingly high.

3. To measure the brains in the student body. I would be more inclined to look at other measures that directly capture the quality of the student body, such as SAT scores, % entering in HS top ten percent, etc.

I have a few other points but promised myself I would stick to three.

sagegrouse

1) I quite purposefully (and correctly, from a filing accuracy perspective) put this on the Off-Topic board-- it has nothing to do with athletics (or more specifically, basketball), whatsoever-- I wouldn't care if all of these schools didn't even have athletic teams. I don't think many people from other schools even read this off-topic board, as most of the entries are too esoteric to interest the average sports fan of other schools-- so I'm not too worried about being perceived as arrogant. But as for arrogance of presuming Duke to be number one-ranked (at least in the ACC):

A) Nobody seems to mind when Duke fans do that in basketball posts on the other board (somehow it's OK to be perceived as arrogant about basketball achievements-- and, ironically, the accomplishments of a group of people which do not include oneself-- as the vast majority of posters on any of these boards are not members of the sports team that they are bragging about-- but it's not OK to be arrogant about intellectual achievements-- on which most posters here DO have some effect/input... this has the makings of a whole 'nother great discussion: why do we feel the need to be modest about intellectual accomplishments, but not about athletic accomplishments-- it's weird that one is socially acceptable, and the other seems not to be).

B) I think the assertion that Duke is number one is quite possibly (and demonstrably) true... that said, I did not create the thread to provide a bragging opportunity-- rather, I have a direct interest in the relative rankings of the academic merits of the student bodies as a whole, of the other schools in the ACC-- if Duke doesn't prove out top-ranked, I can certainly live with that.

C) I am more than willing to listen to and entertain arguments as to why it may not be true-- I am not so died-in-the-wool Duke-oriented that I think Duke is the best at everything... if somebody else can make an argument that someone else in the ACC has better raw material (in their student body) than Duke, I would like to hear about it... in the meantime, I am more interested in hearing how the raw material at the other 13 ACC schools stacks up compared to each other.


2) Good point about self-selection leading to higher ranked applicant pools-- I absolutely believe that the CalTech effect is there-- just as it probably is for tech applicants who aspire to work at Google, etc.


3) Of course these other metrics (test scores, grades, class rank, etc.) should be considered-- I have even asked that they be considered-- but it's also quite true that these very same metrics tend to be the ones that the schools involved are using to determine who gets accepted-- so these metrics are somewhat built into the acceptance rates (and by inference the matriculation qualities of the students at each school).

[allenmurray]

I started the debate, because I was interested in what other readers here think about the relative academic merits of the other schools in the ACC, and also in the relative academic merits of the highest profile athletic conferences vs. the ACC. I readily admit that what I am trying to measure is selectivity of the schools in their admission of students, not necessarily the quality of the various academic departments at the schools-- I am trying to figure out who is admitting the most selective (in toto, not some skimming of the cream for the honors program at the top of the barrel) cohort of students, at these colleges.

Those kids who could/would get into Duke, but choose UNC for cost, help UNC's data-- that is reflected in what I am trying to measure-- but many, if not most, UNC students (and particularly those who are NC residents) most certainly would not have been admitted to Duke.

I also acknowledge that, if you want to study engineering AND actually work as an engineer, there are top programs at some of the otherwise low-ranked schools in my list. However, at most top schools, other than the CalTechs and MITs (where I'd bet a good majority of students who plan to work as engineers go on to get advanced engineering degrees), a large portion of engineering majors either have no intention of working as engineers, or end up not working as engineers-- they are like people who go to law school, with no intention of practicing law-- they just wanted the legal training, to create certain mental disciplines and understanding, but do not want to be lawyers. In my experience, a vast majority of the Duke engineers that I went to school with were not working as engineers, within only 5 years of graduation-- and I'd bet this is true of engineering majors from Harvard, Wash U, Stanford, etc.-- those that do, generally have gone on for graduate engineering degrees, but it is much more common for them to get some other kind of advanced professional degree (MBA, JD, MD), and to not be working as an engineer at all.

However, the fact that undergraduate engineering programs might be higher ranked at some of the more pedestrian large state universities does not tend to support the idea that the students admitted to those large schools, by and large, are on par with those admitted to Duke, or Virginia, or UNC, or BC, etc. Texas A&M has the absolute top-ranked program in the country in petroleum engineering-- if you want to work in the energy business, in that end of it (and extremely lucrative business, by the way), you can't do better than that-- but TAMU students as a whole do not compare, on a mental horsepower basis, with the students Duke admits. I think that there is a substantive difference in the "average student" at Duke vs. say, NC State, and the average student tends to be the one that gives the school its reputation and perception out in the world.

some of the more pedestrian large state universities

do not compare, on a mental horsepower basis

You used a lot of words, but it only took a few to show your real purpose and bias. Why don't we just retitle the thread, "Oh, aren't we woonderful". And we wonder why we are precieved to be so full of ourselves.

[Mudge]

Does this thread have a point other than to remind ourselves how wonderful we are for having attended Duke? Where would Lehigh rank if it were in the ACC?

It's really not about Duke-- it's about the other schools in the ACC-- see my earlier post, for a more extensive statement on the real point of interest for this thread.

[allenmurray]

Does this thread have a point other than to remind ourselves how wonderful we are for having attended Duke?

No, it does not.

