Peer Assessment Free Rankings!

College Search & Selection
41

<p>"And Xiggi, your crusade against peer evaluation is just off base. The NRC uses a similar method to rank depts. for grad study. You have no proof that some obscure person is doing the ranking. Also perhaps some bias could happen but it will not be enough to move the rankings much since there are too many data points."</p>

<p>Off base? Haven't we be there before? Has this article lost its validity?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/usnwr.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.piercelaw.edu/tfield/usnwr.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>or this opinion

[quote]
But some critics say the formula should be changed, arguing it fails to account for many aspects of educational quality.</p>

<p>More administrators appear to be protesting the rankings by declining to grade other colleges; that accounts for 25 percent of a school's ranking. The response rate has fallen from 67 percent in 2002 to 57 percent this year.</p>

<p>"No one can know for sure what is going on at another institution," said Marty O'Connell, dean of admission at McDaniel College in Maryland, who refuses to grade other schools.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>As far as validity and integrity, I have written in the past that the best way to bring this discussion to a halt involves posting the surveys on a public board. Yes, let's see how schools such as Smith or Wellesley get their lofty assessments. Nah, that would NEVER happen because the cronyism would be exposed in all its magnitude.</p>

42

<p>I just think its tough for people to rip away from their old biases and stereotypes. We are always hearing (from this board no less) about how great Berkely and Michigan are and how they are on par with the Ivy League schools. By extracting the PA, we finally can see that their prominence within this board and on the US News can be attributed to the opinions of others. This is not right. On a 5.0 scale, Berkeley ranks a 4.8, while Tufts, Wake Forest, and Boston College are 3.5 and 3.6s. Why is this like this? I do believe that there is some severe bias as UCD, Purdue, Iowa, and Indiana rank higher than the trio I listed for UNDERGRADUATE school. This is just not right, hence I believe my rankings will free you. The PA will rot your mind, break away from these norms and free your minds!</p>

43

<p>xiggi, fascinating article.</p>

<p>Some great stuff in there:</p>

<p>"As the Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates noted in 1999, undergraduates at research universities, where a large majority of American students undertake their higher education, " ... are the second-class citizens who are allowed to pay taxes but are barred from voting, the guests at the banquet who pay their share of the tab, but are given the leftovers."</p>

<p>This is exactly why undergraduate focused institutions don't get the true credit that they deserve (places like Dartmouth, Brown, etc.) esp. with rankings like USNWR's.</p>

44

<p>And the President of Stanford had a different opinion--and he might just know a bit about quality higher education.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And how do you intend to prove that profs who don't do research are automatically better than those who do? Most are just weighed down with heavier teaching loads while profs at research schools are paid to do both and have relatively as much time to spend on classroom activities.</p>

<p>And ALL of the schools in the national group are considered research intensive.</p>

45

<p>No one is ever going to like the USNWR rankings, because everyone, no matter what college they attend, always thinks their school is ranked too low. Unless they go to Harvard or Princeton, whereas then the respective students are upset their school is tied with an inferior institution.</p>

46

<p>PA is probably the best indicator of school quality out of all the factors used though - even though they aren't objective, the opinions of those in the academic world are fairly important</p>

<p>However, its pretty interesting, what factors make Duke and Upenn so high up? Does that just mean their PA scores were much lower than HYPSM and higher than Columbia's and Dartmouth's?</p>

47

<p>Just a thought on the matter of opinion- look at this thread and the "opinions" expressed. (face it, most people here are not experts on college matters, most are 15 to 18 years old! LOL) Which "opinion" would you like to see in print, to be seen to many as gospel truth? Opinions! Beware!</p>

