<p>I did not interpret xiggi's comment as aimed at Chicago, but at all the schools jostling for the best position.</p>
<p>The MA degree is the main focus in identifying the "other" schools; though, there are some, I believe, that offer a couple of doctorates. I have seen some publications make the distinction between National Universities and Regional Universities. Perhaps this would make more sense, but I can see arguments arising pertaining to this distinction as well.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>I don't think of the middle category as "odd". >></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I guess what I meant...it's too bad that these master's schools don't get the same "recognition" as the LACs and Universities. Look at post #2 for example...the LAC's and universities are listed...no mention of the great category of schools in between. Plus with the name US NEWS has given this group, I wonder how many others simply overlook it because they think it is ranking master's programs. <em>I</em> thought it was ranking master's programs and my kiddo will be attending the number 2 school in this category. I will tell you, however, the rankings didn't have one speck of influence on where either of my kids applied to college. They never knew the rankings or the selectivity of their colleges until well after they enrolled. Their decisions were based on what the schools had to offer them. BUT that is another whole thread!!</p>
<p>thumper1, I agree with you that many on that Master's list don't get the recognition they deserve. Historically, many of the schools in that category have been regional in their attraction, but there are many exceptions - Villanova (with a 4.2 peer assessment!), Ithaca and Emerson come to mind as examples of schools that draw a national pool, and yet may be overlooked by some due to their location in this category.</p>
<p>Some schools have migrated from the regional to the national lists. An example of this is the University of Richmond that relinquished its leading spot (No 1) among the Master's Universities for a spot among the LACs (before the 2006 rankings.) This year the school is ranked in the 34th position, just below Kenyon and Holy Cross.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Some schools have migrated from the regional to the national lists.>></p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>SO how do schools migrate from one category to the other???</p>
<p>According to last year's USNews, to be considered an LAC, a school must award at least half their degrees in the liberal arts to be included in the category. I guess that explains it.</p>
<p>I believe USNWR is just following the Carnegie classification:</p>
<p><a href="http://chronicle.com/stats/carnegie/%5B/url%5D">http://chronicle.com/stats/carnegie/</a></p>
<p>thanks, Xiggi.</p>
<p>I'll avoid an endless debate about what I thought you thought another readert understood your message in response to my message that interpreted your response to my response said. :)</p>
<p>NMD, I am glad we cleared that up. </p>
<p>Regarding Richmond, here's the explanation:</p>
<p>Is there a way to go back and look at the previous year's rankings so I can see how some of the Master's universities changed? I couldn't find a link.</p>
<p>The thing is this: Chicago is just as good of a school as it was last year; no better no worse. It shows how sensitive US News is to meaningless data.... do students care that $15M was filed under a certain column or not? </p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>Exactly, WOI. Exactly.</p>