<p>Hey guys! I'm a a senior and I have applied to numerous schools. During my college search, I came across the US News college rankings, the Times Higher education World rankings and the QS world rankings.</p>
<p>I noticed this:</p>
<p>It seems that the rankings of the three aren't consistent- or at least of the USNWRand the two world rankings.</p>
<p>For example (I'll use the schools I'm interested in):</p>
<p>In the US world report:</p>
<p>George Washington University is at 51 (I think)
Boston University is at 55-56
Fordham University is at 56
UCLA is at 20-26 (but not higher than Gtown- which will come into play later)</p>
<p>Georgetown is at 20-26 (Higher than UCLA)
Boston College is at 32-33
NYU is at 32-33
Brandeis is at 30-35</p>
<hr>
<p>In the THES World Rankings:</p>
<p>George Washington is at 95
Fordham isn't listed (600+ in the QS rankings)
BU is at 59
UCLA is at 11</p>
<p>Gtown on the other hand is in 164
Boston College is at 161</p>
<h2>NYU is in 60</h2>
<p>given the THES world rankings, it would be easy to infer that GWU (at 95) would be ranked significantly higher than Gtown (164) in the USA- but that isn't the case in the US News rankings. Fordham is at a tie with BU but it isn't even listed in THES. UCLA is another example: it's lower by two spots vs. Gtown but UCLA is significantly higher that Gtown come Worlds. BC is again leading Gtown by 3.</p>
<p>Does this inconsistency and variance mean that rankings aren't doing a great job of really "ranking" an undregraduate program? What are your thoughts on this?</p>
<p>Do you guys know which is the more reputable ranking, if any?</p>
<p>It all depends on the criteria upon which you want to rank schools. If you choose to rank them on their selectivity, graduation rate, and class sizes, you get a certain order. If you choose to rank them on the scholarly production of their faculty, you get another. If you choose to rank them on the honors won by their graduates, you get something different. If you rank them on their popularity according to surveys of their students, etc.</p>
<p>Sentiment is correct–you are comparing apples and oranges. The world rankings are ranking the university as a whole–including graduate schools and research. THe USNWR rankings are directed to the undergraduate program only. It is also true that they are not using identical criteria–and the criteria and weight given to each obviously will garner different results.</p>
<p>Because of those differences, one would expect, e.g., that Cal would do much better in the world rankings because of the high calibre of its graduate programs and research. And it turns out that it is much higher ranked in the world rankings.</p>
<p>Fromcalwithlove, given your location in the Philippines, you should consider sending a PM to RML. </p>
<p>Since he has reported a deep personal knowledge of selective schools in the UK and a profound love for Cal, he should be a great source of information for you. Perhaps, you could meet up and discuss it in person. After all, the community that shares similar interests in US education must be pretty small in a far away land. Talking to someone who loves to discuss the subject of rankings with such passion should be interesting. </p>
<p>The QS ranking is terrible and does not even judge graduate quality not to talk of undergraduate quality. It also has significant biases towards european schools, most which are in all honesty inferior to even second tier american universities</p>
I don’t think this is correct. A significant component of the USNWR ranking is PEER ASSESSMENT, a metric primarily driven by the strength of Faculty not particularly interesting in or invested in undergraduate students. At most large research universities, the Faculty’s #1 objective is to publish in peer-reviewed academic journals, and to a lesser extend hold memberships in prestigious Societies… Little if any of this PEER ASSESSMENT score derives from the undergraduate students experience with the faculty.</p>
<p>Therefore, at best the USNWR ranking is a blending of Undergraduate and masters/Ph.D. quality.</p>
<p>I found it interesting that three years ago Forbes decided to use, instead of PEER ASSESSMENT, % of graduates donating back to the University, and other USNWR metircs, the quality of faculty as described in the uncensored website rate my professor .com . They also decided to use the Who’s Who publication as another metric. Their ranking is found and described here:</p>
<p>So you see, a ranking is only as relevant and meaningful to you as the components used to tally up a score. If the metrics used by USNWR seem logical to you, then their ranking is relevant. If not, then not.</p>
<p>When young PhD’s look for jobs the vast majority of the best and brightest want to work for the top programs in the country which are typically those with the top ranked graduate depts. So the big research schools get most of the best people. To conclude that the best people coming out every year can’t be every bit as good at teaching as the lower rated people passed over by top schools is just a self-serving argument by those who don’t like larger research universities.</p>
<p>You’ve reached a conclusion that doesn’t logically follow from the evidence.</p>
<p>“The best people” attracted to Ph.D programs are selected based on their research/academic ability, not necessarily their teaching ability. You’ve not presented any evidence that research success positively correlates with pedagogical success.</p>
<p>And of course, there is evidence that smaller classes and more personal interaction with one’s teachers (as often found at LACs and less “prestigious” universities) does have a positive impact on academic success.</p>
<p>Nor is there any evidence that they don’t. But there is clear evidence that the top graduates of the top PhD programs go on to teach at similar schools.</p>
