A Review of the USNWR Approach-What is Valuable?

College Search & Selection
101

<p>There's no doubt that UT-Austin has one of the greatest libraries in America -- it ranks just below the Cincinnati Public Library in terms of overall # of books (<a href="http://www.ala.org/ala/alalibrary/libraryfactsheet/alalibraryfactsheet22.cfm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.ala.org/ala/alalibrary/libraryfactsheet/alalibraryfactsheet22.cfm&lt;/a> ). However it is far from the only place with a great rare book & manuscript collection. New York Public, Beinecke (Yale), and Harvard come to mind. The Ransom has a lot of money to buy things but that doesn't necessarily mean people want to send their archives there, and also, a lot of the best stuff is already sitting in the world's great libraries and is never going to go on sale. Obviously having a great library enables great research and Texas's high academic standing overall is proof of that.</p>

<p>The measure of books per student and spending per student is more a proxy for other items that are extremely important on a per-student basis (such as advising, fellowship services, financial aid, dining hall services), although I would still argue that even per capita library expenditure is important in terms of having space to study, dozens of first-class people at the ready to help you with any research question, many copies of books readily available when you are perusing the stacks doing research, etc.</p>

102

<p>A better measure of alumni giving is Total Alumni Support per Student. The best way to do this would be to average out the past 5-10 years of COHE figures. However, generally speaking, this would greatly benefit Princeton, Yale, Caltech and small LACs and penalize schools like Berkeley, Penn, Harvard, Cornell that are more impersonal and thus do not attract quite the same amount of donations.</p>

<p>Alumni giving per student -- Source: COHE 2007 Almanac (publication date 8.31.07 - I just got my copy today)
1. Wells $29K
2. Stanford $26K
3. Yale $24K
4. Princeton $20K
5. Coe $16K
6. Tufts $16K
7. Williams $15K
8. Bowdoin $14K
9. Dartmouth $14K
10. Swarthmore $13K
11. Wellesley $12K
12. Knox $12K
13. Cornell $11K
14. Harvard $10K
15. Vassar $10K</p>

