<p>Every other major ranking gets shunted off to oblivian quickly. What's the problem??</p>
<p>oblivion.</p>
<p>Although I was obviously very pleased with the Forbes ranking this year, its methodology does seem silly. I do like that that Forbes combines universities and colleges in a single list, but most people don’t really know much about LACs, so they don’t give much credence to a list that puts a school they’ve never heard of above Harvard.
Other rankings I’ve read lose credibility in my mind because they weigh “public service” or something like that into the equation, and all I am concerned with is how much benefit my own child will obtain with the money I pay for his education. Yes, I am selfish. One of my many faults.</p>
<p>No. The International University Rankings from both ARWU and The London Times both were released recently and quickly deleted. Guess you missed them.</p>
<p>I think CC users tend to be more obsessed with some rankings than others, and you might be noticing that effect.
Anyone looking for information about a school will find plenty beyond the rankings readily available on CC.</p>
<p>I agree. It seems only USNews ranking discussions are allowed to be kept on the “College Search and Selection” forum. Other rankings discussions are moved to the Graduate School forum.</p>
<p>“College Search and Selection” applies to graduate schools as well. The rankings also are a good proxy for top-rated academics, research and faculties…which can be an important factor in selecting an undergraduate college.</p>
<p>Most other rankings are for grad programs and research productivity, not on the quality of undergraduate programs.</p>
<p>^ That’s because grad programs and research productivity are much easier to rank.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say so. Grad rankings (especially Times) are just as flawed if not more so compared to USNews’ undergrad rankings.</p>
<p>^ I’d say faculty achievement and research are much more easily measured and can be verified versus nebulous rating criteria like alumni giving percentage, high school counselor or academic feelings, selectivity and faculty resources weightings.</p>
<p>I have noticed that the people who love US news ranking went to top private undergrads (IvyP)while those who glorify ARWU and the current Times are from big public universities (UCBChemEgrad, and Barrons) which do very well in these rankings. IMO based on my previous experiences, the US News is the best (not quite accurate but one has to do with what they have) and captures undergraduate quality than any world ranking. World rankings might capture undergraduate rankings in other countries but not in US.</p>
<p>Yes, US News graduate rankings have significant flaws- people just dont debate them because graduate students have better things to do.</p>
<p>“I’d say faculty achievement and research are much more easily measured and can be verified versus nebulous rating criteria like alumni giving percentage” </p>
<p>Yes faculty achievements are easily measured yes, but a strong argument for this must show how a strong research faculty is superior to a dedicated faculty which strives to improve their students as well as take time to mentor them. Also such an argument should have data which shows significant achievements caused by the depth of the college i.e the large curricula that emerges from major research universities. Please be aware that the large majority of college students are interested in avoiding difficult and taxing classes especially those who were lazy in high school to begin with . . . </p>
<p>"The rankings also are a good proxy for top-rated academics, research and faculties…which can be an important factor in selecting an undergraduate college. "</p>
<p>Graduate rankings do not have a significant effect on undergraduate academics. Also if a school which has a decent science faculty but also one who encourages their students to participate in research then what makes that school inferior to one in which the faculty dont let the undergrads participate in their research projects?</p>
<p>The vast majority of large research schools have made undergraduate research for science and other majors a priority. </p>
<p>[UW-Madison:</a> Undergraduate Research Opportunities > index](<a href=“http://www.provost.wisc.edu/undergradresearch/]UW-Madison:”>http://www.provost.wisc.edu/undergradresearch/)</p>
<p>[SROP</a> Programs at UW Madison](<a href=“http://www.grad.wisc.edu/education/diversity/srop/index.html]SROP”>http://www.grad.wisc.edu/education/diversity/srop/index.html)</p>
<p>[Undergraduate</a> Engineering Research Opportunities](<a href=“http://studentservices.engr.wisc.edu/research/research.html]Undergraduate”>http://studentservices.engr.wisc.edu/research/research.html)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.news.wisc.edu/14815[/url]”>http://www.news.wisc.edu/14815</a></p>
<p>Well said sefago. I agree with sefago. However, I don’t really love USNews, which I believe is seriously flawed. I just believe that it’s the best of rankings that rank the quality of undergraduate programs. I also believe that all grad school rankings are seriously flawed, but I believe that ARWU is the best among them. When can people on CC wake up and realize that at a top private undergrad (the Ivies and other ones glorified by the USNews, both national universities and LACs), a student can receive a top notch undergraduate education while getting involved with independent research projects or research projects with faculties. Also, a student at a top public school (Berkeley, Michigan, etc.) and at public schools that are no where near the top can receive a top notch undergraduate education while getting involved with independent research projects or research projects with faculties. To believe otherwise would be showing that you doubt your own intellects and abilities and desperately relying on the name of your school to put you ahead.</p>
<p>It is not the first time. Every year, any attempt to post links to either the ARWU or the THES rankings are immediately censored and the corresponding threads are moved to the “graduate school” forum. The alleged explanation is that ARWU and THES are of no interest to prospective undergrads who visit the “college search & selection” forum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The people who compile the THES rankings beg to differ.</p>
<p>Quote: "* We believe that institutions with a high density of research students are more knowledge-intensive, and that the presence of an active postgraduate community is a marker of a research-led teaching environment valued by undergraduates and postgraduates alike.[…] a high proportion of postgraduate research students also suggests teaching at the highest level that is attractive to graduates and good at developing them.</p>
<p>Undergraduate students also tend to value working in a rich environment that includes postgraduates. * "</p>
<p>Incidentally, THES does ** NOT ** define itself as a “graduate ranking” as opposed to an “undergraduate” one. As I tried to explain before my message was censored, there is no such distinction from an European perspective: the common wisdom in Europe is that a school can only excel at the undergraduate (bachelor’s) level if it also excels in graduate (UK English “postgraduate”) research. That is a major cultural difference between Europeans and Americans, which the quote above illustrates.</p>
<p></p>
<p>College Confidential is offering a vast array of fora that are organized according to several criteria. As stated in the TOS, College Confidential reserves the right to edit or move posts and threads. </p>
<p>As far as rankings, we will continue to evaluate the scope and contents of the publications and move them according to our criteria, and this in our sole discretion. As stated before, rankings similar to ARWU and THES will continue to be moved to the graduate forum. </p>
<p>Please note that College Confidential values every one of the fora it is hosting, and hardly considers moving threads to the Graduate School forum as a form of censure. </p>
<p>Perhaps a better idea would be to make a college rankings forum.</p>
<p>
A ranking can be targeted at either potential students or objective observers such as donors or taxpayers. The former are searching for a school that will fit their needs, while the latter are looking to see which schools provide the most societal ROI. Rankings such as the Washington Monthly ranking are not intended to fit the former need.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I would argue that individual needs are so varied that it is nearly impossible to produce any remotely useful ranking for prospective students and their families. The same is not true for more objective, society-focused rankings such as WM.</p>