<p>Chronicle of Higher Education. Also when I said there were many program cuts I did not specify undergrad or grad. I also would question that eliminating PhD programs has little impact on undergrads. No PhD students means no help for profs in getting and completing research grants which means fewer research opportunities for undergrads too. It also could mean elimiation of some advanced classes that were open to both grads and undergrads. And no matter how you spin it I can’t see having to cut in so many areas is somehow a good thing for the university.</p>
<p>Let’s see. Saving money by eliminating programs that are not well attended and putting those funds to better use. How could I possibly “spin” that as a good thing? As far as the grad students…well then, I guess you are arguing that LAC’s should never be on a student’s list. Doesn’t matter whether you are or not, the vast majority of advanced classes are still there. They still offer Master’s degrees in all the programs where the PhD was eliminated except the engineering areas that are gone. Kind of takes the wind out of your argument regarding both assistants and course offerings. And I have never heard of a Tulane student suffering from lack of research opportunities in their field of interest.</p>
<p>The bottom line is students vote with their decisions, and Tulane keeps getting better and better students. I think that is the final decision maker. Exactly how much time have you spent at Tulane, barrons?</p>
<p>xiggi - couldn’t agree with you more about the Saints! Who Dat??</p>
<p>I disagree a little with your description of New Orleans though. Not the basic message, after all it is New Orleans and Louisiana. But there is more interaction between the academic community and the city (especialy with regard to your reference to education changes, that is right on) and more of a spotlight on all government activities. I think your description might be a bit over the top. Still, hard to argue that there isn’t a loooong way to go, sigh. New Orleans is definitely, on the whole, a city without a lot of wealth for a thriving middle class. Of course it (the middle class) exists there, it just needs to get much better for the city to truly thrive economically.</p>
<p>bclintonk: </p>
<p>your post #12 is the most detailed I have seen describing ways in which a school may choose to take decisions that are <em>primarily</em> motivated by the resultant impact on USNWR individual metrics and therefore overall ranking. Bravo.</p>
<p>Actually it strikes me as the ultimate in cynicism and conspiracy theory type thinking. For example, as far as I know there was one school, Baylor, that paid admitted students to take the SAT again. They said it was primarily because not enough qualified for scholarships that were available and rather than erode the standards of the scholarships, they made them an offer to entice them to take it again, since that is normally the last thing an admitted student would want to do. And it worked! They admit the affect on USNWR rankings occured to them, but that it wasn’t why they did it. The effect would be/was tiny to non-existant, after all.</p>
<p>There are similar non-scuzzy reasons for doing almost everything posited in sclintoink’s post. I don’t mean to sound Pollyanna, of course there are various machinations that occur. But if people are going to base major decisions on something as bogus as the USNWR rankings, what good does it do for a school to profess purity while their institution suffers? We have all seen that there are lots of students/parents that refuse to go to/let their child go to schools ranked below 15, or 25 or whatever. It’s great to be a saint while being burned at the stake.</p>
<p>fallenchemist – I’m confused by your post. You start by citing cynicism on the part of those who suggest that schools may try to manipulate the USNWR data inputs, then conclude by acknowledging that many students/parents base their matriculation decisions upon the USNWR rankings.</p>
<p>Do you think schools do NOT make overt attempts to increase their USNWR ranking?</p>
<p>fallenchemist,</p>
<p>I, too, am confused by your post. You seem to reverse course mid-paragraph.</p>
<p>Look, I’m not suggesting all schools engage in all the methods of gaming the US News rankings that I cataloged in post #12. But officials and employees of some schools have openly admitted to resorting to many of these methods, e.g.:</p>
<p>[News:</a> ‘Manipulating,’ Er, Influencing ‘U.S. News’ - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/03/rankings]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/03/rankings)</p>
<p>[Views:</a> Gaming the Rankings - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/06/09/asch]Views:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/06/09/asch)</p>
<p>[Law</a> School Rankings Reviewed to Deter ‘Gaming’ - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121971712700771731.html]Law”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121971712700771731.html)</p>
<p>[University</a> Of Michigan Law School: Please Stop The Insanity - Above the Law - A Legal Tabloid - News, Gossip, and Colorful Commentary on Law Firms and the Legal Profession](<a href=“http://abovethelaw.com/2008/09/university_of_michigan_law_sch.php]University”>http://abovethelaw.com/2008/09/university_of_michigan_law_sch.php)</p>
