US News Global University Ranking: North America in the Top 100

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Gresto

After all, isn't the principal function of a professor to teach and inspire his or her students with aplomb, mastery, and erudition? Research and publication should rightly be deemed secondary,

You're looking at this from the point of view of a student (or perhaps a teacher?), not an academic. If academics are most passionate about teaching, they wouldn't get a PhD and spend years of their life doing research, they'd become teachers. Sure, education, mentoring, and outreach are all important parts of an academic's life, but the science (or... humanities? I don't know, maybe things are different there) is the goal. Many faculty "don't mind" teaching, and some even enjoy it, but it's not their priority. Places with the lightest teaching loads are more desirable, and in some cases faculty can often even use grant money to "buy-out" their teaching slot, hiring a lecturer or adjunct or something to fill the role. There are places that make education a priority (e.g. liberal arts colleges, supposedly), but everywhere I'm familiar with, teaching is "important" and "crucial," but in practice tenure decisions are made based on publications, grants, and how much people like you.

(Disclaimer: I'm soft-money "Other Academic Appointee" with a non-teaching primarily-research role).

[streetscaper]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I've worked with Ivy League interns... some of them were the most obnoxious people.

Two in particular stand out, both from the "U of Penn."

If I were doing the hiring, the resumes of anyone from the U of Penn would be thrown in the trash.

lol my alma matter... I can't say you're wrong though

What did you find obnoxious about them?

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

You're looking at this from the point of view of a student (or perhaps a teacher?), not an academic. If academics are most passionate about teaching, they wouldn't get a PhD and spend years of their life doing research, they'd become teachers. Sure, education, mentoring, and outreach are all important parts of an academic's life, but the science (or... humanities? I don't know, maybe things are different there) is the goal. Many faculty "don't mind" teaching, and some even enjoy it, but it's not their priority. Places with the lightest teaching loads are more desirable, and in some cases faculty can often even use grant money to "buy-out" their teaching slot, hiring a lecturer or adjunct or something to fill the role. There are places that make education a priority (e.g. liberal arts colleges, supposedly), but everywhere I'm familiar with, teaching is "important" and "crucial," but in practice tenure decisions are made based on publications, grants, and how much people like you.

(Disclaimer: I'm soft-money "Other Academic Appointee" with a non-teaching primarily-research role).

Agreed 100% (Disclaimer: I am an Academic with an alternative workload (50% research, 30% teaching, 20% service) that is focused more on research and teaching research methodology, at a research intensive university, but I got this solely due to merit after spending 20 years in the trenches balancing teaching, research and service, at the usual 40:40:20 workload typical at research-intensive universities in Canada, as well as after creating numerous programs (and countless courses/seminars) that have graduated thousands of students. Not a week goes by that I don't work 60+ hours). Most of the pure research is still being done at universities, and much of it would never be done if researchers were told that research is secondary to teaching.

[JManc]

I have many colleagues who are academics and man, that's an arduous gig. More power to them. I pondered a PhD (briefly) but the department closed and settled on a second masters instead.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Sure, education, mentoring, and outreach are all important parts of an academic's life, but the science (or... humanities? I don't know, maybe things are different there) is the goal.

Based on my own personal experiences in social science academia, I don't think the humanities are all that different from STEM in that regard. The professors I had were researchers first and foremost, educators second although I was fortunate in that most of my professors were also damn good teachers.

Fridays in particular were always absolute no-no's for office visits because that was the one day during the work week when most of them did research, writing and focusing on getting articles published.

[Gresto]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

You're looking at this from the point of view of a student (or perhaps a teacher?), not an academic. If academics are most passionate about teaching, they wouldn't get a PhD and spend years of their life doing research, they'd become teachers. Sure, education, mentoring, and outreach are all important parts of an academic's life, but the science (or... humanities? I don't know, maybe things are different there) is the goal. Many faculty "don't mind" teaching, and some even enjoy it, but it's not their priority. Places with the lightest teaching loads are more desirable, and in some cases faculty can often even use grant money to "buy-out" their teaching slot, hiring a lecturer or adjunct or something to fill the role. There are places that make education a priority (e.g. liberal arts colleges, supposedly), but everywhere I'm familiar with, teaching is "important" and "crucial," but in practice tenure decisions are made based on publications, grants, and how much people like you.

(Disclaimer: I'm soft-money "Other Academic Appointee" with a non-teaching primarily-research role).

Yes, I disregarded the research aspect. My dear dad was a professor of political theory. He is the brightest person I have ever known, or indeed known of, and was exalted by many of his students, but he worked at a "low-ranked" university. That's why these academic lists always leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Dad was not at all a conceited man, and wouldn't have given such rankings a second thought, but it must be decidedly dispiriting for some excellent, dedicated professors to look at these lists and think to themselves, Oh, great, I work at the 567th-ranked university in the world. What am I doing with my life?

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Gresto

Yes, I disregarded the research aspect. My dear dad was a professor of political theory. He is the brightest person I have ever known, or indeed known of, and was exalted by many of his students, but he worked at a "low-ranked" university. That's why these academic lists always leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Dad was not at all a conceited man, and wouldn't have given such rankings a second thought, but it must be decidedly dispiriting for some excellent, dedicated professors to look at these lists and think to themselves, Oh, great, I work at the 567th-ranked university in the world. What am I doing with my life?

There are many more candidates than faculty jobs are available so even Directional Podunk State University will tend to have very bright faculty (especially if it's a "research university"). But they typically will have fewer faculty with higher teaching loads and lower levels of research support. And the people at top schools will on average get better grad students and postdocs, for whose work they generally get to take credit for .

