<p>Best quote in the NYT article by Brian Kelly, ''The difference between 1 and 10 is minuscule. Whether that's minuscule or not to a reader, that's up to them.''</p>
<p>It is interesting that today's Chicago Tribune had an article about U. Chicago's six spot rise. Turns out the U was not calculating its submitted information in the most favorable way. The U met with the USNWR folks to discuss things, and it was the USNWR folks who suggested changes. </p>
<p>
[quote]
"They concluded that we were misinterpreting some of their definitions," Behnke said.</p>
<p>In calculating the number of classes with fewer than 20 students, for example, university officials did not count the freshmen writing courses that have an average of eight students.</p>
<p>By including the writing classes, the percentage of classes under 20 increased to about 67 percent, from 60 percent, Behnke said.</p>
<p>"That was a 'duh' moment. Why aren't we including these all along?" Behnke said.</p>
<p>Officials also found a way to improve the alumni giving rank—the percentage of alumni who donate to the university—by excluding graduates who couldn't be located.</p>
<p>The university also improved its per-student spending calculation by relabeling $15 million in annual library expenditures that had been incorrectly filed under a category other than educational expenditures—information that also is submitted to the federal government. The additional per-student spending improved the university's position in the "financial resources" category.
<p>So, where exactly did the U of C administration go to school who miscalculated the information that U of C submitted to US News and World Report? </p>
<p>The insight is notable however, to what extent do the U's (in general, not just U of C and inclusive of the LAC's) really go to to doctor up their data? </p>
<p>Once your child is in a school does it really matter if the school is rated 6 or 12, 46 or 64? Those certainly are not the numbers I care about-- not that we cared about them much during the application process either.</p>
<p>And the only number US News and World Report really cares about-- its bottom line. That is why they go to the trouble of reconstructing what are meaninless differentiations in numbers year after year. I say, boycott it or certainly never buy it more than 1 year in 4!!</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And the only number US News and World Report really cares about-- its bottom line. That is why they go to the trouble of reconstructing what are meaninless differentiations in numbers year after year.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Who can blame them? USNWR created a cash cow when they started ranking colleges, and they are going to milk it for all it is worth. That's what private enterprise is all about.</p>
<p>The real concern I would have is, are the universities pandering to the rankings criteria in a way that does not serve students? I don't have an answer. Just wondering. As a Princeton parent, I can't blame the university for mentioning on its homepage today that it is on the top of the U.S. News rankings, but (even though the news release contains their customary disclaimer) there is something unseemly about that.</p>
<p>^^I agree. I can see a school crowing about moving up from 56 to 39 or maybe about moving into the top 20 or top 10 for the first time. But a number one school shouldn't have to remind anybody.</p>
<p>Well..DD's college is listed as number 2 for Master's programs in the West. BUT it doesn't even come up on the radar screen for undergrad. Truthfully I find the whole ranking thing ODD.</p>
<p>Thumper--my understanding is that the Master's Universities is a category of schools who are between LACs and research universities. Her school, undergrad and all, is second in the west, not just its master's programs.</p>
<p>Knowing U of C, they are now probably reporting somewhat correctly, they now have to catch up to those who have over many years learned how to creatively "define the rules" their way. :)</p>
<p>garland: These are indeed rankings for universities that do not typically grant Ph.D.'s. Their MA programs are not being ranked. They are simply evaluated in another category.</p>
<p>Yes, Barrons, readers of CC can count on the employees of Barnes and Noble or Borders to overlook the embargo warnings! Last year, we had your early confirmed leaks; this year it was Calidan and Chas815. :)</p>
<p>"Knowing U of C, they are now probably reporting somewhat correctly, they now have to catch up to those who have over many years learned how to creatively "define the rules" their way."</p>
<blockquote>
<p>my understanding is that the Master's Universities is a category of schools who are between LACs and research universities. Her school, undergrad and all, is second in the west, not just its master's programs.>></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Thank you for the explanation. It does seem a bit odd that they have this "middle" category. Plus, they really don't explain what it means very well...or did I just miss that for the last several years!!?? Plus....most folks look at the universities and the LACs. There are some terrific schools on that Masters list.</p>
<p>I used the master's list constantly, during both S' freshman and transfer decision-making. Not slaved to the rankings of course :eek:, but good fodder for ideas of Engineering programs to consider. Maybe I only looked at it because of the interest in Engineering, but I found the master's list a good source of smaller schools to consider.</p>
<p>I don't think of the middle category as "odd". Although this may be an oversimplification, I think of it as "Research Universities" (offer PhD's), LACs (undergraduate colleges, offer few or no advanced degrees), and "Universities at which the highest degree is a Masters" (self-explanatory?)</p>
<p>NMD, I was NOT implying Chicago had manipulated the system. Not at all. </p>
<p>If I believed--or suspected--Chicago had done this, I would have said so. For the record, I am very happy about Chicago's movement in the ranking, as I truly believe that the school did not focus extensively on the rankings in the past. On the other hand, I think that USNews has been gamed cynically by others!</p>
<p>PS My comment was supposed to read: they now have to catch up to those who have over many years learned how to creatively "define the rules" their way." ...or report false numbers!</p>