A Comparison of Overall USNWR Rank and PA Rank

College Search & Selection
1

<p>Peer Assessment scoring is by far the most controversial element of the USNWR rankings. I did a quick check of the differences in Overall USNWR rank and PA rank and found there to be some enormous gaps. The full list for national universities is found below.</p>

<p>I have also noted with *** those colleges that were recognized by USNWR as the best for CLASSROOM TEACHING EXCELLENCE. For what a student will actually experience while on a college campus, this is arguably the most important factor as it relates to faculty strength. The great majority of those scoring highly in this area had PA scores that were at a deficit (sometimes a very significant deficit) to their overall USNWR ranks.</p>

<p>Difference Between USNWR Rank and PA Rank , USNWR Rank , PA , PA Rank , School</p>

<p>57 , 124 , 3.3 , 67 , Arizona State
53 , 96 , 3.6 , 43 , U Arizona
45 , 112 , 3.3 , 67 , U Oregon
37 , 118 , 3.1 , 81 , U Buffalo
36 , 75 , 3.7 , 39 , Indiana U
32 , 71 , 3.7 , 39 , U Minnesota
31 , 122 , 3 , 91 , U Kentucky
30 , 64 , 3.8 , 34 , Purdue
29 , 96 , 3.3 , 67 , U Mass
27 , 79 , 3.5 , 52 , U Colorado
27 , 118 , 3 , 91 , Washington State
26 , 85 , 3.4 , 59 , U Kansas
24 , 91 , 3.3 , 67 , U Missouri
23 , 96 , 3.2 , 73 , SUNY-Stony Brook
23 , 124 , 2.9 , 101 , Colorado State
23 , 124 , 2.9 , 101 , Kansas State
22 , 44 , 4.1 , 22 , U Texas
21 , 64 , 3.6 , 43 , U Iowa
21 , 112 , 3 , 91 , Ohio Univ
21 , 112 , 3 , 91 , Florida State
19 , 62 , 3.6 , 43 , Texas A&M
19 , 71 , 3.5 , 52 , Michigan State
18 , 57 , 3.7 , 39 , Ohio State
18 , 91 , 3.2 , 73 , U Nebraska
17 , 108 , 3 , 91 , U Oklahoma
16 , 21 , 4.8 , 5 , UC Berkeley
16 , 38 , 4.1 , 22 , U Wisconsin
15 , 96 , 3.1 , 81 , Auburn
15 , 96 , 3.1 , 81 , U Tennessee
15 , 96 , 3.1 , 81 , UC Riverside
14 , 48 , 3.8 , 34 , Penn State
13 , 25 , 4.5 , 12 , U Michigan
13 , 38 , 4 , 25 , U Illinois
12 , 71 , 3.4 , 59 , Virginia Tech
12 , 85 , 3.2 , 73 , Iowa State
12 , 124 , 2.8 , 112 , U Arkansas
11 , 54 , 3.6 , 43 , U Maryland
11 , 112 , 2.9 , 101 , U South Carolina
11 , 112 , 2.9 , 101 , Loyola U (Chi)
10 , 35 , 4 , 25 , Georgia Tech
10 , 42 , 3.9 , 32 , U Washington
10 , 122 , 2.8 , 112 , Catholic U
9 , 28 , 4.2 , 19 , U North Carolina***
8 , 42 , 3.8 , 34 , UC Davis
7 , 23 , 4.3 , 16 , U Virginia***
7 , 59 , 3.5 , 52 , U Georgia
7 , 108 , 2.9 , 101 , U New Hampshire
7 , 108 , 2.9 , 101 , Drexel
6 , 7 , 4.9 , 1 , MIT
6 , 14 , 4.6 , 8 , Johns Hopkins
6 , 25 , 4.2 , 19 , UCLA
