<p>The following US News Rankings downright shock me (I'm just browsing through national universities here):</p>
<p>Brown at #15? I would have expected top ten.</p>
<p>Boston University at #60? I would have guessed more like #40. I mean, this is behind Miami.</p>
<p>Michigan State at #74? I would have guessed much lower. Like third tier.</p>
<p>American at #85? I would have guessed a bit higher. Perhaps at #60.</p>
<p>Drexel at #109? I thought 80s...</p>
<p>Northeastern at 115? What scares me even more is that just a couple years back, it was third tier.</p>
<p>Howard at #93? I somehow doubt that Howard beats out the University of Arizona, UMass-Amherst, Drexel, Florida State, Ohio University, and Northeastern.</p>
<p>I never said that I have done an extensive study on any of these schools. I'm just saying that these rankings surprise me is all. I'm not trying to reverse them; this isn't an appeal to USnews.com or anything. Just simply a declaration of "Wow. Everything I've ever heard about colleges is 100% wrong!"</p>
<p>Sorry for my tone. I apologize.
I guess I'm getting increasingly annoyed with the obsession with rankings rather than actual dialogue on evaluating college environments and finding the best fits for indivual applicants.
The rankings are a useful ROUGH, VERY ROUGH guide for identifying schools of suitable selectivity... but beyond that, it amazes me how much stock students put into the actual numerical ranking, as if it was determined in some rigorous, scientific way... really, the editors of USNWR just pulled the formula out of their azzes... really.</p>
<p>not only schools being ranked too low, but many schools are ranked WAY too high. there are many many publications that rank schools, but for some reason USNews is often seen as the gospel.
which is exactly why that these rankings should be taken with a grain of salt...or two.</p>
<p>Well, for the most part, I think that USNews' rankings do seem to reflect academic prestige and undergraduate experience. There is no other ranking that attempts to take such a holistic approach--academics, selectivity and resources. Sure, a few schools are slightly over/under-ranked, but nobody is going to argue that HYP are the three best undergraduate schools, that HYPSM are in the top 5-6, that Chicago, Northwestern, Penn, Columbia, Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell are in the top 15, etc...</p>
<p>US News rankings are questionable. 25% of the score is based on "peer reputation," which is a highly suspicious criterion and very difficult to quantify. Financial resources (10%) in practicality has little to do with the quality of the education and lacks consistency. Graduation rate (16%) is also a questionable factor. Over 50% of the ranking comes from these three factors alone, none of which is really a valid criterion.</p>
<p>Um.. peer reputation is not a suspicious criterion at all. Reputation among other schools is VERY similar to recruiter reputation once one does the research and you CANNOT tell me recruiter/firm reputation does not matter. </p>
<p>I'm sorry but you really have no idea what you are talking about. You REALLY think financial resources has nothing to do with quality of education? Do you know why Harvard has more endowment than P + Y? If I made a rankings system based on ENDOWMENT alone, it would look very similar to the Usnews rankings. How exactly does it last consistency? Very few colleges have a big change in endowment over the years. </p>
<p>Seriously I disagree with everything you say and I REALLY hope you re-evaluate your biased/nebulous reasoning.</p>
<p>and your point is??? So I went to Harvard for undergrad and Berkeley for my PhD... great schools, no doubt... but I think they are no better than another 25 or so schools. For my PhD, I actually turned down Harvard, MIT, and Caltech and chose Berkeley... as I said, rankings area useful ROUGH guide, but beyond that you still need to evaluate the best institution for your needs/desires/preferences.</p>
<p>the rankings should be taken as a general guide ... but not a "down to the exact number."</p>
<p>Face it, Duke and UPenn are great schools worthy of the top 15 ... but are they seriously better than MIT and Stanford??? And how is it that WUSL ranked higher than Brown and Cornell??? Give me a break. Though they're all the best of the best schools, one SHOULD NOT pick one school in the top 20 (and so forth) over another because it's ranked higher according to the 2006 US News release. It should be more about student/school fit with the rankings giving a rough estimation of one school compared to another (please emphasize rough estimation).</p>
<p>I think YOU need to re-evaluate your position... where do you think USNWR got the relative weighting factors that go into their formula?
They PULLED IT OUT OF THEIR COLLECTIVE AZZES.
