<p>The US News rankings/publications provide some valuable info and presents a worthwhile reference. One can easily argue with values given to categories, and why some categories aren't valued at all. No doubt the rankings lead to gamesmanship. I suppose virtually any ranking system would.</p>
<p>I've seen limitations and imperfections in the US News system, and I've looked for other perspectives/studies that I could sense were well researched and provided relevant data that US News doesn't seem to focus upon. I haven't found many. I would welcome others.</p>
<p>Bumppo, I agree. When is comes to at the least assembling at least the initial college list, the USNWR rankings are useful as a rough guide. We also used college guide books. None of them were very helpful, or detailed, or accurate.</p>
<p>Lots of complaining but name names--who is grossly over or underrated? I think the list looks pretty solid overall but I don't see a huge gap between being 40 and 50 either.</p>
<p>For those that believe Drew U and 11 other institutions are belly aching about the rankings because they are the ones who make the top half possible, what are the rankings of the 11 other institutions?</p>
<p>What happened to read after its MUCH publicized withdrawal? </p>
<p>The arrival of the yearly USNews report brings Reed a lot more publicity than its deserved ranking would merit. Reed is not crucified by USNews's methodology; its ranking correctly reflects its current admission's selectivity and graduation performance. Reed has milked --and continue to do so-- the rankings for all they are worth. They are posting the CDS forms on their website, but find it offensive for USNews to use the posted numbers! </p>
<p>For what is worth, the USNews' article on Reed (from a couple of years ago) was easily the most objective and positive article one could pen about the slightly "different" school. </p>
<p>The US News has many, many faults, starting with the utterly gamed and cronyist "peer assessment," but the value of the informational statistics has no peers. The reports might be distorted and the methodology might be questioned, but in the end, it only takes a look at other so-called rankings such as the Business Week or Washington Times to realize the value of the service they offer for a mere 15 dollars.</p>
<p>And, as far as sour grapes, they tend to taste sweeter the moment the rankings become a tad more positive. :D</p>
<p>We were very aware of St. John's and it was high on S's list regardless of whether it was ranked or not. Personally, I think the rankings would be a little less incendiary if there weren't a Number 1 which makes it seem as if going to 2 or 3 (let alone "20") is a failure. But even if they were to use a tier approach, a top second tier school would still be hurt by being separated out from a bottom first tier! The rankings and all information available should be used as advisory, not gospel.</p>
<p>With all due respect, even if USNew filed bankruptcy tomorrow, admissions to Yale (and H and S and MIT and Cal et al) would still be a feeding frenzy. Methinks you give USNews way too much credit to "blame" such frenzy on the USNews rankings. IMO, USNews offers a lot more valuable information to kid searching for information on colleges from 21-100+, then the top 20 which are mostly lottery picks and so well endowed that they can afford to advertise themselves.</p>
<p>The useful information that USNews provides is not at issue. Much of the same information, mostly derived from the Common Data sets, is available from many other college guides. </p>
<p>It's only the left-hand column, the numerical rankings themselves, that most people find dangerous. These numbers have become so powerful that they drive the enrollment decisions of thousands of students, influence colleges' 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, shape bond ratings, drive FA policies, influence alumni perceptions, and more. Simply put, USNews rankings put institutions under pressure to make policy decisions that they otherwise wouldn't.</p>
<p>Of course all colleges wish they could move up in the rankings, but there's more at stake than just complaining; some of the most articulate critics of the rankings are presidents and admissions chiefs at top-20 colleges and universities.</p>
<p>
[quote]
These numbers have become so powerful that they drive the enrollment decisions of thousands of students...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Interesting theory to say the least. Can you post some studies or data to support your hypothesis? (Not trying to be picky, but in our state the "thousands" of kids in our rather large state are worried about getting into a UC or Cal State which have little to do with rankings.)</p>
<p>The rankings do drive one notable benefit for "middle" class families, however: merit aid. In their drive to move up the rankings, schools like USC, Emory and WashU give out tuition discounts to attract high stat kids to encourage them to matriculate to their colleges. (Whether merit aid is good for society or not can be the topic of another thread.)</p>
This year, as I live through my first year as a university president and become more familiar with the intricacies of the admissions process, I weep for all of us. College is intended to sponsor an engagement with ideas and, just possibly, the development of character. Yet our recipe for achieving that is an anti-intellectual witches' brew of lousy values.</p>
