<p>interesting... very close to my "hybrid" rankings posted earlier which combined the average USNWR Ranking, WSJ Feeder Ranking, Revealed Preference and NMSC per capita Ranking:</p>
<p>(my ranking had the top publics in the following order: UVA, UCB, Mich)</p>
<p>Do I need to pay to see the PAs? I'd like to see the liberal arts ones.</p>
<p>get a copy of the US News magazine with the rankings in them</p>
<p>I know the rankings, but online I can't see stats.</p>
<p>in the magazine they have the PAs</p>
<p>Williams College (MA) 4.7
Amherst College (MA) 4.7
Swarthmore College (PA) 4.6
Wellesley College (MA) 4.5
Carleton College (MN) 4.4
Wesleyan University (CT) 4.3
Smith College (MA) 4.3
Pomona College (CA) 4.3
Middlebury College (VT) 4.3
Bowdoin College (ME) 4.3
Oberlin College (OH) 4.2
Haverford College (PA) 4.2
Grinnell College (IA) 4.2
Bryn Mawr College (PA) 4.2
Vassar College (NY) 4.1
Harvey Mudd College (CA) 4.1
Davidson College (NC) 4.1
Mount Holyoke College (MA) 4
Macalester College (MN) 4
Colgate University (NY) 4
Colby College (ME) 4
Claremont McKenna College (CA) 4
Bates College (ME) 4
Reed College (OR) 10 3.9
Barnard College (NY) 3.9
Washington and Lee University (VA) 3.8
Bucknell University (PA) 3.8
Trinity College (CT) 3.7
Occidental College (CA) 3.7
Kenyon College (OH) 3.7
Hamilton College (NY) 3.7
Colorado College 3.7
Sewanee—University of the South (TN) 3.6
Scripps College (CA) 3.6
College of the Holy Cross (MA) 3.6
University of Richmond (VA) 3.5
St. Olaf College (MN) 3.5
Sarah Lawrence College (NY) 3.5
Rhodes College (TN) 3.5
Pitzer College (CA) 3.5
Franklin and Marshall College (PA) 3.5
Earlham College (IN) 3.5
Connecticut College 3.5
Skidmore College (NY) 3.4
Lafayette College (PA) 3.4
Furman University (SC) 3.4
Dickinson College (PA) 3.4
DePauw University (IN) 3.4
Denison University (OH) 3.4
Bard College (NY) 3.4
Whitman College (WA) 3.3
Wheaton College (MA) 3.3
Union College (NY) 3.3
Spelman College (GA) 3.3
Kalamazoo College (MI) 3.3
Gettysburg College (PA) 3.3
College of Wooster (OH) 3.3
Centre College (KY) 3.3
Wabash College (IN) 3.2
St. Lawrence University (NY) 3.2
Lewis and Clark College (OR) 3.2
Lawrence University (WI) 3.2
Beloit College (WI) 3.2
Willamette University (OR) 3.1
Hobart and William Smith Col. (NY) 3.1
Hendrix College (AR) 3.1
Agnes Scott College (GA) 3.1
Wheaton College (IL) 3
University of Puget Sound (WA) 3
St. John's University (MN) 3
Southwestern University (TX) 3
Mills College (CA) 3
Knox College (IL) 3
Gustavus Adolphus College (MN) 3
Goucher College (MD) 3
Drew University (NJ) 3
Bennington College (VT) 3
Allegheny College (PA) 3
Wofford College (SC) 2.9
Ursinus College (PA) 2.9
St. Mary's College of Maryland * 2.9
Ohio Wesleyan University 2.9
Millsaps College (MS) 2.9
Lake Forest College (IL) 2.9
Illinois Wesleyan University 2.9
Hope College (MI) 2.9
Hampshire College (MA) 2.9
Birmingham - Southern College (AL) 2.9
Austin College (TX) 2.9
Washington and Jefferson Col. (PA) 2.8
Virginia Military Institute * 2.8
Sweet Briar College (VA) 2.8
Randolph - Macon Woman's College (VA) 2.8
Randolph - Macon College (VA) 2.8
New College of Florida * 2.8
Luther College (IA) 2.8
Hampden - Sydney College (VA) 2.8
Albion College (MI) 2.8
Susquehanna University (PA) 2.7
Muhlenberg College (PA) 2.7
Hollins University (VA) 2.7
College of St. Benedict (MN) 2.7
Coe College (IA) 2.7
Augustana College (IL) 2.7
Transylvania University (KY) 2.6
Hanover College (IN) 2.6
Westmont College (CA) 2.5
Juniata College (PA) 2.5
Thomas Aquinas College (CA) 2.4
Principia College (IL) 2.1</p>
<p>Maybe that's why Bard is so low on the list. They don't really produce much research, and it seems like it's reflected in their PA. I wonder where they would be listed if it hadn't been factored in.</p>
<p>The PA is also a garbage number when talking about undergrad...</p>
<p>To me, it's garbage in general. The very fact that there are people out there not giving a school like Harvard a score of 5 makes me skeptical about the system.</p>
<p>What happens to the LAC list above without the PAs? Like Xiggi, I am surprised at some of the colleges that get such high assessments.</p>
<p>Just summarizing a few thoughts, borrowing from comments earlier in the thread which I see presented all the time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not only is the response rate low, but why should I care what the president of the University of Utah thinks about the relative merits of Dartmouth vs Brown?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not when only about half respond. Peer Assessment is biased, because undoubtedly these administrators, deans, presidents are also very familiar with the grad programs. This is why ORC is interesting. It shows that UVA is truly the best public for undergrad (which I believe).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I hear this argument a lot. "The President of ___ University doesn't know anything about ___ University" or "The President of ___ University rates this university highly only because of grad schools...he doesn't realize we're talking about undergrad." What I find funny is how posters who have either spent a measly few years in college, or even still in high school, think they are more qualified to rank colleges than people who have many more degrees, many more years of experience, and work in the business. It's their JOB to know about different colleges/universities. And yes, I think they are bright enough to tell that US News is asking for undergrad rankings since this is an undergrad ranking (there are separate grad rankings). If high school students can tell that US News refers to undergrad, then surely university presidents can tell the difference between undergrad and grad. They aren't THAT stupid.</p>
