<p>I personally think that UC’s are overrated. There may be a bias, but rankings aren’t everything.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see what’s wrong with calling any ranking system “flawed”. I think that alumni giving is a flawed measure, and shouldn’t be included in USNews. My personal opinion, it doesn’t count for anything. It shouldn’t be put next to “bias”, which is an accusation.</p>
<p>It is reasonable to dispute the feeder ranking as “biased”, because the rankers could arbitrarily choose what schools to count as top programs. If the list included ivies but not Wustl med or Kellogg, that would be bias changing the rankings.</p>
<p>Superpippo,</p>
<p>UT is good, but it is nowhere as good as UC-Berkeley. Also, there is no anti-south bias in the USNWR rankings; just look at Duke, Vanderbilt, UVA, UNC, Wake Forest, Rice, William & Mary, and Emory as examples of schools in the south that USNWR thinks highly of.</p>
<p>Any of these listings can be biased, of course, in a couple of ways. First, there may be bias even in a formula based on the numbers, in the choice and weighting of the factors. There can be more direct bias if the ranking includes somebody’s subjective evaluation. So, for example, USNews includes a peer evaluation number as part of its rating; that’s an opportunity for bias to get in, although it’s only one factor.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That does seem plausible. In USCB’s freshman class 96 percent were in the top 10 versus 76 percent form UofF and 75 percent for UT-Austin. This is a whopper of a difference. However, only 18 percent of USCB’s students achieve 30 or above on the ACT versus 23 percent for UF and 27 percent for UT. Meanwhile at the bottom of the class, USCB and Texas both admit 27 percent who scored 23 or lower on the ACT versus 23 for Florida. </p>
<p>Thus overall, USCB enrolls top ranked high schoolers (in their class) that have lower scores than the other two schools. USCB and Texas have the same retention rate (91%) whereas Florida is at 95 percent - suggesting that Florida admits more students capable of doing the work and/or are happy there. </p>
<p>I’m not big on rankings per se and class body is not the only factor, but one would have a hard time explaining how Florida should not be ranked higher than both Texas and UCSB.</p>
<p>Florida should only rank higher than the UCs except Berkeley and UCLA, but not higher than Texas. No way man. UT is better in every field starting with eng and business.</p>
<p>Florida for business is not even the top in Florida. According to Business Week, Univ. of Miami is.</p>
<p>Also retention means nothing. If anything retention means the school is really tough. The toughest engineering schools in Europe have graduation rates of easily less than 30%.</p>
<p>This is a very interesting topic. Below is my original post in this College Admissions and Search section if you care to read the full thread. These alternative rankings confirmed my suspicions that 1) there is a bias against southern schools (sometimes more conservative) and 2) that the UC schools tied for 44th in the USNWR rankings are highly overrated. </p>
<p>Top 100 rankings using Hawkette method and 2008 data </p>
<hr>
<p>Using the very wise Hawkette’s method of examining the most consistent hard data available, SAT and ACT scores, I thought it would be interesting to see how the current USNWR top 100 list would shake out using 2008 (the latest) SAT and ACT admissions data. Hawkette describes her/his method as thus:</p>
<p>“One way that I have measured this is to compare the achievement levels of each school’s student body on the SAT and the ACT exams. I looked at absolute barriers (700 on the CR and Math SAT and 30 on the ACT) and asked what percentage of the student body achieved at these levels. As the data attests, the usual suspects top the list and IMO, the order is a reasonable listing of student body quality at these colleges. </p>
<p>Rank , Total Score , School , Critical Reading SAT (25% weight) , Math SAT (25% weight) , ACT (50% weight)” </p>
<p>(Back to me) A few observations:</p>
<p>1 , Eight schools rose into the top 50 : Tulane climbing the highest to 27, along with Miami of Fl to 38, Worchester Poly to 42, Tulsa to 43, American U to 45, Colorado Sch. of Mines to 46, Pepperdine to 48, and Pitt to 50. Of the schools cracking the top 50, Tulsa had the largest leap, rising 40 places from 83.</p>