<p>There are three aspects to our nasty creation. One concerns the testing boards. Another is the awarding of merit fellowships to those who don't really need them. And the third is the U.S. News & World Report rankings, a pun if there ever was one.</p>
<p>It is past time to banish the three hags of this demonic admissions trinity -- the SAT obsession, the antidemocratic "merit" scam, and the U.S. News obsession. Arbitron is not God, after all. The SAT's are not god, U.S. News is not god, and worshiping false deities is what we used to call idolatry.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No wonder Thacker and his famed evangelist's fervor hovers around Weisbuch.</p>
<p>"Can you post some studies or data to support your hypothesis? (Not trying to be picky, but in our state the "thousands" of kids in our rather large state are worried about getting into a UC or Cal State which have little to do with rankings.)"</p>
<p>And within that group there are kids who will prioritize among the various schools based on the rankings such as a friend who's son is already into UCLA and CalPolySLO who is waiting on UC-Berkeley. Higher ranked, so preferred.</p>
<p>aha, I was hoping to catch someone in my trap. :)</p>
<p>Back in the dark ages (before USNews), Cal was known to be THE UC (and one of the best Unis in the world), and Cal Poly SLO was known to be THE Cal State. Didn't need no stinkin' rankings back then to differentiate. Well, actually, we did have rankings way back when -- Playboy mag (used?) to publish the Top Party Schools in which San Diego State and Cal State Chico would perennially excel. :D</p>
<p>What do the following things have in common: 19th century trusts like Standard Oil, cartels like OPEC, trade unions, and a group of college presidents at a cocktail party?</p>
<p>...according to President Gerhard Casper, Stanford's status gives him the credibility to speak out on the rankings. "I hope I have the standing to persuade you that much about these rankings <em>particularly their specious formulas and spurious precision</em> is utterly misleading," Casper wrote in an unpublished letter to the magazine's editor, James Fallows, last September. </p>
<p>Casper says his letter began circulating quietly through the nation's ivory towers, where he believes many college presidents and administrators agree with him. "I had expressed views [many presidents and deans] had held for a long time, but they had just never bothered to express," Casper told Stanford Today. "There are college presidents who utterly dislike what U.S. News does but are worried about picking a public fight," says Casper, who met with Fallows in Washington in early December. </p>
<p>In mid-April, Stanford decided to throw another punch. This year the university will continue to submit objective data to U.S. News, but will withhold subjective reputational votes...</p>
<p>...critics such as Casper and FUNC insist that U.S. News could better serve its readers by doing away with its numerical rankings and simply providing the data, listing institutions in alphabetical order.
<p>I hope everyone realizes that the article quoted above is from 1997 and Casper is no longer the President of Stanford. It does show how long this cotroversy has been going on, though.</p>
<p>I'm surprised that no one has commented yet on this part of the Time articles:
[quote]
Even more pernicious is what critics call "ranksteering," i.e., specifically tailoring administrative decisions to move higher up on the list. The rankings encourage more per-pupil spending, which makes up 10% of a school's score and certainly doesn't help keep tuition down.
[/quote]
So when you get the inevitable notice of the tuition increase for next year...you might want to give some thought as to how much of that is attributable to the desire of the college trustees to outspend the college one rung above them on the ranking ladder.</p>
<p>There was a recent article in the LA Times about how the Berkeley (Boalt Hall) prez supports fee increases at the school to get its ranking back up to the top five, now that it's tied for 8th with Michigan. So, I guess in answer to your question, perhaps we can attribute ALL of the fee increase to wanting to move up three spots.</p>
<p>And that really makes me sad. When I went to Boalt - it WAS in the top 5 -- and as a Calif resident in the mid-1970s I was paying about $725 annual tuition. As far as I can remember, the tuition was stable all 3 years. It was affordable and even though many students aspired to jobs in big firms with high salaries, there also were many who planned to go into public service or public interest law, as well as some who intended to simply open their own practices once they finished law school.</p>
<p>It now costs almost as much for an in-state student to attend Boalt as it does to attend a private law school -- and the level of debt that students face really make it difficult to justify the cost if their career goals are anything but focusing on earning the highest income possible after college. </p>
<p>I imagine that Boalt must be a very changed place, enrolling and graduating a very different type of student these days. Probably far more affluent to start, and far less likely to emerge from law school with a career objective that values public service or public interest over salary level.</p>