<p>I understand the feelings behind the calls by several people to reveal the identities and votes of people who responded. However, I don't believe this is a practical request.</p>
<p>I believe that two things would happen. First, there would be a further drop in the response rate. You'd be surprised the role that promised anonymity has in increasing subject cooperation in survey research--that's true even when the questions and responses don't seem "sensitive" to the average person.</p>
<p>Second, you might find less "honesty" in the rankings (rather than more), with an upward bias in rankings.</p>
<p>Spend an hour talking to students at UNC/Michigan/UCLA/Wisconsin and then spend an hour talking to students at Rice/Georgetown/W&M and tell me which is more impressive. There are literally thousand of kids at the former that wouldnt have a dream of getting into the latter. Thats whats wrong with PA. It doesnt capture this discrepancy at all.</p>
<p>In contrast to those who seem to feel that there are two types of categories used in the USNews rankings, I would suggest that there's actually three discrete types of data used.</p>
<ol>
<li> Peer assessment, i.e. the subjective reputation for academic excellence as measured by a poll.</li>
<li> Objectively quantifiable data with a questionable relationship to actual quality (alumni giving and other financial data, class size, graduation rates, etc.)</li>
<li> Objective data which directly reflects the market's assessment of the fair market value of four years in college at the various different schools, measured not in dollars but by the "marketplace" of matriculation decisions - i.e., the average academic quality of the students who choose to enroll in a given school.</li>
</ol>
<p>In my opinion, the most valid is the last. As long as you understand that the value of the "investment decision" students make in choosing a college to attend is directly related to the value of each student's academic capital - i.e., high school grades and standardized test scores - it's a pretty simple matter to calculate the average "value" assigned to a given school by the marketplace. Granted, it requires standardization of disparate GPA formulas, and a balance between grades and test scores must be struck, but in the long run, aren't the rest of the factors just a roundabout way to try to measure that which can be measured directly? If you're not going to rely just on that factor any assignment of percentages of an overall formula to the rest is inherently arbitrary in any event.</p>
<p>barrons,
As post # 66 points out, the football coaches have to disclose their votes. That's a pretty competitive group and yet they accepted this. Why not colleges? </p>
<p>It would help to know who is voting, but I think that hoedown is right that it would probably raise the overall grading level. But is that such a bad thing? And wouldn't this also help to stamp out some of the suspected regional biases that might exist? To me, it's sort of like public disclosure of contributions to political campaigns. Put the information on the internet and let everyone see it. Transparency is probably the best route for a measurement that is so debated and questioned.</p>
<p>I am sure you have talked with all the students at all those schools doctorb. As large publics all those schools serve broader populations of students. That is why they were founded. You certainly are far more likely to be working for a graduate of UCLA, UW, UNC, Wisconsin than one from Rice, Gtown or W & M. I'm certain he/she would LOVE to hear your opinion.
Until very recently two of Houston's (Rice hometown) largest companies were headed by Wisconsin alums. Wonder how many Rice grads they had working for them??</p>
<p>I think the coaches were stupid to do that. Now they have to put up with all sorts of hate mail and how has it improved or changed the process? Academics don't want to put up with that crap nor should they. I think people tend to be MORE honest when they can express their opinion in private.</p>
<p>barrons,
Corporate CEOs is a poor gauge to use in comparing schools. In checking several of Wisconsin's top employers, I see the following schools for the several of the top CEOs/Presidents: Johnson Controls (Carnegie Mellon), Manpower (Marquette), Kohls (U Missouri), SC Johnson (Cornell), GE Healthcare (Geneva College) and American Family (Wartburg College). U Wisconsin-Milwaukee had 2 CEO positions at Northwestern Mutual and Harley Davidson. U Wisconsin-Madison, the flagship, had one at Rockwell Automation. </p>
<p>None of this means anything except that these men (all men!!) have had good business careers and have reached the top spots at their companies. It says very little about their colleges except that perhaps they didn't get screwed up from not attending a more prestigious school....like U Wisconsin-Madison.</p>
<p>BArrons- That is typical illogic that job=college ergo better job=better college. Under this logic we should have quit school completely ie Bill Gates. </p>
<p>Answer me this; you are going in for heart surgery. One surgeon was educated at Georgetown/W&M/Rice et al. The other was educated at Wisconsin/UCLA/UNC. </p>
<p>^^ well since one was educated at georgetown/W&M/Rice AND others, and the other was only educated at three schools (Wisconsin/UCLA/UNC) i'd pick the first one....</p>
<p>Hawkette, the Coaches votes are very partisan. Each coach MUST vote for teams within their conference. Not to do so would be professional suicide. If anything, the Coaches poll is a perfect example of why any ranking poll should remain anonymous.</p>