<p>(rounded figures)</p>

103

<p>Index of Expenditures at University Research Libraries, 2005-6
Index rank * Total library expenditures ** Salaries and wages of professional staff** Total library materials expenditures** Professional plus support staff
Harvard University 1 $105,809,085 $36,580,197 $28,138,927 1,134
Yale University 2 $74,938,119 $17,565,125 $33,913,555 635
Columbia University 3 $56,938,255 $19,000,096 $21,017,791 558
University of Toronto 4 $57,610,752 $12,495,097 $21,450,043 539
University of California at Berkeley 5 $56,186,972 $18,499,738 $17,453,180 421
University of California at Los Angeles 6 $50,919,689 $11,778,277 $15,158,149 471
University of Michigan 7 $49,053,402 $11,085,528 $20,669,495 468
Pennsylvania State University 8 $48,580,052 $8,812,659 $18,088,877 536
University of Texas 9 $41,585,820 $8,471,146 $16,035,009 429
Cornell University 10 $42,156,480 $7,942,102 $14,381,579 438
New York University 11 $41,003,612 $8,059,700 $16,139,134 357
University of Wisconsin 12 $40,800,267 $13,380,066 $11,582,710 405
Princeton University 13 $39,143,966 $9,038,404 $16,754,840 353
University of Washington 14 $38,841,830 $10,867,476 $12,542,511 401
University of Minnesota 15 $38,321,667 $7,165,391 $14,157,172 320
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 16 $36,102,613 $10,464,305 $12,043,672 382
University of North Carolina 17 $34,488,601 $9,192,948 $14,039,479 351
Duke University 18 $33,531,731 $9,317,351 $13,961,002 329
University of Virginia 19 $34,775,087 $8,467,566 $10,039,183 314
University of Pennsylvania 20 $33,897,604 $7,200,885 $13,749,248 290
Indiana University 21 $32,143,391 $8,031,434 $13,907,828 339
Ohio State University 22 $32,966,111 $6,940,002 $12,205,939 304
University of Southern California 23 $31,893,689 $9,191,567 $12,962,417 244
University of Chicago 24 $31,671,892 $4,246,123 $16,462,379 259
Emory University 25 $30,765,589 $6,621,487 $14,083,609 251
Washington University in St. Louis 26 $31,466,476 $7,863,346 $10,646,463 248
University of Alberta 27 $30,588,230 $5,154,471 $14,590,484 297
Rutgers University 28 $31,253,603 $6,940,144 $10,610,826 338
University of British Columbia 29 $30,420,698 $6,605,352 $13,523,834 311
Texas A&M University 30 $29,511,695 $6,758,496 $14,099,481 268
University of Tennessee 31 $28,750,001 $6,659,290 $14,443,674 296
University of Pittsburgh 32 $28,927,212 $6,399,509 $13,637,310 292
Johns Hopkins University 33 $28,123,663 $5,517,577 $13,638,688 297
University of Arizona 34 $28,333,910 $5,789,522 $11,662,200 251
University of Montreal 35 $28,288,912 $6,174,250 $10,361,290 382
University of Florida 36 $27,435,482 $6,102,471 $10,821,088 311
Northwestern University 37 $26,335,228 $6,921,463 $12,165,603 255
North Carolina State University 38 $26,714,162 $6,352,335 $9,002,518 223
University of Iowa 39 $25,655,780 $5,168,327 $12,546,477 227
McGill University 40 $25,882,656 $4,767,665 $11,549,953 225
Arizona State University 41 $25,677,775 $4,817,908 $11,474,442 282
University of California at San Diego 42 $26,298,111 $5,662,505 $7,922,917 270
Purdue University 43 $24,023,842 $4,799,007 $10,974,071 192
Brigham Young University 44 $23,942,505 $6,574,419 $9,271,776 181
University of Connecticut 45 $23,960,782 $7,762,104 $7,854,879 163
Georgetown University 46 $23,754,207 $5,276,389 $10,783,633 218
Michigan State University 47 $24,109,074 $4,565,393 $9,949,499 203
University of Miami 48 $23,328,442 $4,701,108 $12,025,519 207
University of Maryland 49 $23,589,122 $6,667,609 $8,698,140 242
University of Cincinnati 50 $22,960,596 $6,971,108 $10,209,066 175
Vanderbilt University 51 $23,007,106 $5,567,319 $10,577,813 207
University of Georgia 52 $23,014,039 $3,778,959 $11,217,811 256
University of Utah 53 $23,288,732 $4,174,358 $7,489,866 266
George Washington University 54 $21,727,764 $4,899,650 $9,457,211 205
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 55 $21,365,671 $7,347,676 $7,954,606 192
University of Notre Dame 56 $21,694,210 $4,544,693 $9,540,297 225
Texas Tech University 57 $21,324,759 $4,394,293 $9,503,529 218
University of Kansas 58 $20,832,470 $5,706,192 $8,053,844 213
Wayne State University 59 $21,065,002 $4,704,501 $7,811,606 186
University of California at Davis 60 $20,609,936 $4,081,533 $8,659,069 219
