<p>I am pretty confused by how the U.S. News goes about measuring its national rankings and international rankings. I was looking at this link: World's</a> Best Universities; Top 400 Universities in the World | US News and I am having a hard time understanding how we can be ranked poorly in the national rankings but well in the international rankings.</p>
<p>Stop caring. US News and World doesn’t matter and has never mattered.</p>
<p>It does matter to the naive high school students who are choosing colleges to apply to and their parents who may not know which colleges are considered the best.</p>
<p>There are 3,500 public and private 4 year universities and colleges JUST in the US. To be ranked? is an honor (assuming you try to be ranked! the vast majority of universities and colleges don’t even submit). To be in the top 20% (Forbes goes to 650) or top 10% (USNWR doesn’t even dig THAT deep) is distinguished. To try and come up with tangible or meaningful reasons or differences, beyond those experienced by the individual? is futile.</p>
<p>Rankings are overrated.</p>
<p>It is because the rankings are by 2 completely independent agencies. USNR ranks only nationally where QS ranks internationally. USNR is just putting the rankings of QS under their “world rankings”.</p>
<p>giterdone is right. Rankings should be taken into context. There are so many universities that being ranked in the top 100 is a major accomplishment. Two reasonably logical rankings using ever so slightly different methodologies will reach significantly different outcomes because the margin for error is infinitesimal and the impact of the smallest difference is significant.</p>
<p>As such, in any ranking with literally hundreds (if not thousands) of universities, the difference between universities within 20-30 spots of each other is insignificant. It so happens that the USNWR methodology is extremely poorly suited for public universities, which explains why academic powerhouses such as Cal, Michigan, UCLA, Wisconsin etc… do not do as well in it as several of their private peers. But when comparing 1,000+ universities, the difference between #10 and say #40 is truly insignificant.</p>
<p>Well said Alexandre.</p>
<p>I think its appropriate to use a sports metaphor. And since we’re coming up on the NFL draft??? Look at college ratings the same way football teams look at college prospect ratings.</p>
<p>Is Andrew Luck the BEST player in the draft? or only the best player at his position? or only the best player at his position AND suited to a particular style of play?</p>
<p>When matched up to the Colts needs? he clearly is #1. But how about for the Vikings? Not so much - they took a QB #1 last year, and have holes (needs) in many other areas. For them, Matt Kalil is the best option. In fact, many “rating agency’s” rate Matt Kalil as THE best “player” in this draft and most “NFL ready” - If the Vikings had the #1 overall pick? they most certainly would have traded out of the spot (just like St. Louis did) to take a player best suited for their needs.</p>
<p>Pick a college the same way - use the ratings as a guide, but then zero in on what your needs are. Meeting those ensures the best college selection for you.</p>
<p>US News ranking is completely different that the QS world rankings.
The first one uses the following percentages
Undergraduate academic reputation ,22.5% Student selectivity for fall entering class,15% Faculty resources,20% Graduation and retention rates,20% Financial resources,10% Alumni giving,5% Graduation rate performance,7.5%
While QS uses Academic Peer Review,40%Global Employer Review ,10%Citations Per Faculty 20% International Student Ratio ,5%International Faculty Ratio ,5% Faculty Student Ratio 20%.</p>
<p>Since US News does not provide an International ranking with its methodology,we cannot compare these 2 rankings.</p>
<p>In my opinion QS favors,some universities and i do not believe that is a reliable ranking, while THE(Times Higher Education) and ARWU(Academic Ranking of World univeristies) seems to be more reliable.</p>
<p>For the US universities,i believe that US NEWS rankings is extremely good.</p>
<p>@giterdone Well said :)</p>
<p>The world rankings represent the universities as a whole, while the USNWR rankings are just undergraduate, right?</p>
<p>That is correct hotdogseller, although none of those rankings is necessary accurate.</p>
<p>I’d actually have to disagree with Alexandre, and would argue from a different angle; most World rankings highly inflate public university scores. World rankings tend to differ from US based rankings in two ways; (1) they overvalue research and undervalue teaching quality/reputation/intimacy, and (2) they are based on foreign perceptions of US universities.</p>
<p>For (1), let’s examine where some smaller, undergraduate focused, and VERY prestigious schools fall in world rankings. I believe that Brown is near 40 and Dartmouth is at 99. I don’t think anyone would argue that Brown and Dartmouth carry such little clout compared to Michigan. In fact, I think that most people would argue the opposite, but because Brown, Dartmouth, and many liberal arts schools divert emphasis from research/grad programs to undergraduate education, the world rankings leave them in the dust. </p>
<p>For point (2), I’d like to use Boston University as an example. BU is ranked 70th in QS (only a 15 point jump from mid 50s in USNWR), and between 50 and 60 in other world rankings. In the Boston community, and throughout the US, people may view Boston College as a more prestigious school than BU, but the verdict is still out, and many people argue many different points. IN THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, however, nobody knows anything about Boston College besides where it is located, but think BU is the best school in boston after Harvard and MIT. BU’s international reputation FAR surpasses its domestic reputation. Weird, right?!</p>
<p>Basically, I can boil it down to an argument that resembles an American Capitalist (circa 1960’s) vs. Eastern European communism. He’d say: “Ew. All of those universities in Europe and Asia don’t care who you are or what you like to do. All they care is that you pass your A levels and become an expert in something. They rush you through school and strip you of all of your individuality.” This sentiment is only half false; if you’ve ever seen a European College application, you’d realize that they really don’t care about anything but how intelligent you are, and EXACTLY what you want to study for the rest of your life.</p>
<p>Starky, you cannot disagree with me because I was not in favor of any ranking. I made that clear in post #13. None of those rankings are accurate. Every ranking, whether Times, QS or USNWR, has major flaws. I also stated that there is no difference between universities ranked within 30 spots of each other.</p>
<p>“let’s examine where some smaller, undergraduate focused, and VERY prestigious schools fall in world rankings. I believe that Brown is near 40 and Dartmouth is at 99. I don’t think anyone would argue that Brown and Dartmouth carry such little clout compared to Michigan…”</p>
<p>Actually Starky, outside of the United States, Brown and Dartmouth are indeed less known than Michigan, even among the educated elite. That is not surprising really, when you consider the facts:
- Michigan has ~5,500 international students at any point in time. Brown and Dartmouth have ~750 international students each. In other words, there are more than 7 times as many Michigan alumni than there are Brown or Dartmouth alumni living outside of the United States. Most of those international alumni paid full tuition to attend Michigan, so they likely represent the social elites in their native countries. That alone will contribute greatly to the difference in reputation between Michigan and Brown or Dartmouth. Where I have lived (Western Europe and the Middle East), Michigan has a stronger reputation than Brown and Dartmouth.