Really. There is absolutely NO scientific or rigorous statistical analysis that shows that that formula has anything to do with educational quality. Sure, some of those factors are important, but their is no objective way to construct a formula to rank schools in any consistent way... and no, the revealed preferences survey is no better.</p>
<p>Again, I'm not saying the rankings are useless... they are a ROUGH guide or proxy for quality... but they are far, far from perfect.</p>
<ol>
<li>I did not say they were perfect either.</li>
<li>Uh.. educational quality? That's not what rankings should all be based about. It should also be based around getting a nice job out of college and % of grads and everything else Usnews has as a criterion. What good is educational quality if nobody will hire you after graduation? what good is educational quality if 90% OF your class FAILS to graduate?</li>
<li>Though we can argue about the % for each criterion, you will find that if you change the %'s, the rankings do not change much either. Ivies are still ivies and the top 25 are still the top 25 (with slight changes depending on your changes).</li>
<li>Lastly, a look at your past posts show massive misunderstanding and general intolerance for facts and support. How is it that a PhD graduate would join a college site to argue and rant at college students using false logic and grammar that would indicate your educational status to be no higher than one with a high school diploma?</li>
</ol>
<p>acceptedtocollegealready, I suggest you reconsider your point. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHERE THAT MONEY IS GOING?!?!?!? Sure, Harvard has a $26 billion endowment. That money goes toward the whole university. A LAC like Grinnell, on the other hand, has a smaller endowment of $1 billion, but far fewer students and expenses. That said, the most important factor is not how much money you have, nor the amount per student. Rather, the most important thing is how the money is distributed and how it's used- and you can't quantify that.</p>
<p>Furthermore, how do you account for fundraising? Michigan has upped its endowment by $2 billion in the last year or so (e.g. raised it by a third!!!). Yale's music school just received a $100 million gift- enough to radically change their financial aid policy. If you don't think endowments change, think again. </p>
<p>Finally, why is it that although Harvard and Yale have much larger endowments than Princeton, Princeton is the only school in the world that does not require loans? Where does Harvard and Yale's money go? </p>
<p>As far as your claim about recruiting, that's not very accurate either. A computer engineering firm will go for the Caltech and Carnegie Mellon grads, and an environmental consulting firm will snatch up Bowdoin grads. It's highly variable, and I doubt two applicants would have such similar applications that their university would be the sole deciding factor.</p>
<p>You are basing your arguments on assertions (an unsupported premise), so it is you who are using poor logic. </p>
<p>That said, LET THIS THREAD DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)</p>
<p>Northeastern is still a work in progress. The school has basically transformed itself from a local commuter school with a high acceptance rate to a highly selective residential research university with a national student body (admit rate is now a low 42%). The problem is that U.S. News has not kept pace with all the changes. Some of the stats the magazine uses to tabulate the rankings are based on outdated information. Based on the current stats, Northeastern should really be ranked in the top 60-70. Eventually it will be (possibly higher). It's just a matter of time. The school has yet to reach it's peak. It has already moved up 40 spots in three years due to major investments in infrastructure (still ongoing), the hiring of 100 new profs (ongoing), and various academic improvements (change from 11 week quarters to 15 week semesters).</p>
<p>Northeastern may be up and coming but it has a long way to go in order to be considered a top 60 or 70 regardless of which respected ranking system is used. </p>
<p>Your bias provides an inaccurate assessment of reality.</p>
<p>warblersrule86: You are missing the point. The point is, you don't have to know where the money is going. I'm saying there is a STRONG correlation between prestige/selectivy and endowment. </p>
<p>You also failed to disprove my other points. I know USnews rankings are not perfect but all their criterion is based on valid logic. Peer assessment is important as is endowment and other factors. It is not all based on "educational quality" is what I'm saying.</p>
<p>No need to be a jerk. Sorry, I dash off quick messages on here, I do not thoroughly proof-read for spelling as if I was writing my dissertation.
If you want to draw conclusions from that, be my guest.</p>
<p>Second, i found this site because I am doing research on different colleges and universities... it is ONE resource... I finished my PhD last year, and I plan on applying to be a professor in the next couple of years. I realized there are thousands of wonderful schools out there about which I know very little...
so I went to the internet, and am doing research.</p>
<p>In the process, having gone through various kinds of institutions, I thought I would share my insight.</p>
<p>Again, if you want to be snarky and "prove" how idiotic I must be because I clearly don't proof-read every post for spelling, be my guest.</p>
<p>Specifically to your point #3... you are very WRONG. There was a period in the 90's when USNWR had not settled on their formula, and were making adjustments every year... you had wild swings, like Caltech being #1 one year, and plummetiing the next. It has been widely reported that USNWR massaged the formulas to get the top 5 they wanted.
Again, there has NEVER been a rigorous analysis of what that formula means, or what it has to do with anything. All it does is reinforce already long-held impressions.</p>
<p>As to your point #2... WHAT? Please tell me where in the USNWR formula they measure liklihood of getting a job after graduation??? I mean, you claimed that is one of the criterion thata ranking should use, and NOT try to measure quality.
But in fact, the USNWR CLAIMS that their rankings DO in fact reflect educational quality.</p>