Wed 20 Jun 2007
Apparently, a growing number of liberal arts colleges have decided to protest the US News rankings by declining to fill out the US news surveys.
The commitment, which some college presidents said was made by a large majority of participants, represents the most significant challenge yet to the rankings, adding colleges like Barnard, Sarah Lawrence and Kenyon to a growing rebellion against the magazine, participants said.
…
“We really want to reclaim the high ground on this discussion,” said Katherine Will, the president of Gettysburg College and the incoming president of the Annapolis Group. “We should be defining the conversation, not a magazine that uses us for its business plan.” The association did not take a formal vote and each college will make its own decision, Dr. Will said.
With the exception of Kenyon (#32), I don’t think many of these schools will be hurt by this decision.
Barnard is essentially the homely younger sister of Columbia, and can and will always benefit from that association. (As somebody who was at Columbia for 2 years, I can say that with at least a bit of knowledge). Barnard’s median (i.e., 50th percentile) SAT is 1360 (670m/690v) for the class of 2010; by contrast, the 25th percentile student admitted to the age-normal undergraduate programs through the Columbia admissions office has a combined 1380 v+m SAT. SEAS (the engineering school, where I spent my 2 years in the 3-2 program) and Columbia College share an admissions office and an admissions program.
Barnard is essentially a backdoor to the Columbia experience for some women who don’t make the cut at Columbia but still want to go there. Between its association with Columbia, “Seven Sisters” name recognition, Manhattan location, cross-registration with Columbia, and high percentage of observant Jewish students, Barnard doesn’t need a particularly high ranking to draw students. Because of these factors, Barnard’s acceptance rate is much lower, due to much more interest in attending than a school not associated with Columbia would have.
Judith Shapiro is signing onto this because she can score points with other liberal arts college presidents without taking anything more than a marginal hit in the admissions process.
As for Sarah Lawrence (#45), it’s an Art school that I doubt seriously competes for students with interests elsewhere in the academy. Based on the students at my high school who went there, I didn’t know that Gettysburg (#45 as well) was even liberal arts — it’s the drunken fratboy Yang to Sarah Lawrence’s Yin. I doubt that schools that are ranked where they are in the US News Rankings have much to lose from their “protest”. What they hope to accomplish is to shame or cajole the rest of us — the top 25 liberal arts schools (or top 30, sans Barnie) — to drop out as well, and thereby pick up some of the higher-quality students who wouldn’t know just how good we are without a tip-top US news ranking.
Notably, even the AmHerst Marxist is not contributing his school’s ability to others’ needs.
Other college presidents who attended the meeting were more cautious. Anthony Marx, the president of Amherst, which is ranked second among liberal arts colleges, said he was not ready to stop cooperating with U.S. News and wanted to continue to discuss the issue.


June 20th, 2007 at 10:46 am
What an arrogant post!
How would you feel if someone characterized your intellectual ability by the USNWR ranking of your law school (which is not particularly high btw).
June 20th, 2007 at 10:53 am
People are free to criticize my school if they want — it doesn’t bother me in the slightest, especially because I know how good our reputation is among practitioners, particularly in my subfield. As for my school’s ranking, I have no problem with a 34 ranking in the only listing of law schools; we do even better in Brian Leiter’s faculty influence rankings.
I didn’t single out any individuals by name, so your question is rather inapt. If I had discussed individuals or said “Person X is an idiot because they go to School Y”, then you might have a point. But you don’t.
The extent of my “characterization [of students'] intellectual ability” was based on, for Barnard, my 2 years at Columbia and knowing a great number of people there compared to those at Williams and the Columbia schools.
I also admitted that my opinion of Gettysburg was based only on those kids from my high school who I knew and ended up matriculating there.
In fact, for Gettysburg, you have my “characterization” exactly backwards — I’m judging the school by my knowledge of the intellectual abilities of the students I knew who went there, along with its relatively low ranking.
June 20th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Sour grapes or not, I can’t say this post reflects well on Williams at all. Why exactly do we need to trash everyone? I can’t see how you’d be worried that we’ll “succumb to their plan” — there’s no more evidence that Williams is dropping out than there is that Amherst will. Pretty soon we’ll be #1 for the “biggest bunch of assholes” ranking, too.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I’m worried about Kenyon, personally… I don’t want them to lose their place as the Williams of the Midwest.
June 20th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
We already are.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
One can only hope that Williams will be smart enough to join the list.
And cut the arrogance. (Knocking Barnard? Seriously?) Challenge me to a duel any day, sir, or challenge any of the hugely intelligent (and dare I say internationally renowned?)scholars I know from lesser-known liberal arts and state schools.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
I was very …disdainful about the whole ranking thing while an undergrad. Then, I graduated, and went to California. Do you people realise that noone in this time zone has EVER heard of Williams. I am not talking here about random people on the street, but Stanford/Berkeley/Caltech graduates/faculty, i.e. the people I WANT to impress. The only people I met who were impressed when I said where I went for undergrad were few Pomona graduates I met. If you go anywhere to the West Coast, having a Williams degree has about as much leverage as hawing a degree from MCLA.
