<p>Malcolm Gladwell (Blink, Tipping Point) deconstructs the US News rankings in this recent New Yorker article featured on the "Colleges that Change Lives" site.</p>
<p>It is an interesting article. However, a consumer is free to reorganize the university data in the USNWR tables in the same way that the law school rankings were reordered in the article. The consumer should put their own weight on factors that matter to them. The USNWR tables are a great starting point for comparing lots of data. I hope that no one actually thinks that the #16 school on the list is better than the #17 school on the list.</p>
<p>Another thing to keep in mind is what happens when you tweak the ranking weights or even add in an entirely new criterion. For example, look at the kiplinger.com rankings, which add price. Harvard drops to 6th, Rice moves up to 4th … but for the most part, the set of top schools is still very similar. You have to change the criteria rather radically before all of the Ivies drop out of the top 10. That does happen in the Washington Monthly rankings, which consider “social mobility” and “service” (dubbed, by one CC poster, the “Mother Theresa” factors).</p>
<p>I do hope most CC’ers understand how much the criteria matter. As long as you do, I agree with siliconvalleymom that the USNWR tables can be a very useful starting point.</p>
<p>I think that students and parents, perhaps inherently newbies at the college process, increasingly see the USNWR rankings as analogous to Consumer Reports ranking of dishwashers or automobiles. This can lead to a false understanding of the colleges and universities as rankable “brands” rather than extremely complicated institutions that may or may not match with a particular student. The “reputation” of a college is a particularly questionable criterion, as Gladwell clearly demonstrates, and such “reputation” perpetuates the false prestige branding. As an educator I wish that there were a ranking emphasizing what students have gained from a particular institution after their 4 years, rather than emphasizing the front end (how selective the school is, how academically strong the admitted students are, etc.)</p>
<p>“I hope that no one actually thinks that the #16 school on the list is better than the #17 school on the list.”</p>
<p>Well siliconvalleymom, unfortunately, there are a bunch of people who do think that, and a lot of them are here at CC. It is exasperating. One of the kindest things that USNWR could do would be to eliminate the numerical rankings, and instead report the institutions scores themselves. Gladwell’s example of the 10 institutions ranked from 41 to 50 is a good example. Why should Yeshiva with a score only 3 points lower than CWRU, be ranked 9 levels further down?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Metrics do exist for this, but again, they are what Malcom Gladwell calls “proxy” metrics. </p>
<p>Examples
average starting or mid-career salaries ([Graduate</a> Salary Statistics](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/top-us-colleges-graduate-salary-statistics.asp]Graduate”>http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/top-us-colleges-graduate-salary-statistics.asp))</p>
<p>business leadership positions ([USATODAY.com</a> - Wanted: CEO, no Ivy required](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-06-cover-ceos_x.htm]USATODAY.com”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-04-06-cover-ceos_x.htm))</p>
<p>Peace Corps participation (absolute numbers: <a href=“http://multimedia.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/stats/schools2011.pdf[/url]”>http://multimedia.peacecorps.gov/multimedia/pdf/stats/schools2011.pdf</a> per capita: [Washington</a> Monthly](<a href=“http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings/national_university_service.php]Washington”>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings/national_university_service.php))</p>
<p>admission rates to top professional schools (<a href=“http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf[/url]”>http://www.wsjclassroomedition.com/pdfs/wsj_college_092503.pdf</a>)</p>
<p>alumni PhD completion rates per capita ([COLLEGE</a> PHD PRODUCTIVITY](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/ir/phd.html]COLLEGE”>Doctoral Degree Productivity - Institutional Research - Reed College))</p>
<p>major awards to alumni ([List</a> of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation]List”>List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation - Wikipedia))</p>
<p>There are issues with most of the above. As far as I know, nobody has put such data together in a credible, systematic way.</p>
<p>Another influential list identifying supposedly prestigious universities and colleges is College Confidential itself! And as far as I can tell, CC provides no criteria or data for how it selects the schools it lists prominently as “CC Top Universities” and “CC Top Liberal Arts Colleges” on its Colleges page.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why should USNews be held responsible for the lack of high schoolers to take and pass AP Stats? If they are really #16/#17 material, they need to start working on their critical thinking skills. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If there was value in it (i.e., Sales), it would already be done. “Educators” just love to hate on USNews, but yet when asked to come up with something different, it takes more than a decade AND results in numerous errors and something that no one can understand. (see NRC rankings)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Apparently there is; Gladwell refers to it in the instant article. As far as I can determine from his article, it compares the likelihood of the freshman class graduating with the percentage who actually do graduate. He says that Penn State does the best among the large universities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But even then, we don’t know why they stay to graduate. At PSU, I’d wager that football and beer play large roles in retaining the masses. At tech / engineering schools, the graduation rates are comparatively lower than at more general universities. It’s primarily because their majors are difficult and demanding.</p>
<p>Do you have evidence to back that up?</p>
<p>^^And of course, grad rates is directly proportional to student body wealth and/or financial aid offered. If one has to work 20+ hours/week to pay the bills, one will end up taking a minimum course load; thus, the 5-year plan is a near-certainty.</p>
<p>I think that it’s a big mistake to give rankings the appearance of objectivity. Now, because there are criteria for ranking the schools, the schools focus on those criteria to get a better ranking instead of being a better school. It’s a horrible cycle.</p>