<p>Again, so what? That’s not evidence that they’re better (or worse) teachers than those at lower-ranked schools, or schools more focused on teaching than research. Great researchers can be terrible teachers and bad researchers can be excellent teachers.</p>
<p>Universities that select faculty primarily based on research ability will have a differently-focused faculty than a LAC which might focus on teaching ability.</p>
<p>I’m not saying UC Berkeley is a horrible place to study. But it’s certainly debatable whether the undergraduate education received from TAs in a 500-student lecture hall is as good as that received from a professor in a 30-seat classroom.</p>
<p>Talking about evidence, there is very little to support that proposition either. </p>
<p>LACs are often praised on CC for sending more students to PhD studies than universities on a per capita basis. (that statement is BTW false in STEM disciplines). If LACs genuinely provided a positive impact on academic success, you would expect to find a substantial proportion of graduate students at top 10 PhD programs with baccalaureate degrees from LACs. Several studies have shown that this is in fact not the case. Students from top LACs are less likely to get into the best PhD programs than their peers with undergraduate degrees from leading research universities. There could be many reasons for this discrepancy including students at research universities getting a leg up doing leading edge research as undergrads, to departments favoring students from peer institutions at admission. Therefore, if your intention is to pursue PhD studies at places such as Harvard, MIT or Stanford you are far more likely to get admitted if you attended one of these schools as undergrad.</p>
<p>Your definition of “academic success” as the percentage of students who pursue doctorate research is hopelessly narrow.</p>
<p>One doesn’t need to pursue a Ph.D to be academically successful as an undergraduate - those who aren’t specifically interested in advanced research or an academic career often don’t even think about entering a doctoral program. </p>
<p>Lots of people earn 4.0s in their B.A. program and never enter a classroom for the rest of their lives. Were they not academically successful?</p>
<p>And bad researchers can be bad teachers. I’d rather take the person that was outstanding and coach up their teaching if needed than take a person who never will be outstanding in his field. I have found that people who are outstanding at one thing are often outstanding at many. Teaching skills can be taught but being among the best in a field cannot.</p>
<p>Now, it’s true that the top LACs don’t outperform all research universities. Within the “research university” category, the highest PhD yields are at “private institutions with very high research activity.” Such schools are approximately tied with top LACs in terms of overall S&E PhD production, as shown on Figure 2 of the NSF report. </p>
<p>Also, the relative performance of the top LACs varies by S&E discipline, as follows:</p>
<p>Natural Sciences: Top LACs and private research universities are approximately tied in terms of PhD yield</p>
<p>Social/Behavioral Sciences: Top LACs have the highest PhD yields</p>
<p>Engineering: Top LACs rank quite low in terms of PhD yield. This is not surprising, given that most LACs have no engineering programs.</p>
<p>NSF ranked the Top 50 schools by S&E PhD yield over 1997-2006 in Table 2. LACs claimed 28 of the 50 spots, including 5 of the Top 10, and 10 of the Top 20. Reed, Carleton, and Grinnell were ranked higher than the entire Ivy League in terms of science/engineering PhD production – and they don’t even have engineering programs.</p>
<p>Virtually anytime you base any analysis on a per capita basis the small have an advantage. There is no point in comparing “productivity” between LACs and large universities. You would fill every grad student seat with the undergrad output of just a few large universities and that would not be good for anyone. Grad schools want a diverse group of new grad students and probably a higher percentage of lAC grads plan on grad school than large U grads. These numbers are only useful for comparing like institutions.</p>
<p>That is not my definition. It is the one most often presented on CC as validation of the superior education offered by LACs.</p>
<p>I agree that PhD enrollment is often a poor metric to judge overall education quality. Arguably at places such as Harvard and MIT, many, if not most of the top students do not pursue PhD studies. </p>
<p>My point was simply that among those students pursuing PhD studies, students with undergraduate degrees from LACs did not do as well as those from top research universities essentially negating any supposed advantage from smaller classes or closer interaction with faculty. </p>
<p>If we look at success for admission to professional schools including med school, law school or business school we would find the same discrepancy in favor of elite universities over LACs. LACs do not confer any advantage in admission to professional schools. </p>
<p>Finally, if we look at direct employment upon graduation, salaries of students with degrees from LACs are significantly lower than those of students from top universities. </p>
<p>So, whatever metric you may select, there is nothing to support the proposition that LACs confer some positive impact on academic success, over and above what may be gained at a private university. </p>
<p>There is simply no evidence that smaller class sizes improves academic success, while there is plenty of evidence that learning in an environment where you are surrounded and trained by the best in the field, does.</p>