<p>2 , The California public UC schools did not fare well under this system. One has to wonder what it is about the USNWR criteria that is protecting those currently tied for 44th – S. Barbara, Davis, Irvine – with their top 50 status. SB fell to 70, Davis to 84, and Irvine to 96. And Berkeley, UCLA, and San Diego, while certainly remaining in the top 50, all had significant drops.</p>
<p>3 , Another mystery is the low showing (92) of Penn State, a current USNWR top 50 school. When measured against other schools’ SAT and ACT achievement, PSU did not perform well.</p>
<p>4 , BYU had the largest overall leap in rankings, from 113 to 55.</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard does not list admissions data on Peterson’s, so it did not make my list. </li>
</ol>
<p>6 , Thoughts…???</p>
<ul>
<li>(USNWR current rank)</li>
</ul>
<p>Rank; Total; School; SATR 25%; SATM25%; ACT50%
1 , 93.5% , Caltech , 76, 100 ,99 *(6)
2 , 81.5% , Wash U 64,77,92 (12)
3 , 80% , Princeton 73,77,85 (2)
4 , 77.8% , MIT 58,85,84 (14)
5 , 76.5% , Yale 77,77,76 (3)
6 , 70% , Notre Dame 50,64,83 (18)
7 , 69.8% , Northwestern 61,66,76 (12)
8 , 69.5% , Dartmouth 65,67,73 (11)
9 , 69.3% , Stanford 57,66,77 (4)
10 , 69% , Columbia 64,66,73 (8)
10 , 69% , Vanderbilt 47,66,82 (18)
12, 68% , Duke 60,68,72 (8)
12 , 68% , U Penn 52,70,75 (6)
14 , 64.8% , Rice 53,64,71 (17)
15 , 64.5% , U Chicago 62,60,68 (8)
16 , 64% , Emory 45,61,75 (18)
17 , 63.5% , Tufts 62,62,65 (28)
18 , 63% , Brown 57,63,66 (16)
19 , 60.8% , Cornell 41,64,69 (14)
20 , 59.3% , Carnegie Mellon 37,66,67 (22)
21 , 57.8% , Johns Hopkins 42,59,65 (15)
22 , 55% , Georgetown 54,56,55 (23)
23 , 52.3% , USC 35,50,63 (27)
24 , 50.8% , Brandeis 38,43,61 (31)
25 , 48.8% , Boston Coll 29,42,62 (34)
26 , 48% , W&M 41,35,58, (32)
27 , 43.8% , Tulane 43,24,54 (51)
28 , 40.3% , Case Western 24,41,48 (41)
29 , 40% , UC Berkeley 29,51,40 (21)
30 , 39.8% , NYU 32,37,45 (33)
31 , 39.0% , U Michigan 22,46,44 (26)
32 , 37.3% , U Rochester 22,41,43 (35)
33 , 36% , U Virginia 32,40,36 (23)
34 , 35.5% , Georgia Tech 19,47,38 (35)
34 , 35.5% , Wake Forest (28)
36 , 34.5% UCLA 20,40,39 (25)
37 , 33.8% , U Illinois 16,47,36 (40)
38 , 32.8% , U North Carolina 25,30,38 (30)
38 , 32.8 , U of Miami (FL) 20,27,42 (51)
40 , 31.5% , U Wisconsin 14,40,35 (35)
41 , 30.3% , Rensselaer 23,52,23 (41)
42 , 30% Worchester Poly 13,37,35 (71)
43 , 29% U Tulsa 27,23,33 (83)
44 , 28.8% , Lehigh 17,40,29 (35)
45 , 27% American University 25,17,33 (83)
46 , 26% Colorado School of Mines 12,28,32 (80)
47 , 25.5% , U Florida 17,25,30 (49)
48. 25.3 ; Pepperdine 16,19,33 (56)
49 , 24.5% , UCSD 11,29,29 (35)
50 , 24.3% U of Pittsburgh 20,21,28 (58)
51 , 24% Northeastern 12,24,30 (96)
52 , 23.8% , U Texas 16,25,27 (47)
53 , 23.5% U Maryland 17,30, 23.5 (53)
53 , 23.5% Illinois Inst. Tech 9,27,29 (102)
55 , 23% BYU 16,18,29 (113)
56 , 22.8% Boston U 17,22,26 (60)
57 , 22.5% George Washington 19,21,25 (53)
58 , 22% UMinn Twin Cities 28,18,21 (61)
58 , 22% SMU 13,19,28 (66)
60 , 21% SUNY Binghamton 12,24,24 (77)
61 , 20.5% Stevens Inst. Tech 16,31,20.5 (83)
62 , 20% Clemson 9,17,27 (61)
62 , 20% U Oklahoma 12,12,28 (108)
63 , 19% , Ohio State 11,19,23 (56)
64 , 18% St. Louis University 10,12,25 (80)
65 , 17.5% , U Washington 12,16,21 (41)
66 , 16.8% U Nebraska 15,18,17 (89)
67 , 16.3% U Georgia 11,14,20 (58)
68 , 16% Texas A&M 9,15,20 (64)
69 , 15.8% Fordham 14,11,19 (61)
70 , 15% U Denver 8,12,20 (89)
70 , 15.% , UC Santa Barbara 11,13,18 (44)
72 , 14.8% U Iowa 14,19,13 (66)
72 , 14.8% Purdue 5,14,20 (66)
72 , 14.8 Iowa State 14,21,12 (89)
75 , 14.5% Auburn 7,11,20 (96)
75 , 14.5 Clark 15,9,17 (80)
75 , 14.5% Marquette 9,9,20 (77)
78 , 14.3% Miami of Ohio 8,11,19 (66)
79 , 14% U Delaware 11,13,16 (71)
80 , 13.8% Mizzou 13,10,15 (96)
81 , 13.3% Baylor 12,15, 13 (76)
81 , 13.3% U Tennessee 7,8,19 (108)
83 , 12.75 U Colorado 7,10,17 (77)
84 , 12.5% , UC Davis 8,16,13 (44)
84 , 12.5% U South Carolina 7,9,17 (108)
84 , 12.5% Indiana U 7,9,17 (71)
87 , 12.3% U Dayton 7,10,16 (108)
88 , 12% U Pacific 6,18,12 (102)
89 , 11.5% U Conn 7,13,13 (66)
89 , 11.5% U Vermont 9,7,15
91 , 11.3% Michigan State 8,13,12 (71)
92 , 11% , Penn State 15,7,11 (47)
93 , 10.5% VA Tech 7,14,10.5 (71)
93 , 10.5% U Alabama 7,7,14 (83)
