http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/7065/collegeranks.png
[/URL</a>]</p>
<p>Tried to best match line colors with university colors. I made this graph for discussion of trends in university prestige/education/popularity/whatever you think USNews ranks.</p>
<p>IMO, USC may be the most interesting change in recent years falling from near 50th to 23 in 2011.</p>
<p>You definitely would fit into caltech.</p>
<p>Interesting graph, I think you meant “rising” from 50th to 23rd.</p>
<p>Yes, sorry too many numbers recently :P</p>
<p>Most of these changes though, are changes in methodology as opposed to quality.</p>
<p>^^^Absolutely true!</p>
<p>. . . which speaks more to USNWR’s need to produce annual ranking changes in order to sell magazines than to insights regarding methodological improvements.</p>
<p>I agree that’s it’s mostly a change in the methodology that leads to the changes. It seems like two of the biggest risers have been UPenn and Wash U. UPenn started near 20 and now is around 5 each year. Wash U was up near 25 and now is in the 10-15 range. Whether these schools have actually gotten better at a faster rate than others around them I haven’t the faintest clue…</p>
<p>Could you upload the excel file? It would be nice to see just top 10, just top 20, just publics, etc. so the trends are more clearly visible. It might even be nice to see it plotted with moving averages. </p>
<p>Anyway, it looks like Columbia, WUSTL, and USC are the big winners as of late. The big losers appear to be UNC, Michigan, and UVA.</p>
<p>I remember there was an old joke that Upenn rose so much because the owner, Mort Zuckerman, is a Upenn alum (he purchased USNWR in the mid 1980’s). But I don’t actually believe that, I just think it’s a change in methodology and a lot has been reinforcing movements.</p>
<p>For example, USWNR really gained popularity in the 2000’s with the world wide use of the internet that was faster and easier to communicate information. Indeed, in 1999, when Caltech was placed first, they fired the person who headed the report and came up with a new methodology. I think that event caused more attention for the newspaper.</p>
<p>So, as such, there is a prevailing notion of the rough “spots” where universities should be. This becomes even more so when 25% of the rankings are due to the PA scores. Thus, people tend to refer to past USNWR to reinforce notions. Kind of makes things slightly biased. But I think the graph best shows that all those schools are top and competitive and such. Interesting though.</p>
<p>"Anyway, it looks like Columbia, WUSTL, and USC are the big winners as of late. The big losers appear to be UNC, Michigan, and UVA. "</p>
<p>Privates up, publics down. Nothing new here.</p>
<p>^^ Exactly. Berkeley moving from 5th to 22nd is a pretty big jump as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>MInd you it doesn’t mean that the previous methodology was much better than the other one. I am sure public school kids will defend the USNEWS to death if it had a methodology that favored them. Most people love the methodology that favors their opinions. Just like people claiming that PA scores are directly related to academic quality which is by any standard loads of rubbish. Personally, I think rankings of any kind should be scrapped tbh.</p>
<p>I have noticed that the present generation though are obssessed with the USNEWS and are heavily influenced by rankings. Was talking to a professor in his early 30s about a position I was going to apply for and he asked me where my undergrad was placed on the USNEWs, which would give him an idea of gauging my chances. Makes sense since he went to undergrad during the USNEWS era. I would not expect such a question though from say a much older professor who operated based on reputation/hear say/where there kids went to school.</p>
<p>G I G O</p>
<p>even when it looks pretty :-)</p>
<p>The top 15 is pretty stable. It’ll be pretty hard for any other school to break into the top 15.</p>
<p>^ Top 15 of the peer assessment is even more stable through the years.</p>
<p>Growth in privately funded and Fed research. 1999-2009
Some surprising moves up and down</p>
