MSU Red Cedar Message Board

But but but, I thought MSU was a terrible academic school!

Signed,

Walverines

If we only had to compete with people from public universities, that stat might mean something. The thing is that we don't. We are #71. Perhaps a vague metic, but with fifty states, that says we are roughly better than half of the second best schools for each state. Respectable, but not "public ivy" as some would claim. For the record, I wouldn't say that about scUM either. They aren't top twenty.

Being proud of #71 seems like pretty darn mediocre expectations. As selfish alumni, I'd prefer we not accept so many students via stricter selectivity, so that we can at least break the top fifty. Will we ever be Harvard? No. But could we be UVA in ten years if we made radical changes in expectations and execute on it. I don't see why not.

UVA? Are you high? UVA is one of the most selective schools in the country, period.

Undergrad rankings are ridiculous anyway. You're (universal you) going to tell me Econ 101 at MSU and Harvard are radically different?

MSU is a Land Grant, public university. That means its aim is to make a college education as available to as many people in the state of Michigan as possible. Operating under that rubric, MSU will never be a "public ivy". And yes, I do think being the 28th ranked public university is respectable. You realize, don't you, UC-Berkely, UVA, UM, UNC, Penn, UWash, UWisc, are all public universities that do not have to operate under the Land Grant mission. So you can be a "selfish alumni" all you want. I, too, am an alumni. However, I seem to grasp the realities a little better than you.

I look forward to your bombastic demanding of excellence.

We've moved from bottom of the B1G to bottom of the middle. Within a few years, we can jump Minny and Purdue.

Although I find these rankings completely arbitrary, it's depressing to see Nebraska fail to crack the top 100. Even Missouri is higher on the list.

Never get to UVA level, the goal should be to exceed PSU.

Do you people even understand what the word arbitrary mean?

You may disagree with their assessments, but the rankings are anything but "arbitrary".

Econ 101 at MSU and Harvard probably aren't all that different. However, the students are. Getting a curved A at harvard is much different than getting a curved A at MSU just due to the student population alone. With that said, if you major in econ at MSU and Harvard once you get to the upper level courses there there is a decent difference. Nothing against MSU, because the academics are great here, but I at the same time you have to be realistic.

Big Ten Expansion Candidate US News Ranks: (19) ND (45) Texas (55) MD (58) UConn (58) Pitt (62) SYR (68) RUT (90) Mizzou (101) KU (101) OU

Big Ten 2012 US News Rankings: (12) NW (28) MI (42) WI (45) IL (45) PSU (55) OSU (62) PUR (68) MIN (71) MSU (71) IA (75) IU (101) NEB

Almost any scaling or ranking is both subjective and arbitrary. One has to choose the metrics used in order to compile the entire index. It is the choice before the brute calculation that makes this attempt subjective. Are these rankings using the right components, and even the right mix of components, to determine what gives a school its value? Furthermore, how does one measure a school's worth? Two reasonable people could have two very different opinions about what makes a school worthwhile, and would therefore construct two very different measures to rank them. This is why these rankings are arbitrary.

In my experience, working with many Universities, there really isn't much differences between schools ranked 1-100 on that list.