<p>I'm wondering why some people do not accept these rankings. I understand disregarding Forbes or ARWU (graduate rankings) or Times due to fundamentally flawed formula. </p>
<p>But isn't USNEWS Rankings' criteria really solid? What is there to not like about it? What criteria would you implement instead?</p>
<p>^This topic is a bit of a rehash, but I am bored so I will play for a minute. There is no method to accurately assess/compare enormous complex institutions generally using such limited data points. But, until some wide spread subjective peer assessments of curriculum, professors, TA’s, facilities, programs, etc. are performed, we will not likely ever be close to any sort of accurate method for comparing/evaluating colleges. There is no reason for colleges to fund or participate in such a process, so for now we are stuck with the deeply flawed, surface scratching efforts of USNWR. Accurate or not (obviously not), this ship has sailed and HS students and parents alike have bought passage. The rankings have a significant impact on college choice.</p>
<p>I have so many objections to that steaming pile of crap that I’m going to Reed just so I can vent about it in a supportive environment. (Okay, that’s not the only reason, but seriously, yes I do object to the methodology, purpose and ubiquity of the US News & World Report college rankings.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do they? I tend to think that the ratings largely support the conventional wisdom. I suspect the methodology is rigged specifically to support that conventional wisdom. Few would take USNews’ new list seriously if they dropped Harvard to the 12th position, even if the school is resting on its laurels. If they did, the magazine would get 50,000 irate letters-to-the editor from angry alumni.</p>
<p>I specifically picked Harvard because my son and I got to see several HYPSM traveling group presentations where current students – supposedly the best of the best – were made available to speak about their college and to answer questions. The Harvard students were repeatedly the least interesting and least effective speakers; after a couple of these presentations, my son decided he would not apply there, because he thought the school was coasting on its old reputation rather than offering a world-class education. I have to agree – not that it matters much, since HAAARvard still got an extra 5000 applications, even if they were the only top school too cheap to send out a proper Viewbook.</p>
<p>It’s a magazine editors’ formula, not yours. A static, one-size-fits-none formula is archaic. You now have tools to construct your own formula, according to your own values (like our own [College</a> Search - College Confidential](<a href=“http://www.collegeconfidential.com/college_search]College”>http://www.collegeconfidential.com/college_search)).</p>
<p>Then are are opinions:
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/9945929-post35.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/9945929-post35.html</a></p>
<p>Personally, I have no objection with any of the rankings. They all have “issues” but their job is to sell copy and they do rather well at it. (It’s not good for bidness if the publics are ranked up their with the “Blue Bloods”.)</p>
<p>I object to the very premise that you can rank colleges, as things like admission rate hardly have an impact on the quality of an education. The ranking is just a money making scheme; they change the criteria every year to generate a new list to sell more magazines.</p>
<p>There are many issues with the US News Methodology. The one that irritates me is the service academies: West Point and Annapolis are considered National LACs while the Air Force Academy is a Western College. What? The exact same applicant pool and same spread across the 50 states and they are not in the same category? Why? If they can’t get something as basic as that correct…</p>
<p>What do you mean by accept? I can “accept” their ratings but not see meaningful differences – for example, I wouldn’t be so stupid as to pretend that say #4 and #16 were meaningfully different.</p>
<p>The reason that USNews rankings are held in the highest regards (higher than BW, or the garbage rankings from FT or WSJ) is that they factor in prestige – a significant portion of the total pts come from deans at other schools – as well as yield (which schools were turned down in favor of others). Wouldn’t you agree that these rankings generally reflect popular opinion?</p>
<p>
So a ranking that compromises objectivity in favor of subjective “prestige” is better? Okay, keep the status quo. Also, yield is like ~1% of the method.</p>
<p>If it were up to me, I would skip the reputation data point. I don’t think it is substantive information.
I would add in a data point for current student happiness.</p>
<p>Columbia seemed a bit high to me. I didn’t think it was better than Stanford.</p>
<p>There was an article by Malcolm Gladwell in The New Yorker several years ago debunking the methodology. One problem he noted was that faculty compensation is considered in the rankings. On the surface, that seems to make sense. If you pay more, you get better professors. But in reality, the cost of living in or near NYC or Palo Alto for Columbia or Stanford professors is considerably higher than the cost of living in Hanover or Ithaca. So you would have to pay a Stanford or Columbia professor more just so he could have a roughly equivalent lifestyle. Just an example of the biases that seep in to the process.</p>
<p>When we used it, I looked at the top 50 and assumed they were all really good schools and then looked for other factors to determine fit–academic programs, location, size, etc.</p>
<p>I think it’s smarter to look at more specific ranking systems and then add your own subjective judgment after a visit. USNWR rankings are trying to do too much.</p>
<p>I feel it creates a situation where admissions is all about the rankings versus all about the applicant.</p>
<p>Here is how I think the data gets manipulated. Princeton class of 2009 or 2010 (can’t remember which). USNWR shows that 99% of kids are in top 10% of high school class. Princeton’s common data set reads like this: % of applicants reporting rank are in top 10% = 99% / % of applicants reporting rank = 29%. So if you were not in the top 10% and your GC stated that your high school doesn’t rank then there is no reporting risk to Princeton. But if you are not in the top 10% and your school does rank then there would be zero incentive for P’ton to look any further into your app.</p>
<p>I feel that the rankings do reflect some amount of flaw in the methodology.
Aghh, so much of this is simply subjectivity.
On the subject of a lack of objectivity, it is my personal belief that Pomona deserves a higher ranking, as does Claremont McKenna in the LAC rankings.</p>
<p>They’re totally useless. And nobody inside academia (save the bureaucrats) gives a flying **** about them.</p>
<p>I disagree w/poster #4 who said that if Harvard’s ranking dropped, a bunch of irate alumni would write letters. They wouldn’t. From the perspective of an alum of one of the “top” schools which has occasionally even been ranked #1 by USNWR, I can say we really really don’t give a flip. From the perspective of someone who might sift through resumes of alum of the so-called “top” schools, I can also say we don’t give a flip.</p>
<p>The amount of importance that society (especially name-conscious kids and parents) place on the realtive ranking of say, Stanford vs. Columbia vs. Caltech is more of perception versus reality. When you trawl these boards and you see actual life decisions being made due to a #3 ranking versus a #7 ranking – it goes too far.</p>
<p>The rankings are rubbish IMHO. Fine for USNWR b/c it gets them sales, but otherwise, they’re prestige porn.</p>
<p>^That would explain a lot of hairy palms at school.</p>