<p>There are certainly some good reasons for some people to take the U.S. News college rankings seriously. Presidents of schools that went up a notch or two can trumpet the fact to their trustees while noting modestly, of course, that "we don't really pay them any heed." But if you are a college-bound student or the parent of one, there are lots of reasons not to give them any credence. As a starter, and in the spirit of my editorial friends at U.S. News, here are my Top 10:</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>Edward B. Fiske, a former Education Editor of the New York Times, is author of the Fiske Guide to and other books on college admissions.</p>
<p>What’s more is how some colleges debase themselves by splashing the latest US News’ (and others!) rankings on their websites, kowtowing to the dictates of a magazine, rather than busying themselves with their mission and ignoring the meaningless, annual promouncements from those whose job is not education, mind you, but commercial (make a buck) news.</p>
<p>I’d like to see the day when colleges decline to particpate in this yearly nonsense. That will happen, I suppose when football and other high profile sports are played by students, not…whatever they are.</p>
<p>I would put his points number 8 and 9 as 1 and 2. Gaming the system and manipulating the numbers makes the whole ranking thing fundamentally wrong, imo.</p>
<p>Fiske, this wonderful article makes up for all the stress your Word Power book caused me in 11th grade English.</p>
<p>I just think rankings are an entertaining distraction. To take them as being indicative of the actually value of a college, or to actually ARGUE over them (as is happening in another thread right now) is nothing short of idiotic.</p>
<p>Wow, that’s serious. So these rankings are really dangerous, huh? Do you think congress should pass a law making ranking colleges a federal felony? </p>
<p>Or do you think it would be better if people simply recognized USNews rankings for what they are: tool to sell magazines that are a nice try but are a basically doomed effort to inject some degree of objectivity into a process (ranking) that has a heavy dose of subjectivity and a lot of factors that should properly be answered “It depends…” </p>
<p>I give the USNews rankings somewhat more credence than a horoscope or a fortune cookie from a Chinese restaurant, but not a lot more. I consider them about as reliable as college football and basketball ranking polls. But like the fortune cookies and the college sports rankings they are kinda fun to read, ponder, and in the case of CC, argue about.</p>
<p>Fundamental difference: Fiske simply lists a bunch of information about colleges. U.S. News attempts to subjectively determine which ones are better using their b.s. formulas. </p>
<p>Also Fiske publishes other useful works like SAT and ACT study guides. All US News does is make their rankings compelling enough to sell more magazines and online memberships.</p>
<p>^ So you don’t agree with #8 then, that colleges game the system? That seems highly contradictory, given your constant allegations that U Chicago and Columbia rank so high because of this. </p>
<p>Anyway, while I don’t agree entirely with some of his complaints, I think Fiske makes some great points, particularly about fit and outcome criteria. The only critieria that measure outcome in some way are retention and graduation rate, and even then these are not necessarily indicators of educational quality. Factors like GRE/MCAT/LSAT scores, awards students win, research participation (if this is possible), etc. would also be things that propsective students would appreciate having included (I know I would have). At the end of the day, though, the most important thing is that students focus on fit over general rank. A student looking for top biology, international relations and writing programs in the East coast would be much better served going to #13 Hopkins than #10 Caltech.</p>
<p>“Fundamental difference: Fiske simply lists a bunch of information about colleges. U.S. News attempts to subjectively determine which ones are better using their b.s. formulas”</p>
<p>Sure Fiske and US News do not offer exactly the same content in their respective guides, but they are still definitely competitors. Edward Fsike is not an unbiased judge here.</p>
<p>Having an “article” by Edward Fiske that purports to give reasons whey you shouldn’t buy one of his competitor’s products is like the CEO of Ford writing an article giving ten reasons why you shouldn’t buy a Chevy. Both the Ford and the Fiske articles should more properly be labeled advertisements.</p>
<p>He still raises valid points regardless of his competitor status. Are we never to consider someone’s opinion simply because they may have their own agenda? If that’s true then to whom should we listen?</p>
<p>He put into words and provided food for thought for those of us who have always felt that this whole ranking business is… well – rank!</p>
<p>Of course you can consider Fiske’s opinions of his competitors’ products, just as you can consider the content Ford advertisements when deciding to buy a car - just so long as you recognize the financial interests that are operating and recognize who is impartial and who isn’t and judge accordingly. </p>
<p>As long as you recognize Edward Fiske’s financial interest in steering you away from US New and factor that into your conclusions about the value of what he says, you should be fine.</p>
<p>Let me explain why I did not add Item 8 to the list of valid points. I DO agree with the point that schools have submitted inflated data to USNews (and other magazines) but not with the point that we should ignore USNews because of that. In fact, it is because data are disclosed to a number of recipients (who make the numbers public) that one MIGHT be able to uncover obvious duplicity. For instance, a school or its officials might be less willing to submit “creative” numbers to the US Department of Education than to magazines that are known to have poor controls and audit capabilities, and not real “hammer” to hit the gamers on the head. With multiple sources, one might be able to compare data over several years and notice the trends or the differences! </p>
<p>Fwiw, one can be highly critical of the lacking integrity of USNews and its staff, and still applaud the effort to collate a great number of numbers in a manageable format. One can also applaud the efforts of magazines to create surveys such as the Common Data Set and, in a way, force the hand of schools to disclose admission and retention data. If it we had to wait for the schools to start disclosing fuller data, we’d still be mostly in the dark. </p>
<p>Lastly, I make no apologies for the “constant” bashing of schools that keep SIMPLE documents such as the Common Data Set hidden in a shroud of secrecy. The mere fact of disclosing the Common Data to public does NOT ensure that the numbers will be correct, but the fact that schools prefer not to DOES raise a red flag, especially when reported numbers tend to defy the norms and are visibly the result of exploiting the inadequate terminology used by the creators of the Common Data Set. </p>
<p>I am fully aware of how to judge the opinions of others, biases and all, thank you very much. Also, please peddle your patronizing tone elsewhere.</p>