<p>Show 2550100all entriesSearch: Institution Institutionally financed research spending, 1999 (adjusted for inflation) Institutionally financed research spending, 2009 Change, institutionally financed research spending, 1999-2009 Federally financed research spending, 1999 (adjusted for inflation) Federally financed research spending, 2009 Change, federally financed research spending, 1999-2009 Rank in federally financed research spending, 1999 Rank in federally financed research spending, 2009 Change in rank, 1999-2009
College 1999 Private 2009 Private Change 1999 Fed 2009 Fed Change Total 1999 Rank 2009 Rank Ranking Change</p>
<p>Johns Hopkins U. $55,879,000 $97,063,000 74% $994,048,000 $1,587,547,000 60% 1 1 0 </p>
<p>U. of Michigan system $132,963,000 $271,675,000 104% $431,152,000 $636,216,000 48% 4 2 +2 </p>
<p>U. of Washington $54,846,000 $43,002,000 -22% $474,864,000 $619,353,000 30% 2 3 -1 </p>
<p>Massachusetts Institute of Technology $12,371,000 $7,875,000 -36% $398,508,000 $532,618,000 34% 5 4 +1</p>
<p>U. of California at San Diego $92,456,000 $134,074,000 45% $376,689,000 $511,428,000 36% 6 5 +1</p>
<p>U. of Wisconsin at Madison $188,068,000 $283,373,000 51% $321,483,000 $507,898,000 58% 10 6 +4 </p>
<p>U. of Colorado system $32,441,000 $41,758,000 29% $315,645,000 $500,123,000 58% 11 7 +4</p>
<p>U. of Pennsylvania $42,840,000 $61,733,000 44% $359,927,000 $499,498,000 39% 7 8 -1</p>
<p>U. of California at San Francisco $92,550,000 $165,029,000 78% $300,803,000 $483,667,000 61% 14 9 +5</p>
<p>Columbia U. $13,847,000 $56,344,000 307% $309,804,000 $483,111,000 56% 12 10 +2 </p>
<p>Stanford U. $24,225,000 $67,413,000 178% $456,592,000 $477,507,000 5% 3 11 -8</p>
<p>U. of California at Los Angeles $139,435,000 $198,758,000 43% $325,079,000 $467,505,000 44% 9 12 -3</p>
<p>U. of Pittsburgh (all campuses) $28,900,000 $99,171,000 243% $251,057,000 $463,192,000 84% 21 13 +8</p>
<p>Pennsylvania State U. (all campuses) $127,104,000 $146,212,000 15% $256,845,000 $439,193,000 71% 19 14 +5 </p>
<p>Duke U. $18,234,000 $96,926,000 432% $240,917,000 $438,767,000 82% 23 15 +8 </p>
<p>U. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill $63,694,000 $140,527,000 121% $235,986,000 $431,837,000 83% 25 16 +9 </p>
<p>Washington U. in St. Louis $45,470,000 $89,564,000 97% $281,991,000 $414,045,000 47% 15 17 -2 </p>
<p>U. of Minnesota system $79,437,000 $176,800,000 123% $268,012,000 $390,602,000 46% 17 18 -1 </p>
<p>Harvard U. $0 $0 0% $343,165,000 $385,704,000 12% 8 19 -11 </p>
<p>Yale U. $21,944,000 $27,718,000 26% $275,291,000 $378,914,000 38% 16 20 -4 </p>
<p>U. of Southern California $63,219,000 $75,532,000 19% $257,509,000 $375,024,000 46% 18 21 -3 </p>
<p>Cornell U. $97,044,000 $117,628,000 21% $302,882,000 $363,144,000 20% 13 22 -9 </p>
<p>Ohio State U. (all campuses) $76,639,000 $102,583,000 34% $174,429,000 $339,820,000 95% 34 23 +11 </p>
<p>Vanderbilt U. $19,137,000 $55,925,000 192% $150,784,000 $336,405,000 123% 42 24 +18 </p>
<p>Georgia Institute of Technology $95,790,000 $167,766,000 75% $145,591,000 $322,452,000 121% 43 25 +18</p>
<p>Others
Case Western Reserve U. $21,845,000 $54,857,000 151% $180,830,000 $313,044,000 73% 32 26 +6
U. of Texas at Austin $40,274,000 $96,454,000 139% $212,738,000 $309,125,000 45% 28 27 +1
California Institute of Technology $10,751,000 $5,398,000 -50% $251,941,000 $305,682,000 21% 20 28 -8
U. of Chicago $11,564,000 $32,273,000 179% $175,079,000 $301,159,000 72% 33 29 +4
Northwestern U. $75,006,000 $141,806,000 89% $171,115,000 $300,619,000 76% 37 30 +7
U. of Alabama at Birmingham $23,473,000 $83,494,000 256% $213,138,000 $300,130,000 41% 27 31 -4
U. of Rochester $8,594,000 $43,900,000 411% $171,379,000 $295,963,000 73% 35 32 +3
U. of California at Davis $155,144,000 $211,331,000 36% $160,557,000 $295,924,000 84% 38 33 +5
Emory U. $24,191,000 $100,052,000 314% $171,333,000 $295,831,000 73% 36 34 +2
Texas A&M U. system $148,439,000 $225,105,000 52% $192,405,000 $288,475,000 50% 29 35 -6
U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign $137,834,000 $191,357,000 39% $239,639,000 $288,013,000 20% 24 37 -13
U. of Arizona $134,804,000 $181,359,000 35% $229,783,000 $287,889,000 25% 26 38 -12
Baylor College of Medicine $50,372,000 $64,488,000 28% $182,033,000 $267,130,000 47% 31 39 -8