University of Oklahoma 61 $19,856,352 $2,742,634 $12,118,386 159
State University of New York at Buffalo 62 $19,453,788 $7,522,953 $7,765,537 181
University of Kentucky 63 $19,569,146 $4,572,949 $9,463,513 210
University of South Carolina 64 $20,422,352 $3,972,269 $7,066,564 169
Boston University 65 $19,484,243 $4,805,877 $8,707,614 198
York University (Ontario) 66 $19,099,174 $4,247,205 $8,384,544 193
Brown University 67 $18,945,391 $4,290,618 $8,285,394 176
University of Colorado 68 $19,014,310 $2,918,639 $9,315,863 163
University of Manitoba 69 $19,234,599 $4,171,816 $6,758,968 188
University of New Mexico 70 $19,398,044 $4,697,120 $5,305,708 238
University of Louisville 71 $18,493,616 $3,008,274 $9,156,974 141
Temple University 72 $17,873,359 $4,326,009 $8,747,157 169
University of Illinois at Chicago 73 $17,887,357 $3,776,187 $8,166,623 195
Boston College 74 $17,481,965 $4,830,933 $8,009,522 150
University of California at Irvine 75 $17,845,419 $3,799,977 $7,814,726 194
Laval University 76 $17,695,209 $3,174,169 $8,801,485 214
University of Rochester 77 $17,412,084 $5,652,663 $6,715,587 157
University of California at Santa Barbara 78 $18,580,864 $3,073,789 $5,236,330 186
Dartmouth College 79 $17,497,174 $3,876,818 $7,748,473 178
University of Western Ontario 80 $17,007,710 $3,515,827 $9,174,734 174
University of Hawaii 81 $17,306,904 $3,703,901 $7,611,078 168
Iowa State University 82 $16,973,524 $2,939,211 $8,891,487 144
University of Delaware 83 $16,937,444 $3,709,277 $8,005,686 170
University of Houston 84 $17,000,792 $3,075,546 $8,117,193 155
Rice University 85 $15,909,567 $3,357,910 $9,764,416 120
Queen's University (Ontario) 86 $16,259,032 $2,295,037 $7,881,622 153
University of Nebraska at Lincoln 87 $16,138,697 $3,093,627 $7,008,885 166
Syracuse University 88 $15,836,698 $3,956,441 $6,300,160 201
Florida State University 89 $15,083,949 $3,442,325 $7,650,054 196
University of Saskatchewan 90 $14,829,710 $2,879,334 $7,763,830 141
University of Alabama 91 $14,868,525 $3,177,458 $6,870,657 145
Case Western Reserve University 92 $14,861,753 $3,562,148 $6,304,139 115
University of California at Riverside 93 $14,888,349 $3,223,850 $6,109,872 139
Southern Illinois University 94 $14,619,649 $2,793,840 $7,117,514 145
State University of New York at Stony Brook 95 $14,114,795 $4,983,702 $6,590,728 120
Tulane University 96 $14,261,505 $2,828,106 $7,675,475 133
University of Massachusetts 97 $14,680,447 $3,599,301 $5,579,248 131
University of Missouri 98 $14,555,302 $2,947,974 $6,462,575 177
University of Waterloo 99 $14,838,150 $2,124,399 $6,180,735 134
Virginia Tech 100 $14,082,936 $2,134,226 $7,371,492 126
Oklahoma State University 101 $13,912,768 $3,319,561 $6,783,316 142
McMaster University 102 $13,626,100 $1,855,687 $6,829,286 141
University of Oregon 103 $13,739,169 $3,039,434 $5,135,978 151
Ohio University 104 $13,632,399 $3,108,101 $5,327,277 132
Colorado State University 105 $13,412,963 $2,654,462 $6,265,271 100
Washington State University 106 $13,544,201 $2,827,045 $5,628,649 133
Louisiana State University 107 $12,864,995 $2,860,137 $6,675,849 150
Auburn University 108 $12,571,525 $2,844,691 $5,543,726 106
State University of New York at Albany 109 $12,041,893 $3,432,271 $5,231,629 127
Georgia Institute of Technology 110 $11,373,366 $3,479,990 $5,306,847 119
University of Guelph 111 $11,413,624 $2,382,193 $5,039,056 112
Kent State University 112 $10,830,484 $2,729,004 $3,603,707 92
Howard University 113 $9,854,124 $2,704,041 $3,411,656 123
NOTE: This table is limited to university libraries that are members of the Association of University Libraries. For more information, visit <a href="http://www.arl.org%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.arl.org&lt;/a>.
* This is the Expenditure-Focused Index that the Association of Research Libraries developed as an alternative to its Membership Criteria Index. The expenditure index takes into account total library expenditures, salaries of professional staff, spending on library materials, and the number of professional and support staff. It does not attempt to measure a library's services, quality of collections, or success in meeting the needs of users.
** Figures for Canadian libraries are expressed in U.S. dollars.</p>

