Peer Assesment Rank

College Search & Selection
121

<p>I've said this on other threads, but I'm going to say it again. Peer assessment has validity precisely because it comes into play in graduate school admissions. If a university is highly respected by its peers, it means that its students will also be highly respected.</p>

<p>I find it difficult to believe that many of the people on CC who value prestige so highly don't understand why prestige matters in rankings -- and that's exactly what PA is: a measure of prestige/reputation. My D got a summer research job at a national university after one year of college precisely because of the reputation of her LAC. The professor was impressed (of course, it helped that the knowledge gained in that one year was also impressive, but that came out in the interview itself, not in the decision to interview her.) This is the kind of thing PA is intended to measure. Whether it does or not, I can't say.</p>

<p>Being an academic myself, I'd say that the USNWR rankings have done education a terrible disservice by reducing it to numbers. I like the PA not only because I think it is an important part of assessing the effectiveness of a college (although it is definitely flawed), but because it tempers purely quantitative measures. High SAT scores, for example, cannot reflect the kind of education students actually receive at a university; it only reflects the pre-students, what they are before they arrive. It's the graduates that really count -- and that's what PA hopes to measure. If a high school student enters a college with triple 800s, he may not yet know how to college-level essay or how to get beyond the obvious in research. High school teachers don't challenge their students the way college professors should -- and the level of challenge a student faces is an important gauge of the type of school he attends. Much of what a university accomplishes is immeasurable, although it is still evident in the quality of its alumni.</p>

122

<p>Mom,</p>

<p>You make a good point about the potential value of PA. My problems with it, as currently derived by USNEWS are the question asked and who responds. It would be very valuable to have faculty members who are involved in graduate school admissions for their departments provide a PA ranking of undergraduate departments in their fields. </p>

<p>However USN gets opinions from college administrators, who may or may not be faculty members, about colleges as a whole. This lumps the engineers in with the renaissance poets, and the agricultural majors in with the economists. Even if one assumed that the people doing the ranking could possibly know anything about the academic quality in every department at the multiple colleges they rank (a doubtful proposition) collapsing all these individual assessments into one composite would obscure what little information might be conveyed by the exercise.</p>

<p>As for bias and collusion to give inappropriate ranks to some colleges, I'm with hoedown on this. Why in the world would a the people who respond waste their time on such an effort? What would be the point? They have better things to do.</p>

123

<p>The mission of universities is research. Teaching quality at undergrad level, peer assessment, etc are subjective and manipulable. The Center for Measuring University Performance at the U of Florida has used objective data to sort universities since 2000. This ranking is closest to an objective, reliable, and verifiable one I have come across. Please check it out and comment. Thanks.</p>

124

<p>You know what's funny? USNews believes that PA measures (at least partially) an institution's reputation among employers. Bob Morse recently gave a presentation to schools explaining why they think PA is important, and he said it measured intangibles that would matter in getting "that all-important first job." Now, he may be off his rocker completely on that. I don't know what USNews basis is for believing there is a connection between the PA score and the stature of a place among people who hire its undergraduates. But I throw it out there for the amusement/ponderings of the crowd.</p>

125

<p>Proving bias is a difficult thing to do, sort of like proving malice in media reporting. But we have seen the surveys that authenticate that 9 out of 10 in the media favor the Democrat/liberal positions on a wide variety of issues. So while it is difficult to legally prove media bias, the facts could very easily lead one to that conclusion. The same is true with Peer Assessment scoring. Consider the following examples where the PA winner posts a margin that appears very lopsided (and I would contend inappropriately so).</p>

<p>3.9 USC vs.
4.3 UCLA</p>

<p>3.8 W&M vs.
4.3 U Virginia</p>

<p>3.5 Wake Forest vs.
4.2 U North Carolina
4.5 Duke</p>

<p>3.9 Notre Dame or 3.6 Boston College vs.
4.5 U Michigan</p>

<p>3.7 Tufts vs.
4.4 Brown
4.5 U Penn
4.6 Cornell, Columbia</p>

<p>Talk to employers about any of these groupings of schools and I am pretty confident that you would find mostly comments that these schools are peers (or awfully close) in student quality, quality of teaching and the quality of the product that is coming out of these schools. </p>

<p>So why the large differences in PA scores??? Could it be a line of thinking that:
a) favors publics and their large research efforts over other universities that don’t have this research focus?
b) favors schools with large graduate programs over schools without that?
c) favors schools with high historical prestige, but whose statistical advantage TODAY across a variety of measurements has been narrowed, if not completely eliminated?
d) favors secular schools over institutions with a religious history (BYU is at 3.1)?
e) disfavors schools in the South vs the Northeast and other regions (Emory at 4.0, Vandebilt at 4.1, Rice at 4.1 vs virtually ALL of their non-Southern comps)?</p>

