U.S. News explains UC Davis ranking error

Colleges & Universities A-Z University of California - Davis
1

<p>Here is the reason why in the previous ranking cycle, UC Davis was the 4th highest ranked UC, behind UCB, UCLA, and UCSD, respectively, but dropped a few slots for the current cycle. It was due to a reporting error. </p>

<p>UC Davis and US News & World Report agreed that the rankings drop was due to the campus reporting incorrect information regarding the percentage of faculty who hold doctorate or professional degrees. The data that UC Davis provided to U.S. News indicated that 64 percent of our faculty members hold such terminal degrees, but in fact the correct figure is 98 percent.</p>

<p>That misinformation led to an unusual and significant drop, from 84th to 215th, in UC Davis’ ranking related to “faculty resources” - meaning salaries and qualifications of faculty members, class size and student-faculty ratios. The magazine has confirmed that this single error was responsible for the decline in the campus’s overall ranking.</p>

<p>The margins between UC Davis and a cluster of similarly competitive institutions are very small, and slight changes in data can make a large difference in ranking. In the U.S. News rankings, UC Davis actually improved in some key criteria, such as alumni giving and graduation rates. But those strides were not enough to counter the incorrect information regarding faculty resources.</p>

<p>Consequently, all UC Davis rankings dropped due to this mis-reporting…</p>

<p>***** UC Davis ranking among national universities fell - from 42nd to 48th</p>

<p>***** UC Davis ranking among public universities also toppled - from 11th to 14th </p>

<p>As recent as 1996, UC Davis was ranked third amongst UC campuses in US News and World Report’s annual ranking of universities. Since then, UC San Diego has taken over the enviable position of “third most prestigious UC.” </p>

<p>So right now, UC Davis is currently the 4th most prestigious UC behind UCB, UCLA, and UCSD. The University of California system has put a plan in place to make UC Davis a flagship campus, much like Berkeley and UCLA. This requires expanding the undergraduate student body, which has resulted in a less rigorous admissions policy. This is why last year, UC Davis accepted 900 extra freshman kids.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.lasso?id=8402[/url]”>http://www.dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.lasso?id=8402</a></p>

<p><a href=“http://daviswiki.org/UC_Davis[/url]”>http://daviswiki.org/UC_Davis</a></p>

2

<p>Truth.</p>

<p>I'm eager to see what this years rank will be.</p>

3

<p>It all makes sense now. I'm so excited :D</p>

<p>I know you got the bit of info regarding the UC system planning to turn Davis into another flagship campus, but do you know if there's any official sources stating that?</p>

4

<p>"The University of California system has put a plan in place to make UC Davis a flagship campus, much like Berkeley and UCLA. This requires expanding the undergraduate student body, which has resulted in a less rigorous admissions policy. This is why last year, UC Davis accepted 900 extra freshman kids."</p>

<p>What is this plan? Link? Don't tell me that you're assuming daviswiki.org is a reliable source. It is most likely written by Davis students, which means that the plan is not official; and furthermore, anything subjective is most likely biased since it is written by Davis students.</p>

<p>Why would expanding the undergraduate student body improve UC Davis? You claim that UCD is planned by the UC system to become the next flagship campus, but yet it's doing the exact opposite of what a prospective flagship campus should be doing. It's a fact that UC Davis is not as selective as either Cal or UCLA. So if UC Davis wants to expand it's undergraduate student body, it will become less selective, hence straying further from the image of the flagship UC campus. Explanation, please.</p>

<p>Here's a quote from the UC Davis article (dated September 2, 2005) provided:
"In the U.S. News & World Report 2006 America's Best Colleges guide released last month, UC Davis' ranking among public universities also toppled ? from 11th to 14th ? because of the same reporting error. See <a href="http://www.usnews.com."&gt;www.usnews.com.&lt;/a&gt;"
Here's the link to the current U.S. News Ranking:
<a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>If you take a close look at the current ranking and refer to the article, you should see that the article is wrong in stating that Davis fell from 42nd to 48th, because it is actually 47th on the current ranking. What's going on? The inconsistency shows that the error occurred in the 2006 ranking not the 2007 ranking. In fact, the article publish by Davis explicitly states that the error is made in the 2006 rankings. If the misreporting of Davis' faculty had impacted the rankings so much and that U.S. News was aware of this misreporting (refer to the third paragraph of the article), why hasn't UC Davis reclaimed it's 42nd spot on the rankings or climbed the charts in the 2007 ranking?</p>

