An Objective College Ranking

College Search & Selection
1

<p>While rankings are often argued to be unreliably subjective, as is the case with a few sources that are quoted somewhat often such as the Princeton Review rankings and the Times Global rankings, if we exclude the Peer Assessment scores from the USNews ranking we now have, what we get is a ranking that is based simply on objective numerical figures.</p>

<p>The ranking below is the ranking of American universities excluding Peer Assessment, the only subjective element in the USNews ranking criteria. In other words, the ranking below is based only on criteria that are stipulated numerical figures such as: graduation and retention rate, average percentage of classes with less than 20 and over 50 students, percentage of full-time faculty, SAT/ACT 25th-75th percentile, freshmen in top 10% of their HS graduating class, acceptance rate, financial resources and alumni giving rate.</p>

<p>(Within the same rank, the colleges are listed ALPHABETICALLY)</p>

<li>Harvard University</li>
<li><p>Princeton University</p></li>
<li><p>Duke University</p></li>
<li><p>University of Pennsylvania</p></li>
<li><p>Yale University</p></li>
<li><p>Dartmouth College</p></li>
<li><p>Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)</p></li>
<li><p>Stanford University</p></li>
<li><p>Washington University in St. Louis</p></li>
<li><p>Brown University</p></li>
<li><p>California Institute of Technology (CalTech)</p></li>
<li><p>Columbia University</p></li>
<li><p>Northwestern University</p></li>
<li><p>University of Notre Dame</p></li>
<li><p>Cornell University</p></li>
<li><p>Rice University</p></li>
<li><p>Emory University</p></li>
<li><p>Johns Hopkins University</p></li>
<li><p>University of Chicago</p></li>
<li><p>Vanderbilt University</p></li>
<li><p>Georgetown University</p></li>
<li><p>Tufts University</p></li>
<li><p>Carnegie Mellon University</p></li>
<li><p>Lehigh University</p></li>
<li><p>University of Virginia</p></li>
<li><p>Wake Forest University</p></li>
<li><p>University of Southern California</p></li>
<li><p>Brandeis University</p></li>
<li><p>University of California-Berkeley</p></li>
<li><p>University of California-Los Angeles</p></li>
<li><p>University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill</p></li>
<li><p>University of Rochester</p></li>
<li><p>Case Western Reserve University</p></li>
<li><p>Boston College</p></li>
<li><p>College of William and Mary</p></li>
<li><p>University of Michigan-Ann Arbor</p></li>
<li><p>Yeshiva University</p></li>
<li><p>New York University</p></li>
<li><p>Tulane University</p></li>
<li><p>University of California-San Diego</p></li>
<li><p>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI)</p></li>
<li><p>Georgia Institute of Technology</p></li>
<li><p>Syracuse University</p></li>
<li><p>University of California-Santa Barbara</p></li>
<li><p>University of Wisconsin-Madison</p></li>
<li><p>University of California-Irvine</p></li>
<li><p>University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign</p></li>
<li><p>University of Florida</p></li>
<li><p>University of Washington</p></li>
<li><p>Pennsylvania State University-University Park</p></li>
</ol>

<p>While one can argue that some of the criteria is irrelevant in ranking a university, the ranking above, at the very least, is solely based on figures that are objective and stipulated.</p>

<p>So basing your opinions on the rankings above may not be such a biased and unreliable thing to do when estimating where a university stands in terms of its quality and peers.</p>

<p>Just a thought.</p>

2

<p>The problem lies in the weightings (not to mention in the actual metrics), not the peer assessment. The rankings are subjective in that the weights assigned are arbitrary.</p>

<p>(... 'cause we all know that Brandeis = Berkeley, Lehigh > UCLA, Dartmouth = Stanford, and Penn > Stanford.)</p>

3

<p>"(... 'cause we all know that Brandeis = Berkeley, Lehigh > UCLA, Dartmouth = Stanford, and Penn > Stanford.)"</p>

<p>Disregarding name recognition, it's not entirely out of question to make the comparisons you made above. To compare the schools in, for example, standardized test scores:</p>

