<p>Use your brains, America. If you agree with the ranking criteria--even if you sort of agree--realize that a 15-rank school is not necessarily better than an 18 school, but a 15 school is probably better than an 83 school. Is that so hard??</p>
<p>My problem isn't necessarily with the rankings themselves, but instead with the broad opportunities for gaming that USNews--whether intentionally or not--builds into the system. </p>
<p>I confess that I haven't read every single post on this thread, but has anybody made any mention of Columbia? </p>
<p>We're talking about a traditional powerhouse school, a holy-grail institution for untold masses of parents and high school seniors, and an Ivy League university. Of its four undergraduate schools (Columbia College, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Barnard College, and the College of General Studies), it reports statistics only for Columbia College, by far its most selective division.</p>
<p>Now, the argument can be made that Barnard isn't really an undergraduate school of Columbia, per se, and I concede that. The argument can also be made that, even if you throw the comparatively small SEAS into the numbers mix, the overall acceptance rate won't change much (and the average SAT would actually rise). Why, then, does CU refuse to submit a full suite of numbers to US News?</p>
<p>I don't think that the answer is necessarily the elimination of the rankings, but instead their standardization. If Columbia is institutionally ashamed (to use a bit of hyperbole) of its Engineering and General Studies components and their ~20% and ~50% respective acceptance rates, then allow it the choice to either opt out of reporting acceptance rate altogether (and assess the appropriate numerical penalties), or to require submission of admissions numbers for all schools. National universities with multiple undergraduate schools should be required to submit numbers for all of them. Additionally, an appropriate and standard set of penalties should be devised for withholding statistics (I would leave that detail to those far more mathematically inclined than I). This would basically force schools to fall into step with each other or risk compromising the integrity of the rankings. </p>
<p>Additionally, and this is simply my opinion and one that I know many people don't share, there is far too little weight given to <em>academic</em> factors in these rankings. Everything from the quality of the academic departments (faculty productivity) to research output to average class size seems shoved to the background in favor of the more popular "horse race" categories (SAT, acceptance rate, etc.), and I believe that the rankings have caused some people to lose sight of the fact that this still all boils down to <em>education</em>.</p>
<p>As warblersrule86 said in #12, the problem is the absurd notion that a one-size-fits-all ranking can be made; it's a ludicrous endeavor. The data collected is fine, and can be presenting in reasonable ways, such as Universities in the Northeast and Liberal Arts Colleges Under 2000 Students. An online user-ranked system would be great, where I could ask for a ranking of schools offering a BS in physics where the median SAT was between X and Y, has WiFi access in the dorms and varsity crew. Number 83 may well be better for Jane than number 15 if 15 doesn't meet Jane's needs.</p>
<p>Let us also not forget how much mileage the schools get. There are hundreds probably thousands of schools that (unless you live in that city) you would never know they exist.</p>
<p>They also get to trumpet their rankings all the time. Recently someone we know will matriculate at Virginia Commonwealth University and VCU milks the rankings for what it is worth.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.vcu.edu/ranking/%5B/url%5D">http://www.vcu.edu/ranking/</a></p>
<p>Another way to boost average SAT scores and your visibility? Give guaranteed medical school admissions to few top students.</p>
<p>and I agree with with my fellow texan (transplanted hoosier)</p>
<p>LOL. Bryn Mawr is a lot easier to spell than Rensselaer. (It's so impossible they joke about it at info sessions.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
it reports statistics only for Columbia College, by far its most selective division.</p>
<p>Now, the argument can be made that Barnard isn't really an undergraduate school of Columbia, per se, and I concede that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So does Columbia University. Barnard College is listed in the rankings under the heading of Liberal Arts Colleges, where it is ranked 26. So its statistics are reported.</p>
<p>It looks like its a problem in other places too. McLeans is the most read rankings system in Canada and there are great reservations by some of the top schools, with 11 of them pulling out.</p>
<p>It's slowly dawning on me why so much disagreement about USNews rankings seems like two sides talking past one another. Those who aren't bothered by the rankings weave variations on "look, the rankings provide useful data to consumers, at least to those who use them in an informed way. Reporting information: that's USNews's bottom line, don't you see?"</p>