June 20th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Just to drive the point home: Williams NEEDS to STAY in the rankings, because from the point of view of the West Coast (or, really, anywhere outside New England) it is the only thing that distinguishes us from, say, Colby or Bennington college.
June 20th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
Everyone should quit when they are ahead. Vince Lombardi retired after 5 NFL championships and two Super Bowls or something like that. It never goes on forever. Williams should quit the silly game while it’s ahead. Eventualy Williams will be knocked from its high horse if it doesn’t. Quit first.
June 20th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
anon 3:39: (Knocking Barnard? Seriously?) Based on my 2 years at Columbia, yes. I think it’s undeniable that Barnard gets a huge benefit from its association with Columbia, is certainly epiphytic or commensalist in Barnard’s favor. I don’t think that one can really argue that the average or median student at Barnard is on par with the average or median age-appropriate undergraduate at Columbia, let alone Williams.
Challenge me to a duel any day, sir, or challenge any of the hugely intelligent (and dare I say internationally renowned?)scholars I know from lesser-known liberal arts and state schools.
No thanks — dueling is a relic of the era that gave us single-sex post-pubescent education like Barnard, but there’s a straw man over here somewhere if you really want to fight. I didn’t mention ANYTHING about faculty or scholars, just the composition of the student body and test scores.
ddd…d, that’s the point I’m trying to make. Barnard has almost nothing to lose and everything to gain from abandonment of the Rankings — it’s associated with Columbia, and has plenty of name recognition without the rankings. Sarah Lawrence probably won’t be hurt much either, based on its reputation as a school almost entirely devoted to the Arts; those type of students are much less likely to respond to numerical rankings.
So, most of these schools (with the notable exception of Kenyon) are going to be helped, not hurt, by what they’re advocating. It’s not high-minded idealism or an altruistic protest against an unfair system, but nothing more than naked self-interest.
June 20th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Rankings are subjective statistical indicators based on selected criteria. There are several other rankings that are available for perusal. It appears that the popularity of US NEWS & WORLD REPORT’s data rankles the college admissions crowd.
It appears that we have upset the delicate sensibilities of our school presidents.
Upon examining schools, we selected institutions based on fit, forseability and financial aid. Rankings aside, the evaluation of each school is based on factors entirely personal and in some cases impersonal.
Each school has merits for the right individuals. The most important factor should be the objective analysis of the school for the individual, that is, what school is best for the prospective applicant. Most do not choose wisely.
Rankings only allow one to examine the distribution of valuations with respect to specific criteria that may merit personal evaluation.
College guides provide comprehensive profiles, relevance (reputation, career prospects, demographics, degree equivalences, etc), authoritative data (statistics), flexibility (based on your personal priorities), transparency (does school measure up to your own criteria and weight given to each) and uniqueness (what this school has and why it is of particular importance to you personally).
How does one score and does the criteria weigh in favor of specific institutions?
Then of course your criteria may not necessarily correlate to the direct and specific interests of your representative parties.
Different quantitative studies measuring the quality of education has met extensive resistance to the methodologies and the correlated data affecting school rankings. To those whose rankings appear visibly unnerving, the approach to rankings have created in the minds of these presidents a distinct disadvantage to their institutions on a perceptual basis.
Comparisons of subjective and objective indicators of data can create or determine degrees of correlation unique to the criteria selected. Such subjective indicators may point toward a deviation where more specific measures would allow for changes in rankings.
Despite whatever objective measures are factored, the judgement of people will unduly be influenced by subjective measures besides the obvious economic conditions favoring desirability.
Disadvantages should be noted in presenting their data to account for the noise factor.
Perhaps there should be greater concern on behalf of the audience or future student populations in addressing methods and details in comparisons of prospective schools.
Besides empirical comparisons, we should examine experiential scoring as well.
An important challenge would be to assess to what extent these approaches would capture differences that would result in relevant outcomes for the colleges.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Feeling a little insecure are we? Good thing we have USNWR to tell us how great we are! How else would we know? How would anyone else know? Quality of thinking on this blog perhaps? Possibly not.
June 20th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Troof on dd…d’s comment about Williams’ visibility on the West Coast. Let’s face it: Williams is not well-known outside of the Northeast. As I am from California, I find this occasionally frustrating.
I do a lot of the old “I go to Williams College… it’s in Massachusetts… no, not in Boston. I can run to New York and Vermont if I want to. Right, it’s in the middle of nowhere. Ummm, we’re really high up in the US News and World Reports rankings, so… yeah.”
But what I’ve found, actually, is that in addition to not having heard of Williams, people haven’t heard of the US News rankings. So that’s no help, at least not conversationally.
Perhaps Williams’ placement in the US News horse-race does help with getting the word out to prospective students. As a matter of fact, that’s how I learned about it. (Neither guidance counselor nor parents were any help with college applications. She was overworked at a public school; they are New Zealanders and therefore never had to deal with the American college admissions sweepstakes.)