<p>"Brandeis = Berkeley"</p>

<p>Brandeis-
Critical Reading: 630 - 730
Math: 630 - 730 </p>

<p>Berkeley-
Critical Reading: 580 - 710
Math: 620 - 740</p>

<p>"Lehigh > UCLA"</p>

<p>Lehigh-
Critical Reading: 580 - 670
Math: 640 - 720</p>

<p>UCLA-
Critical Reading: 570 - 690
Math: 610 - 720</p>

<p>"Dartmouth = Stanford"</p>

<p>Dartmouth-
Critical Reading: 670 - 770
Math: 680 - 780</p>

<p>Stanford-
Critical Reading: 660 - 760
Math: 680 - 780</p>

<p>"Penn > Stanford"</p>

<p>Penn-
Critical Reading: 650 - 740
Math: 680 - 770 </p>

<p>Stanford-
Critical Reading: 660 - 760
Math: 680 - 780 </p>

<p>The figures are roughly equal, nothing out of the question. I see that you happen to be from California, and I can't help but notice you seem to have a preference for Californian Universities. Again, like I mentioned above, if we exclude subjective estimations like name recognition and peer assessment, the schools you compared above are not drastically better than one another.</p>

<p>In fact, Brandeis has the edge in standardized test scores and would have a much larger percentage of classes that have less than 20 students than Berkeley, with much more approachable faculty and classes taught by professors as opposed to TAs. Arguably, the undergraduate education at Brandeis could be better than that of Cal.</p>

<p>Again, for someone from "SoCal," UCLA may seem more prestigious than Lehigh, but I assure you Lehigh is well-regarded in the Northeast. And objective figures show they are roughly equal. It's not completely out of question.</p>

<p>Stanford, yes, has reached a level of name recognition equivalent to Harvard, but the average Dartmouth student scores slightly above than the average student at Stanford. I am sure both schools offer an excellent academic experience, but what makes you think it's such a stretch to compare the two? Obviously, prestige. Likewise, the same argument can be made for Penn and Stanford.</p>

<p>Yes, SAT scores are, by no means, the best way to compare schools, but I only use this as an example. The reason the schools you mentioned rank so closely is because they have a total score that is roughly equal and that includes all of the things I mentioned above: average percentage of classes with less than 20 and over 50 students, percentage of full-time faculty, SAT/ACT 25th-75th percentile, freshmen in top 10% of their HS graduating class, acceptance rate, financial resources, etc.</p>

<p>The whole point of this is to provide a set of rankings that is free of subjective criteria. Yes, you could argue the weightings assigned for the criteria affects the ranking, but in the end, it has to be weighted one way or another.</p>

4

<p>"the schools you compared above are not drastically better than one another."</p>

<p>If this is your conclusion after your SAT 'findings,' then you are assuming that 1) SAT scores = quality of institution, 2) the universities weight SAT importance the same, and 3) they report SAT scores the same. None of these three are true.</p>

<p>"I can't help but notice you seem to have a preference for Californian Universities."</p>

<p>Where is there such an indication?</p>

<p>"if we exclude subjective estimations like name recognition and peer assessment, the schools you compared above are not drastically better than one another."</p>

<p>I would disagree. Some universities inherently offer better opportunities. Of course, usually I assert that top 25 or so universities are pretty much equal (something that many disagree with, because many tend to think that rankings are legitimate), but I find it ridiculous that one would say Brown is better than Cornell, or that Penn is just better than Stanford.</p>

<p>"Again, for someone from "SoCal," UCLA may seem more prestigious than Lehigh"</p>

<p>No, I'm not going off local bias.</p>

<p>"And objective figures show they are roughly equal."</p>

<p>"Objective figures" being SAT scores, right? Real good metric.</p>

<p>"but I only use this as an example."</p>

<p>Well, I'll have to inform you that your example doesn't strengthen your case.</p>

<p>"Yes, you could argue the weightings assigned for the criteria affects the ranking, but in the end, it has to be weighted one way or another."</p>

<p>Er, yes. Wherever you heard that rankings are subjective, I think you misinterpreted where most of the subjectivity lies, which is mostly in weightings. And the fact that they have to be weighted "one way or another" doesn't refute that the way they are weighted is inherently subjective. Personally, I don't think some of the things in the rankings should be weighted so heavily. And I think other things that are relevant to the quality of the university should be taken into account. But, alas, what I think is subjective.</p>

<p>You are, in essence, asserting that subjectivity should not make its way into the ranking -- which is pretty much a paradox in itself, because ranking is naturally subjective. What's quality to you may not be quality to me (as evidenced by this post). Believe me, taking the peer score out is, at worst, distorting the rankings even more. But of course, 'distortion' is a subjective measure too. =)</p>