<p>Another related argument I hear: "Maybe Berkeley or Michigan used to be good, but now other schools are getting better, like WUSTL, and these college presidents just don't know about it. They're stuck in the past." Well, how would you know the current situation of WUSTL better than a university president? Come on, let's admit it. Most of us don't know very much about WUSTL at all, or other schools. Besides our own colleges, we don't know very much about other colleges. The university presidents read about other colleges in journals, read about their programs, visit other colleges, look at their stats, etc. I'd take their opinions on colleges over ours.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you aren't going to use numbers than what are you going to use? Numbers don't lie, people lie and are biased
[/quote]
[quote]
I just think you can't use someone's opinion in a mathematical formula, since there is nothing to judge it against. Opinions are not objective data, and so I think that they shouldn't be used in national rankings because there is the chance that they are biased.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is exactly the danger in thinking that PA = opinion and are not valid, while numbers = objective and are valid. See, the problem is, the numbers ARE opinions. For example, alumni donations, a criterion which we call "numbers." Do alumni donations REALLY make a college better? Wait, yields are numbers. Harvard has 81% yield, MIT/Stanford/Yale/Princeton have 65-70% yield. Why aren't these numbers included? Because it is the OPINION of US News that alumni donations are a good measure of what makes a good college and yield is not a good measure of what makes a good college. Do selectivity ratings, made up of solid numbers like % admitted, SAT scores, etc., make a good college? Again, it is the OPINION of US News that higher the SAT Scores and lower the admit rate, the better a college is. I don't always agree with that.</p>
<p>Let's look at an example. I just created a college where I had 20 of my friends apply, and rejected 19 and accepted 1. The one friend I accepted has 2400 SATs, and 4.0 GPA. My college's selectivity rating would shoot through the roof. Average GPA 4.0, 50% SAT = 2400, acceptance rate of 5%, easily beats every single other college out there. But that doesn't make my college a good college.</p>
<p>A more realistic example: let's take Harvard as an example. It could easily go to many mediocre high schools and take all the 4.0 GPA students. The average GPA would go up, but does it yield a stronger student body? Most would say no. What about SAT scores? Would the student body be stronger if it were only composed of 2400 scorers? And is Harvard just being stupid for rejecting many 2400 scorers? Probably not. Numbers don't tell the whole story.</p>
<p>Another problem with relying only on numbers: there are many factors that either can be measured but are never used in rankings, or are difficult/impossible to measure. Many posters on this thread seem to think that PA "overrates" publics and that schools like Berkeley and Michigan, should be ranked lower. Well, let's think of the advantages of attending such universities:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Many, many majors from which to choose, certainly more than many smaller private schools. That's a great thing for college students. Yet, how is this measured? This never shows up in rankings. It's one of the advantages to attend a large public school, yet when it comes to rankings, they only measure things like selectivity, which are obviously biased against large schools.</p></li>
<li><p>Let's say I attended UCLA and want to find a job in California. There are many many UCLA alumni and surely it wouldn't be too difficult to find a few who are willing to give me a job. Now let's say I attended CalTech. Well...it graduates what, 200 students a year? Much tougher search for alumni connections. This is pretty darn important for getting job interviews and a good job, yet...it can't be measured with numbers. Now I admit some top private schools have great networking (like Harvard, but even so, it's still much easier to find a Berkeley graduate who has positions you want in a close area), but for those small private schools that don't, this is a great advantage to those public-goers. Again, it goes unnoticed and unaccounted for in rankings.</p></li>