And so I can see the merit of purple-colored publicity in this form. But the question should be asked: Do the US News rankings provide meaningful information on schools?
Personally, I have always felt that my pre-admissions readings misrepresented Williams to me. That is to say, nothing that I had read about the college before enrolling did a good job of preparing me for its actual nature. It has turned out to be much more ambiguous - with more gray areas than just the winter weather - than the simple number 1 suggested.
And along those lines, does Williams really want students who can’t investigate their college options further or more profoundly than the oft-cited US News rankings?
June 20th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Rankings? How superficial!
June 20th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
I was an all county soccer player in high school with a 3.3 average and 1410 boards. Williams recruited me fervently and guaranteed me acceptance. If you’re a great athlete that’s all you need to get into Williams.
June 20th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
There’s no such thing as a guaranteed acceptance to Williams other than an acceptance letter.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:26 am
I just want to jump in and say that I do not believe for one second that academics on the west coast are not fully aware of where and what Williams is. I know that is not the case. It is one thing to make a viable point — ie: that Williams is better known in the northeast than elsewhere — but quite another to overstate to the point where your argument becomes simply wrong.
dcat
June 21st, 2007 at 12:43 am
Derek,
here’s an exchange I had with a university professor last week:
Professor A: Remind me where you went to school.
Me: Williams College.
Professor A: Yeah, I did remember it had “Williams something” in its name.
Here is another conversation from a couple of months ago:
Professor B: So you went to Williams. Where is that?
Me: Mass.
Prof. B: Do you have to have a good SATs to get in there?
Me: Yeah.
Note: the Prof. A has a PhD from Northwestern, and the Prof. B from Stanford (so they are not immigrants off the boat).
It might be the case that people in your field have better understanding of what Williams is.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:19 am
Ha, if he/she is being so straightforward, you should feel free to bring in a copy of the US News report next time you see him/her.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:49 am
ddd –
I’m assuming your discipline, whatever it may be, is cognizant of the concept of “sample size,” right? Because I’m pretty certain that two anecdotes hardly rises to the standard of, and I quote:
“Do you people realise that noone in this time zone has EVER heard of Williams.”
If someone in academia is not familiar with Williams, that represents a gap in their knowledge, not in Williams’ stature. Yes, it can be frustrating to have to differentiate Williams from William & Mary or whatever, but the assertion that Williams is an alien entity on the west coast is an overstatement that undermines everything that follows it.
dcat
June 21st, 2007 at 3:21 am
“If someone in academia is not familiar with Williams, that represents a gap in their knowledge, not in Williams’ stature.”
If so, I have met very many very educated people who have that gap. Williams should do much more than it does to promulgate its name.
“Because I’m pretty certain that two anecdotes hardly rises to the standard…”
Two ILLUSTRATIVE anecdotes.
“I’m assuming your discipline, whatever it may be, is cognizant of the concept of “sample size,” right?”
More than you might think.
June 21st, 2007 at 6:23 am
Two, somewhat ancillary points:
One, it seems odd from an efficient information perspective to believe that rankings add anything to the information set of prospective applicants…if anything, they ease the collation of that information.
Strictly, David, that’s strictly still within the information filtration available to the decision space of the applicants. Why would deleting it matter?
Second, if we believe that people have a low or nascent opinion of Williams after 7 or 10 or how many years of rankings, why would we believe that there would be change next year? Last I heard, the value of anything was its marginal value, and seriously, there seems to be a lot of what one might call (if only to abuse the word) stationarity in the opinions of those who follow these things.
As one who lives in the real world, I kind of hope that all of those people who care about this stay in the Northeast…it makes it easier for those of us who went to Williams to make our points and reputations on our actual accomplishments, and not on our laurels.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:07 am
EphBlog Quote Wall:
One of the little snobbish pleasures of a Williams degree is being able to use it to evaluate whether someone knows anything about higher education by their recognition of it or lack thereof. — H. Webb Collings ‘75
June 21st, 2007 at 8:56 am
Of course we all have numerous chasmous gaps in our spans of knowledge. Part of wisdom lies in recognizing the general bounds of what we don’t know.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:03 am
Unless they have kids applying to top-level colleges, my (admittedly non-scientific) impression based on many many discussions in which Williams comes up, is that the majority of people either have not heard of Williams or confuse it with William and Mary. The further one goes from the Northeast, the more this is the case. Go abroad and forget about it.
One topic people really haven’t addressed here is how much Williams and other colleges “game” the USNWR rankings. Williams makes a disturbing number of educational policy choices based on the terms of those rankings. Is it coincidence that writing intensive courses have a limit of 19 students and one of the ranking factors for USNWR is number of classes with fewer than 20 students? I believe the college reports a tutorial with 10 students as 5 classes with 2 students. Really. There are a number of similar factors. Now some of these really do make Williams a better place educationally, but some don’t.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:24 am
Welcome to the real world where (it being baseball season) from time to time the cleanup hitter bunts home the winning run from third base in the bottom of the ninth - not ideally artistic but permissible and designed for a certain effect.
