<br>
<p>If their purpose is not to prevent the dissemination of truly comparable data, I am perplexed at what the colleges think this move will accomplish.<</p>
<br>
<p>competition; it's like open source programming; the hope/expectation is that someone will come along and design an even better application than the one currently available.</p>
<p>Since virtually all of these schools are members of COHFE, let 'em publish the survey data as well (whoops, Harvard as 27th becomes a bit of a problem, but the most of the others should be delighted....)</p>
<p>As I've said before, don't trust ANY data published by the college propaganda departments unless it comes from the CDS (or, in those cases where it exists, the NSEE.)</p>
<p>Inside Higher Ed piece "Watered Down Call for Rankings Reform" is well worth the read. One interesting tidbit from the article:</p>
<p>
[quote]
...At least one president who signed the letter released Friday might still sign the Education Conservancy letter. William D. Adams, president of Colby College, said he was “very sympathetic” to the Education Conservancy approach. The new letter was “a step in the right direction,” he said, but Adams added that “I wish it had been closer to one of the central provisions of the Education Conservancy letter,” namely the pledge on not filling out the “reputational” survey.</p>
<p>Adams said that he didn’t feel he could take a stand on the Education Conservancy letter or the survey until he can discuss the issues with his board, which he plans to do at a meeting next month. “This isn’t just a personal decision. It’s an institutional decision,” he said...</p>
<p>Adams said he didn’t know which way his board would go. But while most educators are “deeply skeptical of rankings,” many trustees are not. “I think these are much more accustomed to these kinds of rankings, which are very common on certain corporate settings.”</p>
<p>Adams added that even in its more limited form, the letter issued Friday took a “very important” position against publicizing rankings results — and should have credibility since the letter comes from institutions that do well....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have never before heard the term "little ivies" used in any serious or objective way. Thus, in my opinion the term means nothing.</p>
<p>"little ivies" refers solely to williams, amherst, and wesleyan. there are only three</p>
<p>Justice Kennedy makes a number of references to "the Little Ivy League colleges" in his dissenting opinion in <em>Bollinger</em>, particularly to an amicus brief filed by Amherst:
<a href="http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZD1.html%5B/url%5D">http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-241.ZD1.html</a></p>
<p>Here is a copy of the brief, signed by a virtual Who"s Who of the Little Ivy League:
<a href="http://supreme.nytimes.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.mer.ami.amherst.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://supreme.nytimes.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.mer.ami.amherst.pdf</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
"little ivies" refers solely to williams, amherst, and wesleyan. there are only three
[/quote]
Actually, Williams, Amherst, and Wesleyan collectively represent the "Little</a> Three", an unofficial (but well recognized) athletic conference with roots in the 19th Century. Supposedly the "Big Three" (Harvard, Yale, Princeton) and "Little Three" are the only athletic associations that have lasted without change for that long. </p>
<p>Williams, Amherst, and Wesleyan are now formally members of NESCAC, which includes eight other schools. But if one beats the other two, the winner earns the title of "Little Three" champion, regardless of how it fares against other NESCAC teams. </p>
<p>The term "Little</a> Ivies" is typically used in broader sense, with no formal definition, and generally means the most selective LACs. Exact definitions vary.</p>
<p>Don't know why Smith isn't listed - - since the college lit contains no reference to USN&WR and the college has instructed all of it's admissions vols not to refer to the rankings.</p>
<p>(Though none of the colleges that signed the letter refrains from mentioning other favorable reviews - - like being listed among the Newsweek's "hottest colleges" or favorable Princeton Review rankings for "best food," "dorms like palaces," etc.)</p>
<p>Interesting. I hadn't heard about any of this.</p>
<p>Well here's a smattering of schools:
Williams' website says it is consistently ranked as one of the nations top liberal arts college. ::cough cough::
Amherst is a "premier school" and has an adobe link to CDS survey info.
Swarthmore has the letter (with typos) in their admissions news center.
Wellesley explicitly says USNWR ranks it as #4 and mentions its ranking for diversity. Slow webmaster?
Vassar is " Consistently ranked among the top liberal arts colleges in the country". Good job.
