<p>
Considering it’s been 17 years since the data for the last set of rankings was collected and 15 years since its release and we still have no updated rankings, I’d say it’s not too high on their list of priorities either.</p>
<p>I’m skeptical of the usefulness of graduate rankings regardless of who creates them. Especially at the undergraduate level, it’s foolish to rely on them. Take my own undergrad school, for example. Duke splits anthropology into biological and cultural, which are two entirely separate departments. The NRC, however, lumps them together. What does that mean for a student? Similarly, Duke’s art history program (which certainly exists) is not even listed/ranked. Should a student assume it is inferior to UGA’s at the bottom of the list? Continuing with art history, look at NYU. It’s ranked #1 for art history, but 90% (an estimate) of those faculty members don’t teach undergrads. Undergraduates interested in marine science at MIT or USCD would be similarly disappointed, as those programs are simply not intended for undergraduates. Granted these are the exceptions rather than the rule, but the ratings are certainly not fool-proof.</p>
<p>Furthermore, not all of the criteria that go into the NRC ratings are useful for undergrads. The length of time taken to complete a PhD, for example, is of little interest, as is the number of graduate students. An undergraduate would be more concerned with finishing his/her bachelor’s on time, and the number of majors or students in the undergraduate classes would be more significant than the number of graduate students.</p>
<p>The NRC rankings are interesting for administrators and faculty, which is really who they’re intended for.</p>