<p>The PA scores are BS. Its been proved beyond doubt - Duke's score fell from 4.5 to 4.4 this year because of the lacrosse scandal. </p>
<p>No other reason than that. Research dollars went up, faculty hiring went up, prestigious faculty awards went up, and so on.</p>
<p>ok, I'm kinda not used to having to post so fast - I'm in Singapore time - but what I mean to say is LACs are aware of their relative deficiency in research prowess and make up for it with wide exposure and ample opportunity to get their hands dirty - there's lots of research opps available at the top LACs - yes yes, they won't do it with the star studded profs, but they will learn and benefit from the experience nonetheless - some may even get their papers published. This is the sort of training slipper talks about for grad school.</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess, maybe its because of all the petitioning Duke professors who bought an advertisement convicting their own students</p>
<p>I know universities have these results, but they are supposed to be embargoed until tomorrow.</p>
<p>whothebelltolls - how does that affect research quality? It doesn't.</p>
<p>Was that rhetorical? </p>
<p>Peer Assesment isn't based on research output, it is derived from the perceived quality of education. obviously Duke took a hit there this year for the previously mentioned reason, doesn't mean its a bad school.</p>
<p>Well, see, PA score = quality of education, and the quality of education doesn't actually change when professors sign a petition...thats why I'm saying PA is bunk.</p>
<p>There's still a discrepancy in the LAC list. The press release indicates Carleton is 5 and Middlebury is 6. OP says they are tied at 5.</p>
<p>
There's no black-box mystery here. US News is very transparent in setting forth all of the specific numeric components that underlie its rankings. Just get a copy of the full edition, or sign up for premium access online, and you'll see exactly how Penn and MIT compare in each of those numeric components.</p>
<p>Furthermore, as I've pointed out before, this isn't the first time Penn's been ahead of or tied with MIT. It's happened 4 times before. Ahead of MIT in 2005 and 2006. Tied with MIT in 2002 and 2003. If you haven't already done so, check it out for yourself:</p>
<p>And on each of those occassions, the specific numbers behind the rankings were also readily available. Not exactly a "game" or sleight of hand.</p>
<p>i think the OP scribbled them down without buying the book and just listed them down and added numbers latter. </p>
<p>thethoughtprocess, PERCEIVED quality of education. And yes, when the gang of 88 professors revealed that political correctness > all else, it does speak to the general educational atmosphere.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i think the OP scribbled them down without buying the book and just listed them down and added numbers latter.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No way. OP has listed numerous specific numerical ranks (PA, etc.). He or she must have the book in hand.</p>
<p>Yay ranking season!</p>
<p>Time to sit back and watch all the Type-A CC nerds who rely on rankings to relieve their insecurities cry about their school being #10 instead of #5 despite the fact that the academic difference is negligible.</p>
<p>"And yes, when the gang of 88 professors revealed that political correctness > all else, it does speak to the general educational atmosphere."</p>
<p>No, it doesn't. There are 3200 faculty at Duke. About 2-3 percent signed a petition, mostly from 3 different non-research oriented departments. How does that speak of the general educational atmosphere?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Another response for Hawkette: The "foolishness" that you refer to regarding PA is simply based on your opinion, not fact. It is interesting to me that people who have extremely high regard for their own opinions, have little regard for experts in other areas.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Quick to judge others, aren't we? </p>
<p>Contrary to your opinion, Hawkette's position is not based solely on an unfounded opinion, but also on the opinion of ... numerous experts. It simply happens that those experts, including many college presidents who have spoken against the "foolishness" of the PA express an opinion that is contrary to YOURS, just as Hawkette does. </p>
<p>Right here on CC, there are supporters of the PA as well as there are detractors. Even if the supporters adopt their positions mostly because the PA does improve their own visions of what the rankings should be (as in hoping for the PA to boost an average ranking) and cannot even agree on what the PA stands for, they are absolutely entitled to THAT opinion. </p>
<p>Alexandre, for instance, does have hundreds of posts debating the issue of PA, with about every one of them being an eloquent support of his ... opinion.</p>
<p>I do not see why it is necessary to attempt to undermine's the positions of others by degrading their right to pay attention to a ... different set of experts.</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess, according to US News:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The peer assessment survey allows the top academics we consultpresidents, provosts, and deans of admissionsto account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In other words, it's an impressionistic--and highly subjective--evaluation. It might be that the well-publicized faculty response to the lacrosse team incident, as cited by whothebelltolls, was one of the "intangibles" that brought down the PA. Just a thought.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Peer Assesment isn't based on research output, it is derived from the perceived quality of education. obviously Duke took a hit there this year for the previously mentioned reason, doesn't mean its a bad school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A big influence on PA scores for research universities IS research output - which is why Ivies such as Dartmouth and Brown, which aren't as research focused (and hence, arguably have better quality of undergrad education) take a hit.</p>
<p>what about 50-120 or w/e.. those are the ones that seem to fluctuate the most</p>
<p>Research is important for PA score</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess, I wasn't in the minds of every provost, president, and dean of admissions when they determined Duke's PA ranking. All I can tell you is that, in the opinion of many people, the Duke administration (including the
Duke president) handled the lax situation poorly, and it negatively impacted Duke's reputation. The purpose of the PA rating is to ensure that someone like Washington University in St. Louis doesn't completely manipulate USNWR and end up in the top 5, which would be a problem for the magazine's credibility. </p>
<p>thethoughtprocess, I'm not going to call you a Duke troll, but you are certainly a Duke student and very pro-Duke on these boards, and you should be pleased with a #8 ranking.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A big influence on PA scores for research universities IS research output - which is why Ivies such as Dartmouth and Brown, which aren't as research focused (and hence, arguably have better quality of undergrad education) take a hit.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Doesn't that sum one of the problems of the use of the PA? </p>
<p>Does USnews say that the PA should be influenced by the output of research universities, espeically in a ranking of best ... undergarduate schools?</p>
<p>The reality is that the PA is a tool used by universities --and a few colleges-- to manipulate the outcome of the annual rankings through geographical and reputational cronyism under the gleeful and duplicitous eye of Morse and his staff. The PA is what permits USN to ensure that enough changes take place (to keep the interest of readers high) on an annual basis all the while maintaining perennial favorites high enough. </p>
<p>Morse calls that keeping the playing field level. Others call it abject manipulation. To each its own! </p>
<p>PS There is no better exhibit for an indictment of the PA than an objective comparison of two rankings: one of PA scores only and the one that is published! The cronyism and manipulation oozes out from all angles!</p>