Most realistic USNWR ranking year?

College Search & Selection
1

<p>/*******************/</p>

2

<p>lol maryland CP didn’t even move this whole ranking is crap</p>

3

<p>No. The most ridiculous in some ways. MIT is so far down… :frowning:
MIT > Penn I think!</p>

4

<p>“Most realistic” doesn’t say very much, imo.</p>

5

<p>This is not even close to the most realistic</p>

6

<p>I think Caltech shouldn’t be on there at all, MIT and Stanford should tie for 4th, and Penn and Columbia should tie for 5th..err, 6th.</p>

<p>Or rather, Columbia should count its SEAS like Penn does and then shut up.</p>

<p>But hey, the view looks pretty good from up here, so I ain’t complainin! Great to finally have Duke off our butts.</p>

7

<p>There has never been a realistic ranking.</p>

8

<p>yeah there has, every ranking that uses empirical data is realistic.</p>

9

<p>JohnnyK, my love, Columbia does count SEAS in USNews (since about 3 years ago)</p>

10

<p>Sorry Johnny, but apparently US News includes not only the college and SEAS in its enumeration of columbias undergrad population, but includes Barnard as well, since its technically part of the university. Maybe thats why we havent yet overtaken you quakers. <a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2707_brief.php[/url]”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/directory/brief/drglance_2707_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

11

<p>Uhhh…no. Columbia doesn’t include Barnard or GS, as they shouldn’t.</p>

<p>Just CC and SEAS.</p>

12

<p>Thats what i thought too, but how do you account for the reported 7,318 ugrad student body that US News says columbia has. CC and SEAS have only about 5,500 together. Oh well, maybe US News screwed up, wouldnt be the first time…</p>

13

<p>USN&WR is essentially a somewhat subjective prestige ranking and that’s how it should be interpreted. Note that, on top of peer assessment per se, even selectivity and ability to attract/retain the best students are basically just another measure of prestige. Prestige matters though in the real world, so it shouldn’t be dismissed entirely.</p>

<p>And yes, I agree, MIT should rank higher than UPenn (it actually does in all international rankings and in USN&WR 's own PA ranking).</p>

14

<p>Don’t forget folks, this is the FIFTH time in the last 7 years that MIT is not > Penn in the US News rankings. In fact, this is the THIRD time that Penn > MIT, and 2 other times Penn = MIT.</p>

<p><a href=“http://chronicle.com/stats/usnews/index.php?category=Universities&orgs=&sort=2007[/url]”>http://chronicle.com/stats/usnews/index.php?category=Universities&orgs=&sort=2007&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Not to say that Penn is actually BETTER than MIT–in some ways it is (e.g., business), in other ways it isn’t. But Penn being > MIT is hardly unusual in the US News rankings over the past 7 years. In fact, it’s fairly typical.</p>

15

<p>“Realistic”?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Hmm. I find it funny that people criticize US News for “maintaining the status quo” and elevating high-prestige Universities for the sake of public approval, and then bash the rankings as unrealistic when they don’t match their internal perceptions (often biased or prestige based).</p>

<p>Isn’t that what this thread is commending about the most recent rankings? The fact that it caters to some vague internal sense about what the rankings “should be”?</p>

<p>Must be one hell of a tough job to publish this thing.</p>

16

<p>hahahaha. no.</p>

17

<p>well the weirdest part I think is that in overall rankings CalTech beat MIT, but as far as Undergrad Engineering programs MIT still dominates (CalTech isn’t even top 3). I guess it came down to the pure sciences, but I still think it’s funny and a little weird if potential engineering students look at the overall rankings as the be all end all.</p>