<p>Many schools try to submit data to rankings groups in a way that make them look best, but USC is being accused of going too far in an article at Inside Higher Ed. And, CC is mentioned in the article as where this particular story began:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The problems with USC's submission come days after a Clemson University official disclosed the extent to which she said the university attempts to manipulate the system to improve its rankings, renewing the debate over whether the rankings system encourages and rewards gaming of the system as opposed to sound educational decisions.</p>
<p>Inside Higher Ed was first alerted to the possible problems in the USC figures by postings on the Web site College Confidential, where Sam Lee, a graduate student, suggested that something was wrong with the National Academy membership numbers. Lee noted that USC came out in the No. 7 spot even though its rankings in all of the engineering subfields were lower than that, and he noted that the area that favored USC was National Academy membership -- and suggested that problems with that calculation might be unfairly raising USC's score. So Inside Higher Ed contacted U.S. News to find out how many academy members USC had claimed (30), the definition U.S. News uses (full time, tenure track faculty member), and the person at USC who prepares the report.
<p>After reading the article, I sort of see both sides to this argument. Essentially they are arguing whether a faculty member must be full time tenure track in order “to count” in the Academy numbers submitted by USC. I recognize that significant CEO’s who are adjuncts do indeed play a huge role at any institution and add significantly to the school’s mission and experience for students. Its sort of splitting hairs. But yes, it does appear that USC was stretching the terminology a bit to enhance their reputation with USNWR. </p>
<p>It just goes to show you, that rankings are not really much of anything but another beauty pageant. And the extent to which some “contestants” will go to win it.</p>
<p>While they are at it, they should also investigate UC’s figures of percentage of incoming class in the top 10% for the undergrad rankings. UC Davis reports 95 percent, UCSB 96, and UC Irvine 96. By comparison Harvard reports 95 percent, Stanford 91 and Vanderbilt 80. (I am quoting harvardgator in this post: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062697228-post252.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1062697228-post252.html</a> Evidently, the figures are all estimates that UC Administrators make and are not based on hard data. Clearly they are rounding up significantly.</p>
<p>Also pretty disturbing to read the attached articles regarding the manipulation of numbers going on at Clemson U. I’m sure they aren’t alone in this practice either.</p>
<p>Evidently, the figures are all estimates that UC Administrators make and are not based on hard data. Clearly they are rounding up significantly.</p>
<p>harvardgator’s accusations weren’t based on "hard data’ either, and I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that “clearly” they are rounding up. In fact, harvardgator backtracked in post #260, now instead claiming that the mid tier UCs should be ranked lower because those top 10% rankings are skewed because they include students from low performing high schools (in essence confirming that those figures are actually accurate).</p>
<p>Not sure why this is a surprise. IMO, ANY school that fails to publish its common data set has to have something to hide. (And, USC does not make its cds public.)</p>
<p>I don’t have access to the current rankings, but I did in the past and I remember laughing out loud at the top 10% numbers at UC Riverside. You need a 3.0 and a pulse to get into the school… “Historically, UCR has accepted all students who qualify for admission to the UC system based on grade-point average and scores on college-entrance exams unlike the more selective campuses such as Berkeley, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Irvine. About 4,100 UC-eligible students who were not offered admission to their campus of choice were referred to UCR and UC Merced, the system’s newest campus.” Link: [UC</a> system fall '07 freshman admission numbers up | Riverside | PE.com | Southern California News | News for Inland Southern California](<a href=“http://www.pe.com/localnews/highereducation/stories/PE_News_Local_C_ucadmit06.3bbf195.html]UC”>http://www.pe.com/localnews/highereducation/stories/PE_News_Local_C_ucadmit06.3bbf195.html)</p>
<p>As I understand it, the numbers are not based on any sort of hard data, the top 10% numbers are simply “estimates” by administrators. There is a strong incentive for these administrators to simply make up really high numbers for top 10% in class, as there is no accountability whatsoever.</p>
<p>As I understand it, the numbers are not based on any sort of hard data, the top 10% numbers are simply “estimates” by administrators.</p>
<p>You have to keep in mind that the California Master Plan for Higher Education mandates that “UC [is] to select its freshmen students from the top one-eighth (12.5%) of the high school graduating class”. The admission standards are adjusted as to meet this goal. ELC was added guaranteeing that anyone from the top 4% of an individual high school (no matter how horrible it is) is also eligible for admission. Now, California has a huge population (and a huge number of crappy high schools) which can explain how 3.0 students can still be in the top 10%. </p>
<p>I don’t think those numbers are implausible. This is anecdotal, but I’m guessing schools like Harvard tend to draw from higher performing high schools where the student pool is much more competitive too.</p>
<p>Aren’t there top public high schools in CA that send far more than 12.5% of their class to UC’s? I’m looking this up and getting the impression that they want the top 12.5% of the state’s high school graduates, which may not be evenly distributed among high schools.</p>
<p>And even if everyone was in the top 12.5% by class rank, how do you get 95%+ of your class in the top 10%? It’s mathematically possible, but sounds unlikely and you definitely wouldn’t expect (estimate) it.</p>
<p>It’s top 12.5% of all high school students, and/or top 4% of each individual high school. Since the bottom of that amount would likely only be accepted to Riverside (and now Merced), perhaps the lower rung of students attend their local Cal State instead.</p>