<p>Ernie,
There is certainly a commercial angle to what USNWR does, but they undercut their own credibility if their actions cause widespread, erratic moves so they have an interest in promoting a relatively stable ranking. If they didn't have that, then the public wouldn't accept their rankings and sales would suffer. Which college are you referring to that moved 5 spots in a year and a has different ranking every year? </p>
<p>hoedown,
I'm sure that I sound somewhat sinister with my comments about the Education Establishment, but I do think that the historic academic powers have a huge interest in perpetuating the status quo. My personal belief is that many terrific schools around the country get regularly shortchanged in rankings like USNWR. Partly I believe that the methodology causes this and partly, it is a lack of visibility from the NY and LA mainstream media. Whenever a newcomer arrives on the scene and climbs the rankings, all heck breaks out and everyone wants to decimate the interloper (Duke, Wash U are good examples). This is most pronounced outside of the Northeast, but even there IMO schools like Tufts, NYU and Boston College merit greater respect and higher rankings. The students and employers recognize the quality of the students at these schools. The academics and their media sycophants have not.</p>
<p>NYU ranks only fairly in some good measures of faculty quality that get attention--National Academy members 39 (26th place and most are in Medicine) BC is even worse-only 3 members (109th place), Tufts has 8 (76th), Duke 54 (20th), Wash U 41 (24th). </p>
<p>For major faculty awards BC has just 2 (196th),, NYU 24 (23rd), Duke 40 (8th), 6 (97th), and Wash U 39 (10th).</p>
<p>So it looks like the rankings somewhat reflect the higher order academic awards earned by the faculty.</p>
<p>It's not just that it sounds sinister, but that I don't understand the mechanisms involved. You paint a vague picture of a powerful elite that is working against the interests of...well, I am not sure what. They are working against change, or their less-well-regarded sister institutions, or against the reputations of students attending them? This is all not clear to me.</p>
<p>I'm not what you mean by "historic academic powers" either, at least not in this context. So far what I've gathered is that there are highly ranked schools--except for Duke, WashU, NYU, and Boston College--which form some kind of "Education Establishment." What power is is that they are wielding? Power over what? And who is wielding it? Are you talking about the administrators and faculty at these places? Or their alumni? And it's also not clear to me if you're saying they hate rankings because they may upset the status quo, or that they support rankings because they will perpetuate the status quo. </p>
<p>Is USNews part of the "media sycophants" or are they some outside group challenging the status quo?</p>
<p>Do you have some examples of the "Education Elite" trying to tear down these interlopers? What exactly did these powers do to Duke or Wash U?</p>
<p>Do we really have a problem with "academics and the media" failing to appreciate other schools (beyond some amorphous subset of the elite)? I'm not convinced they DO feel that way. Let's say that they do, however. Do you have evidence that students at those schools are being harmed? </p>
<p>It's not clear to me what you're driving at, and I think some more precision would be very welcome especially given the audience of these boards (in large part, young people trying to learn more about higher education so they can make sound decisions in their own college search).</p>
<p>I will say this much--I have certainly seen this kind of attitude here on the boards. There are posters here on CC who seem to be invested in certain ideas about prestige, and they champion their version of it, and are hostile to suggestions that other schools deserve accolades. But these are posters on a message board, and that is quite different from the higher education cabal you are hinting at.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There is certainly a commercial angle to what USNWR does, but they undercut their own credibility if their actions cause widespread, erratic moves so they have an interest in promoting a relatively stable ranking.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The commercial angle aims at evolutionary change. If the rankings remain too static, there's no reason to buy it every year. I have the 2004 edition and the 2007 edition is not much different. The biggest changes come from school moving from one category to another. You are right that rapid change would ill serve sales. USNWR's College Rankings edition is like a vaudeville act constantly playing to new audiences. They can go with pretty much the same act every year and still be assured that people will pay to see it.</p>
<p>standrews,
I'm not sure it is even evolutionary as there is pretty little movement over long stretches of time. </p>
<p>Consider the 1969 Barrons Guide to Colleges which listed the following 11 National Universities among its "Most Competitive" list. Most Competitive, as defined by Barron’s, include “schools in the country whose admission standards are most rigorous, and in which the intellectual caliber of the student body appears to be the highest. In general, these schools want students who rank in the top 10-25 percent of their graduating class; median SAT scores of 675-800; A to B+ average. Usually, also, these colleges can admit only a small percentage of those applying."</p>
<p>Caltech
Columbia
Dartmouth
Harvard
John Hopkins
MIT
Brown
Princeton
Rice
Stanford
Yale</p>
<p>Now, consider how those schools are ranked by USWNR in their 2007 edition.</p>
<h1>4 Caltech</h1>
<h1>9 Columbia</h1>
<h1>9 Dartmouth</h1>
<h1>2 Harvard</h1>
<h1>16 John Hopkins</h1>
<h1>4 MIT</h1>
<h1>15 Brown</h1>
<h1>1 Princeton</h1>
<h1>17 Rice</h1>
<h1>4 Stanford</h1>
<h1>3 Yale</h1>