<li><p>Faculty: if you were in upper-division, majoring in something like...neuroscience, you would probably want a professor who is very knowledgeable in the field, or perhaps even won a (nobel) prize, over a new professor who just recently got his PhD, and has only written a paper or two on the subject. Large publics with great research attract excellent faculty. Berkeley features professors who have done some amazing things. And yes, SOME professors care about research more than teaching, but MANY professors are very welcome towards undergrads. I've met a few, and hear of many more. Let's face it, there are bad professors everywhere. Even at Harvard, there are professors focused on research and don't care about undergrads. But wait...no numerical way to measure faculty quality.</p></li>
<li><p>Research: this does not just concern grad students. Many, many undergrads do research. It's very important for getting into med school, grad programs, etc. Wouldn't you rather attend a university where you can get involved in some important research? Look at this article:
<a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/15774546.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/15774546.htm</a>
Berkeley recently just discovered another element. Exciting, ground-breaking research are done at top publics all the time, and it's a boon for students, yes even undergrads.</p></li>
<li><p>Prestige: whether you like it or not, prestige does matter. A lot. Many top publics have a lot of prestige. Prestige helps in getting into a good grad school, or getting a good job. Ever heard of people who go to college just to get a degree? Sometimes a degree from a prestigious school is all you need to land a good first job. You attended Bowdoin? Want an interview? You're not going to get a chance to explain to your employer how it's very selective, it has a smaller environment which is what you prefer, that it was closer to home and your parents wanted you to go. Many unexperienced employers tend to go by prestige, and if they've never heard of Bowdoin, and decides to hire someone else from say, Penn State, well that's really too bad for you. Prestige does have its advantages.</p></li>
<li><p>More clubs, more people, more activities. Something most college students experience are...football games. It's an exciting activity, chanting with thousands of other students for the home team. But many small private schools don't even have football teams. More students also means more clubs/student groups. With a large school you can almost guarantee that you'll find people/groups you love. Harder to do at a small private school. But again, rankings look at more students and say "less selective = worse school."</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I could go on, but this post is getting long. The point is, US News only measure a few criteria and leaves out so many more, including many factors that are hard to measure. I believe PA takes a look at the bigger picture. The universitiy deans and presidents are asked to give an overall opinion of a university, and that can sometimes be even more accurate than a handful of numerical measurements. That's why someone on the first page thought it's strange that WUSTL can be ranked 6th while Berkeley is ranked 28th. That's why many people think Berkeley and Michigan and UCLA are great schools. It's because there is more to college than just raw numbers, and I think most of us instinctively realizes that. How many people actually believe the list on page 1 is an accurate ranking? How many people, given the choice and same money, would choose U Penn over Stanford? Or WUSTL over Columbia/Cal Tech? Or Lehigh University over Berkeley?</p>
<p>Yeah, peer assessment neeeds to be taken into consideration. I mean, as said before, can you really base the quality of a school solely off SAT scores, graduation rates, and yield? I agree that the opinions may sometimes be well-informed, but, could you suggest something better?</p>
<p>vicissitudes,</p>
<p>you make some very valid points in a well thought out post.</p>
<p>while i don't have the time (right now) to address every single point, i would, however, like to reply to your comments about the Peer Assessment rankings.</p>
<p>my comments echo similar points i made in another thread in a discussion i had with Alexandre (the link below):</p>
<p>to summarize some of the points i wanted to make (which i think are relevant to this discussion) i'll just cut and paste some of my own comments:</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think that anyone is questioning the level of intelligence (or resumes) of those who vote for the peer score.</p>
<p>I think a relevant analogy is the NCAA Football Coach's poll for the BCS Championship. Each coach puts in his vote, and this poll is a critical part of the BCS rankings (it isn't the entire BCS ranking, but it is a critical component, much like the peer score is a critical component in the USNWR ranking).</p>