<p>[Empirical</a> Legal Studies: Transfers, US News Gaming, and Brand Dilution](<a href=“http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2007/10/transfers-us-ne.html]Empirical”>http://www.elsblog.org/the_empirical_legal_studi/2007/10/transfers-us-ne.html)</p>
<p>I’ve been around academia long enough, and spent enough time talking to presidents, provosts, and deans, to know that many of them are haunted by their US News rankings, and thoroughly convinced that their competitors are stealing a march on them by engaging in some or all of the methods I described. They spend a lot of time “reverse engineering” how a competitor managed an upward spike in its SAT scores, for example. A few have part of their own compensation tied to improvements in their school’s US News ranking. Many would prefer the US News rankings just go away, or that they’d just be ignored by prospective applicants and their parents. But they’re also realists; they know that prospective applicants, admitted students, parents, and the school’s own trustees, alumni, and financial backers will be watching those US News rankings like hawks for any signs of “improvement” or “slippage” in the school’s ranking relative to its peers. They also know that well-meaning people on places like CC actually promote this garbage to unsuspecting and gullible HS students seeking guidance in the college admissions process. So the responsible parties feel trapped: ignore US News at your own peril, or join in the data manipulation game. </p>
<p>Of course, many of these measures can be passed off under more benign explanations: e.g., “We went SAT-optional because we don’t believe SAT scores are a good predictor of academic success.” Oh, really? Then why not just drop SAT scores entirely? The answer is obvious: if you go SAT-optional, only the high-SAT applicants will submit their SAT scores, and only high SAT scores will be recorded for your entering class. You’ll look like you’ve had a sudden improvement in the quality of your student body, when in fact it’s all smoke-and-mirrors. Oh, and you’ll probably boost the number of applications, too, because lots of weaker-SAT but strong-GPA candidates may now apply who previously thought they didn’t have a chance. Pure benefit to your US News ranking. Far better than foregoing SAT scores entirely.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Actually it strikes me as a bad case of naive ignorance to think that colleges DON’T try to manipulate their rankings. You don’t have to look at conspiracy theories or become a cynic to undrstand this. It’s widely reported in respectable newpapers such as the WSJ. In addition to the snap app deal, it is also not unusual for colleges to fiddle their alumni giving rates for the sake of higher USNews ratings. Don’t take my word for it. Read up on it:</p>
<p>[College</a> Alumni-Giving Rates*Manipulated - Philanthropy.com](<a href=“http://philanthropy.com/news/philanthropytoday/2000/college-alumni-giving-rates-manipulated]College”>http://philanthropy.com/news/philanthropytoday/2000/college-alumni-giving-rates-manipulated)</p>
<p><a href=“http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-alumchrtbk0703-1.html[/url]”>http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-alumchrtbk0703-1.html</a></p>
<p>The USNews rankings have become incredibly influential. Much of the general public regards them authoritative. And colleges are run by people, not saints or angels. With so much riding on the ranking it’s not the least bit cynical to be unsurpised when colleges get caught gaming the system.</p>
<p>My problem with the original post by bclintock was that it made it sound like manipulating their USNWR rankings was the sole motivation of these university administrations with regard to admissions. There was no balance to the post at all, just a litany of sins like they are evil incarnate. That’s cynical. I was trying to present it as a bit grayer situation. So actually, DunninLA, I didn’t say they base all their actions on USNWR rankings, I acknowledged it is a factor in their thinking because they live in the real world.</p>
<p>I think if you read what I said more carefully, maybe the name calling of “naive ignorance” wouldn’t be used coureur. Especially since I specfically did NOT say they don’t try to manipulate their rankings, or more correctly said, I acknowledged they do. I even said it pretty plainly.</p>
<p>I do appreciate all the citations, I am sure it will make interesting reading, although the Baylor thing was a lot more nuanced than the post made it sound.</p>
<p>OK, I read the articles. I don’t really care about law schools, so I skipped those. Otherwise they mainly said Clemson is a really bad actor, and really cited little else. Other than they try to raise money. Now there’s a shock. You know, a few anecdotes don’t really make a study. Do I think there is more out there? Of course there is.</p>
<p>Look, I have absolutely no doubt abuses take place. I suspect few people hate the USNWR rankings more than I. And what a great example of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle! The act of measuring something changes it. What do they expect? I could make the argument, for example, that to the extent that smaller classes really are better this “manipulation” is a good thing. They make more classes of less than 20, which makes a rather significant difference as compared to say 25-30, while changing from 50 to 70 doesn’t really change the character of the class. But that’s getting too specific.</p>
