<p>d:</p>
<p>Ah, so now we have the real story. Rankings aren't good because only those who haven't "grown up" find them useful. You know, when all is said and done, opposition to the US News rankings can usually be boiled down to the fact that those in opposition feel they're better than the rest of us. They're more intellectually capable. THEY are the ones who should be put in charge so that those of us who are less capable won't hurt ourselves.</p>
<p>Tarhunt, you have absolutely no sense of humor.</p>
<p>The rankings aren't good because they don't measure what they say they measure.</p>
<p>Read that second sentence carefully.</p>
<p>There is no joke in that sentence.</p>
<p>As long as the methodology is there and footnotes are present anybody can take the rankings and do what they want with them. Look at the Money Best Places to Live Rankings. They chose aspects and assigned weights. Those things might not be anything like the ones a particular individual would find important. After years of ranking they went interactive and allowed users to put in their own weighting to make their own ranking. If you do not like the USNEWS weights or factors, do not use them. Make up your own and sort. Sure there is a lot of data that are missing and much of that would be even more subjective and would cause heated arguments too.
The public loves ranking systems. All are imperfect---look at the BCS. The biggest problem is that many people fall into the trap of believing absolute numbers and weights and thinking you not only can discern in absolute quality a college that is number 1 versus 50 but also that it somehow matters in the long run to any particular individual.
Rather than taking the data set as a start,investigating and then finding the school that fits, often people seem to let some magazine writers tell them what they should do and how they should think. Nobody has to read the US News or agree with the approach--I think a lot of it is useless. But it sure seems influencial to people who want to or need to be guided. Like any other list or information source it can be misused.</p>
<p>dstark:</p>
<p>Doesn't really matter. The rankings measure exactly what they say they measure in the section on methodology. No more, no less. But only you are capable of protecting me and others from ourselves. We're not intellectually capable of interpreting these rankings in light of the methodology. We must look to you for guidance, because ... well ... we're just not as smart as you.</p>
<p>Right?</p>
<p>dstark,</p>
<p>If you don't think the rankings are good because they don't measure what they say they measure, then how can you possibly support anything related to PA where not only do they not measure what they say they measure, they don't even say what they measure..... (say that ten times quickly :) )</p>
<p>I'm not trying to protect you.</p>
<p>You can use the rankings any way you want.</p>
<p>Hawkette, I gave you an honest answer on why I like PA.</p>
<p>If you don't like it, don't use it.</p>
<p>dstark</p>
<p>Love the disclaimer!</p>
<p>yulsie</p>
<p>Actually, I like to think I'm sorta noble too!</p>
<p>tarhunt</p>
<p>I never said you were simple-minded. I said it is simple minded to use "top 10" lists to deal with complex questions.</p>
<p>hawkette</p>
<p>I don't personally think rankings ARE a good starting point. I think finding fit is a better one. But if other people want to use rankings, that's their business. What I don't like about the US News approach is that schools are feeling pressured to fit into their system or be dissed. And the reason colleges are feeling the pressure, imo, is the tendency so many people have to want lists and to believe they are the gospel. </p>
<p>Using fabricated data is just wrong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But that doesn't make the rankings accurate.
When did I say people don't want the rankings?
They do.
