Yes, all correct. But this does not address the issue of the criteria which USNWR permits. If CDS is not required the Columbia is not required to submit, not other places.
As for Northwestern ( beyond the Journalism School question), there were messages by alumni boasting how great it is over or on the same level as Ivy league colleges even though admissions was more selective at the Ivies. A separate question.
The key is what is the bar set by USNWR to consider a ranking ?
The USNews rankings are nonsense. The issue is why does Columbia not publish its common data sets?
USNWR uses CDS because these reports provide some of the data that are part of USNWRâs criteria.
Schools that donât publish a CDS still give USNWR the data that USNWR requires (assuming said school wants to be included in the rankings). This is where Columbia has seemingly sent over incorrect data, whether accidentally or purposefully. Time will tell which.
I think it is curious that per the article all of the incorrect data seems to benefit Columbiaâs ranking. Typically accidents have a more ârandomâ result.
I also give Columbia the benefit of viewing them as shrewd vs sloppy. They are just to smart, the results to conspicuous and the response so deafening to be accidental or innocent.
Well, either deliberate or accidental is not acceptable. It has its Office of Management Research as a control for accurate research. Plus, the President has cited USNWR rankings in several articles and speeches.
Foolish for any place to leave itself open.
Schools should, but have no legal obligation to, provide accurate data to USNWR. They do, however, have to provide accurate information to Moodyâs, which determines their financial rating, as inaccurate info constitutes finacial fraud and could result in jail time for their CFO. Several years ago a Post reporter compared the info colleges provided to both and found a large percent, at all prestige levels, were not consistent.
For perspective on the often-criticized U.S. News, note that it publishes a 312 page college guide, of which rankings compose a part. If a buyer reads the guide in its entirely, the overall impression will be of a source that often deemphasizes its primary rankings through extensive discussion of fit and finances. Criticism of USN as a rankings-focused publication apoears to be made most often by those who seek its rankings free online but do not purchase or read the rest the publication. Nonetheless, as it relates to Columbia, USN would seem to have an obligation to the public to insist on consistent standards from the colleges it surveys and an obligation to verify the information it publishes generally to the extent reasonably possible.
Criticism of the USNWR rankings comes most often from those who see how their cut-and-dry âtop 20â rankings framework completely warps the priorities, procedures, and policies of US higher education. As in the Columbia case, universities and colleges do all they can to tweak the numbers (and then celebrate any upwards movement), parents and students obsess over shifts from 8 to 6 or 11 to 16, and bond ratings and other important factors are linked in part to USNWR numbers. Theyâre a disaster for all involvedâand nevertheless, still obsessed over by university trustees, deans, etc⊠There is literally no other more destructive force in higher education, apart from certain politiciansâsuch as Ron DeSantisâwho are focused on turning public university systems into party apparatuses, much as Vladimir Putin has done in Russia.
As stated, this criticism arises mostly from those who seek the rankings but do not read USN in context. If you (or anyone who agrees with you) have read USNâs general guide to colleges (which includes rankings), I would consider your opinion more seriously, however.
I donât pay attention to the rankings at all. My point is that university trustees, deans, and presidents doâand not the long general guide but the simple listingâbecause they know the numbers there (5, not 6!; 18, not 16!) are important to parents, kids, lenders, donors, etc., whatever their actual value. This is singularly destructive. The schools know it, but theyâre trapped by the compulsion for easy, data-driven answers that the rankings satiate.
UChicago doesnât either. Neither has stated a reason why they donât. Bollinger is, and Zimmer was, among the most well paid college presidents, likely, and at least partially, based on their schoolsâ rise in the USNWR rankings.
Colby, which has been an application magnet in recent years, represents another example of a school that no longer publshes a Common Data Set (last posting one for 2015-2016).
Start with a subjective question: what is the âbestâ college. Tough to quantify or qualify that in anything that has real meaning (again its a subjective question). But if you apply numbers to various factors and weights to those numbers you can assign a number to each institution, sort those numbers in descending order and number the list and now you have an âobjectiveâ (on its face in any event) list of the âbestâ colleges.
But once the formula becomes know, there are incentives to administer to the formula (not just students or teachers who have incentives to do that). And the formula contains a lot of words that can be subjective defined as well.
Not sure its really surprising that you would see this. Happens all the time when rules are set forth.
And its always interesting to me that going from 18 to 2 (over a number of years) is viewed as a dizzying ascent. Power of objectifying the appearance of the ranked list.
Viewed from 1990 until now, it took 32 years for Columbia to move 6 places (from 8th to 2nd).
Yes, and in the case of the paper under discussion, this was done by a mathematician.
You donât need a guidebook to tell you that Columbia University is one of the most popular, best known and most prestigious educational institutions on the planet (and if you do, youâre very insecure.) Until recently, most well-informed people ceded that conclusion in spite of its USNews ranking, not because of it.
Perhaps the lyrics from the song âItâs Magicâ, sung by Doris Day is apt with the prize to reach the top of the USNWR rankings, even if it takes the preparation of 34 New York City financial boom years 
When "The stars desert the skies and rush to nestle in oneâs eyes, itâ s magic.â
I donât see not making CDS public as a major issues. Making CDS public is not required, USNWR doesnât use the CDS, and the vast majority of the CDS content is duplicated by federal reporting in IPEDS, which is public. That said, the professor does appear to list some valid concerns about the information that was reported to USNWR. It does sound like certain aspects were not accurately reported.
TimelyâŠ.News of Moshe Poratâs (Templeâs former business school dean)14 month prison sentence for knowingly providing USNWR with incorrect data: Moshe Porat, former Temple University business school dean, sentenced to 14 months in rankings scandal fraud case
To be clear Iâm not saying Columbia knowingly provided incorrect data to USNWR.
There was a fascinating article a few years ago about the steps Northeastern was taking to improve criteria they knew helped the USN ranking. But that was about doing things to change their college in ways that targeted the things they counted in the rankings. Thatâs different than unilaterally deciding that hospital patient care counts as student instruction in self reporting (but then not counting it as instruction in federal reporting).
Best college is that one which gets you where you want to go provided you do your part.