quote:

---

Team Name-Program Prestige-Academic Prestige
Prestiges in number of stars out of 6

Air Force-2-5
Akron-2-2
Alabama-5-4
Arizona-3-4
Arizona State-4-3
Arkansas-3-3
Arkansas State-1-3
Army-1-5
Auburn-5-4
Ball State-1-3
Baylor-2-4
Boise State-3-3
Boston College-3-4
Bowling Green-3-3
Buffalo-1-3
BYU-3-4
Cal-5-6
Central Michigan-1-2
Cinncinnati-2-3
Clemson-4-4
Colorado-4-4
Colorado State-3-4
Connecticut-2-4
Duke-2-6
Eastern Michigan-1-3
ECU-2-3
FIU-1-4
Florida-6-4
Florida Atlantic-1-2
Florida State-6-4
Fresno State-3-3
Georgia-6-4
Georgia Tech-4-5
Hawaii-3-3
Houston-2-3
Idaho-1-3
Illinois-3-5
Indiana-2-4
Iowa-5-4
Iowa State-3-4
Kansas-2-4
Kansas State-4-3
Kent State-1-3
Kentucky-2-4
Louisiana Tech-2-3
Louisville-4-3
LSU-6-3
Marshall-3-3
Maryland-4-4
Memphis-3-2
Miami-6-4
Miami U-2-4
Michigan-6-6
Michigan State-4-4
Middle Tennessee State-1-2
Minnesota-4-4
Mississippi State-3-3
Missouri-3-4
Navy-1-5
NC State-4-4
Nebraska-5-4
Nevada-2-3
New Mexico-2-3
New Mexico State-1-2
North Carolina-3-5
North Texas-2-3
Northern Illinois-3-3
Northwestern-3-6
Notre Dame-6-5
Ohio-1-4
Ohio State-6-4
Oklahoma-6-4
Oklahoma State-3-3
Ole Miss-3-3
Oregon-4-4
Oregon State-4-3
Penn State-5-4
Pittsburgh-4-4
Purdue-4-5
Rice-3-5
Rutgers-2-3
San Diego State-2-3
San Jose State-1-3
SMU-1-4
South Carolina-4-4
Southern Miss-3-3
Stanford-3-6
Syracuse-4-4
TCU-3-3
Temple-1-3
Tennessee-6-4
Texas-6-5
Texas A&M-5-4
Texas Tech-3-3
Toledo-3-2
Troy-1-2
Tulane-2-4
Tulsa-2-3
UAB-2-3
UCF-2-3
UCLA-4-5
UL Lafayette-1-2
UL Monroe-1-2
UNLV-2-2
USC-6-5
USF-2-3
Utah-4-4
Utah State-1-3
UTEP-2-2
Vanderbilt-2-5
Virginia-4-5
Virgina Tech-5-4
Wake Forest-3-4
Washington-4-5
Washington State-4-3
West Virginia-4-3
Western Michigan-1-3
Wisconsin-4-5
Wyoming-2-3

---

Thoughts?

no way wake forrest is a 4. that list has flaws

Is it just football? Not overall athletics? Because I noticed STanford was a 2 or 3, and they win the damn Sears Cup every year. (Obviously not on the strength of their football team, though.)

Michigan is the only 6-6, and Rice is only a "5", academically? Yeah, I think these rankings might be a bit "tainted".

[This message has been edited by terata (edited 7/8/2005 8:03a).]

Yeah, the gap between Rice and Texas is about 50 times as big as the gap between Texas and Texas A&M.

quote:

---

Texas Tech-3-3

---

Ain't no party like a Tier 3 party.

Michigan is a better school academically than Rice.

edit: They both should be a 6, though.


[This message has been edited by Gig-Em03 (edited 7/8/2005 9:13a).]

I don't think Michigan is ranked higher than Rice (from historical rankings and my memory of). And if they are a 6, then UNC probably should be as well.

quote:

---

Yeah, the gap between Rice and Texas is about 50 times as big as the gap between Texas and Texas A&M.

---

Depends on the Disapline. Both Texas and Texas A&M have better engineering programs than Rice. This was the main reason I chose Texas over Rice... I wanted to go to a Top-10 engineering program.

Disapline....not a top 10 spelling school huh?

My bad.

miami should be a 5 in academics

quote:

---

Michigan is a better school academically than Rice.