[craigs]

I believe good professors can be found at any research university.

[MolsonExport]

It is a really shitty time to be coming on "the market" (as they call it) for freshly-minted academics. I am on a bunch of appointments committees and wow, the quality of applicants is just outstanding, as we now get the best and brightest, with degrees from pedigree institutions, not only from Canadian and American schools (the usual catchment basis), but from the UK, Hong Kong, Australia, and the EU. To have a shot, you NEED more than "promise"; you need publications (in hand or accepted) in FT top-50 journals.

And of course we get applications from a lot of people that haven't got much of a chance, from universities in emerging markets. Although there are more than a few good universities in emerging markets, most of them just don't offer the rigorous training [aka "American-style" PhD programs, with intensive coursework + theory papers + comprehensive exams + dissertation + teaching gigs] that are the norm in Canadian/American PhD programs.

We are also seeing a lot of applications from people seeking lateral moves (Associate or Full Professor level) and even many who are willing to lose tenure (or otherwise move down a rank, e.g., from Associate to Assistant Prof) where they currently are to secure a position at my institution.

Naturally, expectations (research accomplishments) for getting tenure and/or promotion (to Associate or to Full Prof) have been rising accordingly.

The point being this: there are a huge number of qualified applicants for every open position. It is even worse outside of STEM/Business disciplines.

PhD in History? good luck getting hired for a tenure track job at any university.

[Manitopiaaa]

Here's my gut take for North America based on lay reputation alone

Super Omega Supreme Elite
MIT
Harvard
Princeton
Stanford
Yale

Super Omega Elite
Caltech
Chicago
Columbia
Johns Hopkins
Penn

Super Elite
Brown
Cornell
Dartmouth
Northwestern
Vanderbilt

Elite
Berkeley
Carnegie Mellon
Duke
Georgetown
Michigan
Notre Dame
Toronto
UCLA
Virginia
Washington U-STL

[dc_denizen]

Caltech #1

All merit based admission

No dummies

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

The point being this: there are a huge number of qualified applicants for every open position. It is even worse outside of STEM/Business disciplines.

PhD in History? good luck getting hired for a tenure track job at any university.

This made me smile and think of one of my all-time favorite Archer conversations (from Heart of Archness Part II):

Archer: "Wow, you're only a doctoral candidate?"
Noah: "Hey, guy, my field's anthropology."
Riley: "Heh heh! Good luck with the job hunt."
Archer: (laughing) "Right?"
Noah: "Not that it's any of your business, but I plan to teach."
Archer: "Anthropology?"
Noah: "Wha--? Yes!
Riley: "To . . . anthropology majors?"
Noah: (angry) "Hey, you know what?"
Archer: "Thus completing the circle of 'Why bother?'"

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Here's my gut take for North America based on lay reputation alone

Super Omega Supreme Elite
MIT
Harvard
Princeton
Stanford
Yale

Super Omega Elite
Caltech
Chicago
Columbia
Johns Hopkins
Penn

Super Elite
Brown
Cornell
Dartmouth
Northwestern
Vanderbilt

Elite
Berkeley
Carnegie Mellon
Duke
Georgetown
Michigan
Notre Dame
Toronto
UCLA
Virginia
Washington U-STL

Vanderbilt, Carnegie Mellon, Michigan, UCLA... could likely all be swapped out for other top schools. I think Rice would probably fit in here somewhere too.

[chris08876]

Rutgers doesn't even dip below 100. WTF!

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Here's my gut take for North America based on lay reputation alone

Super Omega Supreme Elite
MIT
Harvard
Princeton
Stanford
Yale

Super Omega Elite
Caltech
Chicago
Columbia
Johns Hopkins
Penn

Super Elite
Brown
Cornell
Dartmouth
Northwestern
Vanderbilt

Elite
Berkeley
Carnegie Mellon
Duke
Georgetown
Michigan
Notre Dame
Toronto
UCLA
Virginia
Washington U-STL

Cal should probably be bumped up one or two tiers on this list. It punches wayyyy above its weight class.

[Quixote]

^ I'd bump Berkeley and Northwestern up to the "Super Omega Elite" category.

UCLA firmly belongs with Cornell, Brown, Duke, Dartmouth, Michigan, Virginia, UNC, and NYU in the next tier below.

Then it's Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Rice, Carnegie Mellon, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, Washington-STL.

IMO.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Here's my gut take for North America based on lay reputation alone

Super Omega Supreme Elite
MIT
Harvard
Princeton
Stanford
Yale

Super Omega Elite
Caltech
Chicago
Columbia
Johns Hopkins
Penn

Super Elite
Brown
Cornell
Dartmouth
Northwestern
Vanderbilt

Elite
Berkeley
Carnegie Mellon
Duke
Georgetown
Michigan
Notre Dame
Toronto
UCLA
Virginia
Washington U-STL

I'd move Princeton down a tier or two. I'd move Caltech up to the top tier. I'd move Johns Hopkins down one tier... and Vanderbilt just seems over ranked, but I know it places high on the U.S. News list. And I'd break up the Elite tier.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Caltech #1

All merit based admission

No dummies

I know plenty of Caltech undergrads (and PhD's for that matter). Rest assured they have their dummies.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ I'd bump Berkeley and Northwestern up to the "Super Omega Elite" category.

UCLA firmly belongs with Cornell, Brown, Duke, Dartmouth, Michigan, Virginia, UNC, and NYU in the next tier below.

Then it's Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Rice, Carnegie Mellon, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, Washington-STL.

IMO.

I agree with this.

[JManc]

SHouldn't UT-Austin and UNC-Chappell Hill be on that lost somewhere? Public Ivies?