<p>I've spent a long time scouring the posts of College Confidential trying to digest all of the factors one takes into account when looking for a school (feel, finances, fit, &c). But then I always end up coming to the "elephant in the room" for a large bulk of College Confidential posters: Rankings. Some posters have been very avid about condemning these frivolous figures, while others have argued that Rankings have a rather powerful influence in Job and Grad School placement. </p>
<p>So, I ask you, the contributors to college confidential, to engage in a civil and honest to goodness debate. How greatly do rankings actually contribute to the academic life, and the post-graduate life of students? What kind of role do rankings play in graduate school placement and Job opportunities? Do certain rankings matter more than others (Do the rankings in different departments [i.e. english vs. bio] matter more than the rankings in others, for the students in those departments? Is an overall school ranking more important than an engineering ranking?)? And are there certain "tiers" of rankings that are important to recognize when analyzing rankings for college search (i.e. is a #1 school substantially different than a #10? What about a #23 from a number #49?), if so, how would you divide rankings in terms of differences in academic opportunities? </p>
<p>I look forward to this conversation. I know that a lot of CC posters are interested in how others recognize rankings; I am one of them. :)</p>
<p>The only people who condemn the rankings are those who can’t get into highly ranked schools. I would be weary of anyone who says rankings don’t matter. That being said, they aren’t the end-all-be-all in picking a college. Just an extremely important factor, and one that probably outweighs many other factors. </p>
<p>Affordability and personal fit are largely more important.</p>
<p>College rankings give a ballpark - anyone that chooses a number 15 over a number 16 school based on rankings should never have gotten into any of those schools to begin with. College rankings have a purpose, and that purpose is rooted in generalizations. That’s all.</p>
<p>Rather than focus on the rankings, I like to focus on the raw data that was used. I have been able to get a great deal of information from the US News and Worl report, including avg. SAT/ACT scores, enrollment rates, etc. From that I can determine if the school is a good fit. Do I really think that the school rankied #2 is so much better than the school ranked #20? Not really. Do I think that the school ranked #20 is better than the school ranked #120? Probably. Do I care where a school is ranked if I have no desire to go to a school that size, or in that region of the country? No. </p>
<p>From a parent’s perspective, it is hard to me to say that a top 10 school with no financial aid is automatically better than a top 30 school with a generous merit aid. Would my student benefit from the prestige enough to make up for paying $50,000-100,000 for the education? Probably not.</p>
<p>All I know is that, any ranking that does not rank Stanford in the top 3, Berkeley in the top 10, Michigan in the top 20, and UCLA above USC is an almost crap ranking.</p>
<p>Stanford, as an academic institution is second only to only one school, which Harvard. In most areas, it is superior to both Princeton and Yale. </p>
<p>There is no way in the world that schools such as Emory, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame and Rice are superior to Berkeley.</p>
<p>Michigan is obviously way better than number 27! It is as good as Cornell, at least. </p>
<p>And, UCLA, as an institution, is superior than USC, no matter how you’re going to analyze it.</p>
<p>US news ranking gives us a more objective and quantitative approach, although it still includes a subjective item, which is “peer assessment”. Your opinion on who should be ranked where can be counted into peer assessment if they ever approach you for your answer.</p>
<p>“US news ranking gives us a more objective and quantitative approach,”…based on data that is deliberately slanted towards private schools that oftentimes can easily be manipulated.</p>
<p>targetbest: But I’m seeing problems on the ranking’s criteria, as well as, on the distribution of weights. </p>
<p>Peer Assessment is very important. People do often listen to those people because they are the experts on that area. Their opinions are better than mine, and yours. Aside from that, the Employer Assessment can nowhere to be found on the ranking criteria. </p>
<p>Like I said, I don’t see why Princeton is ranked above Stanford or Columbia above MIT or Emory above Berkeley and so on.</p>
<p>I am not saying US news ranking is perfect. We certainly can add a lot more parameters into it, or purposely make it biased into whatever direction the editor would like it to be. There are lots of other rankings on the internet for all kinds of purposes. But only the most meaningful ranking would be accepted by the general public’s eye. As of today, that means US news ranking.</p>
<p>that’s why I said, “almost crap ranking” instead of “totally crap ranking”. </p>
<p>Many of the data that USNews provide are interesting and useful, that’s why they continue to gain public respect. But their rankings (example, Emory above Berkeley, USC above UCLA, Michigan at #27, etc.) always get a lot of criticisms. </p>
<p>Again, there is no way in the world that Columbia is superior to Stanford. (Not even Princeton is NOT superior to Stanford.) The governor of New York, as well as, the mayor of NY are aware about that. In fact, they opened the city to Stanford to put up a campus there, yet Stanford gains little respect from USNews.</p>
<p>RML - I think you miss a huge part of the importance of college - resources available to students. I went to Columbia and then Dartmouth, and found many more resources and attention at Dartmouth? Why - the focus on undergraduate education and quite frankly the amount of money and time spent on each individual students - which in turn creates a unique sense of alumni loyalty. I had my thesis studies with TWO professors overseeing my work, and got over $14,000 in grants from Dartmouth as an undergrad for International Research. When it came time to apply to graduate school I was given access to some really powerful hands-on experience, which led to powerful recs from professors I knew personally. With 75% attending reunions, a school like Dartmouth or Princeton is going to foster much more longterm loyalty than Columbia with 20% attendance.</p>
<p>Princeton is much richer that Columbia or Penn on a per student basis and that matters. You’re looking at graduate prowess. Undergrad is different - there is a reason why schools like Amherst, Dartmouth, and Princeton do so well at placing its graduates into elite graduate programs and into great jobs. </p>
<p>I’ve always said Berkeley would be a top 10 or better if it had 6000 undergrads. But it has over 23,000 undergrads and that means less attention, grants, advisors, etc. </p>
<p>I personally believe these factors matter the most, and they are often tied to per-capita wealth.</p>
<p>In my opinion, rankings should be used for a little douse of “expert’s opinion.” They are opinions, or at least the importance of the criteria is a matter of opinion. So the rankings should be equivalent to the opinion of your quite hated calculus teacher. Smart but evil at heart.</p>
<p>Good rankings are good for a school’s reputation, and as such, good for coercing a school to improve in ways that the experts believe matter.</p>
<p>I don’t know- there are some schools that are excellent (like Deep Springs) that no one has heard of. And paying attention to the elite schools does no good for students who may be mediocre and are hoping to get into a college that will transform them into excellent students, and students who are non-traditional. This is where the rankings fail. Rankings are good for students who are excellent looking to challenge themselves further, and no one else.</p>