<p>monydad-
Even a casual reader should be able to look at the rankings and see some vailidity. What I can't fathom is why someone would draw a conclusion about such an important source of information without looking more deeply. I've looked at the Gourman rankings more closely than most people, compared them with other data and with the opinions of some of the more experienced posters on CC. They are pretty solid. You might argue about the exact position in the ranking but they are darn close.</p>
<p>I think there is some backlash toward the Gourman rankings from people who like LACs, but the Gourman rankings are still useful and valid information about universities. </p>
<p>I've also read the Gourman criticisms on the web and they are mostly criticisms about methodology and Gourman's supposed secretiveness. But I think some of these critics have not actually read the preface to the Gourman report in which he outlines his method and lists his criteria. I have posted the preface on CC in the past, and I have posted his method and criteria several times. He states that he gave different weight to the criteria depending on the major.</p>
<p>I have heard the criticism that you can't accurately distinguish schools to the tenth decimal place. Gourman started out in the 1960s with an 800 point scale, like the SATs, but he boiled it down to a 5-point index. Questions have also been raised by the fact that there are no ties but, there actually are ties (at least one that I saw). Most object to the fact that the data are not available to the public. But, this is the way Gourman made his living. I come back to the point that the results can be validated, so whatever the method was and whatever the data were the outcome made sense. I have heard the criticism that they are outdated but the quality of academic programs changes very slowly, and besides, the Gourmans rankings from 10 years ago fundamentally agree with with comparable current rankings.</p>
<p>The Gourmans ranking correlate with other current rankings (when comparable rankings are available). Gourman correctly lists some high quality programs that are not public knowledge. I have even discovered that some critics of Gourman on CC actually agree closely with Gourman when you look at their posts.</p>
<p>No ranking is absolute or perfect but there is tremendous value for students who are starting their search. It gives them a starting point. It would be a shame to dismiss the Gourman rankings, which are still the best source for undergraduate rankings by department.</p>
<p>I have also heard the criticism that you can't distinguish the quality of undergraduate colleges at the program level. Some say that you should just pick your school based on overall reputation. This is simply not true. Departments within schools are not uniform in quality. Those who know a discipline best will tell you that some departments are stronger than others at every school. In fact, there is variability in quality even within departments between sub-specialties.</p>
<p>I don't want to ignore the fallibilities of the Gourman report or exaggerate its accuracy but I try to shed some light on the value of these rankings when I can and try to counteract the stubborn bias against the Gourman rankings, which stems from the blind acceptance of what critics have said in the past.</p>