6 , 49 , 3.6 , 43 , U Florida
6 , 79 , 3.2 , 73 , UC Santa Cruz***
6 , 124 , 2.7 , 118 , Michigan Tech
5 , 96 , 3 , 91 , U Vermont
5 , 96 , 3 , 91 , Northeastern
4 , 12 , 4.6 , 8 , Cornell
4 , 38 , 3.8 , 34 , UCSD
4 , 85 , 3.1 , 81 , NC State
3 , 4 , 4.9 , 1 , Stanford***
3 , 22 , 4.2 , 19 , Carnegie Mellon
2 , 27 , 4 , 25 , USC
2 , 75 , 3.2 , 73 , Baylor
1 , 2 , 4.9 , 1 , Harvard***
1 , 9 , 4.6 , 8 , Columbia
1 , 9 , 4.6 , 8 , U Chicago***
1 , 44 , 3.6 , 43 , UC Irvine
0 , 1 , 4.9 , 1 , Princeton***
0 , 14 , 4.4 , 14 , Brown***
0 , 34 , 3.8 , 34 , NYU
0 , 59 , 3.4 , 59 , Rutgers
0 , 59 , 3.4 , 59 , U Pittsburgh
0 , 67 , 3.3 , 67 , Miami U (OH)***
0 , 91 , 3 , 91 , U Alabama
0 , 118 , 2.7 , 118 , U Missouri (Rolla)
-1 , 124 , 2.6 , 125 , NJ Tech
-1 , 124 , 2.6 , 125 , Clarkson
-2 , 3 , 4.8 , 5 , Yale***
-2 , 5 , 4.7 , 7 , Caltech***
-2 , 14 , 4.3 , 16 , Northwestern***
-2 , 23 , 4 , 25 , Georgetown***
-2 , 57 , 3.4 , 59 , Boston University
-5 , 11 , 4.3 , 16 , Dartmouth***
-5 , 54 , 3.4 , 59 , George Washington
-5 , 96 , 2.9 , 101 , Howard
-6 , 8 , 4.4 , 14 , Duke***
-6 , 19 , 4 , 25 , Vanderbilt***
-6 , 33 , 3.7 , 39 , W&M***
-6 , 75 , 3.1 , 81 , Colorado Sch of Mines
-7 , 5 , 4.5 , 12 , U Penn
-8 , 17 , 4 , 25 , Rice***
-8 , 17 , 4 , 25 , Emory***
-8 , 35 , 3.6 , 43 , Boston Coll***
-8 , 44 , 3.5 , 52 , Rensselaer
-8 , 44 , 3.5 , 52 , UC Santa Barbara
-9 , 50 , 3.4 , 59 , Syracuse
-9 , 64 , 3.2 , 73 , U Connecticut
-9 , 82 , 3 , 91 , SUNY-Bing
-10 , 12 , 4.1 , 22 , Wash U***
-10 , 71 , 3.1 , 81 , U Delaware
-10 , 108 , 2.7 , 118 , Texas Christian
-11 , 41 , 3.5 , 52 , Case Western
-11 , 107 , 2.7 , 118 , U San Diego
-11 , 118 , 2.5 , 129 , Samford
-12 , 31 , 3.6 , 43 , Brandeis
-13 , 19 , 3.9 , 32 , Notre Dame***
-14 , 67 , 3.1 , 81 , Clemson
-14 , 67 , 3.1 , 81 , SMU
-15 , 28 , 3.6 , 43 , Tufts***
-16 , 85 , 2.9 , 101 , American U
-16 , 96 , 2.8 , 112 , Illinois Tech
-17 , 50 , 3.3 , 67 , Tulane
-17 , 112 , 2.5 , 129 , U Dayton
-19 , 82 , 2.9 , 101 , St. Louis Univ
-19 , 82 , 2.9 , 101 , Marquette
-21 , 52 , 3.2 , 73 , U Miami
-21 , 91 , 2.8 , 112 , Clark U
-22 , 30 , 3.5 , 52 , Wake Forest***
-22 , 79 , 2.9 , 101 , BYU***
-24 , 35 , 3.4 , 59 , U Rochester
-24 , 67 , 3 , 91 , Fordham
-27 , 54 , 3.1 , 81 , Pepperdine
-29 , 96 , 2.6 , 125 , U of the Pacific
-33 , 85 , 2.7 , 118 , SUNY-Envi Sci/For
-33 , 85 , 2.7 , 118 , U Denver
-34 , 91 , 2.6 , 125 , U Tulsa
-42 , 31 , 3.2 , 73 , Lehigh
-43 , 75 , 2.7 , 118 , Stevens Institute
-50 , 62 , 2.8 , 112 , Worcester
-60 , 52 , 2.8 , 112 , Yeshiva</p>