<p>Doctorb, how can you assume that students at Rice or Georgetown are more interesting than students at UCLA or Michigan? That's quite possibly the most sweeping generalization I have read in quite some time.</p>
<p>""Moravian College, founded in 1742, one of America's oldest and most respected liberal arts colleges, feels the use of this highly subjective and highly manipulated instrument undermines the college selection process"</p>
<p>Of course Thomforde is going to say that. His college competes with Lehigh, Lafayette, and Muhlenberg -- all ranked much higher and rightfully so.</p>
<p>BTW, college presidents uniformly despite the USNWR rankings -- and say so openly. However, they acknowledge that there's little they can do about them. I really don't think the boycott of some of the LACs is going to do anything to change the system.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hawkette, the Coaches votes are very partisan. Each coach MUST vote for teams within their conference. Not to do so would be professional suicide. If anything, the Coaches poll is a perfect example of why any ranking poll should remain anonymous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alex, totally beg to differ. It's all too obvious what would happen if the Coach's vote became anonymous:</p>
<p>1) Every Coach would give themselves a no. 1 vote (regardless of how their season is going - i mean why not? its the classic "prisoner's dilemma", everyone else will so you might as well)
2) Every Coach would fill out the remaining spots with lesser teams (i.e. negating any potential worthy competitors by gifting them a high rank)
3) This would turn into a situation where there are 25 people in a room, and each person votes for themselves to be no. 1</p>
<p>It would be a non-starter.</p>
<p>I argue the complete opposite. That TRANSPARENCY forces you to keep it honest. In other words, you are arguing that what happens now is that every Big 10 Coach votes exclusively for other Big 10 Teams regardless of where they are ranked -- but that's not what happens. The open system keeps other Coach's honest to the extent that in any given year, if they are worthy of a title shot, they can (should) count on other Coach's from other conferences recognizing this legitimacy (if the other Coach's didn't they'd run the risk of getting shafted in future years that they might be in contention) -- i.e. NOT to do so would be suicide and you'd risk becoming ostracized from the football community. You'd have to justify an unorthodox ranking.</p>
<p>This is not to say, HOWEVER, that if its a CLOSE CALL that Coaches won't vote with their interests in mind. They absolutely will. This is the problem (or inherent bias) as I pointed out earlier. Which is why a subjective ranking just isn't that relevant. The Football polls should be kept to the media experts (anyone with an arm's length distance from any given institution) at a minimum... and even then you'd have regional biases. Similarly, the Peer Assessment is inherently flawed, and should be removed.</p>
<p>There is nothing to suggest that secret voting is better than transparency, not for the Coach's poll and certainly not for the Peer Assessment.</p>
<p>The NRC (National Research Council) uses virtually the same system to evaluate all graduate depts and it is considered by most to be the gold standard evaluation. Are you saying the members of the NRC are stupid?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The NRC (National Research Council) uses virtually the same system to evaluate all graduate depts and it is considered by most to be the gold standard evaluation. Are you saying the members of the NRC are stupid?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1) Who called anyone "stupid"? Did I? I challenge you to find a post where I've said that. I've said that there are biases. I've claimed that there may be manipulation. I've claimed that there are ulterior motives at play, but never have I called anyone ranking the colleges stupid.
2) "Virtually the same" is it or is it not? Are the findings, rankings public or not? Are the methodologies the same or aren't they? Is it a more transparent system or is it the same?
3) The NRC is a NONPROFIT organization. The USNWR is a business publication FOR PROFIT. So if people don't trust USNWR to do what is "in the interest of the general public" or merely publishing a "ranking for rankings sake" over "clear and present business interests" I think this is a justifiable concern. Frankly any similarities between the NRC rankings and USNWR rankings begin and end right there.</p>
<p>The methodology is public, the rankings are public but the rankers are not. The methodology is essentially the same except faculty are used to evaluate the departments they represent. The method is a survey form with a five point scale as also used by US News. I'll leave it to you to research the rest.</p>
<p>The short answer is both organizations use a survey of peers to rate academic units. The surveys are kept confidential. It really is not very important if the organization is for profit or not. Both use their reputation and good name to add weight to the results. US News has much to lose if they are biased as does the NRC.
Why are you capitalizing "for profit"--is that indicating profit is some nefarious concept??</p>
<p>Your fascination with unfounded conspiracy theories is amusing.</p>