---

Absolutely not.

pdub you might be right but as much as i hate to say it (that's an understatement) the inbreds have a really strong academic reputation

quote:

---

Oklahoma-6-4

---

0U gets a 4 in academic prestige? That ruins the credibility of the list right there.

Were it not for the private school bias inherent in most rankings lists you see, Michigan, UVA, UCLA, Cal-Berkely and UNC would be in the top ten to 15 of national universities. All above Rice, I might add.

As is, they're all usually right around Rice academically.

What kills each of those schools is class size, a factor I always found totally irrelevant to my learning experience.

What has happened is that the folks that do these rankings have changed their methodologies to the prejudice of traditionally great public universities.

[This message has been edited by BurntOrangeAndBlue (edited 7/8/2005 3:14p).]

For a school of 35,000, Michigan's academic reputation is more impressive that Rice's. Rice is only ranked higher in US News because it's private and has better student:faculty ratios, as previously mentioned.

It is difficult to compare Michigan, large major public school, to the smallest division 1 school, Rice. With that said, I'd put Rice above Michigan in prestige. Both are at the top academically, but just think of academic PRESTIGE. Rice wins.

Rice should be a 6. I'd put OU at a 3 (they suck) in academc prestige. I know they have a great program at buying National Merit
Scholars, but the rest of the is closer to Texas State. And they is not meant to be a put down to TSU, just my opinion.

Colorado State is a 4...., that is too high.

quote:

---

For a school of 35,000, Michigan's academic reputation is more impressive that Rice's. Rice is only ranked higher in US News because it's private and has better student:faculty ratios, as previously mentioned.

---

The above quote doesn't make sense. The heading is Academic Prestige.
Question: Which school is harder to matriculate into?
Answer: Rice
Therefore, Rice has a higher academic prestige.

I was merely stating that those two factors are why Rice is above Michigan in the rankings. Private does not equal academically superior, although the average person would assume it does.

quote:

---

pdub you might be right but as much as i hate to say it (that's an understatement) the inbreds have a really strong academic reputation

---

Absolutely, Mich is a great school. But it's no Rice IMO.

quote:

---

For a school of 35,000, Michigan's academic reputation is more impressive that Rice's. Rice is only ranked higher in US News because it's private and has better student:faculty ratios, as previously mentioned.

---

This makes no sense. You can't separate the issuie of student:faculty ratios from the rankings themselves. Maintaining an awesome student:faculty ratio is PART of why Rice is more prestigious.

[This message has been edited by ProdigyDub (edited 7/8/2005 6:04p).]

quote:

---

This makes no sense. You can't separate the issuie of student:faculty ratios from the rankings themselves. Maintaining an awesome student:faculty ratio is PART of why Rice is more prestigious.

---

Only because the people who rank the "prestige" of these schools recently have come to view that ratio as important.

What I think you'll find in most large public universities is large classes in freshman and maybe sophomore req'd courses and smaller classes when you start getting closer to your core curriculum.

These US News rankings are so manipulated its ridiculous. When they first began ranking law schools Michigan was always in the top three. Then they changed the methodology and it fell to 6-7, where it has stayed since. Nothing about any of the schools above it changed but the perception that private schools must be better because they're smaller.

Maybe in Texas and in US News Rice would outrank Michigan in terms of prestige, it would not anywhere else.

michigan blows

quote:

---

Only because the people who rank the "prestige" of these schools recently have come to view that ratio as important.

What I think you'll find in most large public universities is large classes in freshman and maybe sophomore req'd courses and smaller classes when you start getting closer to your core curriculum.

These US News rankings are so manipulated its ridiculous. When they first began ranking law schools Michigan was always in the top three. Then they changed the methodology and it fell to 6-7, where it has stayed since. Nothing about any of the schools above it changed but the perception that private schools must be better because they're smaller.

Maybe in Texas and in US News Rice would outrank Michigan in terms of prestige, it would not anywhere else.

---

Good student:faculty is ONE reason Rice is more prestigious than Michigan, not THE reason.

Smaller does not equal better. I don't think anyone's arguing that Ouchita Baptist University is more prestigious than Michigan. But a combination of small and a high degree of competitive entry/selectivity DOES indicate prestige.

[This message has been edited by ProdigyDub (edited 7/8/2005 6:41p).]