5

<p>I agree with kyledavis80. Hell, many of these schools compute SAT scores differently than others. UC's use best single sitting, while many elite privates allow you to combine SAT scores. Deffiantly not the same way to compute. You seemed to leave out GPA, which UC's weigh significantly more heavily than SAT scores, yet you choose to compare by SAT's. 99% of freshmen class in top 10 % of high school class for UC Berkeley and UCSD, and 97% of freshmen class in top 10% of high school class at UCLA, all three higher than almost all elite private universities. You only seemed to state numbers, which werent even necessarily computed the same across the board from one college to another, that benefited the conclusion for which you wanted to reach. KyleDavid80 had some very good points. And by the way, i know you dont like peer assesment scores, but UCLA is considered a more prestigious national university than Lehigh. Check peer assesment, not only is UCLA substantially higher, but it seems quite obvious that it is a more prestigious university not only to professors and faculty members of the nations universities, but also to the general public. I really dont think that is an opinion, but more of a fact. Hell i could say alumni giving rate is irrelevent and such, and other parts of the us news formula that hurt top publics, then i can take that out and reweight the us news formula without that information, and suddenly the top publics would move up slightly in the rankings. i could do this to numerous parts of the formula that i felt hurt the schools or conclusion i wanted to reach. you are simply reformulating rankings to make them reach the conclusion you wish. Anyone can do that, you wish to take out peer assesment which helps some of the top publics, then fine, but i wish the remove alumni giving rate, which i argue is less important, in my mind anyway, than peer assesment. This is a never ending game, we could all remove parts of the formula which we dont like, and all reach conclusions through removing that info that would then reach a conclusion in the rankings that we personally would then like better. You try to show schools are equivalent or better simply by stating SAT scores, which in the case of berkeley and brandies arent even computed the same. not exactly a complete picture, especially since UC's dont place near the importance on SAT's as they do GPA. Proving a school is equivalent, or better, or worse is much more complex than just sating SAT scores which often are not even computed the same.</p>

6

<p>Here's a stat you all may find interesting. The leading researchers in college student outcomes, having conducted a meta-analysis of all the student learning research of the past 40 years, conclude that in general, the particular college or type of college has no appreciable impact on the amount of value-added learning. The only data that validly predicts students' learning outcomes are the academic quality records of the students coming into college. In other words, given the material they get, the vast majority of colleges do about the same in facilitating learning; it's the students' records and aptitudes themselves that account for most of the college learning benefits. So, perhaps the most relevant ranking of college quality may simply be the US News selectivity rankings.</p>

7

<p>that is also interesting. i understand what the original poster is trying to do. attempting to remove anything subjective, and while this is understandable, it isnt really relative, especially with the last posters statement, as it seem clear, especially with elite colleges, that students care substantially about the universities peer assesment or reputation. while it is debatable if the universities reputation should matter in ones decision, clearly for most people it is very important. there are exceptions of course, but i would say for elite colleges, most people consider that somewhat important or very important when determining what colleges to attend.</p>

8

<p>ucchris hit the nail on the head: we can keep on playing ping-pong with these rankings, removing certain measures, changing another, and the like -- which, as I said, is what's so subjective about it. It's simply arbitrary.</p>

9

<p>No, no student should care about Peer Assessment. Peer Assessment scores are made by 3 top officials at a University who might not (ie do not) know a significant amount about EVERY undergrad college. They usually rank according to how they think schools "should be".</p>

<p>Hence large state schools and many long-standing top privates all having significantly higher rankings than schools such as Vanderbilt, Emory, Georgetown, which all attract just as strong students, have great placement, etc.</p>

<p>Just look at state schools, who rank poorly in many objective measures (no matter how you weight them) but still have high PA scores. Keep in mind PA scores are for UNDERGRAD, but one would expect them to have some correlation with the other stats used. They clearly don't.</p>

10

<p>so are you telling me that peer assessment or lack thereof is responsible for giving cornell a ranking 3 spots than from what it "should" be (based on last year's rankings) and that brown was basically given a ranking 5 spots too "low?"</p>

11

<p>Lehigh really isnt as good as it gets credit for. UCLA easily.</p>

12

<p>Peer assessment is subjective, thus unreliable, but Alumni giving is objective, thus worthy of consideration as a test of academic quality? I'd dispute that. Acceptance rate? San Diego State rejects over 50% of its applicants, just about the same as Michigan. Academic equals? I don't think so. All of the "objective" standards are seriously flawed as representative data of a college's overall quality. While you can snipe at Peer Assessment, I think that, given the large sample of respondents expressing their opinions of various schools, a pretty accurate assessment of each school's overall academic reputation is obtained. And reputation at least does correspond meaningfully with the thing you're trying to assess.</p>

<p>Still, I'd stick to the capitalist test: what does the market say? If you could obtain consistently-measured data on the test scores and GPA's of the enrolling students each year I think that one bit of (mostly) objective data would be the best benchmark. (See Gadad's post.) Unfortunately, we don't even have that (consistently measured) data, as noted above.</p>

