<p>How is it "unexplainable", xiggi? It's a survey result...how can you not explain/rationalize the collective opinion of over 2,000 academics?</p>
<p>Thanks for the link BTW.</p>
<p>UCB, the "unexplainable" is that the rating for a number of schools cannot be reconciled to the criteria that are supposed to be measured, especially if confined to the undergraduate education.</p>
<p>After dozens of threads on the subject, I think that time has come to agree to the fact that the guidelines of USNews allow for broad interpretations which are hardly related to the published methodology.</p>
<p>It would be easier for the USNews to recognize the differences and admit that there PA is hardly representative of the undergraduate experience as they allow the respondents to define reputation very broadly and include elements that are not directly relevant to the quality of education at the UG level. For instant, the element of dedication to TEACHING as opposed to dedication to RESEARCH and publishing should be clearly defined.</p>
<p>according to collegehelp, one can calculate a college's PA score quite accurately from knowing things like a proxy for overall faculty research quality, financial status of the college, and some measures of student preparation and graduation rates.</p>
<p>For universities, the formula explained 94% of the variance in PA scores. For LAC's a similar formula, that omitted faculty research, explained 84%</p>
<p>So these appear to be what the academics are really looking at when they generate the PA scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
UCB, the "unexplainable" is that the rating for a number of schools cannot be reconciled to the criteria that are supposed to be measured, especially if confined to the undergraduate education.
[/quote]
It seems like the dissenters of the PA score want the opinion poll results to match the objective data on SAT scores, class size and alumni giving rates. Why would USNews collect objective data and then spend a lot of money on an opinion survey asking the same questions? To validate the objective data? No, to measure other factors that cannot be gleaned from statistical data.</p>
<p>How would you go about objectively measuring the quality of undergraduate education? </p>
<p>Since the PA score is opinion, I'll give you my opinion with what it is measuring:</p>
<p>IMO, PA score is measuring distinguishment of academic *programs<a href="i.e.%20majors">/i</a>...the top rated schools have the most "distinguished"/'reknowned" majors. This disguishment, in an academic's eye, rightly or wrongly, comes from visible factors that distinguish the program, for example, academy membership, publications, etc.. Now how does this relate to undergraduate programs? It relates because the most distinguished programs attract the best faculty, the best graduate students, and the best undergrads...some want to learn from the best/brightest minds in their field. All of my classes at Cal were taught by professors (who happened to teach both undergrads and grads) while graduate student instructors led discussion sections. </p>
<p>IMO, PA score is a quasi measure of faculty quality. Perhaps USNews could eliminate the PA score with objective measures on faculty quality like academy membership, Nobel prizes, etc.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It seems like the dissenters of the PA score want the opinion poll results to match the objective data on SAT scores, class size and alumni giving rates.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Darn, I just erased my long reply. So, I'll give the short version:</p>
<p>That is not what I want. Actually, I want the PA to be different and I would welcome a greatly EXPANDED PA. I would even welcome a PA that clearly rewards the reputation of the entire university, including all graduate schools.</p>
<p>All I ask is to have clear and well-defined categories that can be viewed separately.</p>
<p>^ Yes, yes...I remember now... and so the great Berkeley could be positioned at the top of the list...</p>
<p>Sounds good to me too. :D</p>
<p>LOL. UCB. You probably are right.</p>