<p>In 38 years, 3 schools have dropped very slightly from the Top 11 and, in their place, U Penn, Duke, and U Chicago are in the Top 11. Truly glacial change during a period when the country has seen tremendous change in virtually all aspects of life. Yet college rankings and the prestige and media coverage that goes along with that remains a pretty static affair. Such a result might help keep magazine sales and academic cooperation high (at least cooperation of those at the top of the educational pyramid), but is it truly reflective of the changes that have taken place in American education over the last 40 years and the quality of the various institutions around the country today? The Ivies and the entrenched collegiate powers would have you believe yes. I would express a more skeptical view.</p>
<p>Are you saying that you believe quality at Yale, CalTech, Columbia, etc. have declined considerably over the past 40 years? So much so that they are no longer among the top institutions in the nation?</p>
<p>For all the innovations in today's society, much of higher education is still carried out in the same labor-intensive way. I don't understand what about higher education has changed so drastically in 38 years that would suggest a vast shake-up in relative quality of the top institutions, especially at those that have always attracted a national and global student body. </p>
<p>But that may be something of a side issue, because what you're talking about here in the Barrons ranking is competitiveness. These places were competitive then and they are competitive now. Why? Because of trickery, or a conspiracy? No, they are competitive because many high-calibre students still apply each year. Any ranking which considers competitiveness (or its proxies) will end up ranking them highly. </p>
<p>Are you suggesting that USNews includes competitiveness because of some form of "academic cooperation at the top of the educational pyramid?" Wouldn't a simpler explanation be that the USNews editors believe it's a credible measure of quality? It's certainly true that many prospective and current students and alumni and parents seem to feel that way. Is it so surprising, then, that USNews would include it? Is a conspiracy really the most plausible reason that rankings don't change a great deal?</p>
<p>barrons,
You and I value very different things in considering faculty quality. You and a large part of the academic world attach (great) value on the various awards you cite and/or other measures such as publications in magazine. I don't. Much, much more important to me is the quality of the teaching that goes on in the classroom and how this prepares the student for the world beyond, primarily the for-profit world. I'm not saying that having faculty achievement in research-related activities is of no value, but the benefit to most undergraduates is usually indirect at best. If I am a student at BC (with only 2 faculty awards), am I really getting an inferior education to someone at WashU? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't think that can be decided by how many awards are won by faculty members (and especially so if those awards are won in the sciences and the student is studying something else, eg the humanities, or vice versa). </p>
<p>You might ask how I would value faculty? I would give the vote to four groups: academics (as is done now with PA but with more definition of what they are judging and grading), students, alumni, and employers.</p>
<p>hawkette,</p>
<p>a good faculty wins awards, is part of academic councils, etc. don't you want a faculty thats on the cutting edge of academia--advancing the field, not just sitting by watching others do it? There are plenty of great teachers at every school. I'm sure there are community college professors who can teach circles around harvard professors...but that doesn't mean anything, does it?</p>
<p>Now people will say "well what about LACs." I'm not going to research about it because i don't really care that much, but I'd assume faculty at the best LACs have won awards either prior to getting there, or while there (maybe not in some research related field, but perhaps they've gotten teaching awards or published a bunch of articles). If not, I'm sure they graduated from schools where that faculty was prestigious. I'm sure you arn't finding too many professors at Williams who have associates from pucks town community college, bachelors at the bottem of the class from the university of south dakota, and ph.d.s from the university of the ivory coast...</p>
<p>hoedown,
Of course the quality remains exceptionally high at Yale and Caltech and such. I'm not trying to pull them down-I am trying to push others up. The universe of top institutions has expanded greatly since 1969, but the schools that are trumpeted as the top remain, for the most part, unchanged in nearly forty years of history. Why? Is this accurate? From an employer's perspective (and particularly for an employer outside of the frequently referenced investment banking/management consulting fields), the institution is FAR less important than the student. </p>
<p>As for the bones that I pick with USNWR and its methodology, a few items are mostly responsible for the perpetuation of the rankings order. PA is the primary culprit and, while I believe you overstate my contention of a conspiracy, PA's lack of transparency could lead one in that direction. Secondarily are the weights accorded items like alumni giving, 6-year graduation rates and financial resources (which some interpret to mean endowment size).</p>
<p>jags861,
I think your exaggerations get in the way of some good points. Having faculty with awards is fine, but my belief is that having faculty with a focus on undergraduate teaching is better for the student and that is who I really care about. </p>
<p>I guess this comes down to what the role of the faculty of a university should be. Is it there to perform research and publish articles that enhance the professor's reputation and probably the university's as well? Or is the mission to teach students to think critically, to develop their interest in a given field of study, and to prepare them for life after college? Perhaps it can be both, but the current measurement methods (PA) only perform on the first metric and not on the second and only involves a sliver of the people who should have a say in judging the quality of a faculty.</p>
<p>I think hawkette has a point.
