<p>The Times Educational Supplement produces the most authoritative guide to the world's universities. This comprehensive London-based survey is derived--I think--from 20,000 academics from around the world. Duke was #53 in 2004. It's tied for 11th in 2005. Not as highly ranked as the men's and women's basketball teams or women's golf (all of which are number one in the country), but quite an impressive showing for what is probably the youngest school on the list.</p>
<p>Women's cross country is also ranked #1. :)</p>
<p>"The Times Educational Supplement produces the most authoritative guide to the world's universities."</p>
<p>Even the Duke administrators said this ranking, and perhaps any ranking, is stupid.</p>
<p>Amused:
I reviewed your responses throughout this site, and they tend to be sarcastic and dismissive. Get a grip on yourself. </p>
<p>Comparisons between schools are imperfect, but no one would say that they are meaningless. I will bet you a $1000 that the same Duke administrators who say that rankings are "stupid" are much happier that Duke is rated highly than if Duke is rated poorly. Such rankings help administrators recruit students and faculty, help generate enthusiasm from donors, and are highly imperfect reflections on the quality of the school.</p>
<p>The rankings are obviously trustworthy. I mean, we all know Duke's quality increased by 41 slots in one year. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>That said, check out
<a href="http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/09/4371e7ad90788?in_archive=1%5B/url%5D">http://www.chronicle.duke.edu/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/11/09/4371e7ad90788?in_archive=1</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Comparisons between schools are imperfect, but no one would say that they are meaningless. I will bet you a $1000 that the same Duke administrators who say that rankings are "stupid" are much happier that Duke is rated highly than if Duke is rated poorly. Such rankings help administrators recruit students and faculty, help generate enthusiasm from donors, and are highly imperfect reflections on the quality of the school.
[/quote]
Well, you point out how the rankings are good for a highly-ranked school. But overall, I think rankings do more harm than good. Even insinuating that schools can be fit into such a strict hierarchy as a point-based ranking system just does not fit the university system in the US. Internationally, it's a tough issue since in China, for example, there is no official ranking, but there is pretty much a consensus about how the schools compare, and it's very much: the smartest people go to this school, slightly less smart people go to the next school down, etc. And so these cultural and practical differences form the challenge that an international ranking of schools faces, and ultimately, cannot overcome.</p>
<p>The danger is that we get the idea that lower-ranking schools, like LACs that have essentially no international presence, would be seen as worse, when they're clearly not. In the USNews rankings this isn't a problem since they have two different rankings, but the principle remains. If #23 is not provably worse than #22 in a rational way (aside from the "oh yeah, i've heard of that before!" factor or "well, we have more money!"), why even have a #22 and a #23? It's a waste of time.</p>
<p>I completely agree with that. It's more useful and accurate to cluster together similar schools and let it go at that. It might even be preferable to not assume that college X will inevitably bring success or failure.</p>