<p>The only explanation for that is UC Davis may not be all that as the UCD fanatics claim it to be. First, UC Davis fanatics claim that there was a misreporting the 2006 rankings. Okay, that's credible since UC Davis released that article detailing the error with confirmation from U.S. News. However, even after the 2007 rankings came out and UC Davis did not regain it's original ranking, UC Davis fanatics still claim that U.S. News made an error in the rankings. But what does that claim prove? The mistake was made in the 2006's rankings, not 2007's. And the fact that UC Davis is ranked almost the same this year with the error corrected means that either the UC Davis fanatics are ignorant to the fact that the error was made two years ago and is corrected now or that UC Davis is not as great as the fanatics claim.</p>

<p>"So right now, UC Davis is currently the 4th most prestigious UC behind UCB, UCLA, and UCSD."</p>

<p>Since the error was made in the 2006 ranking, and the 2007 ranking is corrected, that statement is wrong. UC Davis is actually tied for 5th with UCSB.</p>

5

<p>I don't trust rankings. Unless UCD starts accepting people like Riverside, it'll always be a top-four UC to me.</p>

6

<p>"Why would expanding the undergraduate student body improve UC Davis? You claim that UCD is planned by the UC system to become the next flagship campus, but yet it's doing the exact opposite of what a prospective flagship campus should be doing. It's a fact that UC Davis is not as selective as either Cal or UCLA. So if UC Davis wants to expand it's undergraduate student body, it will become less selective, hence straying further from the image of the flagship UC campus. Explanation, please."</p>

<p>This year, i believe that the acceptance rate has dropped significantly</p>

<p>though there are no concrete facts yet, it seems to be that way</p>

<p>just throwing that out there...</p>

7

<p>don't these rankings come out every 2 years?????</p>

<p>nate</p>

8

<p>Anyone know when the hell the next rankings will come out?</p>

<p>I don't think the current ones have changed in years.</p>

<p>nate</p>

9

<p>"I don't trust rankings. Unless UCD starts accepting people like Riverside, it'll always be a top-four UC to me."</p>

<p>If your only criterion for college quality is the lack of resemblance to UCR, then you might want get a reality check. First, UCR is not a horrible college to be used as a lower limit for comparison. Second, contrary to what I used to think, admission rates aren't all that pivotal in determining the quality of colleges.</p>

<p>"This year, i believe that the acceptance rate has dropped significantly</p>

<p>though there are no concrete facts yet, it seems to be that way</p>

<p>just throwing that out there..."</p>

<p>That is still illogical. Why would UCD decide to make itself a flagship UC campus this year by lowering admission rates? Why now? Why not last year? And as you said, there is no concrete fact supporting this, so it's just another speculation that UCD is becoming more selective and becoming the next UC flagship campus.</p>

<p>"don't these rankings come out every 2 years?????"</p>

<p>No, they come out every year.</p>

<p>"Anyone know when the hell the next rankings will come out?</p>

<p>I don't think the current ones have changed in years."</p>

<p>The ranking for 2008 is probably coming out in the fall. And you thought wrong. the current one has changed quite a lot. In fact, the 2007 marks the first year in a long time (maybe since the rankings started) that Harvard did not come out on top.</p>

10

<p>TheRighteous, I see what you're trying to say in your long-winded ramble, but as far as I know it will take a couple years to gain the previous ranking back. </p>

<p>Indirectly you're claiming that the six point drop in ranking was deserved, but I don't see how that is possible when many more aspects of Davis' selection criteria are being improved on than diminished. </p>

<p>I, for one, believe that the US News rankings, albeit credible as a ranking source, is politically charged. How this affects Davis' ranking is involved with it's relation to other schools. Even if the drop was undeserved, it raised up the ranks of close by schools, which if directly reversed would have caused some ill disposition. What I'm trying to say is that it will take a couple of years to slowly move back up the rankings in order to not spark an outcry by other schools in the manner that happened to Davis when we dropped.</p>

11

<p>therighteous, i was merely explaining that there's a huge drop in the acceptance rate this year from last year, meaning davis is becoming more selective</p>

<p>what that means in terms of davis wanting to become more of a flagship uc, i don't know</p>

12

<p>megathunder, I see what you're trying to say but you make no sense.</p>

<p>First, you claim U.S. News is not willing to place UDC back to its original rank in fear of inducing "ill disposition." Harvard, the number one brand name in education has been dropped to second place in the 2007 ranking. Do you think U.S. News really cares that much about "ill disposition" if it is willing to knock down what most believe is the best from the high pedestal let alone "ill disposition" from colleges ranked in the mid 40's?</p>

