<p>I remember! So glad he is doing well at Tulane.</p>
<p>Don’t you all think it would be relevant to a kid’s college choice if Tulane only produced degrees for 70% of its starting undergrads after six years time? Relevant if Tulane lost 15-20% of its students between freshman and soph year? </p>
<p>I think so. In Tulane’s case, it is just that the data can be misleading because of a one time event.</p>
<p>Most of the information that gets used in the rankings is actually really valid, relevant, objective and useful. It is the exact same info used in the Common Data Set, which USNWR helped develop with the colleges. </p>
<p>But like anything, the stats and rankings can be misused or gamed. </p>
<p>Data is relevant. And certain data might be far more relevant to one student, while other data might be much more relevant to another. Trying to manipulate that data into a ranking and make it a “one size fits all” analysis is not useful. Honestly, you think it makes sense to compare Yeshiva University to Ohio State in a ranking table? Not to mention that USNWR uses unreliable “data” such as peer assessment very heavily.</p>
<p>Data and ranking are two very different things. And as you say, the data has to be understood. Not just in Tulane’s case, but in any school where the reason behind a particular statistic might be very important to a particular student. For example, suppose Tulane’s freshman retention was only 80%, and the reason for almost all of it was because of the distance from home and so people found themselves homesick to a far greater degree than at other schools. Now that is not the case (Tulane retained 93% last year), but I am just making a point. If a student knew themselves well enough to know that homesickness would not be an issue at all, they could ignore such a result. Rankings tend to obscure such analysis. </p>
<p>The reason why the schools finally agreed to provide uniform, consistent, transparent data was in response to the demands of the publishers. So if the publishers aren’t trying to sell magazines, the schools aren’t providing the data.</p>
<p>So the choices are no rankings/no data or rankings/data. Unfortunately no rankings/data isn’t an option. </p>
<p>As a parent/consumer, I think the market is better with rankings/data. I’m sure academics think exactly the opposite. </p>
<p>I agree the market is better with data. I don’t at all agree the market is better with rankings. I think the data would have developed anyway, College Board was pushing that way. No question USNWR was a convenient partner at the time.</p>