2

<p>
[quote]
I have also noted with *** those colleges that were recognized by USNWR as the best for CLASSROOM TEACHING EXCELLENCE

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is there a reason to believe that the "USNWR scores/rank for best for CLASSROOM TEACHING EXCELLENCE" are any more credible than their Peer Assessment? </p>

<p>Did they line up more dart throwers for that one or did they remove their blindfold? </p>

<p>Do the responders even know WHAT they are supposed to measure? Or is it like the PA where it could be about anything as the definition used by USNews is hardly consistent from one year to an another?</p>

3

<p>Just out of interest, do you have the comparison for LACs Hawkette?</p>

4

<p>What surprise, mostly "underrated" private schools and "overrated" (mostly) expensive non top tier private schools.</p>

5

<p>xiggi,
I'm with you on the uselessness/futility of both the PA scoring and the Classroom Teaching scoring. Darts might very well be an improvement. :) </p>

<p>But I did find it interesting to see how many of the colleges that were perceived as good places for teaching were frequently underachievers on PA scoring relative to their overall USNWR rank.</p>

6

<p>erin's dad,
I just did the comparison on the LACs and the differences with the national universities are remarkable. There is great similarity between the overall LAC rankings and the PA rankings. There are also many colleges considered tops for classroom teaching excellence who are near the top of the comparison. Here is the full listing:</p>

<p>Difference Between USNWR Rank and PA Rank , USNWR Rank , PA , PA Rank , School</p>