June 21st, 2007 at 12:26 pm
As someone who has lived on both coasts, I’ll agree with dddd that very few people west of the Mississippi have heard of Williams. (The few who had were usually college professors who had spent some time in New England.) But I don’t think the rankings will somehow magically change that - they haven’t yet.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I’m right there with this anonymous commenter. Anyone who thinks the College should make decisions based on what looks good in Mort Zuckerman’s asinine scoreboard rather than what is good is truly warped.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Uhh, whoops. The above comment is me.
June 21st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Also in agreement about the gaming of the rankings. That’s sort of what I meant in my previous comment. The administration seems to make a lot of decisions based on how they will affect our rankings; this seems harmful to the college at times.
One other thing to consider, in this vein, is that Williams could potentially generate more publicity through a well-planned and -publicized rejection of US News. Isn’t that a great news story - “Top-ranked school claims rankings are corrupt”?
June 21st, 2007 at 2:10 pm
to be fair, the listing of a tutorial as five 2 person classes is completely within both the letter and spirit of the concept of “class size” as the class, when it meets, is a size of 2 students per faculty member. That is not gaming the USNWR data, not in the least.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:28 pm
“the listing of a tutorial as five 2 person classes is completely within both the letter and spirit of the concept of “class size” as the class, when it meets, is a size of 2 students per faculty member. That is not gaming the USNWR data, not in the least.”
But it only meets one hour a week and is being compared with classes that meet 3 hours a week. Don’t get me wrong, I think tutorials are an excellent way of teaching many classes, but I do think counting them this way is problematic. If a prof. has a class of 20 people and meets with each one for 15 min. a week, is this is the same as 20 classes with a single student? Obviously not.
This is yet another problem with rankings like this; their criterion often won’t fit unusual circumstances like tutorials.
June 21st, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Perhaps, but what’s the alternative? Reporting one class of ten people that meets five hours per week? That’s even less realistic. I don’t really see an issue here, though; no one’s claimed that Williams is altering the tutorial program in order to boost rankings; just that we’re reporting tutorials in the most positive light possible. If US News doesn’t mind, why should we?
As for the enrollment limit of 19 in writing intensive classes, I’m not convinced that this was driven by US News rankings. Isn’t it possible that 20 just happens to be about the tipping point for intimate discussion classes where you get to know your professor and fellow students, and that Williams and US News came up with that number independently?
June 21st, 2007 at 3:39 pm
There is the unfortunate situation where they could limit it at say 18 and every time students swapped papers for peer review (as is often done) they could always pair up rather than having one awkward group of three. Also on the topic of tutorials, they are even less cut and dried than the above discussions. For instance how do you run a tutorial in Math or other Sciences? In some subjects its simply not appropriate to have students writing papers on the subject and presenting to each other. So some tutorials do have ten students in class together meeting twice a week, some have students meeting together as a class once a week and in pairs once a week.
So you wonder how the college decides to deal with reporting that and even if it should. And you wonder if the college is really taking the best interests of students in mind when setting class size limits.
June 21st, 2007 at 7:27 pm
“The administration seems to make a lot of decisions based on how they will affect our rankings”
Or maybe the administration sees as much value in the criteria highlighted by the report as do the editors of USNWR, so that they have been part of a longterm set of institutional priorities (arrived at independently as ‘10 has posited).
June 21st, 2007 at 11:30 pm
It is at times like these that I thank God that we have an economist as a college president as opposed to some whaco social justice advocate who wants to spearhead “ioncentives.”
June 21st, 2007 at 11:30 pm
…”incentives.”
June 21st, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Ok, I’m fairly swamped at work, so forgive me for not having read all of the posts in this thread. A few very important points relevant to some of the previous posts:
1) Loweeel makes a very compelling argument. US News serves as a great advertisement for Williams. Without this source of publicity, Williams would lose many wonderful applicants.
2) The general lack of name recognition should be an enormous source of concern for the Williams administration, alums and current students. As tuition prices continue to skyrocket, the promise of a superb undergraduate education may be insufficient to convince America’s best students to attend. Many well-educated people are surprisingly unfamiliar with Williams.. Derek, this does include some (I repeat some!!!!) professors at the very prestigious university that I attend.
Lets also keep in mind that the college decision is rarely limited to just the children. Parents often provide substantial guidance. Even if free-spirited johnny wants to attend Williams over Ivy league x, Johnny’S dad (who will ultimately be footing the tuition bill) may make the final decision for Johnny. In other words, Williams needs to convince parents that Williams is a worthwhile investment for their children.
3) If I joined the Williams administration, my first order of business would be to completely overhaul the Williams admissions office. I guess this point was a tad off topic.