Burnt,

I don't give a rats arse about USNews or any other ranking. Sure Michigan is a great school, but do you know how selective Rice is?All 500 students who get into Rice each year would be guaranteed to get into Michigan. All of them. Only a few of the thousands of Michigan freshman would me admitted to Rice. Rice only admits about 500 freshman a year. And they take a diverse group, from all over the U. S.
Michigan is not much harder to get into than Texas. Not being from Michigan or Texas is the biggest hurdle when trying to get into one of them.
Anyway, in terms of pure academic prestige, Rice wins.
Sure, you can get peole to disagree and say Michigan is more prestigous. I can find people who think A & M is Texas' number one rival, those people do exist, but doesn't make them right.

quote:

---

But a combination of small and a high degree of competitive entry/selectivity DOES indicate prestige.

---

Cal, UCLA, UNC, Mich and UVA do not lag far behind Rice (if at all) in selectivity. All are listed as among the "Most Selective" schools.

Texas and A&M aren't fairing so poorly either. Fact is, the competition at the top of any of those schools is as good as you'll find. And (unlike many private schools) you will not find grade inflation to keep the kids at the bottom afloat.

Taking US News' rankings, the most significant part of the rankings is "faculty resources" of which the most signiificant part is "faculty pay."

What that has to do with anyone's education is beyond me.

Let me add, I've got relatives who have gone to Michigan and others who have gone to Rice.

I'm not arguing pure academics, or where I'd rather go. I know a couple years ago, I read that Rice was the second most selective university in the nation. Due to only accepting about 500 freshman, many many valedictorians even from large academic high schools get turned down by Rice. I know of one such case here in Austin. She got into Stanford but not Rice. I know what I'm talking about.

Burnt,

You don't know what you are talking about. No large public universities have the selectivity Rice has. End of story.

You're stuck on this selectivity thing - Rice chooses to be small, and selective. It doesn't mean they are providing a better education.

The fact that Michigan has the resources to teach 35,000 students at a high level is MUCH more impressive to me than a school of 3k who gets so much of its credit because it's small and private.

They are both good schools, I will concede that they are equal. You have said nothing to convince me that Rice is much better than Michigan.

quote:

---

It doesn't mean they are providing a better education.

---

quote:

---

You have said nothing to convince me that Rice is much better than Michigan

---

And I'm not saying Rice will give you a better education. Nor am I saying that Rice is better than Michigan.

Hey, they should both have a 6. How about that? In academic prestige, give them both 6's.

I will add that I could have gone to Michigan, but I had no chance to get into Rice. Well, not much of a chance.

[This message has been edited by Texas_Fan (edited 7/8/2005 7:20p).]

quote:

---

I know what I'm talking about.

---

Oh okay. I'll just have to trust you then.

The competition at the top half (and probably significantly more) of Michigan is comparable to that of any of the Ivies. And the competition to be the best at Texas and A&M is pretty d*mn stiff too.

The fact that there are also somewhat weaker students (as there would be at any public university) does not diminish the fact that your competition to be the best at those schools is quite comparable to that at the top private schools.

If you're in the bottom 10-25% of the class it might matter. But the vast majority of the students at the top public schools are not at that level--they're much, much higher. As you go down the chain of public shools you'll find that the percentage of the student body who would be academically competitive at the top of other schools start to drop.

At some public univerisities, the competition at the top isn't comparable at all to the best private schools. That's not the case with the best public schools though.

In my field, law firms rank schools this way. They know how far down a class they can go to get quality students. It's different for every school. At the top public law schools (Michigan, UVA, Berkeley, to a lesser extent Texas) you can go pretty far down the class. Certainly, you'll find as many capable lawyers in those classes as you will at Yale (in fact, lawyers and judges appear to agree in those rankings that Yale isn't so great--it probably has the highest selectivity rating but a not so great reputation ranking among those who practice law). This deals with graduate studies, but it's analagous to undergraduate.

I fail to see your point anyway, when as far as US News is concerned, Rice and Michigan and UCLA and UNC and UVA have the SAME selectivity rating (with Texas and A&M being slightly lower).

[This message has been edited by BurntOrangeAndBlue (edited 7/8/2005 7:32p).]

quote:

---

michigan blows

---

POTD!!!

quote:

---

I've got relatives who have gone to Michigan

---

here. i offer my deepest condolences

muck fichigan

not that my friends is pure genius.


michigan: where the men are men and the sheep are scared

Why wouldn't the sheep be scared at Michigan State, that is the ag school.

State is bigger than Michigan though.