<p>6 , 52 , 3.4 , 46 , Denison
6 , 52 , 3.4 , 46 , Spelman***
5 , 24 , 4 , 19 , Bates***
5 , 24 , 4 , 19 , Mt. Holyoke
5 , 59 , 3.3 , 54 , Lawrence
5 , 59 , 3.3 , 54 , Agnes Scott
5 , 59 , 3.3 , 54 , Coll of Wooster
5 , 67 , 3.2 , 62 , Beloit
5 , 67 , 3.2 , 62 , Hendrix
4 , 44 , 3.5 , 40 , Rhodes
4 , 44 , 3.5 , 40 , Earlham***
4 , 58 , 3.3 , 54 , Wheaton
3 , 11 , 4.2 , 9 , Wesleyan
3 , 17 , 4.1 , 14 , Bryn Mawr
3 , 17 , 4.1 , 14 , Macalester***
3 , 22 , 4 , 19 , Colby
3 , 22 , 4 , 19 , US Military Acad
3 , 49 , 3.4 , 46 , Dickinson
3 , 49 , 3.4 , 46 , Skidmore
3 , 49 , 3.4 , 46 , DePauw
2 , 11 , 4.2 , 9 , Davidson***
2 , 11 , 4.2 , 9 , Oberlin***
2 , 28 , 3.9 , 26 , Reed***
2 , 34 , 3.7 , 32 , Occidental
2 , 37 , 3.6 , 35 , Sewanee***
2 , 37 , 3.6 , 35 , U Richmond
2 , 37 , 3.6 , 35 , St. Olaf***
2 , 48 , 3.4 , 46 , Centre***
2 , 56 , 3.3 , 54 , Gettysburg
2 , 56 , 3.3 , 54 , Wabash
2 , 71 , 3.1 , 69 , Williamette
1 , 2 , 4.7 , 1 , Amherst***
1 , 7 , 4.3 , 6 , Grinnell***
1 , 7 , 4.3 , 6 , Smith***
1 , 10 , 4.2 , 9 , Pomona***
1 , 15 , 4.1 , 14 , Vassar
1 , 15 , 4.1 , 14 , Harvey Mudd
1 , 20 , 4 , 19 , Colgate
1 , 20 , 4 , 19 , US Naval Acad
1 , 30 , 3.8 , 29 , Bucknell
1 , 30 , 3.8 , 29 , Kenyon***
1 , 33 , 3.7 , 32 , Scripps
1 , 36 , 3.6 , 35 , Trinity (CT)
1 , 47 , 3.4 , 46 , Bard
1 , 63 , 3.2 , 62 , Wheaton (IL)
1 , 63 , 3.2 , 62 , Drew
1 , 63 , 3.2 , 62 , Hobart & Will Smith
1 , 63 , 3.2 , 62 , Kalamazoo
0 , 1 , 4.7 , 1 , Williams***
0 , 3 , 4.6 , 3 , Swarthmore***
0 , 4 , 4.5 , 4 , Wellesley***
0 , 5 , 4.4 , 5 , Carleton***
0 , 9 , 4.2 , 9 , Middlebury***
0 , 26 , 3.9 , 26 , W&L
0 , 26 , 3.9 , 26 , Barnard
0 , 32 , 3.7 , 32 , Hamilton
0 , 40 , 3.5 , 40 , Furman
0 , 40 , 3.5 , 40 , F&M
0 , 40 , 3.5 , 40 , Connecticut Coll
0 , 40 , 3.5 , 40 , Pitzer
0 , 54 , 3.3 , 54 , Whitman
0 , 54 , 3.3 , 54 , Union
0 , 69 , 3.1 , 69 , Illinois Wes
0 , 69 , 3.1 , 69 , Southwestern
0 , 75 , 2.8 , 75 , Muhlenberg
-1 , 5 , 4.3 , 6 , Bowdoin***
-1 , 28 , 3.8 , 29 , Colorado College***
-1 , 34 , 3.6 , 35 , Holy Cross
-1 , 71 , 3 , 72 , VMI
-2 , 17 , 4 , 19 , Claremont McK
-2 , 44 , 3.4 , 46 , Lafayette
-2 , 71 , 2.9 , 73 , Wofford
-2 , 71 , 2.9 , 73 , Ursinus
-3 , 11 , 4.1 , 14 , Haverford***
-3 , 59 , 3.2 , 62 , St. Lawrence
, , , ,<br>
***Colleges recognized by USNWR for classroom teaching excellence , , , ,</p>

7

<p>Hawkette, you may want to check your numbers</p>

<p>Difference Between USNWR Rank and PA Rank , USNWR Rank , PA , PA Rank , School
1 , 7 , 4.3 , 6 , Grinnell***
1 , 7 , 4.3 , 6 , Smith***
1 , 10 , 4.2 , 9 , Pomona***
-2 , 17 , 4 , 19 , Claremont McK</p>

<p>Grin and Smith ranked 7th and Pomona 10th? I don't think so, at least not in this century!</p>

8

<p>Thanks Hawkette. Putting aside typos, it is interesting how close the rankings and PA lie for LACs. I'm still trying to figure out if I would want to attend a school in which the numbers differed a great deal - would that indicate a bargain (better "performance" than peers think)? Do the closeness of ranking and PA indicate the LACs are more aware of their competitors' data than U's? Just interesting.</p>

9

<p>Hawkette, here's the result for the same exercise with revised 2008 numbers. </p>

<p>Schools with the largest negative differences between and PA and overall rank. The objective data of these schools rank them higher than their PA. </p>