Sure it makes sense to make the number of faculty awards a factor when ranking the best overall university (universities are not only supposed to pass on knowledge but to actually produce some) but that does not mean much to high school students who have to decide which college to get an education from.</p>
<p>Every ranking is created with a certain target group in mind. You cannot meassure the best university without defining first what makes a good university (a high-profile entering class? good teaching? cutting-edge research? successful alumni?) </p>
<p>I really like Washington Monthly's college rankings because they tell you exactly what they are trying to rank: "**We ask what are colleges doing for the country.<a href="...">/b</a> From this starting point, we came up with three central criteria: Universities should be engines of social mobility, they should produce the academic minds and scientific research that advance knowledge and drive economic growth, and they should inculcate and encourage an ethic of service."</p>
<p>The Revealed Preference Ranking also makes its purpose very clear: to determine the best college for undergraduates by monitoring comsumer behaviour and assuming that the most popular institution must be the one that meets most of a student's needs. The basic idea is brilliant. They don't bother to define what makes a good university but rather trust students to make a good choice based on their own expectations. </p>
<p>Does US News have some kind of a mission statement too?</p>
<p>While USNWR does not post an explicit mission statement, they do explain what they see as their proper use by prospective college students and their families:</p>
<p>"Just how can rankings help you identify colleges and universities that are right for you? Certainly, the college experience consists of a host of intangibles that cannot be reduced to mere numbers. But for families, the U.S. News rankings provide an excellent starting point because they offer the opportunity to judge the relative quality of institutions based on widely accepted indicators of excellence. You can compare different schools' numbers at a glance, and looking at unfamiliar schools that are ranked near schools you know can be a good way to broaden your search.</p>
<p>Of course, many factors other than those we measure will figure in your decision, including the feel of campus life, activities, sports, academic offerings, location, cost, and availability of financial aid. But if you combine the information in this book with college visits, interviews, and your own intuition, the rankings can be a powerful tool in your quest for college."</p>
<p>hawkette,</p>
<p>here is the problem with your logic. people who produce research or who publish articles arn't bad teachers. being a professor is a job. what do most professors teach? 2,3, maybe 4 classes a semester? that makes what...12 hours of class a week? say he has 8 hours of office hours a week--which is more than average I would think. What is he doing for the 20 hours he's supposed to be working--if he works 40 hour weeks? He's not always grading. Is he supposed to perform research? Publish articles? Work towards academia? Sit on his thumbs waiting for Johnny Freshman to come see him? Since when did publishing articles, winning awards, and being part of the advancement of one's field bad for teaching?</p>
<p>
[quote]
But for families, the U.S. News rankings provide an excellent starting point because they offer the opportunity to judge the relative quality of institutions based on widely accepted indicators of excellence.
[/quote]
I don't like that sentence. I don't doubt that US News does use criteria that are "widely accepted indicators of excellence", but not necessarily the kind of excellence prospective students are looking for. What are those indicators?