<p>There is no such thing as a “best” college. Despite their pronouncements, the factors and weightings used by USNWR are arbitrary and were designed from the start to fit a preconceived idea of who the top schools were. I think it is a damned shame people get sucked into this whole thing, and that the universities play the game to any extent. And if wishes were…never mind.</p>
<p>I looked at some of the courses in the MA programs. Not comparable to a PHD level program in depth. The MA is a garbage degree in most areas. Also in the longer run it will be difficult to get top faculty when there are no PhD students to work with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re under no obligation to read them, of course, but since the US News law school rankings rely on many of the same factors as the US News undergrad rankings, and just about everyone who has ever looked at it has concluded that the data are easily manipulable and frequently manipulated, I think it is highly relevant to an informed discussion on the topic.</p>
<p>As I said earlier, that means you are saying the LAC’s don’t have top faculty. Williams, Reed, Swarthmore and many others will be shocked. I will tell them to start packing up their offices. As far as the courses, these are undergrads you know. I think having these kinds of upper level courses will satisfy the VAST majority of undergrads. It isn’t like they have tons of open slots by the time they fulfill all their requirements if they are going to graduate in four years. I even rather doubt your conclusion about them not being comparable, but I will reserve that until I check them out in depth. Somehow thousands of students have not found this to be a problem, since you haven’t addressed the fact that the last 2 classes are the strongest in the school’s history. They must be hypnotizing these people to come.</p>
<p>Your arguments have a whiff of desperation about them. The bottom line is you made a claim regarding programs at Tulane in a discussion about undergraduate matters that was almost all based in non-undergraduate data, and now cannot admit you went overboard. I can understand that. Let’s just let it go now, OK?</p>
<p>bclintonk - OK, I read them. They seem completely off base for undergrad, as I expected. The one talks about putting lower qualified students in part time programs. I have never heard a peep about anything comparable to that at the undergrad level. I am not even sure how they would do it. Most schools I know actually require you to be a full time student or else you have to apply to their continuing education arm. The one that says that Michgan is basically bribing high GPA candidates by telling them they don’t have to take the LSAT…that really doesn’t compare to undergrad schools that have SAT optional. It would be like specifically picking the high GPA students and telling them they don’t have to take the SAT’s. Doesn’t happen. Wouldn’t even make sense since there is a correlation between high GPA students and high SAT’s, so they would want both. I have no idea what to make out of the one about transfer students.</p>
<p>So it does once again show (prove?) how bogus the USNWR rankings are because they do get manipulated, especially in a more easily controlled environment like law schools (fewer of them, fewer students). But I completely fail to see how it is otherwise “highly relevant” to this topic.</p>
<p>
<year> <25%-75% SAT (ACT) > <top 10%=“” in=“” hs=“”> <ref>
2009-10 … 1250-1430 (28-32) … 59% < Tulane website >
2008-09 … 1250-1420 … 59% < USNWR 2010 >
2006-07 … 1220-1425 … 51% < USNWR 2008 >
2005-06 … (28-32) … 65% < USNWR 2007 >
2004-05 … 1248-1435 … 65% < USNWR 2006 ></ref></top></year></p>
<p>Strongest by how much? Most of the top colleges have seen continued improvements in their SAT scores over the last few years.</p>
<p>
National Academy of Sciences members:</p>
<p>Williams: 0
Amherst: 0
Swarthmore: 0
Reed: 0</p>
<p>UC-Berkeley: 348
UMass-Amherst: 3
Brandeis: 8
Tulane: 1</p>
<p>GoBlue - neither of your posts say anything at all about the discussion at hand. Being a member of the NAS doesn’t say a thing about what kind of professor you are. And there are other subjects besides science. Show me one authoritative source that says being in the NAS equates to being a top faculty member as far as an undergraduate is concerned. Do you really want to make the claim that those four LACs are not great schools where undergrads get a fantastic education, including in the sciences? Too silly.</p>
<p>I don’t know strongest by how much. It wasn’t the point.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think if you read what I said at all you could see that I applied “naive ignorance” only to those who think that colleges don’t try to game their rankings. And if applying the term “ignorance” was name-calling, well I would normally agree, but I learned in post #16 that it was okay on this thread. So I knew you wouldn’t mind.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>348? In this century?</p>
<p>Oops! 348 is the total for all UC campuses, 130 of which are with UCB.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, since you quoted me to start that post then made the “naive ignorance” comment with nothing in between, it is difficult to see how else it could be taken. Apology accepted.</p>