<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Well formatted, concise and easy to read
Review: A valuable reference for anyone who may want to look beyond "reputations" when investigating the overall quality of various college and university programs. The report provides a concise, direct and easy to read format that makes it a valuable addition to any collection or library.Aside from some minor discrepencies and omissions, the report is generally well organized and is therefore highly recommended.
Rating: 
Summary: Concise, yes. Concise nonsense.
Review: As a retired counselor who helped community college students and adults seeking a career change to find the right degree program and the right institution, I found the Gourmand Report an invaluable resource. I'm still using it to assist friends and relatives who want some guidance. The objective approach used by Gourmand certainly beats the methodology of U.S. News and World Report and other ratings which rely primarily on interviews with the university presidents and others to evaluate programs, etc. This approach is flawed from the beginning, and has no validity.
Rating:
Summary: Unreliable information
Review: As mentioned in the previous review, Jack Gourman (who taught at the University of Michigan at one point) heavily favors large state universities over private insitutions, which leads him into making such howlers as declaring Michigan to be one of the three top undergraduate institutions in the country. Michigan is a fine institution, but like any state university, its mission is to provide an education to the youth of the home state, which means that it is not going to be able to recruit and accept the best students nationwide. State institutions also offer courses of study (e.g., Home Economics, Agriculture and the like) essential to the well-being of the home state but generally not among the course offerings of the best private schools. Unlike US News, Gourman is vague about how he weights the various factors he considers, but it appears that he weights these programs on a par with Mathematics and Physics. Having said all of that, I found his lists useful as a cross-check against other rankings. For instance, Gourman lists the University of Delaware as one of the top 10 institutions in the country in Chemical Engineering. That's obvious once you think about it (Dupont is headquartered in Delaware), but I hadn't thought about it until I read his book. In the meantime, Jack, if you want to be taken seriously, disclose your methodology.
Rating: 
Summary: Gourman Is Right On!
Review: Despite some minor discrepencies, I found the Gourman Report one of the most useful college guides available. Gourman's numerical scoring system is concise and the report is well organized. Gourman's coverage of Canadian schools is limited to engineering but it is nevertheless a good starting point. The scoring system enables direct comparison between Canadian and U.S. engineering programs. The coverage of international schools needs improvement. Perhaps a separate edition is in order. The Gourman Report is a valuable reference for anyone wanting to look beyond reputations when selecting a college. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Quite good!
Review: I found this book good and consider it rather helpful for those undergraduates wishing to get aware of main undergraduate programmes and (what's most important) their rankings.
Rating:
Summary: Unbiased and authoritative!
Review: I love this book! It is so accurate and fair. Some individuals might be bitter ...because it rightfully ranks the medical school at Queen's University (Canada) well under the University of Manitoba... but you can't argue with the facts. Thank you Dr. Gourman for your unbiased report.
Rating:
Summary: Eye Opening View of Undergraduate Education
Review: The criticisms put forth by previous reviewers have some merit. 1. The idea that you can rank schools with the precise numerical values this book suggests is flawed. That said, I still think this book has value. If you are interested in studying a particular field, this book ranks every major department, and gives you a good place to start. The numbers may be arguable, but they certainly give you an idea of which ball park concerning the strength of a given academic department. 2. Large state schools do fare better overall than small private schools. But this may be because large state schools have so many more available classes, professors and majors than small liberal arts colleges. This may arguably serve to make larger schools more well-rounded, but it certainly give the larger school more departments in which to excel, which may bias the results. 3. It's also true that foreign schools don't get very much attention. 4. As for Princeton being ranked #1 and the perceived bias of the book being published by the Princeton Review, the disclaimer on the back cover explains there is no affiliation between the latter and the former.
Rating:
Summary: Good for the U of M
Review: The Gourman report is a very good source for the evaluation of undergraduate programs across the country. There is an obvious bias of Professor Gourman that forces him to favor large state institutions instead of smaller liberal arts schools. When he ranks the top 100 schools, he gives Harvard and Princeton the number 1 and 2, at number 3 he lists the University of Michigan- Ann Arbor. Swarthmore College weighs in at 97. A lot of people would disagree with this ranking, but Gourman makes a point I agree with. Gourman argues that the larger state schools (especially schools that draw from all over the country and not just their home state such as Michigan, Wisconsin, California-Berkeley, and Virginia) are the best schools to receive a degree from. I agree with him because the strength of programs he evauluates are obviously better at the larger schools than such schools as Williams, Swarthmore and Amherst. While you may disagree with his rankings, it is hard to argue with the depth of support and statistics he deals with. It is also impossible to argue with his ranking of the U of M. Go Blue!
Rating: 
Summary: Gourman Report falls short
Review: The idea of a guide that ranks undergraduate programs by area of study seems compelling at first. However, Jack Gourman's book falls far short. He fails to provide an explanation of rationale and methodology. Perhaps the greatest disservice Gourman does to the reader is a very strong bias in favor of big state schools. Smaller (but very distinguished) liberal arts schools almost never make a showing, even in programs where they have an established reputation. Schools like Williams College, Swarthmore College, Wesleyan University, Amherst College, and the College of William and Mary, all of which emphasize teaching over faculty research, have astonishingly poor ratings in Gourman's rating of overall academic quality, while some mediocre public schools, such as the University of Missouri campus in my hometown of St. Louis, get a thumbs-up.
<< 1 >>
| 
