<p>The US News peer assessment ratings are a joke. Clemson rated colleges ranked above them as “below average” in order to move up in the rankings lol</p>
<p>East coast bias or not, top students flock to the best schools they have heard of, and the result is . . . better students, scores, faculty members, endowments, etc. for those schools. And when you are attracting the best, you stay the best. Famous universities tend to have famous alumni and faculty members.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, that IS my point. Just like there are more football teams in the east, there are more student in the NE (due to population factors) and by definition, more “top” students. (Altho demographically, this is changing significantly as the NE is being outgrown by the south and west.) And thus, there are more professors/administrators in the east (who complete the PA forms). Obviously, they will better recognize colleges and programs in their backyards.</p>
<p>Just because Clemson’s President has no morals does not mean everyone else is like him. He is beneath contempt. Hopefully all the other presidents will keep this in mind next time they rank Clemson. Payback is a *****.</p>
<p>barrons, I think that is true, however just like baseball and steroids how are we sure that every single university president is “clean”</p>
<p>xiggi, I believe your beef with the PA is that it doesn’t correlate to data you feel is more important…average SAT scores, etc.</p>
<p>My question is why have a ranking of measureable “objective” data and then ask academics to validate the same data with an opinion poll? Why do they need to correlate? PA is measuring “intangibles” (most notably distinguished academic programs) that cannot be measured objectively and USNWR makes this clear.</p>
<p>I understand you want to see a more detailed survey and I agree that this may be beneficial. But, I imagine USNWR doesn’t want to pay the independent survey consultants more money for analysis. Also, if the survey is more comprehensive (and a possibility that individual ratings may be made available to the public) participation would likely drop.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I cannot say what Xiggi believes, I will say that the above attitude – wanting numbers to define the quality of education – is prevalent on CC, thanks largely to college rankings, with USNWR leading the pack. People want numbers to define the educational pecking order because it’s too difficult to evaluate the intangibles. And it seems “unfair” that a college high on intangibles (grad school success, critical thinking skills, intellectual challenges, undergraduate research opportunities, faculty mentorship, etc.) ranks above one with higher selectivity (or SAT scores, or whatever). Getting a top-rate college education is not about quantitative measures, although high numbers do tend to accompany a first-rate education, but about the undergraduate academic experience.</p>
<p>I scratch my head every time I see a CC applicant apply to HYPMS, plus Amherst and Williams since the kind of education in that group can be vastly different. These students are clearly driven by the USNWR rankings instead of the educational institutions themselves.</p>
<p>And again, I’m not attributing this mentality to Xiggi. I just had to comment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>DS, despite that we have been here a very long time, I don’t think that you understand my opinion about the USNews rankings. Although it is poor taste to ask someone to go check “my past posts” I think that there is a great chasm between the perception of my position and its true foundation. For instance, it is not because I have discussed the rankings “ad nauseam” that I support them, let alone swear by them. For the record, I believe that USNews does a good job in collecting the information, but does an atrocious and misleading job in ranking schools, and most importantly calling its magazine “Best Colleges” or something to that extent. </p>
<p>As far as attacks go, I also think that you would be hard pressed to find posts that amount to attacks of UCB --be it Cal or the poster UCB! Again, expressing doubts about models or the PA itself does not represent an attack to the school. Expressing doubts about the GSI/TA model at research universities and its relation to the “dedication to teaching” is not an attack of the school. </p>
<p>Think about it!</p>
<p>US News has done a great service for consumers of higher education. I have trouble imagining how the college selection process worked before the efforts by US News to take an objective look at universities and colleges. Before US News, I suspect that prospective students based decisions much more on subjective reputation than they do now. After all, very few would know what to look for in a good college and, if they did, even fewer would be able to find the information.</p>
<p>Give credit where credit is due. The US News Best Colleges is a great help in the search for colleges. US News has brought us out of the Dark Ages and into the Renaissance in higher education.</p>
<p>Think about it. What might the college search process have been like in the 1980s?</p>
<p>Xiggi, don’t you use UC Berkeley as an example to say the PA is a poor indicator to rank schools because Berkeley should be ranked lower by the pros? Some “poster child” comments…would indicate you have some issues…</p>
<p>And doesn’t USNWR say they want PA to reflect the pros opinions of academic programs?</p>
<p>And so isn’t it possible that the pros are subjectively ranking academic programs differently and using different criteria than you would?</p>
<p>And don’t I read about subjective this and objective that when I read your posts?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha! Since this covers my own college application time, I can answer with authority: finding a college isn’t much different today. The only REAL difference is that students applied to only 4-5 colleges. We relied on parents and guidance counselors and snail mail catalogues and brochures. After taking the PSATs, we were inundated with mail – several college catalogues a day for months. We had books that ranked colleges in terms of different criteria. Peterson’s and Barron’s led the way.</p>
<p>The real difference between the two times, besides the ability to see instantly online what a college is like instead of waiting 10 days for a catalogue request to be filled, is USNWR. Back then, we didn’t have a college selection Bible; we relied on several different sources to determine how one college compared to others. Of course, East Coasters did not hear much about LACs on the West Coast and vice versa, so LACs have benefited from the rankings by garnering more attention from more diverse geographic areas.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that is not the issue at all. My beef with the PA is actually very different, if not actually diametrically opposed since I resent the attempts to “explain” the PA through correlation to data. </p>