<p>Detractors, often writing from inside or from the perspective of higher education say, "Don't YOU see: it's not reporting data, per se, but the whole rankings game that comes at a price that's too high." Then depending on their inclinations, they'll attack the methodology; the unfair treatment of their favorite school; or the questionable educational policies that the rankings encourage. </p>
<p>It would be interesting to think about a question that underlies this: Journalists recognize that the act of reporting a story can become part of the story itself; the USNews rankings--which have made USNews a major player in higher ed--are a classic case in point. Usually news organizations recognize that they have a special obligation to tread with care in such cases and that such situations may raise ethical issues. So, does USNews have any such ethical obligations, or is their only duty to their shareholders? If they could adopt a system like vosson's (or any of a dozen others that would counteract some of the pernicious aspects of the numerical rankings), and if they could do so with little or no impact on their bottom line, should they feel some sort of moral obligation to do so? And on the other side, where are the ethical lines for colleges seeking to act collectively? Such questions don't lend themselves well to discussion in an on-line setting, but they're interesting to ponder.</p>
<p>The time magazine article quoted someone as defending the actions of the colleges by calling it benign collusion. IMO it's anything but benign. They are trying to intentionally obfuscate the process for their own benefit. They can add any new data to the process they want, but IMO if they collude to prevent other colleges from participating in USNWR they should face an anti trust lawsuit.</p>
<p>I'm sorry but while there are and have been pernicious effects from specific criteria that are included in the rankings I fail to see any such effects from the concept of ranking itself.</p>
<p>If the USNWR folks are monitoring this thread I have a suggestion. Why not drop the use of the ratio of admits to applications as a measure of selectivity? Doing so might reduce the waste of resources from colleges trying to recruit students only to turn them down. It might also encourage colleges to be more transpanent about what they are looking for so students who are unlikely to be admitted don't waste their time.</p>
<p>I am surprised that no one has mentioned the separate rankings for universities and LACs. There is clearly a lot of overlap and there are some institutions which are in between.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the separate rankings for universities and LACs. There is clearly a lot of overlap and there are some institutions which are in between.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There was a little noted sidebar to this last year when the Carnegie Foundation released its new college/univeristy classification scheme (which USNews is supposed to implement with the 2008 edition). The new Carnegie classifications would have moved some schools that give mastes degrees (I'm relying on memory, but I think they included Brin Mar :), Middlebury, Wesleyan, et al.) out of the LAC category into the research university rankings. All the involved schools were horrified, for one reason: their place in the rankings. I believe that all the appeals have been successful, but it's yet more proof of the power of USNews.</p>
<p>The rankings matter a lot, even to top universities.</p>
<p>See for example this description of Ehrenberg's work:</p>
<p>The puzzle is why schools don't band together and establish a better, more consistent ranking system.</p>
<p>So long as schools resist the idea of rankings as being imperfect in a world in which the demand for a ranking guide is strong, someone will step up to supply it. Thus, even a capricious, inexact system like USNews can do well.</p>
<p>You can't beat something with nothing. Until colleges or some reputable agency (I'm thinking the Economist might be able to do this) develop good, consistent criteria, US News and to a much lesser extent, the THES, will win by default. All rankings will be flawed, but better a system that's well understood, consistent, and not subject to random changes in weighting or scoring to make things more "interesting". [Such as the famous USNews flip flop which established new criteria which put Caltech #1, then a further revision shoved it down several notches one year later. Now, USNWR changes seem more subtle but are just as arbitrary.]</p>
<p>Ranking Stats</p>
<p>Selectivity: If you're thinking of applying, this is a valid stat even if only to demonstrate what a crap-shoot the process is. It is still a fact.</p>
<p>SAT: If you're thinking of applying and the school doesn't consider SATs, then you don't need to know the SAT range. If you're thinking of applying and the school uses SATs then you need to know the range. If you're thinking of applying and the school doesn't consider SATs you also need to know that fact and not some made-up SAT-plug-in figure for ranking purposes. A made-up figure is not a fact. </p>