<p>-17 37 54 3.3 Whitman College (WA)
-15 17 32 3.7 Hamilton College (NY)
-14 40 54 3.3 Union College (NY)
-12 34 46 3.4 Lafayette College (PA)
-11 15 26 3.9 Washington and Lee University (VA)
-9 37 46 3.4 Bard College (NY)
-8 11 19 4.0 Claremont McKenna College (CA)
-6 48 54 3.3 Gettysburg College (PA)
-5 58 63 3.2 St. Lawrence University (NY)</p>

<p>Schools with the largest POSITIVE differences between and PA and overall rank. These schools would be ranked lower on the overall rankings if the PA would have a lesser influence. In other words, the objective data does not support their overall ranking.</p>

<p>+29 69 40 3.5 Earlham College (IN)
+29 75 46 3.4 Spelman College (GA)
+28 54 26 3.9 Reed College (OR) 10
+21 75 54 3.3 Berea College (KY) 11
+19 54 35 3.6 St. Olaf College (MN)
+17 71 54 3.3 College of Wooster (OH)
+12 26 14 4.1 Macalester College (MN)
+11 17 6 4.3 Smith College (MA)
+11 20 9 4.2 Oberlin College (OH)
+10 24 14 4.1 Bryn Mawr College (PA)
+9 28 19 4.0 Mount Holyoke College (MA)</p>

10

<p>xiggi,
I had two flaws in my data above-problem with formulas in data sort and then a limit of only the first 75 LACs ranked for 2008 by USNWR. Thanks for catching it. Here is the revised data from top to bottom for the Top 75 LACs:</p>

<p>Difference Between USNWR Rank and PA Rank , Overall USNWR Rank , PA , PA Rank , School</p>

<p>29 , 69 , 3.5 , 40 , Earlham***
29 , 75 , 3.4 , 46 , Spelman***
28 , 54 , 3.9 , 26 , Reed***
19 , 54 , 3.6 , 35 , St. Olaf***
17 , 71 , 3.3 , 54 , Coll of Wooster
12 , 26 , 4.1 , 14 , Macalester***
11 , 17 , 4.3 , 6 , Smith***
11 , 20 , 4.2 , 9 , Oberlin***
10 , 24 , 4.1 , 14 , Bryn Mawr***
9 , 28 , 4 , 19 , Mt. Holyoke
9 , 49 , 3.5 , 40 , Pitzer
9 , 49 , 3.5 , 40 , Rhodes
9 , 63 , 3.3 , 54 , Agnes Scott
9 , 71 , 3.2 , 62 , Hendrix
6 , 52 , 3.4 , 46 , Denison
5 , 11 , 4.3 , 6 , Grinnell***
5 , 24 , 4 , 19 , Bates***
5 , 40 , 3.6 , 35 , Sewanee***
5 , 40 , 3.6 , 35 , U Richmond
5 , 67 , 3.2 , 62 , Kalamazoo
5 , 67 , 3.2 , 62 , Beloit
4 , 30 , 3.9 , 26 , Barnard
4 , 36 , 3.7 , 32 , Occidental
4 , 44 , 3.5 , 40 , Connecticut Coll
3 , 22 , 4 , 19 , Colby
3 , 22 , 4 , 19 , US Military Acad
3 , 32 , 3.8 , 29 , Kenyon***
3 , 49 , 3.4 , 46 , DePauw
2 , 11 , 4.2 , 9 , Wesleyan
2 , 56 , 3.3 , 54 , Wheaton
2 , 56 , 3.3 , 54 , Lawrence
1 , 2 , 4.7 , 1 , Amherst***
1 , 7 , 4.3 , 6 , Bowdoin***
1 , 15 , 4.1 , 14 , Harvey Mudd
1 , 20 , 4 , 19 , US Naval Acad
1 , 30 , 3.8 , 29 , Bucknell
1 , 47 , 3.4 , 46 , Skidmore
1 , 63 , 3.2 , 62 , Drew
1 , 63 , 3.2 , 62 , Hobart & Will Smith
0 , 1 , 4.7 , 1 , Williams***
0 , 3 , 4.6 , 3 , Swarthmore***
0 , 4 , 4.5 , 4 , Wellesley***
0 , 5 , 4.4 , 5 , Carleton***
0 , 9 , 4.2 , 9 , Davidson***
0 , 40 , 3.5 , 40 , F&M
-1 , 34 , 3.6 , 35 , Trinity (CT)
-1 , 71 , 3 , 72 , VMI
-2 , 7 , 4.2 , 9 , Pomona***
-2 , 17 , 4 , 19 , Colgate
-2 , 33 , 3.6 , 35 , Holy Cross
-2 , 44 , 3.4 , 46 , Centre***
-2 , 44 , 3.4 , 46 , Dickinson
-2 , 52 , 3.3 , 54 , Wabash
-3 , 11 , 4.1 , 14 , Vassar
-3 , 26 , 3.8 , 29 , Colorado College***
-3 , 37 , 3.5 , 40 , Furman
-3 , 59 , 3.2 , 62 , Wheaton (IL)
-4 , 5 , 4.2 , 9 , Middlebury***
-4 , 10 , 4.1 , 14 , Haverford***
-4 , 28 , 3.7 , 32 , Scripps
-4 , 58 , 3.2 , 62 , St. Lawrence
-4 , 69 , 2.9 , 73 , Ursinus
-4 , 71 , 2.8 , 75 , Muhlenberg
-6 , 48 , 3.3 , 54 , Gettysburg
-6 , 63 , 3.1 , 69 , Williamette
-8 , 11 , 4 , 19 , Claremont McK
-9 , 37 , 3.4 , 46 , Bard
-10 , 59 , 3.1 , 69 , Illinois Wes
-10 , 59 , 3.1 , 69 , Southwestern
-11 , 15 , 3.9 , 26 , W&L
-12 , 34 , 3.4 , 46 , Lafayette
-14 , 40 , 3.3 , 54 , Union
-14 , 59 , 2.9 , 73 , Wofford
-15 , 17 , 3.7 , 32 , Hamilton
-17 , 37 , 3.3 , 54 , Whitman</p>