13

<p>kluge, there is plenty of SAT info available.</p>

<p>In terms of highest to lowest SATs of the top 15 highest scoring schools it goes like this:
- Harvard, MIT
- Princeton, Yale
- Stanford
- Dartmouth, Duke, Brown
- Penn, Columbia, Chicago
- Cornell, Northwestern, WashU</p>

14

<p>topofthegame, when comparing brandeis and uc berkeley, you need to take into account that berkeley, as a state school, is forced to take students, who if they did not reside in California, would not be admitted. the fact that a state school and a private school have similar SAT scores speaks volumes about the strength of uc berkeley. </p>

<p>same is true when comparing public (ucla) with private (lehigh). of course, public schools have a higher admit rate. it's because they must give an advantage to in-state applicants (who fund them) while private universities have no such constraints.</p>

15

<p>how does % of classes under 20/over 50 correlate to ranking a college? State universities will never be in top 15.</p>

16

<p>
[quote]
kluge, there is plenty of SAT info available.</p>

<p>In terms of highest to lowest SATs of the top 15 highest scoring schools it goes like this:
- Harvard, MIT
- Princeton, Yale
- Stanford
- Dartmouth, Duke, Brown
- Penn, Columbia, Chicago
- Cornell, Northwestern, WashU

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Aside from the claim that ranking purely on SAT scores is worthwhile (I'm sure someone else will pounce on this), this ordering seems to be entirely made up. If you look at US News numbers, the actual ordering (from mean of 25% and 75%) is
Caltech
MIT
Harvard, Yale
Princeton
Stanford
Duke
Dartmouth
WashU, UChicago, Columbia
Brown, Rice
UPenn</p>

<p>At least use accurate numbers when you make claims.</p>

17

<p>Caltech has 800 people.... I bet if you take any top school and cut its numbers to that level its scores would be close to, if not equal to, those of Caltech.</p>

18

<p>I'm really frustrated by using the SAT as a measure (svalbard anticipated my problems) partially because it's an unfair test from the get-go, particularly when you know that the difference between a 700 and a 750 is one or two questions and the curve of the particular test you took. When you get your scores, you also get a score range along with it, as the College Board's way of admitting that your scores are by no means absolute and perfect.</p>

<p>Plus, SAT scores don't get you into colleges! How many times have admissions people from colleges like Harvard and Yale said that if they wanted to fill their class with top scores, they could, and yet they don't, in deference to the wide range of personalities and abilities that a college looks for beyond SAT scores? How many times has the overly confident CC applicant with great scores been denied from his or her top colleges?</p>

<p>If college admissions were all about SAT, your list would be fair. It would also put to bed a lot of our arguing.</p>

<p>To me, the most "objective" list is funding. How much money does a university have, and how much is it pumping back to its students for financial aid? How much is going for professor salaries (again, skewed with the cost of living in various areas)? How much is going for research in specific areas?</p>

19

<p>From my point of view, there can be no true assessment of a university's overall quality without the input from professionals who are in a position to know. In any field, those professionals come from within the peer group. Although some of you may not like where either your, or a particular school ranks among this peer group, the professionals who comprise such a group are in the position of having far broader knowledge concerning such matters than either you or I.
Further, while you can certainly make an argument for the quality of the student body by using SAT scores, you cannot, using these numbers, determine the overall quality of the education. I want the "peer" group to continue informing me of their most estimed and valuable opinions.
Think of it this way. When you chose a physician, you might ask for a recommendation from one of his/her peers...Someone you respect. You are not going to ask any random person, rather someone you think highly of from within that professional peer group. Barring this option, you might pick up a magazine, like, for example, here in New York, New York Magazine, which lists, by specialty, the top physicians in their respective specialties, and then, from that jumping off point, continue to investigate which physician, amongst the most highly regarded, is best for you. The way the magazine comes up with this list is by polling the peer group...in other words, by doing a peer assessment survey. Many other surveys operate in the same manner. It polls other doctors, lawyers, etc. depending upon which discipline is being measured.
There is simply no value to an analysis of a school's standing, without a peer assessment number. In fact, as is done abroad, I think peer assessment should be given a far heavier weight than it is given in the US. I want to know what professionals in the field of higher education think about the schools my children are considering. No one else can give me such a worthwhile opinion.</p>

20

<p>


Actually, he did. thethoughtprocess appears to have used the collegeboard.com numbers, which are the middle-50% ranges for enrolled first-year students, as opposed to the US News ranges which are for *accepted<a href="and%20%5Bi%5Dnot%5B/i%5D%20actually%20enrolled">/i</a> students. As such, the collegeboard.com numbers more accurately reflect the scores of the various schools. And thethoughtprocess' ranking accurately reflects the collegeboard.com numbers.</p>