<p>There is probably different criteria used in the two rankings, and different relative weight given to the various criteria used.</p>
<p>For example, if we use money spent on research, Michigan would probably fare better than a smaller school like Emory. That doesn’t mean it is “better” though.</p>
<p>No college ranking can be very accurate. However, a particular ranking does offer some insight into the colleges. It is also difficult to compare colleges with different objectives. Comparing Michigan and Brown/Dartmouth is like comparing apples with oranges.</p>
<p>It would be nice to have a separate ranking of public colleges in the US.</p>
<p>[U-M</a> a top university in world ranking](<a href=“http://www.ur.umich.edu/update/archives/120315/rankings]U-M”>http://www.ur.umich.edu/update/archives/120315/rankings)</p>
<p>The US News rankings are odd. They are geared towards private schools and don’t consider things like breadth of programs, quality of life, college town quality.</p>
<p>One of the former presidents of Stanford wrote them a letter saying he thinks mich and berkeley are both easily in the top half dozen.</p>
<p>Don’t worry so much about rankings. Mich is an elite school - for whatever that’s worth. It is respected everywhere.</p>
<p>
What does quality of life and college town quality have to do with academic reputation and prestige? LOL! That’s like saying we should give more points to WUSTL since it has better dining facilities than Michigan and rank Vanderbilt higher since it is warmer.</p>
<p>Each ranking org. uses its own criteria and usually those are too sparse. So you get wildly different results. People rely way too much on these. </p>
<p>The US News rankings work against state schools because they focus on money and graduation rates and ignore breadth of programs. </p>
<p>You can look at rankings but don’t take it too seriously. Visit schools. Talk to people. Ask here.</p>
<p>From then Stanford President to the editor of USNWR (excerpt):</p>
<p>"I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27. "</p>
<p>Full text: [Criticism</a> of College Rankings - September 23, 1996](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html]Criticism”>Criticism of College Rankings - September 23, 1996)</p>
<p>How is ranking Michigan and Berkeley in the top 30 make people infer that these schools are “second rate” when there are over 4,000 4-year institutions in the United States? LOL! Gerhard Casper is a funny guy.</p>
<p>Clearly, Casper was speaking relatively. There is obviously nothing wrong with being ranked among the top 30 universities, but relative to their true place in academe, Cal and Michigan do not do well in the USNWR. what Casper meant what that the USNWR leads readers to infer that among top universities, and not all universities, Cal and Michigan are second rate. </p>
<p>Not many people in academe, be it presidents of universities, major researchers or decision makers in graduate school admissions committees, would disagree with Casper. To the intellectual elite, anking Cal and Michigan out of the top 20 would be that same as ranking Harvard, Princeton or Stanford out of the top 5, or Chicago or Columbia out of the top 10, or Cornell, Northwestern and Penn out of the top 20. In Capser’s circle (i.e., the intellectual elite), Cal is clearly one of the top 10 universities in the US while Michigan is clearly one of the top 15 universities in the US. </p>
<p>The reason why many criticize the Businessweek ranking of undergraduate business programs is because according to it, Wharton is ranked #3 or #4. There is obviously nothing wrong with being ranked #3 or #4. Any other elite business program would love to have such a ranking. But wharton is clearly #1 among undergraduate business programs. </p>
<p>Relativity!</p>
<p>USNWR is trying to measure the quality of undergraduate education, not the overall institutional strength of any school with its Best Colleges Ranking. Obviously, Cal would be top 5 and Michigan would be top 10 if the strength of the faculty and the quality of the individual academic departments were all that were being measured. Unfortunately, there’s the pesky matter of the overall strength of those Cal and Michigan undergrads that we have to consider…</p>
<p>“USNWR is trying to measure the quality of undergraduate education, not the overall institutional strength of any school with its Best Colleges Ranking.”</p>
<p>Whatever the USNWR is trying to measure, the vast majority of the intellectual elite don’t agree with it. Casper is not alone in his belief that Cal and Michigan (among others) should be ranked a higher at the undergraduate level.</p>
<p>“Obviously, Cal would be top 5 and Michigan would be top 10 if the strength of the faculty and the quality of the individual academic departments were all that were being measured.”</p>
<p>Actually, Cal would be among the top 3. But even at the undergraduate level, Cal would be among the top 10 and Michigan among the top 15. </p>
<p>“Unfortunately, there’s the pesky matter of the overall strength of those Cal and Michigan undergrads that we have to consider…”</p>
<p>I do not see what is so unfortunate about the student bodies at those two schools. The students are gifted, and unlike their private peers, Cal and Michigan do not resort to cheap admissions and data reporting tricks to make themselves look more selective.</p>
<p>
It’s easy to state that a school be ranked in the top 5, top 10, top 15, top 20, etc. but its much easier to back up the rhetoric and point out which schools should be dropped from the top rank in order to accommodate the newcomers.</p>
<p>If we accept that the 4 factors that determine a university’s reputation at the undergraduate level are 1) the strength of its faculty, 2) selectivity, 3) financial resources, and 4) success of graduates (not in any order), it is very hard to see how Cal could crack the top 15 and Michigan could crack the top 20</p>
<p>There are simply too many excellent colleges in the U.S. and the universities that are considered top 15 in the country for undergrads (8 Ivies, Stanford, MIT, UChicago, Northwestern, Duke, Caltech, and Johns Hopkins) excel in all of the 4 major categories while Cal and Michigan do not.</p>
<p>
Don’t underestimate your alma mater Alexandre; Michigan knows super scoring would boost its USNWR selectivity score a tiny bit but it doesn’t have the resources to do so since its admissions review process is already so disorganized. I hope you don’t think that U of M is being “noble” or something by not making the basic gesture of evaluating students in the best possible light for them (best score in each section). This is what every university should do since the SAT and ACT aren’t infallible and students have bad testing days for a variety of reasons.</p>
<p>Studies have shown that super scoring increases a student’s test score by 20 points max so clearly there’s diminishing value in taking these tests multiple times anyway. If a student feels so inclined, then why not?</p>
<p>
You don’t know much about IT, do you? The process is automated. The scores are extracted electronically from a database (Michigan does not accept paper score). The software used to extract the scores can easily be modified to handle super scoring.</p>
<p>Then why not superscore? It provides the best gauge of a student’s true ability since there are differences in difficulty on each version of the exam and certain external factors can affect a student on any given day.</p>
<p>Superscoring tends to benefit students with resources. Public universities tend to favor single sitting.</p>
<p>What Michigan should do is to game the system like Notre Dame and report the higher of the SAT vs. ACT score.</p>
<p>Just ignore goldenboy. He’s a bitter ■■■■■.</p>