<p>For the relationship between Overall USNWR rank and PA rank, there is a broader distribution than I had originally posted, but I still think it is a tighter distribution than is found in the national universities list. It was also interesting to find those colleges ranked highly for classroom teaching mostly in the top half. This is very different from the national universities.</p>

<p>erin's dad,
I wouldn't read too much into these numbers. They are fun to look at, but I wouldn't overanalyze them or make any significant decisions based on them. The classroom teaching data is from 1995 and much could have changed on many of these campuses over this time (but I think that students would be well advised to check this out, especially for colleges that are highly ranked but which are not recognized for classroom excellence). </p>

<p>Plus, IMO the PA data is an absolute travesty. Unless I was interested in a career in academia, I would place very little weight on a college's PA score.</p>

11

<p>I guess you have no use for an opportunity to study with some of the leading thinkers in their fields. People who are often highly coveted by other higher ranked schools or schools aiming for higher prestige. Today's Wisconsin professor is next year's Ivy League or Stanford professor. I don't think they lose any ability with the move.. They just gain a better paycheck and nicer office.</p>

12

<p>Classroom teaching is a small part of what goes on at college, particularly during the later undergrad years for good students. Independent study and research are the foundations of the advanced part of an undergrad education. The people who respond to PA are academics, and they know this. So, if you ask them about "classroom teaching" and about overall academic quality, to them, these are two different questions. They results may be highly correlated, but should not be treated as if they are synonymous. </p>

<p>OF course PA is not the same as overall USNWR rank, since USNews includes other factors in the ranking. The only way one would avoid having colleges whose USNews rank differed from its PA rank would be if PA were the only ranking factor. Since it is not, the two rankings are not identical.</p>

<p>As Collegehelp has shown, the PA rank is very highly correlated with a few metrics of student ability and perceived quality of the faculty. Apparently these are the things that academics look at when they estimate the academic quality of a university.</p>