<p>My OD (=Oldest Daughter) is a National Merit scholarship recipient (so you know that SAT range), top 1% in her class (yes, 1, as in "one"), with an SAT-II Writing score of 800, and was accepted at three top-25 (according to USNews) schools three years ago. Okay, to be more specific using current USNews rankings: two top-25 "national universities", one of the top-two "public national universities", and one of the top-three "LAC"s. She was also accepted with honors distinction to that school mentioned here as touting their own top-ranking among BFA schools. She applied to six schools and the only one that did not accept her was Sarah Lawrence, and this was in the last year they were at least accepting, if maybe not using, SATs in their admissions process. Is this an anomaly or statistically insignificant? I think not and her experience tells her no, also. I believe it simply shows that SLC relies on a different standard which, especially in conjunction with its rather self-selected applicant pool, makes it extremely selective and also that it remains true to its philosophy of what's important for its students. Does it automatically mean their entering class had lower SATs than "comparable" schools? No---even if there were any comparable schools. Does it mean USNews is justified in assuming their scores are lower, and posting false data as fact? Of course not. </p>
<p>On the other hand, is SLCs admission philosophy infallible, even for what they want? No. My DD went to the "top-15" national university, was on Dean's List her first year, and transferred to SLC where her conference evaluations show she is doing extremely well and contributing in an exemplary fashion to the SLC educational experience. She is among her intellectual peers there at least (if not more) than she was at the "top" U, classes operate at a higher intellectual level at SLC, and my D is able to tailor her curriculum to her interests. No she's not taking Math or Science, per se, but she is taking classes that combine elements of both with art, film, history, philosophy in a way that make her old classmates jealous. </p>
<p>Will this help her get into grad school? Get a better job? Who knows. Is that important to her? No---at least not now! ;) Time will tell. Is it making her a better person with a broader range of experience, better writing skills, and more experience in sharing her discoveries and accomplishments with her peers, her mentors, and experts in the field? Very much so. Is SLC for everyone? No. Does that necessarily mean their students' SATs are lower? Obviously not. So why do so many automatically assume that and use that assumption to justify USNews' action? I think the problem on this site as well as in the general population is fear of the unknown, fear of being different (unless it's to create "hook"), and fear of being even individual enough to pursue your own path without regard for norms, expectations, or even free thinking. If your path is a specific grad school; okay, you need rankings, under the current system. But can a SLC grad (or any LAC grad) be successful in gaining grad-school admission? Hell-yeah they can. I'm not here to change the mindset of the majority who live and die by CC and USNews, but I am here to encourage those who might dare to step outside the bounds of that mindset to consider some of the finest educational institutions that might truly expand their children's experience. I chose my application list thirty-five years ago from Cass and Birnbaum's Guide to Amercan Colleges and Universities. It was the best we had then. And I transferred to the school from which I finally graduated. Books and ranking can only tell us so much. There is no substitute for experience, visits, and your (or your kid's) gut feeling. No one idea of "rank" works for everyone, but at least the facts should be presented in an unbiased way and as objectively as possible.</p>
<p>Frankly, even assuming that US News uses "made up numbers" for the rankings for Sarah Lawrence, which I agree is wrong, I don't think it will hurt SLC at all. The type of student who makes decisions primarily on the basis of the rankings isn't the type of student that would fit at SLC. SLC is unique, and it has nothing to do with rankings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am surprised that no one has mentioned the separate rankings for universities and LACs. There is clearly a lot of overlap and there are some institutions which are in between.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
All the involved schools were horrified, for one reason: their place in the rankings.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Some of the very known mega schools would be equally horrified if EVERY one of their statistics would have to be EXCLUSIVELY restricted to the undergraduate level. For instance, a mere requirement for minimum (say 20%) TEACHING duties at the UG level could dramatically change the student-faculty ratio. Same thing for resources and alumni donations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is this an anomaly or statistically insignificant? I think not and her experience tells her no, also. I believe it simply shows that SLC relies on a different standard which, especially in conjunction with its rather self-selected applicant pool, makes it extremely selective and also that it remains true to its philosophy of what's important for its students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, when it comes to USNEWS, this is mixing apples and oranges. </p>