104

<p>collegehelp,
There looks to be a very high correlation between graduate school prominence and school size and these library numbers (eg, look at Brown and Dartmouth). Is there any data just for undergraduate resources? Also, wouldn't it make sense to measure this on a per capita basis as there will be a variety of students vying to get access to these resources?</p>

105

<p>There is no such thing as library resources strictly for grad students except maybe the rare books collection. Here is where per capita really blows. You cannot tell me that a small school with 700 students and 150,000 volumes is equal or better than a large school with 40,000 students and 8,000,000 volumes.</p>

106

<p>Hawkette-
I don't know of any list for just undergrad. You would have to figure out the per capita by hand. I don't know of any data on that either.</p>

107

<p>barrons,
In the example you draw, I agree with your comment about per capita applications. I was thinking more about a situation of a college with 5000-10,000 students which might have a substantial collection and, on a per capita basis, the student access to it might be better than an institution with 20,000 or more students. Either way, you probably have a pretty darn good collection and then it is all about access to the collection. Personally, I believe that the library collection is a declining asset as the internet will utlimately have the vast majority of documents available on a worldwide basis.</p>

108

<p>I see we are down to minutiae in the USNWR, as if that somehow justifies the process. That statistical data is interesting to be sure, but regardless of how big your library is, how much money they spend overall and per student at the library, how much giving is involved is nonsense.</p>

<p>There are very small schools with relatively small libraries that are absolute gems for a college education, having nothing to do with USNWR rankings or this silly statistical data.</p>

<p>If someone picks a school over another because of the ratio of library staff to 100 students, then I suggest they are not only digit heads but warped and rather shallow. So much goes into selecting a college, including ambiance, competitive spirit of students, location, culture, religion, no religion, air conditioning in dorms, who is buried on campus (like Robert E. Lee, his wife, and his horse buried on W & L campus and they worship it like they will raise him from the dead!), on and on.</p>

<p>Macalaster, Colby, Kenyon, Bates, Bowdoin, Furman, the list is almost endless of outstanding colleges that dont make the top 50 colleges in the United States.</p>

<p>Sadly, too many families pick schools to make application based on this superficial ranking that USNWR gets together every year. Its absurd. But it keeps the myths floating on clouds....</p>

<p>Harvard Princeton or Yale may be the perfect place for your kid, or it may be a small school in a beautiful bucolic setting. </p>

<p>Hollins College of Virginia has produced several award winning authors. Its a real gem for creative writing, a whole lot of southern class, and not all caught up on silly rankings.</p>

<p>Its ridiculous really what measure people go to in trying to justify themselves and their schools. </p>

<p>If you want to go to Dartmouth and you get in, I say Congratulations. If you end up at Furman I dont look down upon you, pity you, or regard you as a lesser candidate for a job. What matters is that you do well what you do best and always put your best foot forward and your right hand up.</p>

<p>In a room full of Ivy educated geeks and some Georgetown and GWU graduates 30 years ago in a heady Washington DC meeting I attended, a Univ. of Tennessee graduate outshined EVERYONE.</p>

<p>Credentialism is rampant in our society and its really sickening.</p>

<p>So be happy where you go, do your very best and wish the best to all your friends and neighbors at "that other school".</p>

109

<p>The real problem with counting library volumes and expenditures is that they are increasingly insignificant in undergrad education, and scholarship in general. I know professors who rarely go to the library for their own work. Whatever they need is online. I know undergrads who use the library as study space, but would not know how to check out a book if they had to. It has never come up.</p>

<p>For undergrads, the availability of good study rooms in the library and course materials online matter much more than how many volumes there are in the stacks. </p>

<p>Once upon a time, the library size and staff may have mattered. Times have changed.</p>