<p>I would argue that all of the above were part of the historical framework among academics and I don’t think much has changed in this respect even while the lower-rated schools themselves have changed and improved significantly. I know I can’t prove it any more than I can prove media bias, but where are the examples of these underrated (IMO) schools being promoted by the educational establishment as true peers to the historical powers? </p>

<p>Lest anyone misinterpret my comments as a slam to the higher-ranked schools named above, please don’t reach that conclusion. I have a high regard for every one of the schools named above. However, I see the PA as perpetuating a pecking order that is not reflective of what is happening at America’s colleges today. I could blame USNWR (and I do somewhat as I consider some of their weightings also perpetuate the status quo), but I believe that the largest share of bias (it may be honest opinion, but I think it lacks in current perspective) lies with those academics who are doing the voting. The elites and the status quo are protecting their own position and, frankly, from a business perspective, that is probably the right institutional approach. But it does not mean that is accurate and I would certainly argue that it does not serve the interests of students today looking for a college. And so I believe that the monopoly role that academics have in the USNWR Peer Assessment scoring must be shared with others-students, alumni, employers. The ultimate assessments may not differ much from the current results, but clearly this would be a much more fair and palatable conclusion than the current system. </p>

<p>ramaswami,
The mission of universities is NOT research. The mission of universities is to teach students. If they believe that they can more effectively do this through the performance of research, then that is their institutional prerogative. If you think research is why schools exist, then could you please explain Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown, not to mention nearly all of the LACs, to the readers? Furthermore, if the mission of a university is research, then what are all of these students doing there??</p>

126

<p>hawkette, sorry, you rightly pounced on my casual comment. The primary mission of research universities (Columbia, Harvard etc) is research. Teaching, even at grad level, is secondary to research. Teaching of grad students is often part of the research empire in that they work in the labs and produce research. At these places, the undergrads are an afterthought. Bulk of endowment goes to support the research activities and profs and depts compete for honors that come out of research, whether Nobels or citations ,etc. Brown, Princeton, etc are not the research univs. I was alluding to.</p>

<p>In all these posts re USNews people do not seem to separate the mission of these schools. If grad programs exist, forget going there for undergrad education .That is a broad statement and there are exceptions but by and large the LACs and the Dartmouths and Browns and Princetons are the place for a real education. And the precise rank does not matter. Within groupings of 10 or 15 they are more or less equal to close.</p>

127

<p>Hawkette,</p>

<p>You obviously disagree with the ranking the PA produces. But to claim bias, you would need evidence that the people who vote on PA agree with your ranking, but vote differently for strategic reasons. Why can't it simply be a difference of opinion?</p>

128

<p>ramaswami,
You insightful post above references the allocation of endowment dollars. I am looking to better understand the relationship between the ratio of undergrad to grad students and the financial commitments of a university to each of these groups of students. I believe that an institution's ability and willingness to commit resources to support undergraduate education can be an important determinant in the nature/quality of the undergraduate experience and this manifests itself in myriad ways-support services, career placement services, faculty hiring and the qualitative and quantitative impact of this, etc. Do you have any insight or guidance into how this resource allocation between undergrad/grad is done generally. I understand that law and graduate business school students don't require large amounts of money, but many of the science, engineering, and medical students almost certainly do. How much more and what does their presence mean in capital allocation decisions and how these get prioritized at most top universities?</p>

<p>afan,
It can be a difference of opinion. Bias is hard to prove and I understand that. Bias might also be the wrong expression as I don't think that the voters are colluding or conspiring. But my suspicion is that their perspectives are relatively lockstep and a bit of groupthink exists in academia which I consider unhealthy and out of touch. Introducing non-academic opinion would be a helpful step in either reinforcing/seconding the opinions of academics or introducing an alternative view that perhaps academics (and the public) would benefit from hearing.</p>

129

<p>


</p>

<p>Hoedown, this was my earlier post on the declaration of Robert Morse. The same statement is posted on his new blog. which I cannot link to since blogs are not considered --for good reasons-- acceptable source of information on this forum.</p>

<p>


</p>

130

<p>Hawkette, as an alum of Cornell and Michigan, I can say, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that to most employers, those two universities are peers. And we know that the vast majority of academe shares that sentiment. It isn't surprising really, considering the fact that Cornell was co-founded by a Michigan man and that 50% of Cornell presidents have been affiliated with Michigan.</p>