<p>While it is true that SLC relies on a different standard its rather self-selected applicant pool does NOT make it extremely selective. </p>
<p>The selectivity index comprises three components: admission ratio, percentage of top 10%, and SAT scores. None of the statistics of SLC could make it an "extremely" selective school. In the USNews report, SLC's selectivity index is absolutely correct. </p>
<p>I understand that the term "selectivity" might not please everyone, but the USNEWS uses to clearly represent ONE thing: the selectivity of admissions. They measure the statistical "quality" of the freshman class for standardized tests AND high school performance, and then the admission ratio. Nothing more, nothing less. It is USNews' criteria, but a reader has the luxury to pay attention to it or ... simply dismiss it. Its meaning, however, is very, very straightforward. </p>
<p>And, again, that is why "different" standards should be evaluated differently ... meaning in a segregated category. </p>
<p>PS As far as the statistiscal insignificance, the plural of anecdote will never be data.</p>
<p>Re Post # 108 -- excellent point.</p>
<p>Re Post # 114 -- thanks for the link, interesting, but not wholly surprising, especially in a culture finely attuned to small fluctuations in the stock market, Nielson ratings and enamored of American Idol and its ilk, and a species that has repeatedly engaged in trend behavior such as tulipmania and day trading.</p>
<p>One thing I looked for in using the USNWR rankings, in addition to the current information, was the historical information and trends and the possible explanations. When did schools adopt the common application? When did they break some sort of psychological barrier that became self perpetuating? Has the school varied up and down within a narrow band -- more likely reflecting not very important changes in methodology or current events or the need to sell magazines or has a school been on an upward or down ward trend for the past 5-10 years and perhaps consistentenly across all or a few particular categories?</p>
<p>To me, the lesson is that we need to teach data-statistical-analytical literacy to every student before HS graduation -- why not have them USE the USNWR as a starting point? TEACH the kids about collecting data, that output is only as good as input, about the math in as much detail as possible... </p>
<p>I'm glad we would up comfortable with my son's list of schools that ranged from rankings of 12-98, and I enjoyed learning about schools that friends around the country's kids applied to that weren't in the official "top tier" as well, but sounded wonderful and right for their bright and accomplished kid. You get out of life what you put into it, and those who don't look beyond the ranking numbers MAY get decent salaries some days, and MAY get a higher place in some arbitrary pecking order, but are no more likely to find satisfaction, happiness, love, fulfillment, meaning...</p>
<p>Gosh, I will come right off that soapbox that keeps shoving itself under my feet!</p>
<p>PS. I was so glad to read that article... I worked for the Consortium on Funding Higher Education as an intern one long ago academic year and summer... one of my jobs was to color in maps with colored pencils to illustrate data that was printed off a mainframe computer... but the maps were BLANK and coming from NYC, and having grown up kinda poor and never having traveled and being a real NYC kid, I couldn't figure out any of the states beyond, say NJ, Conn, MA and FL.<br>
ah, the days before computer mapping and life west of the Hudson River!</p>
<p>Chedva,</p>
<p>For the sake of everybody's sanity, we won't make this thread another "Barnard: is it or isn't it part of Columbia?" debate. I have my views on the matter, but for the sake of this particular subject, let's say that CC, SEAS, and GS are the three undergraduate schools of Columbia University.</p>
<p>Eliminating Barnard still doesn't resolve the topic at hand. Columbia effectively chooses to ignore statistics from two of its three undergraduate schools in order to protect its ranking. </p>
<p>Cornell, on the other hand, submits admission stats for all of its schools--Hotel, ILR, and all the rest. I'm not sure to what extent its ranking suffers as a result, but it could just as easily make the argument that, "well, A&S and Engineering are endowed private colleges, while the rest are land-grant, so let's just say that these two endowed divisions are the 'real' Cornell and the others are technically SUNY." In my mind, if an entirely non land-grant school like Columbia is going to arbitrarily use just one of several undergraduate schools to represent the entire system, then Cornell has every right to game the system as well.</p>
<p>But Cornell doesn't game the system. </p>
<p>Cornell provides accurate information to consumers. It takes the ethical high road, and it suffers as a result (and just for the record, I am actually a Columbia alum, so it's not as if I have an anti-Columbia agenda).</p>
<p>The selectivity gap between a Cornell and a Columbia isn't nearly as wide as the US News numbers would have us believe, and in my opinion, this kind of gaming, while effective marketing (heck, why not play games if the system enables it?), does nothing but a disservice to the "consumer."</p>