110

<p>They can get it online because the library subscribes to the journal. Most of the major journals are not free online. You get access by buying it.</p>

<p>The point is somewhat well taken but the vast majority of books are not free on the net. The fact that students can get away without using/reading books and articles for research is another question.</p>

111

<p>Well, what is online has little to do with bound volumes in the stacks. Much of the bricks and mortar cost associated with holding paper volumes in the library is of little utility today. </p>

<p>The online costs depend on what you are looking for. Quite a bit is truly free, PLoS, and others do not scale with undergrad enrollment. So a large institutional subscription to a journal might cost two universities the same price, even if one is larger.</p>

<p>Similarly, library staff really don't have much of a role in accessing online resources. Perhaps a few people to select and manage the portfolio of subscriptions, but costs per student do not make sense in this context.</p>

<p>Science students, who represent a substantial portion of undergrad at most universities, do not read books for research. They read journal articles. These are usually accessed online, often without ever setting foot in the library.</p>

<p>Universities are only beginning to contend with the question of how to allocate resources now that, after millennia in which accumulating volumes was a critical element in scholarship, the game is changing. Big libraries are expensive, and of declining value for their primary purpose. What to do? The collection is not online, so all those delicate books must be maintained. How many new ones you should buy is a different question. With an online account, do you need to keep those paper journals they insist on sending each month? Should you hold on to them while they are current? Should you bind them and keep them forever, or recycle?</p>

<p>Innovative answers to these questions over the next decade could make it particularly difficult to interpret library spending data.</p>

112

<p>Even science students have to do some history, English, etc term papers and background reading. Who pays for all the paper that people waste printing out the same info that might be in a book or bound periodical volume? Reading any long article online sucks.</p>

<p>BTW Google is putting many of the top college libraries into a database.</p>

<p><a href="http://books.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://books.google.com/googlebooks/partners.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

113

<p>I agree that the Internet has changed the game in terms of traditional circulating materials and has made general libraries slightly less important. It represents the continued democratization of information and is a great thing. However, there are still the primary source archives that are the repositories of one-of-a-kind or priceless books and manuscripts where, for whatever reason (if for nothing else fragility precluding scanning), much of which will not be available online. They represent the pinnacle of mankind's cultural achievements.(Unfortunately, there is even institutional elitism where some of the top rare book/manuscript archives only give access to their own students or visiting scholars with 'legitimate' reasons to view such works). So while Harvard's 16 million or UT Austin's 9 million general books may be available online, it's the 500,000 rare books at Harvard's Houghton, or the 1 million at UT's Ransom Center (UT's rare book library is actually larger than Harvard's!) that aren't as widely available (not yet at least). </p>

<p>Here's an apropos excerpt quoting the director of UT's Ransom Center in his decision of NOT placing the collection online, even while UT's general library was actually ELIMINATING physical books from the university's undergraduate library for the very reason other posters have mentioned (i.e., the Internet making it irrelevant) :</p>

<p>
[quote=]
Staley’s conservatism extends beyond his literary taste. He does not want to place the Ransom’s archives online. He believes, quoting Matthew Arnold, that “the object as in itself it really is” can never be replaced by a digital reproduction. “Smell this,” he told me one time when I was in his office, as he picked up a manuscript box from the Edwardian British publisher Cecil Palmer. We inhaled the scent: tobacco, mold, dust. “See, there’s information in the smell, too,” he said.</p>

<p>The same month that Staley bought Norman Mailer’s archive, U.T. announced that the school would remove nearly a hundred thousand books from the undergraduate library to make way for “an information commons” of computer clusters. “That’s not us,” Staley said. I once asked Staley what role he saw the Ransom Center fulfilling fifty years from now, with its boxes of yellowing rough drafts typed out on manual typewriters and piles of letters written with fountain pens by candlelight. “There will be these bastions, whether the ruins of Athens or these archives, and they will be all the more valuable,” he said.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/11/070611fa_fact_max%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/06/11/070611fa_fact_max&lt;/a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The flip side is that the digital age means less and less primary source material will necessarily have a physical origin. (How many author's still churn out their manuscripts on typewriters?) So going forward, the Internet will indeed make these sources available to everyone. So perhaps it's just the record of human achievement up until the past century that will allow the elite libraries a continued edge?</p>

