Subject rankings of undergraduate-only colleges are the most ridiculous of all the USNWR rankings. They’re based on the few publications of these undergraduate-only colleges in subject areas defined by USNews, which I suspect has little expertise to even figure out whether a publication belongs to a particular subject area.
3 Likes
I assume you mean rankings for undergrad engineering at which colleges for which no doctoral is offered. The overall engineering rankings in this group are based entirely on only a single metric – a survey that USNWR sends to colleges asking admins to rank colleges on a measure of 5 = “distinguished” to 1 = “marginal.” It sounds like the subfield rankings are done in a different way and are entirely based on number of times college appears on admins list of best in that subfield. It’s reasonable that they would have different results.
The specific colleges ranked above CalPoly in overall, but not in subfields also tend to be unique. As noted #2 Harvey Mudd does not offer majors outside of general engineering. #3 Olin is extremely small and only offers 3 majors in total. #4 to #6 are military institutions.
1 Like
That is what I was referring to.
I just think the whole concept of “hey what do you think about school x” being the whole foundation for a ranking that many people rely on as gospel to decide where to send their kids is weird.
Both Rose and CP have been well respected engineering schools for over 100 years. Who cares if they’re 2, 10, or whatever. The question is, how do they serve undergrads? They, along with HMC and Olin are often completely overlooked because they aren’t ranked with the doctoral programs.
We paid no attention to rankings. Our son was competitive for any school, but didn’t apply to any of the T10 USNWR engineering programs. They just didn’t offer what he was looking for. His final 3 were CP and two schools currently tied for #63 in engineering. Both have long histories as respected engineering programs.
I love this article. Way back when I took undergraduate statistics, one of the first topics we discussed was Validity. How do we know that the statistic measures what it purports to measure? There really is no good answer or even evidence here. What is a “best college” anyway.
As the author says, what they are measuring is overwhelmingly is wealth. Even a blind man could see that years ago.
Finally, what matters most about a college education is what a student actually does during the learning process in her/his time in college. For some majors, facilities and equipment are essential, but for others not so much. In none of these surveys of quality do I see any evidence that the rafters actually go to colleges to observe the teaching & learning process. That’s what really matters.
4 Likes
I think this is the most important part for many - a kid who knows what they are looking for. Makes the whole process much more manageable.
4 Likes
Wouldn’t the confluence of high ratings for Cal Poly SLO across your research and that of U.S. News surveys suggest at least some validity regarding the methods of the publication? In support of your point, however, the picture would appear somewhat different if the schools tied at #63 were used as examples.
The individual discipline rankings and the overall rankings are both from USNWR. As I said, they rank HMC lower in EVERY category, and higher overall, but HMC doesn’t offer ANY of those majors. They rank Rose #1 in every category, and #1 overall. It’s just coincidence that it’s my son’s school. I’m sure there are other inconsistencies though. It makes no sense.
I understand what you are saying, although I’m less sure that this reveals inconsistencies. It’s the prerogative of respondents, I believe, to rate HMC highly for, say, mechanical engineering even though it doesn’t offer a specific major for this field. Similarly, respondents can assign a different rating for HMC’s engineering program in general. Some correspondence between general engineering rankings and sub-discipline rankings should be expected, but it needn’t be absolute numerically to offer reasonable validity.
Why is HMC ranked at all for majors they don’t offer?!?
HMC isn’t really ranked for majors in subfields of engineering as such. Respondents have considered to what level its engineering program in general is suitable for students with an interest in various subfields of engineering. They have rated HMC in these subfields based on their evaluation of this suitability, irrespective of whether majors are available in them. This would be similar to rating a computer science program for strength in artificial intelligence. A major in AI need not be available for the evaluation to offer validity.
Yea, so they’re saying that in EVERY MAJOR FIELD, Civil, Electrical, Mechanical and Computer Engineering that HMC is “less suitable” than CP, but somehow they are several steps ahead overall. That makes sense. Not! I’m not saying anything at all negative about HMC. My son lives with an alum and they are great friends. The ranking makes NO sense at all.
If anyone is curious, the specific ratings are below for overall in engineering, which is based entirely on the “marginal” / “distinguished” survey . A 5 indicates that all admins rated as “distinguished”. A 1 indicates that all admins rated as “marginal.” It seems military academies tend to especially well on the “distinguished” survey, although Coast Guard (3.6) and Marines (3.3) lag significantly behind other branches. I don’t know whether Marines has a notably weaker engineering program than Navy, and I expect neither do most filling out the survey. I very much doubt that many of the persons filling out the survey are experts are the programs they are ranking. It also isn’t clear how “distinguished” engineering is defined? These rankings seem as useless as the rest.
- Rose 'Hulman – 4.6
- Harvey Mudd — 4.5
- Olin – 4.4
- US Military Academy – 4.3
- US Navy Academy – 4.2
- US Air Force Academy --4.1
- Bucknell / Cal Poly SLO – 4.0
- Cooper Union / Milwaukee – 3.8
2 Likes
Since the USNA normally educates future Navy and Marine Corps officers, those aiming for Marines do not have any different engineering programs from those aiming for Navy. However, those attending the US Merchant Marine Academy may go to any branch of the US military to fulfill their 5-year service commitment (they also have the option of working for 5 years in the US maritime industry with an 8-year military reserve service).
The USCGA and USMMA do seem to be less well known in general than the USMA, USNA, and USAFA.
US News also ranks high schools, and has somehow determined TJ to be number one, encouraging families seeking that elite credential to move from places as far away as Asia, and driving the ongoing lawsuit regarding their admissions requirements.
I don’t know where you have gotten this idea. The rankings are based on reputation. Published research may influence reputation, but they wouldn’t represent the sole criterion for it.
That’s the point. They’re not based on ANYTHING tangible. Something as simple as petulance can have a major influence on this.
3 Likes
As something that should be made clear, U.S. News does not offer an overall list of top engineering programs. Through its use of two, parallel general categories, it leaves it to readers to infer how Harvey Mudd, for example, might compare to UIUC or UMichigan.
And that’s a problem. Can you pick two programs that are both good, yet more diametrically opposed on how they get there than Michigan and HMC? How do you say one is better? It depends on what the seeker is looking for.
I can tell you in a very granular way why my son chose Cal Poly, and why I’m still a fan, but that doesn’t mean anyone else will see it the same way.
When ranking undergraduate programs you would think that the opinion of employers would be of more relevance than that of admins (unless the rankings as determined by admins sways the opinion of employers which you would hope would not be the case).
so here’s something new i learned this year. i work very part time at a state u; 40% first gen students. We have a ranked department. Our cost to use this ranking logo from USNWR is very pricey for us. ($40K+). Of course profs know it all sort of ludicrous; but those rankings are so important for that school; brings in new students and $. but we have to play along. it’s circular.
6 Likes