June 22nd, 2007 at 12:48 am
I would be willing to bet that the percentage of people involved in academia who have never heard of Williams are in a very small minority. But beyond that, if we are so obscure, and if academics have no idea what or where Williams is, how in the hell do we manage to get applications from every state in the country every single year?
Again, to be clear: Stupid overstatements do not help anyone’s argument. When someone writes that “no one” in the Pacific time zone has heard of Williams and they base it on two anecdotes (two anecdotes!) and yet we know that in fact some people on the west coast have heard of Williams, that stupid overstatement undermines the entire argument.
Let’s not overvalue the US News rankings. But let’s not wring our hands over how obscure Williams is. Williams is fine. It is respected and well regarded. Hopefully that respect and recognition will continue to grow. I realize this is not a sexy argument. But it also has the quaint virtue of being pretty accurate.
dcat
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:27 am
“But beyond that, if we are so obscure, and if academics have no idea what or where Williams is, how in the hell do we manage to get applications from every state in the country every single year?”
Derek, your comment above demonstrates how you have no intuitive grasp of the number involved in the admissions process. In every single state there is at least 100 applicants who read US news rankings, and at least one of them will apply to the top ranked US college.
From my experience of a graduate student at a top US university, very few professors who got their PhD in US, but BA in a foreign country has ever heard of Williams. This explains why econ department has placed more than 10 people in the top 5 econ grad programs in the last 6 years, and math department has placed 1 person in a top 5 math grad program in the last 6 years (to best of my knowledge), despite the number of majors being roughly comparable [the reason for the discrepancy being more foreign born profs in the math department].
June 22nd, 2007 at 1:32 am
I’m from a state that doesn’t send many kids to Williams, there are two in my class including myself. No one I knew at home had heard of Williams before I told them I was coming here. I’m pretty sure I first heard of Williams through the US News rankings, and had Williams not been in the rankings it’s entirely possible I would never have applied.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:54 am
As I said above, I was the same: I learned about Williams due to its high ranking(s). I would say that it’s been an overall positive - I’m still playing my sport (albeit at a JV level), double-majoring (and generally getting the most liberal of liberal arts educations) and talking with profs. I’ve studied abroad, got an internship, met a girlfriend, had a radio show and all the rest. All good things. Hell, I’ve even bought a bunch of button-down shirts.
But while that sounds more or less exactly like what the US News blurb would lead one to expect about life at Williams College, it hasn’t been all that charmingly simple. I object to such rankings to the extent that they cover up the difficulties along the way. It’s been a long, strange trip at Williams, one that US News doesn’t present to those who, like me, are autodidactic neophytes at the college admissions game.
June 22nd, 2007 at 3:04 am
Or to simplify all of that into human language, I don’t like oversimplifications. Numerical rankings based on numerical data oversimplify the different college environments.
As David leaves unstated above, there are many colleges in the rankings (such as Sarah Lawrence) that aren’t even playing the same game as Williams. Many small liberal arts colleges cater to special interests - do they all fit in one sweeping category?
[On this note, and I find this very interesting: Does Williams College currently cater to any special interest(s)? It wouldn't be entirely uncorrect to say that, 30 or 50 years back, it served the prep-school-educated scions of the New England elite. Would that still be an accurate categorization? Why or why not? If not, how has that mission expanded? And, for that matter, who should Williams serve?
At Amherst, of course, Marx has created an open discussion and a new direction on this last question. Does such a discussion exist at Williams? (Perhaps this could be the "Williams Conversation, David.)]
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:50 am
Akerlof’s The Market for Lemons. Every bit of signalling is good, what’s necessary is for the signalling mechanism to reflect the actual quality of the colleges. While I readily admit that the constant altering of criterion just to sell more copies of the rankings is dodgy to say the least, I do not believe that it is for the better to scrap the rankings entirely.
June 22nd, 2007 at 6:01 am
1) For those confused, this is my first contribution to this thread. I love getting credit for stuff on EphBlog that I have nothing to do with!
2) I think that this would make for an excellent Williams Conversation! But we need someone to start and moderate it. Join us, Noons. We need you.
3) While it is no doubt true that the vasy majority of people on Earth have never heard of Williams and that the percentage who have decreases the futher you move from Williamstown, the vast majority of people who have a meaningful impact on your life after college, and who use where you went to college as an indicator or how smart you are and make decisions on that basis, have heard of Williams.
Let’s be specific and list some of those people: admissions committee at US law, medical, business schools; admission committees at US Ph.D. graduate programs; hiring comittees at US investment banks, law firms, private schools. And others. (Counter examples are welome.)
So, yes, your Aunt Tillie will always think that you went to Williams and Mary. But your Aunt Tillie does not impact the opportunities you have after graduating from college. She treats you (for all practical purposes that matter in a non-shallow fashion) the same as if you went to Harvard.
Are there counter-examples? Of course! If you want to teach at a private school in Bangkok, I would not be surprised if you are more likely to get that job if your resume says “Yale” and not “Williams.” But the vast majority of important decisions are made by people who know about Williams.
