<p>Could be something more pernicious going on here. Brian Leiter, a legal scholar who follows the USN law school rankings quite closely, claims that over time law school PA scores have moved closer to overall USN rankings. He attributes this to the dominance of the USN rankings in the academy’s own contemporary understanding of its pecking order, so there’s just a self-reinforcing “echo” effect: academics and administrators follow the USN rankings, that shapes their own understanding of which schools are more prestigious, and that in turn shapes their answers to the PA questionnaire, so the USN rankings reinforce themselves over time.</p>
<p>I think this effect may not be quite as pronounced with undergrad institutions, because some schools with very high PA scores like Michigan and Berkeley fall much lower in the overall USN rankings, while some privates with lower PA scores rank higher in the overall rankings due to higher median SATs, greater selectivity, more money, etc. But it would be interesting to compare the movement of USN rankings and PA scores over time to see if there’s been the kind of “echo” convergence that Leiter describes.</p>
<p>bclintonk-
If US News rankings are affecting Peer Assessment over time, that would mean Peer Assessment ratings are becoming more valid because US News rankings are based mostly on hard data. I would not conclude that this process is “pernicious”. I would conclude that Peer Assessment is becoming more accurate.</p>
<p>An experienced Chief Investment Officier handling endowment, an experienced President leading an ambitous fundraising campaign, a well networked and efficient development and alumni networking system = Bigger Endowment.</p>
<p>To be frank, you have to buy quality in order to set momentum to attract and sustain quality. Bigger endowment allows for quality to take place.</p>
<p>As for whether or not endowments leads to quality, not neccessarily. Resources allow for greater quality, it just depends on the way university prioritizes its goals and ambitions, how it spends its money.</p>
<p>I agree that the rest of USN ranking is based on “hard data.” The problem I have is that most of the “hard data” factors have little or nothing to do with academic or educational quality (faculty salaries? alumni giving rate?), and the data are highly manipulable. So they really don’t tell us much at all worth knowing.</p>
<p>Dorian_Mode-
You are right. By “better”, I mean simpler, more parsimonious. I am saying that US News could get essentially the same result with less information.</p>
<p>xiggi-
I am not sure what you mean by “variance”. Harvey Mudd has an unsusually low graduation rate. Smith and Bryn Mawr have relatively low SAT scores and/or graduation rates. (which might affect their rankings)</p>
<p>bclintonk-
Why do you think faculty salaries and alumni giving are unrelated to educational quality? They may be indirectly related.</p>
<p>Well, CH, let me rephrase it in simpler terms: </p>
<p>How can your purported hard data possibly support the fact that Smith PA is higher than Harvey Mudd? Of course, it might also be worthwhile to remember that Harvey is a school that specializes in engineering and is to viewed as a peer to Caltech or MIT for the difficulty of its programs. Accordingly, is its graduation rate really that “unusually” low? Ifa four point difference with Caltech that .. unusual? </p>
<p>For the record, Smith PA is 4.3 its freshman retention is 91% and its graduation rate is 85%. Harvey Mudd’s numbers are a PA 4.1, a freshman retention of 95%, and a graduation rate of 85%. </p>
<p>Smith has one of the highest acceptance rates (over 50%) and lowest selectivity among its peers (and a rank of 46 in selectivity.) Harvey Mudd, in spite of a 30% admission rate is the most selective LAC with SAT of 1420-1550, 94% of its freshmen being in the top 10% of their class. </p>
<p>So, please tell us how the PA of Smith and Harvey Mudd correlate to any of the hard data for the schools, except for the MOST ASININE graduation rate expectation?</p>
<p>xiggi-
I’ve looked in-depth into the Peer Assessment ratings for LACs. It is more difficult to account for the LAC PA ratings than for universities but I can still account for 84% of the PA rating for LACs with hard data using the following factors:</p>
<p>student-faculty ratio
SAT 25th percentile
acceptance rate
financial resources rank
percent of classes under 20
percent of full-time faculty
alumni giving rate</p>
<p>I calculated a formula for predicting PA scores using hard data and below is the result. The estimated PA that is calculated from hard data places Harvey Mudd higher and Smith lower in PA than the actual US News. </p>
<p>So, the PA for Smith is hard to explain with hard data. It could be that people give it a higher than expected PA because of its excellence among women’s colleges. </p>
<p>But, the following list shows that hard data predicts other LAC schools’ PA pretty well (generally within three-tenths).</p>
<p>rank, name, calculated PA, actual US News PA</p>
<pre><code> 1 Amherst College 4.57 4.7
2 Carleton College 4.47 4.4
3 Williams College 4.46 4.7
4 Harvey Mudd 4.41 4.1
5 Pomona College 4.37 4.2
6 Bowdoin College 4.28 4.3
7 Swarthmo College 4.27 4.6
8 Middlebu College 4.26 4.2
9 Wesleyan Universi 4.25 4.2
10 Washingt Lee 4.20 3.9
11 Vassar College 4.15 4.1
12 Wellesle College 4.15 4.5
13 Haverfor College 4.13 4.1
14 US Naval 4.09 4.0
15 Davidson College 4.03 4.2
16 Colgate Universi 4.00 4.0
17 Claremon McKenna 4.00 4.0
18 Bates College 4.00 4.0
19 Grinnell College 3.96 4.3
20 Colby College 3.96 4.0
21 Oberlin College 3.90 4.2
22 Bryn Mawr 3.84 4.1
23 Hamilton College 3.83 3.7
24 Colorado College 3.80 3.8
25 Holy Cross 3.80 3.6
26 Kenyon College 3.79 3.8
27 Bucknell Universi 3.78 3.8
28 Trinity College 3.75 3.6
29 Barnard College 3.74 3.9
30 Mount Holyoke 3.73 4.0
31 Franklin Marshall 3.72 3.5
32 Macalest College 3.71 4.1
33 Lafayett College 3.71 3.4
34 Scripps College 3.70 3.7
35 Connecti College 3.70 3.5
36 Bard College 3.68 3.4
37 Denison Universi 3.68 3.4
38 Universi Richmond 3.66 3.6
39 Centre College 3.62 3.4
40 Occident College 3.61 3.7
41 US Military 3.61 4.0
42 Smith College 3.60 4.3
43 Furman Universi 3.56 3.5
44 Skidmore College 3.55 3.4
45 Lawrence Universi 3.51 3.3
46 Gettysbu College 3.48 3.3
47 Whitman College 3.46 3.3
48 Dickinso College 3.46 3.4
49 Pitzer College 3.44 3.5
50 New College 3.44 2.8
51 Reed College 3.43 3.9
52 Union College 3.42 3.3
53 Wheaton College 3.40 3.2
54 Wabash College 3.39 3.3
55 Wheaton College 3.36 3.3
56 Agnes Scott 3.34 3.3
57 Rhodes College 3.30 3.5
58 DePauw Universi 3.30 3.4
59 Sewanee Univ 3.29 3.6
60 St. Lawrence 3.28 3.2
61 Kalamazo College 3.28 3.2
62 Illinois Wesleyan 3.25 3.1
63 Wofford College 3.24 2.9
64 Hobart College 3.17 3.2
65 Berea College 3.16 3.3
</code></pre>