<p>The rankings do not measure actual quality of teaching. The choice of factors used, when originally created, was purposefully based on Harvard, Yale and Princeton on the assumption that factors those excelled in would define the best schools, i.e., it is no accident that those three are usually the top three. In the late 1990s they changed some key factors resulting in Caltech being ranked first one year. The honchos at US News decided that was unacceptable for keeping the rankings as they needed to be to sell a lot of magazines and reverted back to the old formulas the next year to assure that either Harvard, Yale or Princeton would always be number 1. </p>
<p>A significant problem is not the ranking of the highest colleges, which would likely be considered generally in the same range as they are without any rankings, but all those not in the highest ranks. The HYP model used, including that cost of tuition is not considered, and giving higher points to the taking of only highest performing students and dinging for large class sizes, assures that no public university can ever crack the highest ranks. In fact, none has every cracked the top 20. Moreover, annually there are always some colleges that make large moves up or down and there is no real explanation except that they have done something to screw up one of their formulas used (or in going down significantly may have joined those that refused to give USNews all their data and USNews’ revenge is to drop them significantly).</p>
<p>The more significant problem is the mass relieance on the rankings. That was inevitable because people just like having easy lists to go to to be able to say one college is better than another. You can only consider it a sad statement on the thought process of too many high school students (and their parents) when you see them fretting because one of their favorite colleges dropped a little in the ranks, or actually considering that a school ranked 14th must be greastly inferior to one ranked 8th, or that future employment and the rest of their lives will be greatly affected by the ranking of the college they attend; how many times have we read posts that sound like this, “I could not get into a top ranking college so my life is over.” It is “funny serious” rather than “funny ha-ha” to see people visiting these boards stating how they have decided not to attend some school because it is ranked a little lower than another one they were accepted to because of the belief that the one ranked lower is obviously inferior to the other. The result is that colleges themselves have to play the rankings game and work towards raising their ranks to get higher quality students to apply and accept admission, but what they do is not often better for the price and quality of education. For example, the rankings have contributed to such things as significant increases in tuition so the college can use full paying applicants, who are happy to even get in, to fund huge merit awards for the higher applicants so more will attend with a resulting increase in ranking. </p>
<p>The problem is you cannot change human nature and thus, as long as the rankings exist, you are not going to get rational thought about colleges from many high school students who apply and their parents.</p>
<p>Averby, there have been numerous instances where it’s been shown that the reputational surveys were either a) given to secretaries to fill out (thus not reflecting the dean’s opinions), b) artificially inflated (rank your own school #1 in everything, rank your competitors poorly) and c) are unrealistic in the first place (what does the dean of Oberlin <em>really</em> know about what Elon is doing? what does the dean of Bryn Mawr <em>really</em> know what’s going on at UCSD). In a sense, they are like these perennial rank-your-favorite-Ivy threads among hs seniors – no one is ranking based off anything other than general impressions that they like Brown better than Dartmouth and the guy they knew who went to Cornell was a real jerk, not anything substantive. </p>
<p>I think USNWR provides very helpful information at the item-by-item level, for the things that I personally cared about. For some of the others – I’m not particularly interested in things like alumni giving rate. I understand why the <em>school</em> cares, but as a prospective parent, I don’t know why <em>I</em> should care. </p>
<p>I think USNWR also makes it perfectly clear that these ratings are more like bands, and I can’t help that stupid people treat #4 as appreciably different from #13 or whatever - that’s not USNWR’s fault.</p>
<p>Anyway, vast, vast swathes of hs seniors each year apply to colleges based on a) distance from home and b) affordability and don’t even consult the USNWR. This is an affliction that only afflicts a relative small % of hs seniors and their parents.</p>
<p>The thing I was curious about was how Caltech was #1 in '97, then next year they changed the methodology and Caltech fell back like 6 or 7 spots. </p>
<p>I wonder what motivated US News to change the methodology.</p>
<p>I did a little research, and I was slightly incorrect.<br>
Caltech went from #9 to #1 to #4 in the 1999-2001 time period. I don’t know. It just seems odd. I think they massage the data to get certain results they want.</p>
They change it every year. Motivation: New list, make some surprises, sell more magazines, profit!</p>
<p>
I did not come to believe that, as it isn’t true that these four universities are exclusively the best. Hm, most people say “HYPSM” here, yet you left out MIT, even though you allegedly go there.</p>
<p>
Yes, USNWR rankings exist… Doesn’t mean I have to believe them. Just as many things wrong with the world exist, it doesn’t mean I have to accept them as being right.</p>
<p>I left out M because I got the vibe that M isn’t exactly for everyone. M is the most different from HYPS which, to my grudging dismay, are more popular. Hence they have the most applicants.