[Mudge]

some of the more pedestrian large state universities

do not compare, on a mental horsepower basis

You used a lot of words, but it only took a few to show your real purpose and bias. Why don't we just retitle the thread, "Oh, aren't we woonderful". And we wonder why we are precieved to be so full of ourselves.

You have completely misread the purpose of the thread-- you think you have spotted the bogeyman, hiding under the covers, but you have not-- participate in the discussion if you want to, or not... or you can spend your time, taking a few phrases out of context... meantime, I will be focusing on those with actual data to contribute to the discussion.

[rthomas]

No, it does not.

When one posts, not one but, two self congratulatory "mine is better than yours" threads, I think that person simply needs a hug.

[sagegrouse]

some of the more pedestrian large state universities

do not compare, on a mental horsepower basis

You used a lot of words, but it only took a few to show your real purpose and bias. Why don't we just retitle the thread, "Oh, aren't we woonderful". And we wonder why we are precieved to be so full of ourselves.


Does this thread have a point other than to remind ourselves how wonderful we are for having attended Duke? Where would Lehigh rank if it were in the ACC?


You have completely misread the purpose of the thread-- you think you have spotted the bogeyman, hiding under the covers, but you have not-- participate in the discussion if you want to, or not... or you can spend your time, taking a few phrases out of context... meantime, I will be focusing on those with actual data to contribute to the discussion.

You have my sympathies, Mudge. The problem with the thread on DBR is that it is a no-win situation. No one who posts here, not even a curmudgeon like you, has the presumed independent status to make an acceptable judgment. I see two ways out of this quandary (no, this is not a play by Sartre). Here are possible reformulations of the original question:

1. "Leaving aside Duke for obvious reasons, how would you rank or group the ACC schools on an academic basis, including newcomers Pitt and Syracuse?"

2. "Just as an exercise, using Duke as the example we are most familiar with, what measures or data would you use to judge the excellence of a university?"

sagegrouse

[cspan37421]

I nearly added a final paragraph at the end of my previous post on this thread (and now I wish I had) that I would not take any such data and infer something about intelligence or potential. Different people mature (intellectually) at different rates, and to different degrees. Duke is a one of the most selective schools in the nation - let's not pretend it isn't out of false humility - but their selection process is based heavily on what a student has done to that point. It does not necessarily mean that they will continue to grow at the same rate or achieve the same things. In fact, I observed not a few classmates who seemed to have peaked in HS (or more often, prep school) - as far as their effort and intellectual engagement went. They seemed to be there for basketball, a degree, and networking. As a senior I would sometimes go down dorm halls and see job rejection letters posted on some doors and think of the irony.

I think too it has been observed on graduate / professional school threads (perhaps here, perhaps collegeconfidential.com) that top students at state universities often out-hustle their private school counterparts when it comes to work ethic. Good example: one of my good friends is a department DUS at Duke and he was a Big Ten undergrad - and not a "public ivy" big ten like Michigan, either. He went on to Harvard for his PhD. Nothing wrong with state school. In fact, in my 40s I went to community college for music classes - I learned a lot, and met some great people. [and yes, I love the TV show Community as well].

Duke is very selective. But what matters is what you do with your education.

Now, I don't pretend to know why mudge was interested in any kind of academic rating of ACC schools. Perhaps curiosity. Perhaps, like me, he has a kid in the throes of college search and wanted to know something about general reputation as a starting point. As I said, the only ranking that matters is your own. So if you really want to be an engineer and being in ATL is key for you, well, Ga Tech has to be your #1 school. For me, it was being in NC. I just love the state. I applied to Duke and UNC, and would have applied to Wake if I hadn't gotten in Duke ED before the deadline for Wake's app. [For grad school, I got in NCSU, but ended up sticking with my professional career path].

As I mentioned earlier, the top students at a given school are probably going to be the top anywhere. My friend mentioned above is a case in point. But to get a vibe for the school, you probably want to know something more about the median student. If you are in for the intellectual adventure, it may not be enough that there are top students at your School X who are as sharp as the top anywhere. If most people around you are partying like Delta House starting on Wednesday and going through Sunday, you may not be happy. You may want to be at a more intellectual school. If you hate big time sports, you might not like Duke and might prefer UChicago. (talk about self-selection in the admission and yield rates).

So, mods, if you think this whole thread is fodder for those who think we're a bunch of self-absorbed narcissists who are in danger of injuring our rotator cuff patting ourselves on the back, that's OK, feel free to close and/or delete the thread. I'd also recommend staying away from Duke info sessions as you'll probably hear a lot of stuff about Duke's selectivity there too. They don't do it arrogantly, just as matter of fact and so that applicants know the reality of the situation. If you want arrogance, how about reports that Harvard students chanting at a H-Y game (hoops maybe?) "We are the 6%!"

Attitude and demeanor are hard to convey in a blog posting - sometimes things are read differently than they would come out if spoken out loud. I have tried to stick to factual information published in college guides and other research. I agree that Mudge's words at times did seem to come awfully close to equating college ranking with intelligence and perhaps even potential. For the record, I don't feel that way myself. I'll let him/her speak for him/herself. (that too came out awkward).

[cspan37421]

If you are in for the intellectual adventure, it may not be enough that there are top students at your School X who are as sharp as the top anywhere. If most people around you are partying like Delta House starting on Wednesday and going through Sunday, you may not be happy.

PS for the kids, that's a Faber College reference.

[hurleyfor3]

And that's as good a place as any to wind things up.