Mount Sinai School of Medicine $20,684,000 $8,405,000 -59% $109,165,000 $264,914,000 143% 62 40 +22
U. of California at Berkeley $192,850,000 $171,310,000 -11% $246,422,000 $262,069,000 6% 22 41 -19
Boston U. $0 $4,502,000 100% $159,173,000 $255,178,000 60% 39 42 -3
U. of Iowa $62,043,000 $36,090,000 -42% $158,203,000 $252,336,000 60% 40 43 -3
U. of Maryland at College Park $73,411,000 $118,139,000 61% $187,154,000 $246,985,000 32% 30 44 -14
Oregon Health & Science U. $16,997,000 $29,876,000 76% $123,395,000 $233,774,000 89% 52 45 +7
U. of Florida $100,258,000 $181,864,000 81% $157,762,000 $232,737,000 48% 41 46 -5</p>
<p>From COHE</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Using data from 1990-2009 (sorry missing last year; I didn’t create these), here is a link to 3-yr MA graph for the top 15 schools:</p>
<p><a href=“ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs”>ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs;
<p>And here is 5-yr MA graph:</p>
<p><a href=“ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs”>ImageShack - Best place for all of your image hosting and image sharing needs;
<p>Princeton, Harvard, and Yale have clearly separated themselves from the group as the top three schools according to US News.</p>
<p>If one excludes CalTech (since it generally appeals to a more specific type of student), from 1992-2009 (17 years), according to US News there has been a group of consistently ranked top 6 schools that only one school (UPenn) has ever been able to pierce with its moving average: Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT, and Duke (and now UPenn). Columbia is probably is in this group now too after last year’s ranking, while UChicago is on the edge and Dartmouth was on the edge at the beginning. Duke is the school that has been consistently in this top 6 historically, but is on the edge now, basically tied with UChicago (and probably Columbia) with its moving average.</p>
<p>Of these top 15, UPenn, Wash U, and Northwestern have risen the most. UPenn had a meteoric rise in the late 1990s and is now consistently ranked in the top 7. Brown rose a bunch and then fell. UChicago has also been somewhat of a roller-coaster and has risen in recent years. The rest of the schools have been relatively consistently ranked.</p>
<p>Hope this helps your analysis. It’s interesting, but not sure how helpful it actually is to high school students…I guess it shows one perspective of the prestige of these institutions.</p>
<p>@ sefago: Well, I wasn’t meaning to insinuate that either ranking strategy was superior. Both appear inherently flawed imo due to the subjectivity of weighting different factors differently. Certainly the ratings would be jostled if endowment was considered less of a factor. Note - considered. </p>
<p>All-in-all, I’m not biased to or from the USNEWS rankings, but I was just saying that Berkeley’s fall from 5 to 22 is relatively large.</p>
<p>I wonder if Penn’s ranking reflects perceptions about the value of business school (or business in general), since Wharton is the most esteemed part of Penn. In the current recession, business is more popular than it has been in quite some time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No JHU? (I guess it wasn’t a top 15 school the year you started the calculation?)</p>
<p>Brown looks like it’s all over the place, probably because it’s a more undergraduate focused institution that is heavily affected by whether or not the methodology favors research universities. </p>
<p>A lot of people have pointed out how changes over time are affected by changes in methodology, rather than changes in quality. While this is true, I think that US News is influential enough that a school’s rank affects its ability to attract students. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that it materially affects how we think about schools, albeit with a little bit of lag. Columbia and Penn have recently risen to the level of MIT/Stanford in US News, and while the HYPMS moniker persists, people are now much more likely to look at them as peers of Harvard/Yale/Princeton. </p>
<p>One could also point out the same thing regarding Northwestern and WUSTL, the newcomers to the top 15.</p>
