2008 US News Rankings

<p>Right... because everyone knows that Yeshiva University is a better school than the University of Texas-Austin.</p>

<p>I'm not arguing about Duke's ranking, I'm more arguing about the PA score being meaningless. </p>

<p>After all, Duke's PA score became lower based on the 2005-2006 year even though it gained research dollars, won more faculty awards, and hired more full-time professors than almost any year before....the only reason for the decrease is the Duke Lacrosse scandal made Duke seem bad in the public eye. So maybe these deans, provosts, and so on aren't really that objective.</p>

<p>We all see what we want to see. Where you see oozing I see a fair shake for the large state universities that have been providing accessible quality education for generations. Why do you think the very top schools keep beating a path to their doors to try to hire away the faculty?</p>

<p>Is it possible to post top 60 schools? I am interested to see where Rutgers University and Boston University stand. Thanks a lot.</p>

<p>thethoughtprocess, you are doing it all over again...whothebelltolls is right.</p>

<p>Why can't georgetown break into the top 20???</p>

<p>^^^^Because of the research. They fared much better in the Revealed Preferences Ranking that measured more the desirability of the school.</p>

<p>Went to Barnes & Nobles and the Borders..</p>

<p>It wasn't out in either one of em... only saw graduate school rankings.</p>

<p>Thus, this is a hoax, unless the OP has someone working in the publisher.</p>

<p>MovieBuff:</p>

<p>Do you really think Brown has a worse undergrad education than Penn, Columbia, Duke, Cornell, Michigan, Berkeley, JHU, etc. - after all, it has a lower PA score.</p>

<p>I think PA scores are the worst piece of data used in the US News ranking. Its like a lagging indicator - it has more to do with how good a school used to be than how good it is (ie purely based off of preceding reputation).</p>

<p>The theme with me is empirical data/results/facts over subjective measures.</p>

<p>I hate this forum.</p>

<p>Numbers can be manipulated. alumni giving ranking = give $5 and you will get your name on a brick. % of classes with 50 or more = cap seminars at 49...you get the idea. PA score keeps things honest.</p>

<p>PA scores and stats both have inherent (and not insignificant) flaws.</p>

<p>One just has to make one own's determination and not be so influenced by this list (or any other list).</p>

<p>
[quote]
We all see what we want to see. Where you see oozing I see a fair shake for the large state universities that have been providing accessible quality education for generations. Why do you think the very top schools keep beating a path to their doors to try to hire away the faculty?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There is no need to manipulate objective rankings to help anyone recognize the value of state universities and their accessible quality education. Readers can apply their own set of criteria and recognize the differences between the ratios of costs and quality.</p>

<p>Unfortunatley relatively few people are actually aware of the accomplishments and quality of the state schools except in the state where they are located.</p>

<p>Whothebelltolls,
Re your comment about Wash U and their “manipulation of the rankings” I find it very interesting that U Penn is lionized for taking steps to improve their rankings, but God forbid that any upstart like Wash U make any inroads onto the Ivy turf. The hypocrisy drips…no, take that back, it flows….</p>

<p>As for Duke’s #8 ranking, it really doesn’t matter if it is #8 or #5. The fact is that it is in the same league as the non-HYP Ivies, it has been for years, and it is certainly not any kind of penalty to attend that school instead of the non-HYP Ivies. The place is great and the students and the alumni and most of corporate America and Wall Street know it, even if the academics don’t. For students who are interested in a college that has fabulous academics, social life and athletic life, then IMO Duke (and Stanford) are the premier schools in the country. </p>

<p>Barrons,
If these rankings were for the cumulative effect of the last 50 years, then they would titled the 1958-2008 USNWR rankings. But they are the 2008 rankings and a school should have to earn its way every year. Our society is a meritocracy, not a monarchy, so<br>
why should colleges get a free pass and rest on reputations made decades ago?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Numbers can be manipulated. alumni giving ranking = give $5 and you will get your name on a brick. % of classes with 50 or more = cap seminars at 49...you get the idea. PA score keeps things honest.

[/quote]

The man speaks the truth. I would also add it's easier to increase the giving rate of a small private school's class than it is a public school's class of thousands. </p>

<p>It's easy to manipulate these things. Even applications, test scores, all can be manipulated. Some will waive the app fee or lower it to get more applications. Some schools will post accepted SAT ranges, others will post enrolled. </p>

<p>However, it's not easy to manipulate the other's opinion about your institution.</p>

<p>In Barnes and Noble today, no sign of the new rankings. Tulane however had a favorable comment in Newsweek about its new freshman class being quite large and they are bouncing back better than they expected.</p>

<p>National Universities from 52 to75:
52. Miami (FL)
52. Yeshiva
54. George Washington
54. Pepperdine
54. Maryland
57. Boston U
57. Ohio State
59. Rutgers
59. Georgia
59. Pittsburgh
62. Texas A&M
62. Worcester
64. Purdue
64. Connecticut
64. Iowa
67. Clemson
67. Fordham
67. Miami of Ohio
67. Southern Methodist
71. Michigan State
71. Delaware
71. Minnesota
71. Virginia Tech
75. Baylor
75. Colorado School of Mines
75. Indiana
75. Stevens</p>

<p>Marigotdog, cant you just scan them or take a picture so that we will all believe you.</p>

<p>

hawkette, for what it's worth, I don't think many Penn supporters take pot shots at Wash U, having also been on the receiving end of rankings-manipulation sniping on many occasions. I agree that such carping is generally groundless and quite hypocritical. (I bet you didn't expect that. :) )</p>