<p>As for your BC comparison, I don't get it. BC and Michigan have very little in common.</p>

131

<p>Alexandre,
I don't want to get into another argument about U Michigan and my point earlier was not to compare U Michigan to Cornell. I was comparing U Michigan to Notre Dame and Boston College. </p>

<p>My point was that there are many schools that have very similar student bodies and measure very closely on a variety of objective measures and which produce students of reasonably similar quality and yet their PA scores vary wildly. Look at the comparisons again and consider anew if these are truly reflective of the quality of the teaching going on at these universities. </p>

<p>3.9 USC vs.
4.3 UCLA</p>

<p>3.8 W&M vs.
4.3 U Virginia</p>

<p>3.5 Wake Forest vs.
4.2 U North Carolina
4.5 Duke</p>

<p>3.9 Notre Dame or 3.6 Boston College vs.
4.5 U Michigan</p>

<p>3.7 Tufts vs.
4.4 Brown
4.5 U Penn
4.6 Cornell, Columbia</p>

<p>Do you really think that USC, W&M, Wake Forest, ND/BC, and Tufts have such inferior faculty as compared to the institutions that I have paired them with? My personal view is that that would NOT be the view of students, alumni, employers associated with one side of the measurement (and perhaps even both sides).</p>

132

<p>Hawkette, I would love to see a corporate rating of undergraduate institutions. I am pretty certain that such a rating would very closely resemble the Peer Assessment score, thereby validating further.</p>

133

<p>I disagree. Michigan's peers are Columbia, Cornell, Northwestern and Penn.</p>

134

<p>For the colleges that I have listed above, I likewise am pretty certain that it would show the groupings of schools (and their students/graduates) to be of very, very similar quality. </p>

<p>I'm heartened to read that you have joined me as an advocate for faculty assessment by employers. I am confident that this would be a valuable addition the USNWR survey and would be of great value to prospective students as they do their college searches.</p>

<p>And Michigan's statistical peers, despite your greatest wishes, are not those you mention but rather schools like Boston College, NYU, UCLA, Georgia Tech, and Tulane.</p>

135

<p>Hawkette, do not cloud the issue. We are talking about reputation and academics on this thread. In that, Michigan and Notre Dame or BC have very little in common. I repeat, in the eyes of recruiters and academe, Michigan;s peers are Columbia, Cornell, Northwestern and Penn. I have yet to see any rating, either from academe or from industry, that proves otherwise. If you have such a rating, please share it with us.</p>

136

<p>Alexandre,
What you are doing with your consistent promotions of U Michigan is perfectly illustrative of the inadequacy of the Peer Assessment scoring. You know that I’m very prepared to answer you on the relative student quality, academic caliber, reputation, and undergraduate experience offered by U Michigan vs. these other schools. Frankly, it’s clearly not statistically comparable to the institutions you cite, but responding here would be taking this thread well off topic. So I suggest that we put aside your alma mater in hopes of a less fractious discussion.</p>

<p>Would you care to comment on the other examples that I have presented?</p>

137

<p>you guys ^^are getting your knickers in a twist trying to prove something that is SUBJECTIVE -i.e. reputation, can be proved or measured completely OBJECTIVELY, which it can't. suggest you give it a rest for a while.</p>

138

<p>Totals of students who have won any of these awards since 1986. Rhodes, Marshall, Truman, Goldwater, and Udall </p>

<p>Rank among all universities</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>K-State</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>MIT</li>
</ol>

<p>If you want to analyze further, correct for size of student body.</p>

<p>One might lump these all together as peers, or take any college within, say, 3 above or below as peers.</p>

<p>Pretty much seems to follow a more conventional impression of overall prestige. Most of the places Hawkette mentions are not on the top 10 list. Cornell is, Michigan is not. Also remarkably similar to the WSJ feeder school list. If you look at how many people get NSF fellowships for graduate study, the list looks similar. </p>

<p>None of this tells anyone what is the best college for them, and these lists tend to follow the number (not percent) of top students who enter the college, rather than the unique effects of the college itself. However, if you must have rankings, these are based on outcomes rather than inputs.</p>

139

<p>Oh, and are Wake, UNC and Duke peers? I have no idea. I have no relevant data, and I don't really care. In overall prestige, I would put Duke clearly higher than the other 2, for no clear reason. Whether the education is actually better, again, no idea. I've never been to Wake, have had professional visits to UNC and Duke, but have not dealt with the undergrad institutions at all.</p>

140

<p>afan, do you have a larger list with backup data?</p>

<p>this is very interesting.</p>