114

<p>"Sadly, too many families pick schools to make application based on this superficial ranking that USNWR gets together every year. Its absurd. But it keeps the myths floating on clouds...."</p>

<p>friedokra,</p>

<p>Somehow the discussion in this tread has continued without eliciting a response to your post. It should be REQUIRED READING for anybody entering this board or the college selection processes. I would personally add more large public universities, like the University of Tennessee, as examples but your comments are right on the money.</p>

<p>I work in an organization where 60% of the staff hold a PhD degree. One of the persons I have the most professional respect for, and a likely candidate to outshine the rest of us in a room, has a bachelors degree from SUNY Stony Brook. We have brilliant people that went to Princeton or MIT but at this point it really does not matter.</p>

<p>Again, your post should be required reading for parents and students frequenting this board. I hope it does not get lost.</p>

115

<p>There was a time when all books were rare books. </p>

<p>Nowadays, very few undergrads have any reason to consult a rare book for their work. It is possible, in some fields, that having an extensive rare book collection is useful for faculty, and helps bring in distinguished faculty in those areas. This could benefit students. However, those fields are hardly growing. I am reminded of the role of computer scientists in publishing the Dead Sea Scrolls.</p>

<p>The Google initiative will likely change the relationship between library spending and research access.</p>

<p>Just one illustration of how it may be difficult to interpret spending figures as a simple "more is better". </p>

<p>Which students are better off, on average? Those whose universities have massive collections of rare books in libraries they will never enter, or those whose universities spend less money on libraries overall, but make undergraduate-oriented resources available online?</p>

116

<p>I have argued in a couple of places on CC, based on very limited experience, that college rankings such as US News & World Report, and many of the variables which comprise them, are pretty silly. </p>

<p>They highlight, and too much of the discussion on CC is taken up with, what Freud called the "narcissism of small differences". This was a term he used to describe the manner in which our negative feelings are sometimes directed at people who resemble us, while we take pride from the "small differences" that distinguish us from them. In fact, in our everday lives we routinely exaggerate differences in order to preserve a feeling of separateness and superiority. Think about how we think about the next town's football team. </p>

<p>College rankings and and the endless discussions on CC play beautifully into this human weakness. </p>

<p>As to what is important to look at evaluating college choices, I refer all to this thoughtful article written by Bennington College President Elizabeth Coleman. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070722/FEATURES15/707220301%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070722/FEATURES15/707220301&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It itself is an admission of weakness, in that it describes how the leaders of our educational instuitions have themselves gotten swept up in the silly ratings game.</p>

117

<p>Arties Dad:</p>

<p>Thank you sir for your kind remarks. I appreciate it. My whole raison d'etre on this board is not to denigrate any school...though I poke fun at a few kids on the Ivy Boards for their narcissism and elitism....but to help people realize that half of the problem and reason we have such small percentages being accepted at Ivy League Schools is because they like the myth perpetrated (and other elites) and enjoy getting tens of thousands of applications they can reject so they can keep their lofty rankings in USNWR. The fact is, there are many colleges around the country, many of them unranked or off the beaten path that are superb schools for the students who go there. If parents, teachers, counselors, and admissions officers simply pointed out the truth about admissions criteria and if they directed kids to be realistic or to explore schools not on the top 50 list even if they have super SAT's, then we wouldnt have the same 25,000 kids applying to the top 25 or top 50 schools every year. </p>

<p>But I think I am barking in the wind. People are so credential oriented and so concerned about keeping up with their image socially they often overlook perhaps better schools for their kids.</p>

<p>Not that there is anything wrong with Princeton and how it educates kids. But kids coming out of Macalaster or Colby or Kenyon or Pomona or Reed or Willamette or whatever are also getting superb educations.</p>