95 , 9.8% NC State 5,12,11 (83)
96 , 9.5% , UC Irvine 8,18,6 (44)
97 , 8.5% SUNY Stony Brook 4,13,8.5 (96)
97 , 8.5% FL State 7,7,10 (102)
99 , 8.3% UC Santa Cruz 7,8,9 ( 96)
100 , 7.5% UMASS 6,8,8</p>
<p>If you don’t think there’s a bias against conservative, religious-affiliated schools, check out what happens to BYU under this method – it rise from USNWR 113 to 55.</p>
<p>the reason the UC’s are overrated is because of the high top 10% count or the UC’s…if not for that, there wouldn’t be so many in the top 50</p>
<p>In Post #14 you essentially said nothing, but yet you revealed all I need to know that your observations have no credibility.</p>
<p>The USNWR rankings, for better or worse, are an attempt to measure quality from a holistic perspective. Student aptitude (as measured by average SAT score) is just one aspect of quality. If we focused only on faculty quality (as measured by salaries, awards, or research output) UC Berkeley probably would leap from where it is in the USNWR rankings to somewhere among the top 10 national universities, possibly as high as #3. </p>
<p>A bunch of other rankings are available on the Internet for anyone skeptical of USNWR. I like stateuniversity.com (despite some errors and screwball outcomes) because it allows for multiple sorts based on the user’s choice of criteria.</p>
<p>As for Hawkette’s ranking, it is interesting because it purports to use the most recent SAT data, and because he/she has her/his own approach to counting. However, I don’t think it is credible that Notre Dame is 6th best just because its 2008 SAT scores surpass Stanford’s, Columbia’s, or Penn’s by a few points. According to stateuniversity.com’s SAT ranking (using 75th percentile scores), ND is 21st (or tied with a few others in that vicinity), with only 10 points separating it from Penn or Cornell. Did it suddenly get that much better?</p>
<p>Iin post 14 I proved that Irvine is a junior college</p>
<p>
Here’s a prime example of how hard it is to create rankings that make sense. While these things all measure a certain type of faculty “quality,” they may or may not translate into a better education for undergraduates.</p>
<p>IBClass, I think people complaining that the WSJ feeder rankings are biased is because they only measure admits to the top professional schools…I don’t recall if Stanford was the only west coast school included, or not included. Most of the schools WSJ looked at were located in the Northeast.</p>
<p>tk - you’re right, standardized tests are just one aspect of measuring quality. But, the larger point is they are “standardized,” whereas “peer assessment” and “faculty quality,” etc. are outmoded beauty contests. IMHO the fact that USNWR allots 25 percent of its rankings criteria to peer assessment and that six UC schools are in the top 50 calls into question the integrity of their approach.</p>
<p>
Of course…these awards are visible and measureable. Great teaching awards, which may be more useful for the undergrad are not as visible. Besides, all colleges have some outstanding teachers, some terrible teachers - most are average teachers.</p>
<p>well some schools have more excellent teachers such as Olin, Ripon, Wellesley, Sweet Briar, Harvey Mudd, Centre, Davidson, Hampden-Sydney and Whitman</p>
<p>some schools have more poor teachers such as Stevens Tech, NJIT, SUNY-Albany, Illinois Tech, Georgia Tech, Rutgers, Rhode Island, SUNY-Stony Brook, Drexel and New Hampshire</p>
<p>
Peer assessment is a quasi measure of faculty quality…USNWR asks academics to rate a college’s academic offerings, they are going to be looking at things that are important/visible to them.</p>
<p>Example:
National Academy of engineering members and Peer Assessment score:
UC Berkeley: 85, 4.7
UCLA: 20, 4.2
Texas: 49, 4.0
UC San Diego: 18, 3.8
UC Santa Barbara: 23, 3.5
UC Davis: 8, 3.8
Florida: 7, 3.6
UC Irvine: 8, 3.5
UC Riverside: 1, 3.1</p>
<p>well that’s understandable because the more famous professors there are, the more well known the school is going to be (is that peer assessment for engineering though?)
that’s pretty unfortunate because famous professors don’t always equal a quality education since they may be too caught up in research or may be bad at teaching the material to others</p>
<p>^ No, it’s the full peer assessment. I just pulled NAE membership because it was quick.</p>