<p>I get the feeling that one of these ranking methodologies must be seriously flawed (or both) to come up with the drastically contrasting data. </p>
<p>US News and Report as we all know publishes annually the rankings of schools in the US and the Top 400 in the world. However, some schools right next to each other on the US country ranking are hundred of ranks apart on the world rankings. In particular I'm looking at Clemson. It's a good school ranked in the 60's among all US schools, but when it comes to world rankings, it's not even ranked. Then you look at Rutgers who is one rank BELOW Clemson on the US list, and is #236 on the world list. Both are published by the same company, so why such a discrepancy? In the end, this feels like it's all about how much money the school paid US News and Report to study them for each of these lists independently rather than using the actual "methodology" for ranking. Thoughts?</p>
<p>World List: World's</a> Best Universities; Top 400 Universities in the World | US News</p>
<p>US List: National</a> University Rankings | Top National Universities | US News Best Colleges</p>
<p>No, they just focus on different aspects. US News is more inputs driven while World is more output driven.</p>
<p>…and with the phoney so called objective numbers that private schools like Emory send in to USNWR, no wonder why there is such a discrepency.</p>
<p>It is my understanding that the criteria used to rank US schools in the “world” rankings tend to favor big universities. </p>
<p>Hence, schools like Dartmouth and Brown are ranked shockingly low in some of the world rankings.</p>
<p>While schools like Michigan, while obviously a good school, are probably ranked higher than they should be.</p>
<p>conversely, small schools tend to be favored in the US News rankings.</p>
<p>it’s “small class size and grad rate and students” vs. “research reputation and award prestige and faculty”</p>
<p>…vaguely…</p>
<p>“While schools like Michigan, while obviously a good school, are probably ranked higher than they should be.”</p>
<p>…because helping to advance the world in a multitude of academic disciplines and research is less important than admitting 18 year olds with high tests scores.</p>
<p>…exactly…</p>
<p>Look, the very top schools (students and faculty and research and rep) will be at or near the top in both rankings, but for the vast, vast majority that is not the case – for most schools, the different rankings are a yo-yo. </p>
<p>UW (Wisconsin) is tied for 42nd in US News & World Report, 19th-ish in the ARWU (or whatever) world rankings, 25th in the Times World Rep rankings. And like #204 in the Forbes rankings of US schools. That last one is hilarious.</p>
<p>Does admissions selectivity change the quality of the education? Who does the teaching, anyway, the teachers or the students?</p>
<p>Interesting questions.</p>
<p>Both lists are drivel, as is the notion of ranking colleges.</p>