Colgate is "nationally recognized" and its outdoor education programs are "second to none" (but I don't think that counts, but better weasel wording than Vassar & Williams).</p>
<p>My own feeling is that USNWR owns the high road on this issue. Colleges who claim to object to the US rankings have a burden of proof to overcome. It has always been my opinion that they object not so much to the rankings as to the ability of students to make direct and objective comparisons between colleges. Like most for profit businesses the colleges seem to prefer a situation in which artful PR can dominate over real data.</p>
<p>curious14: I don't agree. In fact, I would call USNWR the artful PR. First, as so many others have said, PR score is entirely subjective. We don't even know that they're not being crafted to produce pre-set results.</p>
<p>Second, pedagogical decisions are now being made to maximize USNWR score. Institutions do not have freedom to make the decisions that are best for their institution and by extension their students because of the way the decision would play out in the Mag. Many before me have demonstrated how schools manipulate the data sets to affect ranking.</p>
<p>As a college professor, I am certain the best results are not quantifiable.</p>
<p>Reading USNWR report is like watching a beauty contest and thinking you know anything about the contestants. They all want world peace, no?</p>
<p>BTW: One child is at a school that is the darling of USNWR and the other is at a school not well served by this ranking system. I can see that both reports have inaccurancies.</p>
<p>As a consumer of USNews Best Colleges, I've never made a big distinction between rankings. Well, maybe between a college ranked #1 vs. one ranked #200, but not between schools in the top 50 or 100. Really, it's more about having the information at my fingertips. If a college doesn't want to publish its stats, I immediately have to wonder why. Our private high school is very hush mouthed about average SAT's, AP scores, etc. and there's a reason for it. They're not that much higher (if higher at all) than the free publics in our area. If a college doesn't want to reveal that sort of information, I'm going assume there's something there that it isn't proud of, unfortunately.</p>
<p>Mythmom, </p>
<p>You seem to have a healty respect for the subjective, " I am certain the best results are not quantifiable" yet disparage the Peer Reputation cirteria becasue it is "subjective". I guess it's only your subjective opionion that is of value. In part what one is buying with a degree is a credential and it is helpull to know how that credential is valued amoung those who should be in a position to know at least the reputations of the other schools. This is particularly helpful for the parents who have never been to college themsleves and don't have much basis for judging the schools. Would you prefer they depend on glossy brochures.</p>
<p>Personally I'd say that plus or minus five on the rankings is meaningless in part because there is so much overlap in the abilities of the students in this range. But I think you would notice a difference in the classroom between 1 and 50 and between 50 and 100..</p>
<p>I do not know why they do not have America Best Undergraduate Schools, just like they have America's Best Graduate Schools. The controversy is mostly caused by the inclusion of parameters like research, which for undergrads is really overrrated (u can make all the arguments you want about "trickle down" benefits to undergrads...- it is bull ) Those parameters really belong in Graduate Programs analysis.</p>
<p>In fact, when USNews did publish a ranking based on undergraduate education alone in 1995, Dartmouth came as number one and Brown University was number two. Someone did not like that, they never did it again....</p>
<p>curious,
True. What I was trying to say is that I, personally, wouldn't let a ranking of, say 15, override a school that I thought was a better "fit" that was, say 35. Somewhere along the line I think there is a sort of non-tangible personal preference criteria that supercedes pure numbers. Now a difference between 15 and 75, that's something to strongly consider as an override.</p>
<p>I've known too many kids who selected a college based primarily on ranking ("I choose X college because it's ranked 20 schools ahead of college Y"), without regard to where they want to live, what kind of student body they want, size, lifestyle, breadth of majors, etc. and end up transferring unhappily after a year or two to their state university. Maybe it's a more common thing down here in Florida because students leave, go elsewhere, and find out they don't like the climate? (too cold, too dreary, too small, wanted to switch majors and couldn't do it there, "nothing to do"- these are kids who have lived on the beach all their lives...) ???</p>
<p>serchingon, Doesn't USNews have a classification for schools that only offer undergrad programs? I know they do for engineering.</p>
<p>I don't think it is bull to say that the undergraduate experience at a true research university can be very educational. There's something different about seeking out new knowledge (the research university mission) as contrasted with passing on known knowledge (which is one way to characterize what an LAC does).</p>