<p>Again, this ranking is for overall universities…not for undergraduate programs. I don’t think the Globe was eating crow, since ranking systems are all subjective anyway. Even if the measures are theoretically objective, the weights which they are given are going to be subjective based upon what the researchers think is important. Citations weighted more than teaching? There’s been a lot of debate in the scientific community as to whether large bodies (journals or departments or universities) should be judged by overall citations. For one, the citations may all refer to one or two articles in an issue that publishes 20 of them; a journal with a high impact factor may simply publish a few review articles that are highly cited or maybe a seminal work when all the other stuff is duds. The editors of a science journal sought to prove the system irrelevant by publishing a letter in which they cited every article in that issue; they successfully raised their journal’s impact factor for a while.</p>
<p>Who decides what’s most important? Are citations and research output more important than teaching? Is industry income more important than the international mix of researchers? I go to one of the top 20 universities on this list and while I think it is an excellent place to get a graduate education, I’m glad I didn’t go to undergrad here. My professors are almost universally more concerned with their research and mentoring their doctoral students (like me) than they are in preparing class materials for their often large undergraduate courses. I went to a small liberal arts college that I think gave me excellent preparation for being here, and I’d rate the teachers at that college (currently ranked #53 by U.S. News, so not too shabby) as better by miles than the teachers here (currently ranked #4 on the universities list). Different schools do different things.</p>
<p>I think there is a universe of universities from which you can receive an excellent education, and, evidentally, different ranking systems will yield different rankings. This is not the first methodology that diverges greatly from US News, not the gold standard but the de facto first in the conversation. Forbes, for example, is another system that comes up with a strikingly different list than US News.</p>
<p>I do think the initial Globe article took a definite negative slant on UMASS, which is countered somewhat by the Times Higher Education World University Rankings.</p>
<p>The methodology, as i understand it, already takes into account university size. But it is the case that research powerhouses tend to be big universities.</p>
<p>I think there is value in this kind of ranking for students who want it. If you know your major, if you plan to go to graduate school, it can help to come from a highly regarded school within one’s field. It is not the only way to graduate school, but it is most certainly a useful one to think about. It may also be valuable to students who, for whatever reason, are interested in a university that is well recognized outside of the US. </p>
<p>Americans are pretty unique in seeing college as a ‘life experience’ which often may have little to do with worldwide reputation around research. They have 4000 colleges, with different niches and brands and type of student, to find ‘fit’. In contrast, students outside of the US are less focused upon the overall ‘going away’ experience and particular cultural fit, and instead seek an education in a university that focuses on the area of specialty that matches their educational and career goals. Broad generalizations of course (we can think of exceptions) but there are many different ways to approach university selection.</p>
<p>About half of the top 200 schools have freshman classes under 500 students, a large majority are under 1000 students, and the vast majority are under 1500 students. What creates the bias to such small schools?</p>
<p>Focusing on star faculty seems pointless, too (although very Forbes-ish). I would think depth is much more important - how many students will be able to take a class from that Nobel-prize winner, no matter how small the school?</p>
<p>@Notrichenough, while at first glance it does seem odd that so many small schools are on that list, step back and think about it. First, you aren’t used to seeing those small schools mixed in with the larger ones because USNWR separates them out. If USNWR mixed them together, it might not seem so odd to you. Next, Forbes does not measure the academic success of the faculty and instead focuses on the success of the students. Top LACs are known for producing a high percentage of leaders. Note: it’s the percentage that counts, not the raw numbers. </p>
<p>I don’t buy the Rate My Professors part of the equation (not every student body uses it, and it’s known for attracting more complaints than compliments), but I applaud the effort to gauge the quality of undergraduate education. As Juillet points out, you don’t want a Nobel Laureate for a professor unless he is engaged with his teaching, and most professors of that caliber are more interested in doctoral students and research than teaching because their reputation rests on the former.</p>
<p>Also, 25% of their rating is based on Who’s Who in America. I’m deeply suspicious of the validity of using an organization whose purpose is to make money gathering a list of names, as a basis for a ranking. How many people in WWA graduated recently enough that it truly reflects their school? If you graduated 20 years ago and make it into WWA, I don’t think that says much about what the school is like today.</p>
<p>I have issues with using student loan balances of only those students who take loans as a measure of quality as well. Seems to me this is more a measure of the wealth of the school or the wealth of the students’ parents, although, this being Forbes, I guess it doesn’t surprise me that they equate wealth with quality.</p>