You are making my point. My response was directed at the poster who wanted to make the argument that there is more to rankings than CS. Well in Berkeleys case, CS/DS/EECS accounts for a majority of degrees granted and, if you ask me to keep aside the strengths of those programs then you also have to ignore the disproportionate effect those lower div class sizes have on these metrics.
So you believe the formula provides an accurate ranking/representation of the colleges. Then the question is what you feel that ranking represents.
you answered your question in your first sentence.
This can’t possibly be correct. I’d believe plurality, but not majority.
5 Likes
I didn’t say not consider them, I said rankings had to consider all majors. Computer science is not entitled to any particular extra weight.
2 Likes
What does the ranking represent to you then?
1 Like
I think this discussion has run its course.
5 Likes
LOL. Me too, I approve! Both of my kids’ schools are T15, so the criteria and weighting are the ideal 
2 Likes
For general rankings, should majors be weighted by their frequency at a given college?
For example, at MIT, should theater arts (1 graduate in a recent class) have the same weight as computer science (330 graduates in a recent class)?
Of course, for a student specific ranking, a student interested in theater arts but not in computer science may choose to weight theater arts related aspects much more than computer science related aspects in making their own ranking of colleges.
Wait, of the almost 33,000 undergraduates at UC Berkeley, a majority of degrees are in CS/EECS? I don’t know what DS is.
US News reports a much more even distribution among the top 10 majors:
I’m probably misunderstanding what you meant.
6 Likes
And at some of the T50 private schools, 99 percent of classes are under 50 students. So there is quite a range between private and public schools with respect to this criteria. And I’m not suggesting one is better than the other, it just illustrates this is an apples to orange comparison, and ranking criteria will either favor one group or the other which shows the futility in grouping them together.
Presumably means data science.
College Navigator - University of California-Berkeley lists graduates by major for 2021-2022 at UCB. The data science major is probably “Computer and Information Sciences, Other”, while L&S CS is “Computer Science” and EECS is “Electrical and Electronics Engineering” despite most EECS students emphasizing CS. L&S CS (718) is the largest major listed, but economics (700) and molecular & cell biology (694) are close behind. Total bachelor’s degrees was 8,789 that year.
2 Likes
So if you add Computer and Information Sciences and Support Services and Engineering from US News’ list you get 26%. Yeah, that’s a pretty big chunk.
They specified EE, not all engineering majors.
Based on that data: Computer and Information Sciences and Support Services + Electrical and Electronics Engineering was about 19% of all undergrad degrees in 2021-22.
3 Likes
I see four recent news-worthy events that dovetail with the new USNWR rankings and how we might be thinking about them:
- The SCOTUS ruling against affirmative action and the re-examining of legacy and other admission preferences;
- The Chetty research which explored the ways wealthy kids are advantaged in admissions (see link: Study of Elite College Admissions Data Suggests Being Very Rich Is Its Own Qualification - The New York Times);
- The recent reporting regarding the value of a college degree and the fact that many Americans have lost faith in higher ed (interesting Daily podcast from 9/20: Is College Worth It? - The New York Times);
- The recent NYT report regarding which colleges have a very high percentage of wealthy students and where lower-income kids are underrepresented (see article: Why Does Duke Have So Few Low-Income Students? - The New York Times).
I see some double-speak from college administrators, parents and reporters. First, we’re told that where one goes to college isn’t that important and we shouldn’t be pressuring our kids or becoming maniacally focused on T20 or Ivy+ schools. But then the Chetty study reveals that attending an elite college does matter—which is why we should be very mindful about spreading opportunities around (which we should be). We also hear that if we’re going to do away with affirmative action, we should also do away with legacy status (I agree), although the Chetty study also revealed that most legacy admits’ stats are at or above the average of all admitted students, so while legacies may get a boost in admissions, the bar isn’t being lowered. The same, however, can’t be said of athletes who, according to Chetty’s work, do get a boost in the form of a “lower bar” for admission in terms of grades/scores. Since many athletes are from wealthy families, maybe there should be a stronger push to demand that athletes meet the same criteria as other admitted students.
I applaud the idea that colleges be held accountable for making education available to students of all backgrounds and financial positions–which, I think, is what USNWR is trying to do. But the playing field will never be level; rich kids will always have an advantage in the form of better schools, tutors, club athletics, etc.
Ultimately, it’s buyer beware. No ranking is perfect, but it might encourage a student/family to look closely. With an overall 40% dropout rate (per Paul Tough’s research noted in The Daily podcast linked above), many students end up with a lot of debt and no degree or marketable skills. Rankings, however imperfect, may deter a young person from incurring debt to attend a sub-par college that doesn’t have a track record of providing academic rigor, critical thinking, writing and analytical skills—never mind the connections and internship opportunities—that can really put that student on a different life path.
7 Likes
Yep, I was just calculating it conservatively, and even with all engineering majors you don’t get near a majority.
3 Likes
Also, fine where our two landed. 
2 Likes
I think the assessment of teaching is an absolute joke. I’m not sure how administrators from other schools can accurately gauge the quality of teaching at another institution. The people best positioned to evaluate that are students - or maybe other professors at the same institution.
6 Likes
To those factors I would add the level of academic support available at the school.
4 Likes
As a nuance, the peer assessment is not a direct assessment of the quality of teaching, but more about the reputation for commitment to and focus on high-quality undergraduate teaching
“The rankings for Best Undergraduate Teaching (as part of the 2024 Best Colleges rankings), focus on schools whose faculty and administrators are committed to teaching undergraduate students in a high-quality manner. College presidents, provosts and admissions deans who participated in the annual U.S. News peer assessment survey were asked to nominate up to 15 schools in their Best Colleges ranking category that have strength in undergraduate teaching.”
If that peer assessment is “an absolute joke,” then so is the peer assessment of academic reputation that, at a 20% weighting, is one of the largest single components that underpins their overall “top colleges” rankings. (I’ll let y’all argue about that).
2 Likes