<p>Second, you claim that UCD climbing the charts while knocking down other schools slowly will lessen the outcry from other schools. So, U.S. News is willing to dramatically drop UCD's ranking, but not those of others by 1 spot? U.S. News is not biased against UCD, it uses a rubric. Now, no matter how controversial the rubric is, it doesn't strictly affect UCD adversely.</p>

<p>"TheRighteous, what the hell is your problem man, get the hell outta here!!!"</p>

<p>I'm sorry, did I intrude on a private party here?</p>

<p>"therighteous, i was merely explaining that there's a huge drop in the acceptance rate this year from last year, meaning davis is becoming more selective"</p>

<p>And how do you know that the admission rate has dropped? Have the statistics been confirmed yet?</p>

13

<p>"and yes, for you info, the admission rate dropped this year, it is down to about 50%!"</p>

<p>Post an official link with that information.</p>

14

<p>of course the admissions rate have not been confirmed yet</p>

<p>and i don't think it's fair to say it's 50% cuz how in the heck would someone know that already</p>

<p>what i do know is there's a lot more people getting into ucsb and irvine that got rejected from davis then last year</p>

<p>but, like i said, i don't even think that proves davis is trying to be the new flagship uc.</p>

15

<p>Wans't UC Davis 48 in the rankings in 2006?</p>

16

<p>"""This year, i believe that the acceptance rate has dropped significantly</p>

<p>though there are no concrete facts yet, it seems to be that way</p>

<p>just throwing that out there..."</p>

<p>That is still illogical. Why would UCD decide to make itself a flagship UC campus this year by lowering admission rates? Why now? Why not last year? And as you said, there is no concrete fact supporting this, so it's just another speculation that UCD is becoming more selective and becoming the next UC flagship campus."""</p>

<p>No concrete evidence is available at the moment other that it has "dropped".
It makes perfect sense due to the enlarged class of more than 900 last year and the 7% increase in applicants. It is not a issue of UCD wanting to be a flagship school rather, the issue of basic supply and demand.</p>

17

<p>"It makes perfect sense due to the enlarged class of more than 900 last year and the 7% increase in applicants. It is not a issue of UCD wanting to be a flagship school rather, the issue of basic supply and demand."</p>

<p>Right, UCD admission is not getting tougher due to a plan to make UCD the next flagship campus , but rather due to supply and demand. This directly refutes the OP's claim that UCD is expanding (lowering admission standards) in order to become the next UC flagship.</p>

18

<p>OP might be partially right [that the rankings are inaccurate] because im looking at the US News data right now and a large portion of the data is from 2005. For example it says the acceptance rate is 61% when it was 68% in 2006. A lot of data is out of date unfortunately..but...</p>

<pre><code> National Universities, 47
</code></pre>

<p>Overall score:
59
Average freshman retention rate:
91%
2006 graduation rate:
-Predicted:
80%
-Actual:
80%
-Overperformance (+)/Underperformance (-):
None
Faculty resources rank:
114
Classes with under 20 students (2005):
35%
Classes with 50 or more students (2005):
28%
Student/faculty ratio (2005):
19/1
Percent of faculty who are full-time (2005):
95%
Student selectivity rank:
47
Acceptance rate (2005):
61%
Financial resources rank:
34
Alumni giving rank:
150
Average alumni giving rate (2005):
11% </p>

<p>"Faculty resources rank:
114" does not state 2005 so we should assume this data is from 2006, which still contradicts OP's argument that the ranking did not go up with the increase of faculty resources. </p>

<p>This basically proves you cannot trust US New's rankings all the time, but it does provide the general idea.</p>

19

<p>who the hell cares...things like college rankings..</p>

<p>they are there to give you tentatively how the school fares overall..</p>

<p>difference between 1st and 30th will be huge but 3 or 4 places..come on..this isn't based on rocket science formula and error margin is quite big...</p>

<p>i do think however, that ucd better or same ranking as UCI..</p>

20

<p>Again, I don't have any material proof to validate my opinion, but I believe the drop for Harvard to the number two spot was political as well. I, for one, felt like the first five rankings remaining mostly unchanged year to year was getting a bit boring and US News decided to switch it up and spark a little interest in the area by raising Princeton to number one. Now, why didn't they do this last year or the year before, or even next year for that matter? Like I said, it's my opinion and it makes sense to me.</p>

<p>So if you could use another argument to refute me please do.</p>