13

<p>Afan,
Truth be told, I don’t place much more faith in the classroom teaching rankings than I do in the PA rankings. IMO, both are pretty suspect and neither should be included in any ranking system for undergraduate education. But I thought it was interesting to include the teaching excellence data in this comparison and see where the colleges that are considered excellent in the classroom fared in the PA and overall rank comparison. </p>

<p>I disagree with your description of the “small” role of classroom teaching in the later undergraduate years. IMO, for the average undergraduate, excellent classroom teaching is the single most important function (by a large margin) that college faculty perform. Undoubtedly, students perform more independent and research work, but this is hardly the majority of what is going on for the great majority of students in their junior and senior years (unless you consider things like Junior Year Abroad to be independent, research-oriented study).</p>

14

<p>
[quote]
the average undergraduate, excellent classroom teaching is the single most important function (by a large margin) that college faculty perform

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well we definitely disagree on that. </p>

<p>At many colleges thesis writing or some other capstone experience is a required part of the degree, and usually considered the most important educational experience. In fact, getting to the point where a student is ready to do this could be considered the primary purpose of the class work that goes before. </p>

<p>Remember, the goal of college is to prepare the students to educate themselves in the future. During college there is a transition from high school style education to educated adult style education. High school: classroom teaching is at the core of the experience. Knowledge is meeted out in small quantities carefully planned to match the level and background of the students (which can be assumed to be homogeneous). In educated adult style the faculty may be guides who recommend resources, respond to ideas and questions, and provides support for advanced work. The students vary in their funds of knowledge on many areas that serve as background to the topic of the course. Faculty expect, and assume, that each student will have some areas where they need to play catch up, and the most interesting courses bring together students who have varying strengths in different areas. </p>

<p>This is why many graduate seminars (which good undergrads take), meet once per week, rather than the 5 times per week for high school style. The students are assumed to be able to manage their own time, and spend a great deal of time doing their own reading and research. The class serves to introduce new topics, expand upon the reading, and tackle tough questions from the assignments. But most of the learning takes place in the library, lab, and study groups.</p>

<p>For the sorts of students who go to these highly rated colleges it would be a shame if they never moved beyond high school style education.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the PA, as collegehelp has shown, is highly correlated with a small number of factors that most people would accept as meaningfully related to the kind of education that might be available.</p>

<p>If one insists on ranking colleges, then the PA captures a large measure of pure academic accomplishment of the students and faculty. My problem with ranking colleges is that it assumes that all students are homogeneous in their preferences. Only then could any one set of criteria generate a unique rank that is appropriate for everyone. As soon as you recognize that some factors are more important for some students than for others, then the whole idea of one ranking of colleges loses any rational support. </p>

<p>One would need a ranking for a cheerleader who wants to be on the cheerleading team, but does not want it to dominate her life, major in chemistry and go to medical school, live in a large dorm but have a community feeling among the student body, reasonable access to nightlife, but not in a large city... The student who wants to spend as much time as possible studying classics and comp lit, never gets exercise, does not play sports, and loves poetry slams, might have a totally different set of top colleges. Some grand average ranking might be useless to both students.</p>

15

<p>Well said afan. I agree.</p>

16

<p>afan,
I don't think we see the role of faculty that differently as your metaphor of the teacher as guide is a good one. I sometimes liken faculty members to coaches who can spot talent in their students and then work hard to develop that talent through a variety of methods. Such skills fall in the teaching skillset and not in the research skillset. Where is the focus of the teacher's energies? Is it on the student and the development of the intellectual/analytical skills of that student or is it on the research work that the teacher is engaged in? Ideally, it can be both, but I think we both know that this is often not the case. </p>