<p>Now, there is an inherent bias in this poll. Coach's have their own agendas when they vote (whether it be to boost their own strength of schedules or boost their own conference members). That is why the OSU Football coach declined to vote in the past Coach's poll because he felt there was a direct "conflict of interest" (i.e. voting between Michigan vs. Florida). Further, one of the other criticisms of this poll is that no active D1-A head coach is going to find the time to watch and analyze every Top 25 team in the country --> in point of fact, they are rarely looking at anything but film on the upcoming opponent (e.g. Michigan's coach declined to comment on Florida's team because he just "hasn't seem them play") --> and yet, these Coach's are asked to rank the Top 25 every week.</p>
<p>The point? No one will argue that these Coach's understand the game inside and out, better than the average person will ever understand. Hundreds of hours of experience and film. But so what? That doesn't mean that these Coach's won't be affected by personal / professional bias --> they are rational people and will vote in a manner that best benefits them. Period.</p>
<p>So in much the same way, the folks who vote in the peer score will vote with their own personal bias. They can have a resume a mile long, but that doesn't give me any comfort on why their opinions matter on the relative merits of a Dartmouth vs. a University of Wisconsin.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
[quote]
Quote:
I'm not saying that I profess to know more about the quality of academic departments and faculty at Colby vs Bates, but it's not the people's jobs to know this either that USNWR is asking to evaluate these things, so this system is just pre-disposed to containing a lot of ignorance. To me, much of that peer assessment is heresay and prior reputation when it is no loner the reality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. And this is the fundamental problem I have with the peer assessment, it's not a knock against the intelligence or experience of those participating, simply speaking:</p>
<p>1) It's not their job to know the differences between hundreds colleges
2) Even if was their job, there would be an inherent bias anyway</p>
<p>Furthermore, I think another fundamental problem with the Peer Score is lack of transparency:</p>
<p>1) Who are the people actually voting? Why don't they disclose who they are, and more importantly,
2) How they voted?
3) i.e. Why don't they make these peer rankings public? i.e. who ranked them and how they ranked the colleges (i have a strong suspicion that if these votes/rankings were made public and each vote had their names attached to them - they would either decline to be involved or the outcome would be different)
4) Since there is no transparency, this is the ultimate "X" / "fudge" factor --> adding / subtracting a couple of 1/10ths of a decimal point here and there until you get the list you like (i.e. ensuring not only some variance year-over-year, but that you are effectively in control of that variance). Alex, as you say, it takes many years for schools to make substantial changes, which is why it makes absolute no sense that a school jumps (or declines) 10+ spots in any given year which has happened nearly every year this list has been published (there is a separate post on this very topic that I wrote).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>WBB to discuss...</p>
<p>Here's what I want to know: Reed is a very selective school, its peer assessment is high, why does its ranking seem "low?" Bad yield? Poor endowment? I would have thought it in the top 30.</p>
<p>because reed refuses to participate in the survery. USNews either uses the last reported data for the school (which is many years old) or leaves it blank and they get the minimum score that that component offers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So in much the same way, the folks who vote in the peer score will vote with their own personal bias. They can have a resume a mile long, but that doesn't give me any comfort on why their opinions matter on the relative merits of a Dartmouth vs. a University of Wisconsin.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Alright, but how are they personally biased? I suppose you could reason that someone who works at the University of Wisconsin may rate it higher simply because it knows its own university better / biased in favor of it, but unless the Peer Assessment is filled out predominantly by people who work at the University of Wisconsin and not people who work at Dartmouth, I don't see how personal bias would cause the PA to be skewed in favor of Wisconsin. Similarly, I don't see evidence or any reasons to believe that PA is mostly determined by staff at public schools, so I don't think "personal bias" is causing the PA to be biased in favor of public schools.</p>