<p>As far as I am concerned the PA could be anything the surveyors want it to be … as long as it is defined properly. My issue with USNews is about the merging of two types of questions, and their own ADMISSION to use some unverifiable to “level the playing field.” Again, I would happy for the USNews to change their system and offer us a “ranking” based on an expanded PA, and one based on a listing of the data. </p>
<p>To offer an analogy, take a look at the QB ranking at nfl.com. They decided on a composite ranking of the performance of the QBs. However, that does not necessarily equates to the BEST quarterback in the league. The QB ranking delivers the answer to “Who is the highest ranked QB” and nothing else! If the NFL would in turn ask a couple of SI writers and TV analysts to add a 25% component to supposedly measure leadership, toughness, and other intangibles, but still call it “the highest ranked” QB and NEVER define the criteria, it would be meaningless. That is exactly what USNews does.</p>
<p>^ 10-4. One other question:
Just out of curiosity, xiggi, do you think Harvard and Stanford, research universities that happen to use the same GSI/TA model as Berkeley, are deserving of their high PA score - in light of “dedication to undergraduate teaching”? </p>
<p>I think part of your issue with the PA as well is that you attended an elite liberal arts college. Personally, I think LACs are harder to rank on intangibles because by their nature, faculty achievements are not as visible compared to faculty at research-oriented universities.</p>
<p>There is a reason LACs and National Universities are ranked separately. They cannot be compared.</p>
<p>“Who is the highest ranked QB” and nothing else! If the NFL would in turn ask a couple of SI writers and TV analysts to add a 25% component to supposedly measure leadership, toughness, and other intangibles, but still call it “the highest ranked” QB and NEVER define the criteria, it would be meaningless. That is exactly what USNews does."</p>
<p>It’s opinions, Xiggi.The reasons people have opinions can be varied. If you make the criteria real strict, one,my opinion may no longer be my real opinion, and two, the criteria may be bs.</p>
<p>I might prefer Joe Montana over John Elway, but if you restrict the variables I can use …like maybe use arm strength…than I may have to choose Elway, even though that is not my real opinion.</p>
<p>In the end, it’s just opinions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do I dispute that? Am I not the one who supposedly swear by the rankings? If I read all the posts here about where I stand on issues, I can’t recognize myself! </p>
<p>I have repeatedly written that the USNews offers a tremendous service, and are by far the best source for the broad public. The value of the collated information is remarkable. However, that does not mean that their publication is beyond reproach on many counts. They have been known to allow schools to manipulate the data (such as playing with winter admissions.) </p>
<p>There are also many things they could do better. For instance, they could reverse the utterly stupid decision to change the interactive format of the online version, and they could allow for the retrieval of the historical data from prior years. It is obvious that Morse and his employees place little value on the ability of their clients to rearrange the data according to their own criteria. </p>
<p>All in all, the USNews is not much different from the schools themselves. Transparency is only important if you can control it. If we left it to the IR offices themselves, the public would never see a Common Data Set and every bit of information would be on a need to know basis. The role of USNews in making more data available in an easy format has been worthy of applause, but there is so much more they could do.</p>
<p>Xiggi, that’s cool…and the next time you complain about PA, and TAs, and large lecture clases… complain aboout Stanford.</p>
<p>Here’s another one of my numerous attempts to explain the PA scoring:</p>
<p>According to USNWR, the PA survey asks academics to rate a universities academic programs on a scale of 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished) while taking into account intangibles like dedication to undergraduate teaching. Given these instructions, I believe the academics ranked correctly. For example, Berkeley’s academic programs are arguably as numerous and distinguished as what Stanford offers. On this raw basis, Berkeley should probably be tied with Stanford for the highest PA score. However, there are differences between Berkeley and Stanford…classes are larger at Berkeley (one example) and so its score is lowered.</p>
<p>Schools like Dartmouth and Virginia don’t have the breadth and depth of academic programs but are rewarded in the PA for being smaller and more undergraduate focused.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCB, I believe that the PA for all three schools is based on the same criteria, and that not every one of them has direct implications for the education of undergraduates. Again, this is why I strongly believe that a clear definition of the PA is overdue. And, fwiw, please let repeat that I have no problems with the inclusion of the reputation of the graduate school --as long as the criteria are defined. </p>
<p>As far as the similarities between the GSI/TA models among Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, and say Michigan, can we really conclude the programs function in the same way? I happen to think that there is not much uniformity in the qualifications and preparation of GSI/TA within and between schools. But, of course, that is only based on what one can glean from the GSI/TA websites, and just a bit of direct and indirect experience at one school that uses the “research university” model.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s your point, DStark? Would you like me to write about Stanford more? Are you annoyed because I never write about the schools I might have attended or attend? </p>
<p>Would my opinions be of different value if I attended the University of Waxahachie or Dallas Baptist School of Divinity? </p>
<p>And perhaps that is exactly what I did and do! After all, don’t you have to trust what I decide to share with you?</p>
<p>
Oh brother…and we know what hazard that caused when you erroneously thought a Berkeley prof’s blog posting was the entire “schedule of classes” earlier in this thread.</p>