48

<p>PA is the best factor in judging the quality of a school? What about the quality of the students that attend? Shouldnt that count for something? You can have the greatest researchers in the world, but if the average student as a 2.8 HS GPA and SATs below 1100, what are these researchers going to do for them? With the exception of UVA, all top public schools are focused mainly on research, and nearly all (with the exception of UCB, UVA, W&M, and maybe Michigan) have lower student profiles than the private schools that are ranked about the same on USNWR. According to PA, Penn State undergraduate is more prestigious than Lehigh. However, I would venture to guess that every student at Lehigh could have gained acceptance to PSU had they wanted to. Why, then, did they choose to go to a school with a 3.2 PA as opposed to a 3.8? Maybe its because PSU has so many students, including many with very marginal high school stats (especially PA residents, some of whom can get in with under 3.0 GPAs), that the undergrad experience is severely diminished. I dont know about everyone else here, but I would certainly much prefer my undergrad classes to be with kids who actually care about learning, compared to kids who are at the school just because the parties are great and the football team is getting better recruits lately. This is not to say that many students at PSU dont care about their grades, because certainly many do, and many attend due to financial reasons and not due to lower performance in high school, but the fact remains that schools like Lehigh and Wake Forest, while being ranked far below PSU in terms of PA, have a higher graduation rate, smaller student-faculty ratios, and better undergraduate students on the whole. You cant have a good school without good students, this is why it is ridiculous to see schools like Indiana, with a 990 25th percentile for SATs, ranked above Tufts, with a 1330 (such a large difference cant be accounted for by the 'mix and match' SAT reporting techniques used by privates). By no means is the SAT the only indicator of a good school, but it should not be discounted. In conclusion, if PA really mattered, id be at Penn State right now (not to mention the fact that I turned down JHU to attend BC, no prestige involved there).</p>

49

<p>Hmm, after reading what cmets said...that is true, PA is very much geared towards scientific achievements by graduate schools and that sort of thing, rather than how selective and succesful the undergraduate student body is (judged by SATs, grad schools they go to, other such things)</p>

<p>Is PA really 25 percent of the ranking?</p>

50

<p>"who's better to judge the quality of a school than some of the most prominent, accomplished, and influential people in higher education?"</p>

<p>I'm laughing pretty hard.</p>

<p>As for Barrons, mmmm, he would have supported the peer assessment free ranking had it ranked UW-Madison higher. Unfortunately..................</p>

<p>What's surprising is that Alexandre hasn't jumped onto this topic.</p>

<p>Xiggi made some excellent posts by the way.</p>

51

<p>No, I would not. I think any ranking of colleges that ignores the faculty quality and prestige is ridiculous.</p>

<p>Why do you think UVA is spending so much on trying to hire more academic superstars and increase the research funding??</p>

<p>"Making a great research university</p>

<p>What does it take to make a great research
university?</p>

<p>That question was the first topic of the board’s Saturday morning session devoted to policy issues.</p>

<p>The discussion itself was part of a new component, introduced by rector Gordon F. Rainey Jr., that he hopes will help board members focus on key University policy issues and engage them in a lively discussion with University administrators. </p>

<p>Casteen kicked off deliberations on achieving greatness with an academic lecture on the history of research at U.Va., laying out the University’s founding principles. </p>

<p>He moved through its evolution from a predominantly teaching institution —“founded to be a center of original scholarship” — into a respected research university that has managed to preserve excellence in teaching as its core. </p>

<p>U.Va. currently is ranked No. 49 out of the top 100 universities in federally financed research and development expenditures, which Casteen said positions the University well for continued forward movement. </p>

<p>He pointed to Virginia 2020, the University’s long-range planning initiative and its ensuing reports, as critical in helping the University lay out its vision and begin to target specific areas for building excellence and establishing a reputation in science and technology. </p>

<p>As a result of that process, the University began to zero in on a handful of science and technology initiatives, including nanotechnology, morphogenesis and regenerative medicine, cancer, and information technology related to the humanities. </p>

<p>Gene Block, vice president and provost, said that to achieve success in any of these areas that the University immediately would need to address two overarching issues: research space and faculty numbers. </p>

<p>He noted that, according to SCHEV calculations, the University is at least 50 percent short of adequate lab space for its current operations. When compared with peer institutions, it is critically short of science faculty. </p>

<p>Board members jumped into the discussion, peppering Casteen, Sandridge and Block with questions regarding how to finance new science buildings and labs, increase research funding and attract top-ranked science faculty. </p>

<p>Board member Mark J. Kington said that Casteen’s opening comments hit on a number of issues he had not previously considered, the most important one being the history of North Carolina’s famed Research Triangle. When it was first envisioned, Casteen said, many thought it little more than a pipe dream. </p>

<p>“What we begin now will have an impact on society in 40 to 50 years,” Kington said, encouraging the group to think big, and to “at least dream the dream. Think about what we do as something that could guide the state — and the nation.”</p>

<p>The board also discussed research in its Educational Policy Committee meeting. </p>