- Most international students come to the US for their graduate studies. At the graduate level, Michigan is one of the top 10 universities on the planet. Other than Business, Dartmouth’s graduate programs are weak. Brown has strong graduate programs in the traditional fields, but is weak/absent in the professional fields such as Business, Engineering, Law and Medicine.
- Outside of the US, it is fields like Business, Engineering and Medicine that determines institutional prestige. Michigan is ranked among the top 10 in the US in all three fields, while Dartmouth is only ranked in the top 10 in one of those fields and Brown is none of them.</p>
<p>…“In fact, I think that most people would argue the opposite,…”</p>
<p>Who are most people? Ignorant masses living in the Northeastern seabord? Pimple-faced high school kids? Clueless parents? Pretentious gentlemen Cs? It is certainly not what the majority of well-informed people think. Find me a single corporate or academe-based reputational rating of universities that gives Brown and/or Dartmouth a significant edge over Michigan. It is also not what the majority of the country thinks because most Americans outside of the Northeast have never even heard of Brown or Dartmouth. At least most Americans have heard of Michigan because of its athletics programs. </p>
<p>I am not agreeing with any of the rankings and I said as much in the posts above. The fact is, there are too many excellent universities (Brown and Dartmouth included of course) to accurately come out with a ranking of universities. But to claim that Brown and Dartmouth have a greater international reputation than Michigan and a far superior brand than Michigan in the US is also false.</p>
<p>“For (1), let’s examine where some smaller, undergraduate focused, and VERY prestigious schools fall in world rankings. I believe that Brown is near 40 and Dartmouth is at 99. I don’t think anyone would argue that Brown and Dartmouth carry such little clout compared to Michigan. In fact, I think that most people would argue the opposite, but because Brown, Dartmouth, and many liberal arts schools divert emphasis from research/grad programs to undergraduate education, the world rankings leave them in the dust.”</p>
<p>You are correct of course when you indicate that Brown and Dartmouth are superb undergraduate institutions. Of course when one discusses the great universities of the world, one also shouldn’t focus on which schools soley provide the best undergraduate education either as you have done above. Shouldn’t world class universities excel in all areas of scholarship at the undergraduate and graduate/professional level as well as research? Why pick on public schools like Michigan saying they are overrated? Michigan has virtually no academic weaknesses in it’s many offerings. The academic reputation of Michigan certainly matches or exceeds those of Brown and Dartmouth. I can’t speak about the teaching quality being superior at the two Ivy League schools as you indicate, but should that be more important or as important than having world class faculty and facilities available to students? Intimacy is definitely something a smaller school can offer a student over a larger one, but is that going to make the school more reputable in the world? </p>
<p>“For point (2), I’d like to use Boston University as an example. BU is ranked 70th in QS (only a 15 point jump from mid 50s in USNWR”</p>
<p>Well BU is a private school, so it really doesn’t jive with your earlier statements about public schools being overrated. Also a school like Michigan is more complete and prestigious than BU. Just look at the rankings.</p>
<p>Brown & Dartmouth are truly top universities in the U.S. . But I feel as though in the international sphere they are virtually unheard of because they are not research powerhouses.</p>
<p>Without a doubt Flipper. Brown and Dartmouth are awesome. It is not possible to compare them to Michigan because they are very different. Brown has more in common with Princeton, although not quite as good, while Dartmouth is essentially a larger version of Williams College with an amazing MBA program. If one is looking to receive an excellent undergraduate education, I cannot think of a better place than either.</p>
<p>Here is the latest reputational rating from the Times:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u…-rankings.html%5B/url%5D”>http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u…-rankings.html</a></p>
<p>^that list is meaningless. No more useful than “giterdone’s top 50”</p>