3) I would like to hear more details about the math versus economics issue. For example, do more economics than math students apply to graduate school? (I don’t know.) Are you including stats within math? I know of two Ephs at top graduate schools in stats (Stanford and Harvard) right now. Also, aren’t economics graduate programs much larger than math programs? It would not surprise me (I don’t know) if there were 5 (?) times more spots in top 5 econ programs than math programs.
4) I hope that Morty and others keep and eye on the US News ranking. I am pretty sure that they do. But are there really bad things that the College does to look better in the rankings? I am glad that class limits are set at 19! If the College does that because of US News, I am fine with that since the outcome is a desirable one. Other recent initiatives (expanding the faculty; big fund-raising efforts) that have a positive effect on rankings are also desirable in and of themselves.
June 22nd, 2007 at 2:09 pm
How foolish of me. Misattribution. Sorry Lowell.
June 23rd, 2007 at 3:28 am
“I know of two Ephs at top graduate schools in st-ats (Stanford and Harvard) right now.”
I have not counted them. Math is not stats, and stats is not math. Econ grad programs at top schools enroll 15 to 25 ppl per year, while math ones, to best of my knowledge, enroll roughly the same number (for example, MIT says on their website that they enroll 25 ppl). One more factor to have in mind is that much more people nationwide study econ than math, although I don’t know whether that translates to more PhD applicants, since math ppl might be more likely to apply for a PhD.
That said, during my time at Williams (as a math-econ major) I got a very strong impression that econ and also physics departments had a MUCH better placement to top gradschool.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:44 am
“math department has placed 1 person in a top 5 math grad program in the last 6 years (to best of my knowledge)”
“anon”/”dsfsfda”: I don’t know where you’re getting your information about Williams math majors (the posterior portion of your trunk?), but from the Class of 2007 alone, six Eph math majors have reported pursuing advanced degrees at reputable institutions : “Pursuing a Ph.D. in Mathematics at Rice University,” “Deferring admission for one year to Brown University Ph.D. program in Math,” “Pursuing a Ph.D. in Mathematics at the University of Michigan,” “Pursuing a Ph.D. in Mathematics at Cornell University,” “Pursuing a Ph.D. in Math at Louisiana State University” and “Attending Math graduate school at Caltech.”
(This doesn’t include another six who are pursuing advanced degrees in other fields at other “top” programs: “Pursuing a Ph.D. in Economics at Harvard University,” “Pursuing a Ph.D. in Computer Science at University of California, Berkeley,” “Pursuing a Ph.D. in Plasma Physics at MIT,” “Pursuing a Ph.D. in Chemistry at Stanford University,” “Pursuing a Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana” and “Attending Graduate School in Economics at Stanford University.”)
Again, these are twelve who graduated earlier this month; if one cared to take the time to review the lists of previous years’ math majors, one would undoubtedly find more than “1 … in the last 6 years” at top-ranked math programs as well. (And who cares if it’s “top 5″ — or top ten, or top twenty-five?)
June 23rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
“And who cares if it’s “top 5″ — or top ten, or top twenty-five?”
Unfortunately, “ephmom,” the difference in the post-doctoral placement and job opportunities is enormous between, say a school in top 5, and, say, a school in from top 15 to top 20.
It is very unfortunate that this is the case, but it is.
Besides, your post has proved my point. The econ/physics placements among math majors are better, on average, than the math grad school ones.
June 23rd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Who determines the rankings and where does he post them?
June 24th, 2007 at 12:21 am
“anon”/”dsfsfda”: You stated your point as this: “during my time at Williams (as a math-econ major) I got a very strong impression that econ and also physics departments had a MUCH better placement to top gradschool.” So your subsequent statement “your post has proved my point” is incorrect, since all twelve of the Ephs whose grad school pursuits I listed are 2007 Williams Math majors. And it doesn’t in the least speak badly of Williams if majoring in Math at Williams enabled those students to enter into the grad programs of their choice — whether Math or other fields altogether.
While we’re on the subject of keeping your points straight, Statistics is not only grouped with the Math Department at Williams, it is also considered a specialty of Math in graduate programs as well — along with such other subsets as Geometry, Topology, Analysis and Logic (which I’m fairly certain would not be your specialty).
June 24th, 2007 at 1:10 am
If you’re going to make snide remarks about logic and keeping points straight, perhaps I should remind you that the issue in question was not the strength of the Williams math department but the reputation of Williams among foreign-educated profs in grad-school math programs. Williams math majors who go on to study other subjects are irrelevent here.
June 24th, 2007 at 1:32 am
“While we’re on the subject of keeping your points straight, Statistics is not only grouped with the Math Department at Williams, it is also considered a specialty of Math in graduate programs as well — along with such other subsets as Geometry, Topology, Analysis and Logic (which I’m fairly certain would not be your specialty).”
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. At many liberal arts colleges, there is no separate department of Computer Science and a separate department of Math, but a department of “Mathematics and Computer science.” Does this imply that Compsci is a subroup of math?
“Williams math majors who go on to study other subjects are irrelevent here.”
