Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!ll-xn!mit-eddie!mit-amt!mit-caf!jtkung
From: jtkung@mit-caf.UUCP (Joseph Kung)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,soc.college
Subject: Re: Silly survey season
Message-ID: <492@mit-caf.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Oct-87 12:30:22 EST
Article-I.D.: mit-caf.492
Posted: Fri Oct 30 12:30:22 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Nov-87 04:29:00 EST
References: <706@rocky.STANFORD.EDU>
Reply-To: jtkung@mit-caf.UUCP (Joseph Kung)
Organization: Microsystems Technology Laboratory, MIT
Lines: 29
Xref: mnetor comp.edu:759 soc.college:971

In article <706@rocky.STANFORD.EDU> andy@rocky.stanford.edu (Andy
Freeman) writes: 
>
>"We are not surprised to see Stanford Medical School listed among
>the 10 best, but it's difficult to see anything useful as a
>consequence of these rankings.
>-- 
>Andy Freeman

How does a person chose where to go to school if that person is an R.
P. Feynman or a future Dirac? He choses based on quality of faculty
and facilities. And this usually gets reflected in a good survey
(Gorman Report). It is no mystery why so many past Nobel Laureates
have had advisors or friends that were themselves Nobel Laureates. As
for the question of surveys (specifically the one in US News and World
Report), I would compare that with the Gorman Report, which is not
based on Deans' opinions, but on tangible things such as faculty,
facilities, research money, etc. The two reports parallel each other,
though not perfectly, but close. There is a definite usefulness in a good
factual suvey.

- Joe



-- 

Joseph Kung
Arpa Internet : jtkung@caf.mit.edu