<p>The only ranking approach that makes sense is a variegated one, i.e., ranking on factors:</p>
<p>~schools strongest in teaching the discipline and art of engineering
~schools strongest in teaching the discipline and art of disputation
~etc.</p>
<p>and separately by category:</p>
<p>~research universities with the best …
~LAC’s with the best …</p>
<p>Where did I read (within the last 2 months) “A Different Kind of Ranking,” which IIRC featured job placement as a factor?</p>
<p>Even the Univesity of British Columbia, with a student body about twice the size of a large public U in the States, cannot be all things to all people, and is not.</p>
<p>Yeah, and last year that resulted in Caltech being ranked No. 2 - barely behind Harvard, and this year they swapped places. Like I said - big deal. It’s not at all surprising that Harvard and Caltech would be slugging it out on a ranking based heavily on research, especially graduate-level research.</p>
<p>Harvard and Princeton have similarly been swapping and sharing the No. 1 spot, using rather different ranking criteria, on the USNews hierarchy for many years. And the Republic didn’t fail even in years when Harvard ranked No. 2.</p>
<p>If the august members of the Harvard Board of Overseers sit in their wood-paneled meeting rooms and tremble at the prospect of being overtaken by the competition, I’m pretty confident that Caltech is not the school they are worried about. That would be like a lion worrying about a weasel.</p>
<p>The best ranking is one that recognizes its limitation and does NOT attempt to offer a comprehensive best. We do not need the final ranking a la USNews that fascinates Joe SixPack. And we surely do not need the supposed sophistication provided by the pseudo-scientists in China and London to tell us what US schools are better in teaching. </p>
<p>What we do need is more of the raw data and more transparency. Rankings agencies and government departments tasked to collect education data should multiply their efforts to obtain HONEST data. This will not happen until penalties are imposed for lack of disclosure. Simply stated, every school that received one penny in federal funds should be forced to maintain a website dedicated to publish EVERY survey they complete. No ifs and buts. Every one of them! </p>
<p>But that is still not enough! Each school should provide a running listing of all courses offered in the last 60 months with clear representation of who taught the class. Every member of the faculty should be listed with number of hours dedicated to direct teaching, advising, and administrative tasks CLEARLY listed. Each school should also provide listing of all courses by attendance and class size. </p>
<p>The fact that this is not disclosed or very hard to find is an absolute disgrace. This information DOES exist. In an era of super computers and geniuses balancing enrollments, why are we not DEMANDING full transparency from our schools? Is writing the software that would have to adopted by every school really that hard? </p>
<p>We cannot expect the schools to do this voluntarily as it would undermine their ability to play their usual financial games that protect the ivory towers residents. It will have to be imposed on them forcefully and without exceptions.</p>
<p>xiggi - could not care less about the surveys! As a parent, I am still waiting for those federally mandated financial aid calculators to be made available by these schools. It is almost as if they want to wait until everybody applies before they make those available.</p>
<p>I know a lot of people wind up not choosing Caltech due to their fairly unique house system for the undergrad population. It’s a really different campus feel than what you’d get at a Stanford, MIT, or <state school=“”>, and I think a lot of people that visit after being accepted realize the school’s not quite for them.</state></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Earlier this week the water polo team also just won their first game in nine years. :)</p>
Are you saying that weasel overcame lion? So, what makes one school lion and anther school a weasel? On what ground? Size? Strength and quality of programs that the school has? Surely you should be joking.</p>
<p>^^Not joking at all. I’m drawing an analogy. The lion and the weasel are each very efficient predators in their respective worlds. But they inhabit very different worlds.</p>
<p>The lion is large, powerful, and famous. The weasel is small, agile, and much admired for its skill by people who study predators. The weasel didn’t “overcome” the lion because they hardly compete; there is little overlap in the game they each chase and catch. If a weasel moves into a lion’s territory the lion will take little or no notice. Because it’s not going to to be losing very much food to a competitor that small and specialized. If the lion is worried about any other wild animals it’s going to be that loud and aggressive pack of hyenas following it around.</p>
<p>And directly comparing a large, comprehensive university to a tiny, highly-specialized tech school is just as foolish as directly comparing a lion to a weasel.</p>
<p>But will they stay in separate worlds? If they cut into each other’s territory, what would happen? A more interesting pair to watch would be Harvard and MIT.</p>
<p>Well, as I said, the lion would take no notice of the weasel. If somehow the weasel started killing and eating zebras then the lion might well look around to see what was cutting into it’s food supply. But given the weasel’s tiny size and specialized prey, catching zebras is very unlikely. Until that happens the lion is probably not going to care very much whether there are weasels living in its territory or not. (But those pesky hyenas are still a dangerous nuisance though).</p>
<p>Disclaimer: I have not been a student at Caltech. Went there to visit ahead of grad school, decided the smog was too thick (in that era), and went elsewhere. Gave a talk at Caltech once.</p>
<p>But on behalf of all of my Caltech friends out there–and just to “tweak” coureur, who has a STEM Ph.D.–I would like to point out:</p>
<p>The weasel ranges throughout the Scandinavian countries, where lions are rarely seen (outside of zoological gardens). The habitat of the weasel includes Stockholm, where weasels may sometimes be observed dancing with the Queen of Sweden.</p>
<p>CalTech does seem kind of niche to be the “top” university. Don’t get me wrong, I think math and science should be weighted higher than other things, but CalTech just seems… off.</p>
<p>60% of the rating is basically based on research too, damn</p>
<p>^ like the OP said earlier, when caltech was at #2 spot last year no one said it was a little “OFF”. but now that they moved just one notch up so many say about ‘off’; maybe its because the venerable Harvard relinquished its rightful spot??? </p>
<p>there seem to be so many people who think that some schools can take any rank but one which is reserved for . I just despise some of these schools. I just don’t like the establishment ;)</p>
<p>The fact that Caltech is No. 1 in a research-heavy ranking doesn’t bother me at all. Like I said, it is to be expected. What “bothers” me is CC people trumpeting this as some kind of unexpected triumph on the part of Caltech, or evidence that Harvard and/or the rest of the Ivy League is slipping. When if they thought for a moment about it, they’d say “Yeah, of course Caltech would place very high and perhaps even win a survey based on factors like that.” </p>
<p>“trumpteting”??? starting a thread is now considered “trumpeting?” Congratulating a University for receiving recognition is “trumpeting”?
Well I guess some Haaarvard backers are probably guilty of trumpeting on occasion too!</p>
<p>“evidence that Harvard and/or the rest of the Ivy League is slipping”
My goodness, who said that???</p>