<p>they're old</p>
<p>and it's based on doctorates. Don't think it's applicable to undergrads.</p>
<p>The NRC rankings measure faculty quality. The last study was done in '93-'94, so some of the faculty have since retired. The rankings are generally accurate, though.</p>
<p>New rankings are currently being produced, and they'll include several new fields like American Studies and Communication. Supposedly they'll be out in December, but I'm guessing they'll be released early next year.</p>
<p>they are so old they are hideously outdated.</p>
<p>A study from 1993-ish would miss the transformative effects of both the exploding NIH budget and record alumni donations from the mid-late 1990s economic boom</p>
<p>For the disciplines I've looked at, the rankings are still reliable for faculty productivity in sciences and engineering. Relative quality changes very little over time.</p>
<p>I would expect schools that have improved significantly in undergrad over the past 15 years due to large investment will also have improved a lot in the faculty quality --</p>
<p>USC, Wash U</p>
<p>I agree that faculty quality is not likely to have changed a lot over only 15 years.</p>
<p>This publication probably very closely correlates to the US News Peer Assessment score... which is weighted mostly toward publications/faculty quality.</p>
<p>It would be VERY interesting, in discussing the quality of undergraduate education, to remove the Peer Assessment score from US News and watch Berkeley, UMich, UCLA, and a few other research oriented universities drop far down the ranks when we are concerned ONLY with quality of undergraduate education.</p>