I could not care less about the average faculty salary, the alumni giving rate or a mystical predicted graduation rate. And the Peer Assessment which is the single most important factor is too biased (US News is said to make people evaluate on colleges they hardly know anything about). Even a college without a big endowment can have very dedicated faculty und vice versa.</p>
<p>Jags, you underestimate how time consuming teaching UG's can be, and seem to be exagerating the truth.</p>
<p>While faculty awards can be used as a strong measure of overall "Faculty Quality", they are not at all relevant to "undergraduate teaching quality". At many universities, the majority of the most highly published faculty members will have no interaction with UG students. In fact, i'm sure that many of the most highly published professors consider teaching grad students to be a chore. Research is a full-time job, and so is teaching. Combining the two is not as straight-forward as you seem to believe.</p>
<p>bicoastal,</p>
<p>I only exaggerate (and not as much asyou think) because i feel as if everyone else is exaggerating on how "university professors can't be good teachers" or arn't as good as teachers at LACs. </p>
<p>Also, I don't know if you're in college, or graduated, or just finishing high school, but from my observations, teaching undergrad classes isn't exactly taxing--especially for those who have been around the block a few times. Many of my professors have been teaching the same classes for years--giving the same readings, assigning the same papers, giving the same lectures. I'm a history major, so generally there isn't too much ground breaking changes that need to be altered. How hard is it to give the same lecture year after year? Most professors have graders nowadays anyway, so they don't even do the majority of grading.</p>
<p>biocaostal--that is just false. At least at most state u's the faculty can expect to teach all levels. Very few are excluded.</p>
<p>Here's the bio of one of the top Poli Sci profs. You really want to say she can't teach undergrads?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.polisci.wisc.edu/%7Esapiro/biog.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.polisci.wisc.edu/~sapiro/biog.htm</a></p>
<p>Laura Kiessling who was one of the few women elected to the NAS is teaching ug Organ Chemistry in the fall</p>
<p><a href="http://news.wisc.edu/13738%5B/url%5D">http://news.wisc.edu/13738</a></p>
<p>jags861,
I have not stated anywhere that professors who do research or write papers are bad teachers. I have stated that I prefer teachers whose main focus is not research, but rather classroom efforts. Things like PA reward the former which I think have relatively little value for the average undergraduate. As a history major, do you think it is right that your school's reputation should be driven by some anonymous college administrator's view of your school, a view that is likely heavily shaped by awards won in technical areas that have nothing to do with your field of study. The history professors at your school may do a remarkable job of preparing you for postgraduate life, but if the school's research efforts lag and less awards are won or articles are published, do you think your school will suffer in its Peer Assessment ranking? Except for that part of my proposed Faculty Assessment that would be performed by academics, it would not for other groups such as students, alumni, and IMO most importantly, employers can weigh in on how prepared the students are (even history majors!). I'm not anti-faculty. I'm anti-PA. I also think that I am pro-student as his/her interests are better served by a PA provided by academics AND students, alumni and employers.</p>
<p>Here is a summary of Prof Kiessling's major awards--not counting the new NAS election. You think she might be able to hook you up with a good grad program?</p>
<p>2007 Technology Achievement Award, MIT Club of Wisconsin
2005 Tetrahedron Young Investigator Award in Bioorganic or Medicinal Chemistry
2003 Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
2002 Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
2001 Carbohydrate Research Award for Creativity in Carbohydrate Chemistry
2001 H. I. Romnes Faculty Fellowship, UW-Madison
2000 Horace Isbell Award, Carbohydrate Division of the American Chemical Society
1999-04 MacArthur Foundation Fellowship
1999 Lake Mills, Wisconsin Distinguished Alumni
1999 American Chemical Society, Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award
1999 Dowd Lecturer, Department of Chemistry, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
1997-99 Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Fellowship
1996-01 Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar Award
1996 Zeneca Excellence in Chemistry Award
1995-97 American Cancer Society Junior Faculty Award
1994-96 Beckman Young Investigator Award
1994-99 National Science Foundation, National Young Investigator Award
1992-97 Shaw Scientist Award
1992-95 Procter and Gamble University Exploratory Research Award
1992 Dow Chemicals New Faculty Award
1989-91 American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellowship
1981 Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society
1980 Phi Lambda Upsilon Honorary Chemical Society
1978 Bausch and Lomb Science Award</p>
<p><a href="http://www.biochem.wisc.edu/faculty/kiessling/awards.aspx%5B/url%5D">http://www.biochem.wisc.edu/faculty/kiessling/awards.aspx</a></p>
<p>hawkette,</p>
<p>we'll just have to agree to disagree. while you like to do comparisons of schools by listing USnews data by giving the "objective" and "subjective" data, I am of the belief that the "subjective" data is the most important. You can pick and choose what random statistics can be thrown together when trying to rate or rank universities, but what it comes down to is what other people think of your school. PA attempts to solve that.</p>
<p>While many of you argue that "college presidents don't know anything about other schools" I cannot disagree with that statement anymore. I have actually taken a class on higher education, and have had the opportunity to hear a lecture, have a Q&A session with a former university president, and write a paper on what university presidents actually do. </p>
<p>Presidents are in charge of basically 1 thing, insuring that the university stays competitive with its peer institutions. In order to do this they must know what goes on at its peer institutions, and therefore I don't think that theres any better qualified person to pick to judge a school overall. Now, do I think the President of Harvard should be rating the University of Hawaii if he knows nothing about it? No, I don't, but I also think that he can come to some sort of conclusion about whether or not its a 2, 3, or 4 with relative ease.</p>
<p>You can't just add a "faculty ranking" without making the formula completely bunk. What are you going to do? Poll every professor about every school in the country's respective department? What makes you think that Harvard's president knows less about the university of hawaii than random harvard econ professor knows about UH's econ department? either way, its not a perfect system, but the PA one, IMO, is one of the best ways to get to a broad overall answer.</p>