<p>News:</a> How Ph.D. Programs Will Be Judged - Inside Higher Ed</p>
<p>The fact that the data is 3 years old is of some serious concern to me, but an interesting conversation nonetheless.</p>
<p>For all the talk about NRC and when the new rankings are coming out, this got no replies? I’m surprised.</p>
<p>I’m sure there’ll be a mass of conversation once it’s actually out.</p>
<p>If they released the exact formula I’m sure someone on CC will chug the numbers.</p>
<p>Good! I’ve been waiting for updated numbers…</p>
<p>I like the fact that they’ve moved away from peer assessments. I always thought that makes rankings too vulnerable to halo effects. I’m not too concerned about the 3 year lag (though I’d be more so if I were applying for admission.) I like the idea of tiers/bands rather than single-point rankings.</p>
<p>If they are issuing a single composite score, then I don’t like the idea of including demographic features such as race/gender diversity in the score. These may be very important to a student’s experience; however, in my opinion they should be kept separate from the academic quality factors. But it sounds like those factors will be broken down into sub-scores too.</p>
<p>It’s out!!! Let the ranking battle begin!!!</p>
<p>([Graduate</a> School Rankings — PhDs.org Graduate School Guide](<a href=“http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings]Graduate”>http://graduate-school.phds.org/rankings))</p>
<p>^^^That’s not the NRC!</p>
<p>^ Yes, it is.
[NRC</a> Rankings Not Even Wrong](<a href=“NRC Rankings | Not Even Wrong”>NRC Rankings | Not Even Wrong)</p>