But that’s not the point.</p>
<p>The point is that how did you all come to this acronym without a substantial way to measure? How do you know for sure the HYPS(M) are the best of the best universities in the world? Why not just say “Top 10 USNWR” which includes HYPSM and other universities that are so very desired by students and employers around the globe? Or Top 5 Forbes? Or Top 10 PA Ranked Universities?</p>
<p>@collegealum: I suspected a lot of people wouldn’t exactly praise the USNWR for accurately ranking universities. I knew there would be complaints. And now I’m asking why you have these complaints. What sort of rankings would make you happy?</p>
<p>Your question includes the unstated assumption that there is any methodology which can, in any remotely objective manner, quantify the relative “superiority” or “inferiority” of thousands of colleges and universities serving thousands of different communities with an insanely diverse set of economic interests, educational needs and cultural underpinnings.</p>
<p>I would suggest that no such methodology exists, and further contend that any attempt to create such a methodology is a fool’s errand doomed to failure.</p>
The acronym comes from people buying into the rankings. Personally, I don’t like it. Schools aren’t ranked, there isn’t a line drawn from Harvard all the way to the end. Rather, colleges are a large field, where no particular direction is forward or backward. One good university is not innately better than another.</p>
<p>Much of USNWR’s data is out-of-date by a year or more. If you pick up the 2011 edition the data is for the class entering fall 2009. Dig into the common data sets for more current information and more detailed information on admission rates and yield.</p>
<p>For example, USNWR currently show U Chicago’s admission rate as 27.3%, the 2009 number. In 2011 the admission rate was 15.8%.</p>
<p>Another example, many colleges can have quite a bit of difference between admission rates for men and women. You won’t detect this in USNWR’s data, but you will if you look at the common data set.</p>
<p>MrPrince: You asked a controversial question and now you’ve gotten peoples’ opinions. Now you harangue us as if we’re nuts and can’t simply accept USNWR? C’mon. </p>
<p>Did you really really think that your post would elicit tons of people genuflecting to the greatness of the USNWR rankings methodology?</p>
<p>A lot of people lose sight about how many colleges there are in the United States. If USNews were to color-band its choices into top 0.5%, top 1%, top 2%, then maybe a lot more students (and parents) wouldn’t be so obsessed with microscopic hair-splitting between top-range schools.</p>
<p>“Much of USNWR’s data is out-of-date by a year or more.”</p>
<p>Timeliness would be better, but the data gathering of USNWR is worth the cover price, I think (gathering data from CDS pages is tedious, and not all schools publish their CDS). It’s the one-size-fits-none ranking that is so heinous.</p>
<p>“If USNews were to color-band its choices into top 0.5%, top 1%, top 2%, …”</p>
<p>Buit that’s the whole problem, “top” cannot be determined without knowing something about the applicant.</p>
<p>Rankings don’t tell the whole story. My S1 is at a small lower ranked) LAC in the Midwest. I was impressed while reading this month’s newsletter:</p>
<p>*The choir will be performing at Carnegie Hall
*A Kenyan student just attended a White House reception because of the school’s involvement with the Aawadi African Ed Fund and the Global Give Back Circle
*Academic gains measured from freshman to senior year puts this school at the top 8% of colleges and universities using the Collegiate Learning Assessment
*Microgravity team invited 2 years in a row to study zero gravity at NASA
*American Institute of Physics selected the school as 1 of 6 to study and review their “best practices”</p>
<p>I am in no way comparing his school to the top of the heap, but I think if people dug beyond the rankings they would find more hidden gems.</p>
<p>I wanted to see a Butler win last night, but when I heard that no 8th ranked has ended on top since '84, I kept my hope low. College ranking is much harder, but #1 is probably better than #25 for most people. You cannot say #15 is better than #21 with as much confidence. I don’t know much about numbers but do respect those who do ranking for a living.</p>
<p>I don’t understand. You guys don’t believe in rankings. Or you don’t believe in a perfect ranking method. Yet you keep using the “HYPSM” acronym believing these universities are the best of the best. You fail to exclude other excellent universities (For example: Columbia, and Brown which are just as selective…Duke and Penn for holding just as excellent professional schools; UChicago and Caltech for being just as academic).</p>
<p>“Yet you keep using the “HYPSM” acronym believing these universities are the best of the best.”</p>
<p>Using a common acronym does NOT imply that we believe these universities are the best of the best. They are excellent schools, like many others. They are perhaps the most popular of the popular.</p>
<p>I think that although there are some shortfalls to specific aspects of their methodology, as a whole, the rankings are relatively accurate. Now, as a caveat to this, I recognize that some might disagree, but rankings are largely subjective to a certain degree.</p>