Au contraire! Pay attention on the last sentance of this paragraph I wrote above:
“This explains why econ department has placed more than 10 people in the top 5 econ grad programs in the last 6 years, and math department has placed 1 person in a top 5 math grad program in the last 6 years (to best of my knowledge), despite the number of majors being roughly comparable [the reason for the discrepancy being more foreign born profs in the math department].”
June 24th, 2007 at 3:39 am
I had assumed that your last sentence was just poorly phrased, and that you meant to imply that Williams’ math placement was low because foreign profs at other schools hadn’t heard of Williams. Why would foreign-born profs in our math department cause a placement discrepancy, and how would that be relevant to US News rankings?
June 24th, 2007 at 5:06 am
Au Au contraire.
You got it all wrong. What I meant was that the foreign born professors at research universities have not heard of Williams (i.e. poor placement has nothing to do with Williams foreign-born professors, who are, more often than not, awesome).
June 24th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Them professors also can’t talk English right, dress funny, bicycle, drive cheap Jap cars, (if male) part their hair on the right, watch sissie soccer, like pre-Elvis music, complain about America, read for fun, smell like garlic, encourage college education, refuse to drop the bomb, vacation in Europe, are pinko preverts and ought to go back where they came from!
June 24th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
“You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. At many liberal arts colleges, there is no separate department of Computer Science and a separate department of Math, but a department of ‘Mathematics and Computer science.’ Does this imply that Compsci is a subroup of math?”
You obviously are trying to deflect attention from the point that Statistics is widely recognized as a specialty of Math, unlike Computer Science (that has its own specialties, such as Systems and Theory — and this one of yours is nothing but a red herring: other “liberal arts colleges” are of no concern here).
June 24th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Rankings are not important in and of themselves.
People value rankings for the immediate value such numbers imply.
The best is an easy choice compared to second best.
In the end, size does count albeit perceptually.
They say beauty is skin deep. Nonsense. Tell that to an ugly person and see how far that will get you.
Sizzle sells.
June 24th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“Unfortunately, ‘ephmom,’ the difference in the post-doctoral placement and job opportunities is enormous between, say a school in top 5, and, say, a school in from top 15 to top 20.
It is very unfortunate that this is the case, but it is.”
“anon”/”dsfsfda”/”ddseffsefg”/”seafasdfasdssdaf” ad nauseam: Unfortunately, much of what you say is simply untrue. In fact, take hiring at Williams as a case in point, where an initiative encourages recruiting (especially of women and URMs) from institutions that have not traditionally provided the most ballyhooed professorial candidates.
For some internationals (and this could be the subject of an entirely different thread), it may be considered an enormous personal failure to not be accepted into a program in the “top 5.” And since the “top” U.S. institutions position themselves as international rather than just national, I can understand the irrational emphasis that some international students place on such rankings.
June 24th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Not just that- its also because in most other countries, universities outside the top 5 are crap. This comes with the fact that international applicants to Williams are more often that not among the top of their national cohorts.
June 24th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Strange that this has become a question about the Williams math major. Let me clarify a few things.
1. Williams has two foreign-born math professors and one foreign-born stats professor. Only one of the three is tenured. I think this issue matters not at all in this discussion.
2. Ephmom’s list of where 2007 math majors are matriculating in math PhD programs is impressive. I am one of the people in that list. However, it’s an unusual number for the math department. In the past three years at Williams, we have had the following (to the best of my recollections):
Year: # of Thesis students (# going on to grad school, in):
2004: 7? (1 math?)
2005: 5 (3 math)
2006: 9 (1 math, 1 stat)
2007: 13 (7 math)
I would also mention that Williams’ math department is very well known because the math professors give many talks. I had job interviews and mentioned that I had worked with Adams and Morgan, and my interviewers certainly knew of both and had in some cases seen talks by them. (Burger is also well known for this reason.) So, in the math community, Williams is well known.
I think that most years, Williams has had a math major go to grad school. I have heard that, despite an overwhelming number of econ majors, there have been years when not a single one has gone on to grad school.
This might have something to do with the SMALL program, which allows about 8-10 Williams students (and an equal number from other colleges) to do real math research, with good professors and colleages, with opportunities to give talks and publish, while they are in college. This is a good introduction to what math research is like, and encourages students to go on to grad school (and improves their resumes so that they can do so). Economics has no similar program.
June 24th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Wow… this discussion really meandered away. For the purposes of the current discussion it is quite irrelevant what you think about the merit of being in the “top” program (we could argue about that, but this is not the issue at hand). I had the following claim:
FACT:
ON AVERAGE, WILLIAMS STUDENTS WHO APPLY TO ECON OR PHYSICS PROGRAMS GET INTO MUCH BETTER RANKED SCHOOLS THAN ONES WHO APPLY TO MATH GRAD SCHOOL.