<p>In St. Louis, kids apply to WashU and completely overlook St. Louis University. Its a great school that emphasizes ethics, has the number one nutritional science program in the country, a respected law and medical school, and a superb aeronautical engineering and flight school. Its a pretty campus with a gorgeous cathedral ready for your future wedding plans!!! LOL.</p>

<p>You see what I mean?</p>

<p>But thanks for your comments.</p>

<p>Have a good one.</p>

<p>And Ballet Girl: I also agree with you. Its a human weakness.</p>

118

<p>In the spirit of full disclosure I have to say I am guilty as charged having played the game when my son applied to college, and to a much lesser extent when my daughter did.</p>

<p>The funny thing, and I guess the fortunate thing, is that this "ritual" is only temporary and that the main effect (at least from my limited vantage point) is the increased cost associated with the application process. Students apply to more schools, which makes the schools ever more selective, but when all is said and done a large majority of HS seniors (again from my limited vantage point) recover very quickly from their disappointment and end up happy and satisfied with the school they attend.</p>

<p>College rankings is a spectator sports with discussions like the one going on in this thread akin to those where sports-oriented alumni argue about whether Michigan or Notre Dame have a better punt returner. One day the rankings may be announced by ESPN in Sports Center with some of the more vocal members of this board being invited to debate the results live. They already televise the Spelling Bee.</p>

119

<p>I think the US News rankings are of great benefit to consumers of higher education. I disagree with all the bashing that goes on about rankings. US News is doing for prospective college students what Consumer Reports did for automobile consumers: enlighten consumers about the relative merits of different products. The US News rankings have gotten better and better.</p>

<p>Higher Education is big business. Purchasing a college education is a huge investment, second only to purchasing a home for most people. Many Universities would like to keep consumers in the dark about the facts so their marketing machine can sway potential students based on subjective feelings, impressions, and vague associations. Schools don't want their feet held to the fire.</p>

<p>US News is on the side of consumers.</p>

120

<p>
[quote]
Higher Education is big business. Purchasing a college education is a huge investment, second only to purchasing a home for most people. Many Universities would like to keep consumers in the dark about the facts so their marketing machine can sway potential students based on subjective feelings, impressions, and vague associations.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think consumers have really valued having this data at their fingertips, and I agree that it can be of benefit.</p>

<p>Yet I still basically disagree with your argument as you've stated it. First of all, it isn't clear to me that lower-ranked schools have been hoodwinking innocent students into purchasing overpriced, low-quality educations, or that people have been victimized by marketing. People develop their impressions of schools from a variety of sources, not just the college's marketing. While USNews has certainly made finding info easier, I feel like you're overcrediting it with suddenly shedding light on a process that was previously so mysterious and even nefarious. Truth is, for generations people have made college decisions without it, and the outcomes have not been terrible. </p>

<p>Second, and this is more important, do we know that U.S.News really highlights which schools don't live up to their marketing? Does it really help people find the "best" school? USNews uses (and provides to consumers) measures that it thinks determine academic and educational quality, but I think it's valid to examine (and sometimes refute) both their choices and the weights USNews assigns them. I'm not convinced that a school ranked 40th is a poorer investment than one ranked 30th. Granted, I'm pretty sick of reading 4000 CC threads on nitpicking the ranking, but I still think it's valid to examine those choices.</p>

<p>Finally, I think those feelings, impressions, and associations are important. They have a lot to do with fit. I believe that most students who get into, say, Michigan, or Hollins (another school I love that friedokra brought up) would actually get a fine education at dozens, maybe even hundreds of other schools. People don't want to believe that--they like to think there is the "perfect" school that they must discover, but honestly I think many students could succeed at a lot of places. Where they finally end up ought to have something to do with where they want to be, even if that's determined by something other than a ranking, even if it's based on something a lot squishier and which the "marketing machine" conveys better than USNews does.</p>