[/quote]
Even more of a problem is that those who most need college information (families with the first child approaching college age, the economically and educationally disadvantaged, etc.) may not recognize that the rankings are inaccurate one-size-fits-all nonsense. We even see it on CC all too often, some high school kids quoting only the ranking of schools, and not paying attention to what we all know are the important issues.</p>
<p>bethievt,
I said to use the DATA as the starting point, not the rankings. I completely agree with your idea of fit. Use the data to identify suspects-schools where you might have an interest and then get to work investigating if the school has the right characteristics for you. As for your frustrations with USNWR's methods, sorry, but that's business. If SLC or others don't want to play, that is their right, but that shouldn't preclude USNWR from trying to complete its work in a reasonable, consistent fashion. It's not always right and it's rarely perfect, but they have to make decisions about how to present their info and if they disclose what they are doing and how they are doing it, then I'm not sure what more we can ask.</p>
<p>Hey! Maybe some of these posters can gather up all the copies of USN and have a good old fashioned book burning. THAT would save the world!</p>
<p>I buy Tarhunt's view that if you don't realize that what you're looking at in USNews rankings is produced by some fairly arbitrary (but clearly disclosed) methodological decisions, then you're not an informed reader, and that's not USNews's problem.</p>
<p>But it doesn't stop there: USNWR rankings drive the enrollment decisions of thousands of students, influence college's standardized testing policies, shape fundraising campaigns, affect the admissions decisions on individual students, divert money in college budgets in ways that they otherwise would not be, drive FA policies, and more.</p>
<p>And finally, it looks like something other than some small-scale subversive action may be on the horizon. From today's inside highered:</p>
<p>I'll start a new thread in order not to splinter the thread any further, but it could get interesting.</p>
<p>But weren't we originally dealing with USNews making up data for SLC and not telling us how they concocted it? Isn't that the point that makes all other apologies for the rankings moot? They can rank all they want, they just shouldn't make up data and pass if off as true and/or accurate and not explain their bias in how they determined those fake figures.</p>
<p>Had it not been for SLC's president's op-ed piece, how many of you would have known USNews faked the data item?</p>
<p>it kinda reminds me of how with our state assessment test that will be required for all high school graduates to pass next year, they are encouraged to make up data on their essay, just as long as it sounds good.
just make it up as you go along</p>
<p>I guess they encouraging graduates to perhaps be spin doctors?</p>
<p>It doesn't matter what you are selling just as long as you sell it?</p>
<p>The whole point ( IMO) of US news, * is * that they tweak data every year.
They could easily print an issue every 5 years, that would be as accurate, because things just don't change that quickly, even with public schools that don't have as much endowments to work with.</p>
<p>omg when do the rankings come out ???????!!!!!!</p>
<p>But because it is printed every year, they pretty much have to tweak data so that it is highly anticpated in some quarters what rankings will look like
even among CC regulars who should know better.</p>
<p>What I would really like- is for colleges to be upfront about their admit rates- upfront about how many people they take off wait lists & be honest with them selves about how much time and effort they spend encouraging students to apply.
All the Ivies essentially visit my Ds public west coast school, and a few even make regular phone calls encouraging counselors to remind students to apply.</p>
<p>I appreciate that they are "reaching out", but on the other hand, when impressionable high school students are given a big spiel about the school, it makes it pretty difficult for parents who don't want their kids to have unrealistic ideas about chances, just because a school wants to increase applicant numbers</p>
<p>Usually any problems with data are noted in footnotes or an addendum. I believe US News does that.</p>
<p>That is not enough. A disclosure should be in the front and clearly stated, including which colleges are ranked with USNews-generated numbers. </p>
<p>Unfortunately what is needed is a class action lawsuit.</p>
<p>pd:</p>
<p>check out the discussion on IHE, and you'll note that USNews has not "faked" the data, yet. They plan to use the one SD decrement next year and were alerting SLC to that fact. They also told SLC that "the magazine would “seriously” consider other approaches..." Of course, those were not defined (and prolly would not be any more statistically valid than the one SD decrement).</p>
<p>Does anyone have any old USNews hardcopies laying around? It might be interesting to compare SLC's SAT scores 3-5 years ago (before SLC dropped the SAT) with their "peer" group. Perhaps they were lower (or higher) than the mean.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Had it not been for SLC's president's op-ed piece, how many of you would have known USNews faked the data item?
[/quote]
Well, Myers wasn't truthful, claims USNews. According to USNews, the idea is a proposal at this point in time. The head of their ranking division "said that Myers had left out “a key fact” from her op-ed in not saying that he had told her U.S. News was considering approaches besides just assigning the college a lower SAT average based on no real data."</p>
<p>SL is the only school that doesn't even look at SATs. The other SAT optional schools will review the scores if the student submits them. As long as a college collects scores from 50% of their students, USNews will count them in their ranking data.</p>
<p>SL in the 2000 USNWR Best Colleges: SAT range 1130-1340. Someone asked for this I can't remeber who.</p>
<p>I believe Myers, especially when you read USNews' reply to her saying they never told her that. They gave no clue as to what that other method might include. </p>
<p>Also, SLC hasn't used SATs in over three years so any stats USNews has used for the last three years can only be from the current senior class, if that. I don't think my daughter's class was the first one admitted under the "we toss 'em in the trash" doctrine and she's in her third year there. (BTW, hers were 1450)</p>