PROPOSED REASON:
MATH DEPT’S AT RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES HAVE LARGER PORTION OF THE FOREIGN-BORN PROFESSORS THAN ECON OR PHYSICS DEPARTMENT. FOREIGN-BORN PROFESSORS AT RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES HAVE NOT HEARD OF WILLIAMS.
Noone above has said anything that would dispute this.
Disclaimer: Diana, nowhere have I said anything about the foreign born profs AT WILLIAMS. “‘10″ misunderstood me. All three foreign born profs at math department are simply awesome.
June 24th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
So, wait — our evidence for Williams’ lack of national reputation is now not only “professors dddd has spoken to” but also has been expanded to the hardly representative list of professors not born in the US? Once again — this shoddy use of sample size is pathetic. The overwhelming majority of academics in American universities are American-born. Why, if one even vaguely values intellectual honesty, choose such singularly unrepresentative examples?
Why have we let the experiences of a math graduate student define for us Williams’ name recognition in the academy? With rare, rare exceptions at any university in the US humanities professors outnumber math professors by a hyge margin. I’m going to assert that anyone heading to the history or English departments at west coast universities and colleges (Hint: they are the ones with a lot more faculty and students) who takes a poll of the professors as to how many have heard of Williams will finds that the majority have, and of that majority they will almost unanimously think highly of the college.
Once again, I entreat us to stop the idiocy: If the conversation is about whether Williams is well known in higher education, including grad and professional schools even on the apparently willfully ignorant west coast, the answer is that it is. Let’s not let one person’s anecdotally-driven intransigence hide this reality.
dcat
June 24th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
“anon”/”dsfsfda”/”ddseffsefg”/”seafasdfasdssdaf”/”ssafadsg”: For the record, your statement:
“during my time at Williams (as a math-econ major) I got a very strong impression that econ and also physics departments had a MUCH better placement to top gradschool”
is NOT the same as your (most recent) statement:
“ON AVERAGE, WILLIAMS STUDENTS WHO APPLY TO ECON OR PHYSICS PROGRAMS GET INTO MUCH BETTER RANKED SCHOOLS THAN ONES WHO APPLY TO MATH GRAD SCHOOL.”
Perhaps your conflation is due to the fact that you are a non-native speaker of English — but I doubt it (that is, I do not believe that English not being your first language is the reason for your “confusion”).
June 24th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
I only had time to skim this conversation…but has anyone considered the fact that there are roughly 10x as many econ majors graduating as math majors (I think 15 math majors and 150 econ majors). dsfsfda–as a proportion of total majors, do econ majors really get into better grad school placements coming out of Williams than math majors do? In my brief look through the numbers that seems to not even be close to be the truth (math seems to do far better than econ).
Then again I didn’t check the numbers closely or have time to scour the discussion, so someone correct me if I’m wrong. It seems an awfully obvious point for nobody to have noticed before.
June 25th, 2007 at 8:42 am
I suppose the USNWR rankings are modestly helpful for the New England LAC’s that do well in them, but the fact of the matter is that there are only 3 or 4 US colleges/universities that everyone has heard of. To believe that “people that matter” have all heard of Williams is delusional. And a little sad too, because it suggests the reputation matters more than the education.
What Williams can do is prepare students to succeed. It does a great job of that.
Finally, those who really care about spreading the news about Williams should check out Tony Marx, the Amherst College president. His educational access intitiative, while criticized by many on this blog, has sparked a lot of positive attention for Amherst College in prominent newspapers and magazines. You may disagree with his ideas, but the attention has done nothing but raise Amherst’s profile.
June 25th, 2007 at 7:52 pm
current eph said:
I’d amend that to 50 math majors. When you’re telling people how great Williams College is, mention that a full 10% of the class is a math major, which is well above the national average of 1.5%. If you’re truly a current eph, where have you been? How could you assume that the number of math majors equals that of, say, philosophy or classics majors when that is completely untrue? I would say that you need to look around and meet some people outside of sports if you think econ majors outweigh math majors 10 to 1. And be careful — if you take a class with Adams, Burger, Garrity, or any of the other great profs, you might find yourself in that 50…
June 28th, 2007 at 10:12 am
Woah Diana…chill out. I thought someone above mentioned that there were 15 math majors. No offense, but as a group the math majors aren’t the most social bunch, so I really wouldn’t have been able to say if there were 20 or 50 or 80 math majors…in a class of 500, the difference between 20 and 50 is pretty non-noticeable (FYI I think there were closer to 30 philo majors this year…so it’s not exactly a tiny major).
I’m not an athlete and I find it insulting that you assume that there’s a causative link between athletics and a lack of knowledge about Williams or Williams’ majors. I have taken a class with Adams, and I know some of the other teachers in the department fairly well.
I’m not sure why you got so defensive about the number of math majors. My point stands (a point that supports the argument you’re trying to make–that the math dpt at Williams is great)–there are roughly 3x as many econ majors as math majors in the senior class, so we shouldn’t be surprised if there are a greater total number of eph econ students in top grad schools than eph math students in top grad schools–we should expect roughly 3x as many.