<p>The National Institutes of Health fund nearly half of the University’s sponsored research, said Dr. Ariel Gomez, vice president for research and graduate studies. Therefore, it’s a good idea to see that U.Va. research areas match federal priorities.</p>

<p>“Fortunately for us, we have strengths in some of the areas of increasing importance, such as diabetes and infectious diseases,” said Gomez. Nanoscale science and technology, an area the University targeted for excellence in its recent Virginia 2020 plan, is also among top priorities of not only NIH but also the National Science Foundation. </p>

<p>Research on aging also is a hot topic on the horizon. Gomez said that NIH budget growth is slated to level off in coming years, while the NSF budget will increase. NSF’s 2004 budget will be just shy of $5.5 billion.</p>

52

<p>Having academic superstars is important, but this comes after having a quality undergrad education.</p>

53

<p>xiggi, ckmets13, thethoughtprocess, & wilmington - great points. </p>

<p>the PA is completely skewed. My advice is to write off this magazine ranking entirely. </p>

<p>P.S. message to USNews: why do you ignore the massive research that Tufts undertakes each year in medicine, social science, and diplomacy? Apparently the Guardian, the New England Journal of Medicine/American Journal of Medicine, and the Oxford Medical Handbook likes the programs, as well as Foreign Affairs Magazine ;) Just my little rant. oh well.</p>

54

<p>People, graduate program quality has a trickle down effect on undergrads</p>

<p>why?</p>

<p>because top-ranked graduate programs attract top graduate students. This means T/As of top ranked graduate programs are some of the best up and coming minds in those fields.</p>

<p>Now, perhaps at LACs where T/A's dont exist, one could argue that undergraduate quality is better because they're being taught by professors and only professors. This is not true of small publics like UVa and privates whom all have T/As teaching lower-level courses.</p>

55

<p>another point, when we are talking about undergrad education, we must eliminate any ranking that includes the University of California-San Francisco, as it is a graduate only institution. Seeing how it is ranked so high on the university of florida ranking, we realize that it is not a fair ranking of undergrad quality. </p>

<p>and TAs dont teach many intro classes at all at BC by the way</p>

56

<p>I agree Untitled but measuring that is difficult and is why US News tries to use numerous indicators besides just faculty reputations. I think UW places as much emphasis on undergrad as grad school and most profs teach at both levels. Actually grad school enrollment was cut in order to place more emphasis on undergrad. That effort has been enhanced over the last 10 years through a large number of programs including residential colleges, undergrad research programs, freshmen seminars, more advisors, new dorms, etc.</p>

57

<p>Well, I wonder why many of you jumped on PA but have no problem with other categories. 1. Financial resource rank: I was told money for med school research is included since research funding and expenditure are often reported as grand total (if that's true, UPenn/WashU are unfair winners here). 2. Isn't "predicted graduation rate" subjective? What about the category weight? Objective? Nope! If you guys are gonna toss out PA, maybe you want to forget about the WHOLE US News.</p>

58

<p>but for peer assessment, how is it possible that the person who is actually rating these schools is familiar with all 3000 (or so) schools???</p>

<p>and prestige is a terrible way to assess schools, because with the exception of a handful of schools, most people are only familiar with schools in their region. to the person above who compared W&M and Rochester- in my neck of the woods, very few have heard of W&M, let alone know that it is a quality institution, yet Rochester is generally percieved to be in the range of a Brandeis or NYU. </p>

<p>Would it really be possible to construct an OBJECTIVE and UNBIASED ranking??</p>

59

<p>I believe I have accomplished this huskem55. Its crude, but it gives you an idea of how much the rankings system is fueld by bias and how people cling to "reputation". </p>

<p>Sam Lee:
Your points are not valid. Basically what predicted graduation rate means is that the school was able to exceed expectations and work with the students and help some of them graduate that they didn't think would be able to. </p>

<p>Also I am quite disappointed that Alexandre hasn't hopped in this debate. I was particuarly keen to see his reaction to the plummet UMich endured in my rankings.</p>

60

<p>What you call bias many would call an estimate of quality of faculty and facilities. Maybe you can market your "rankings"--I'm sure US News is worried.
I'm glad you outed your own bias in doing the ranking. Sorry but most people will still believe UM>>>>>Wake Forest.</p>