<p>As for the futility of rankings, I share some of your sentiment as I believe that fit issues should supersede the prestige considerations and statistical/ranking comparisons and especially when the differences in institutions are relatively minor. For example, as I have posted many times, I most prefer colleges that offer the strongest mixture of great academics, great social life, and great athletic life and this consistently leads me to put schools like Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, Rice, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame at the top and few of the Ivy colleges on the same level. Others might not assign much weight to aspects of this (eg, social life, athletic life) and would concentrate only on the academic reputations and/or historical prestige associated with the elites. I accept that others may make this choice, even if it were not one that I would personally agree with. </p>

<p>I do, however, think there are some broad areas of comparison that can govern how we look at colleges and compare and judge what the environment will look like for an undergraduate student. IMO, those areas would be:</p>

<ol>
<li> Student Quality-I think most folks would prefer a stronger universe of student peers than not.</li>
<li> Size of the Classroom and Nature of the Instruction-I think most folks would prefer to have smaller class sizes than not and that they would prefer to have professors teaching those classes rather than TAs</li>
<li> Faculty Quality and Focus-I think most would prefer to have professors who actually enjoy teaching and want to develop the thinking skills of their undergraduate students and have this as a key focus of their energy</li>
<li> Institutional resources-I think most would prefer that their college have lots of money that can and will be spent on building and delivering resources to undergraduate students.</li>
</ol>

17

<p>I certainly agree with #4, more money is always better. </p>

<h1>1 depends. The best college for an individual student is the one where that student will thrive. This not necessarily the college with the most talented student body. It can be difficult, to say the least, to be at the bottom of the entering class in academic talent. Here fit is very important, and fit might mean passing up the college with the best students in favor of one where a student would be near the mean.</h1>

<ol>
<li><p>Depends on the student. Some really need to get to know their professors. However, there are lots of people who went to stereotypical huge state universities and loved it. They got great educations, but not the personal attention. The challenge is for each student to figure out how important this is.</p></li>
<li><p>I agree this is important, but it is almost impossible to measure. About the best one can do is seek individual testimonials from students in the broad fields that interest someone, since this can vary across departments within one college.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>To extend the coach analogy, there are fundamental differences in the job of a coach of a club team for young kids, playing the game for the first time, and that of the coach in a major professional sport. The professional coach can assume an extraordinarily high level of commitment and developed skill in the players, and the job is to focus on further improvement. Much of the athlete's time outside of practice is devoted to the sport, and that level of outside engagement is simply assumed at the pro level. A high school athlete at a pro practice might not even understand what the coach was talking about. This would not mean the coach is bad, just that what is needed at the pro level is different. Similarly, many of the characteristics that make for a great elementary school teacher are simply different from what is required for advanced undergrad teaching.</p>

18

<p>Let's review again what PA score is measuring:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Peer assessment. How the school is regarded by administrators at peer institutions. A school's peer assessment score is determined by surveying the presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions (or equivalent positions) at institutions in the school's category. Each individual was asked to rate peer schools' undergraduate academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). Those individuals who did not know enough about a school to evaluate it fairly were asked to mark "don't know." A school's score is the average score of all the respondents who rated it. Responses of "don't know" counted neither for nor against a school. The survey was conducted in the spring of 2007, and about 51 percent of those surveyed responded.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>PA is rating academic programs from marginal to distinguished...higher PA score means more distinguished academic programs. It has nothing to do with student quality and teaching effectiveness. I will say PA score has a high correlation to faculty quality, since it is the faculty, not the students, that bring distinguishment to a program.</p>

19

<p>Re: Post # 9 and LACs.
I see evidence that (with the glaring exception of Bard) the schools given short shrift by the PA tend to be socially and/or politically conservative as a group, while those overrated by the PA tend to be liberal favorites.
Just one of the many, many biases of the PA.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
Let's review again what PA score is measuring

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here are pages and pages of discussions about what the PA is supposed to measure and what it does not. The most interesting part is to see how far the PA fanboys will go to justify the unexplainable. </p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Post 49 at <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/363168-peer-assesment-rank.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/363168-peer-assesment-rank.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>So, what is today's version of what the PA score should be measuring? </p>

<p>:D</p>