<p>1980 collegegrad, the point of the PA is to measure reputation, not actual quality. In fact, the PA was once called the “Academic Reputation Rank”. If you pick up a USNWR ranking between 1989 and 1999 or 2000, you would have seen Academic Reputation Rank in the place of Peer Assessment Score. Either way, it is clealy opinion-based. But that opinion matters to many because if one wishes to apply to graduate school, the PA rating is a pretty good proxy for how your undergraduate degree will be evaluated by the admissions committee at the graduate school(s) you apply to.</p>
<p>Exactly Alexandre. The old addage, “Perception is reality” is so true.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I wish more people would realize that. Most people don’t understand how the networks in academia work, that professors, deans, and presidents definitely know the quality of graduates of other schools, just as they know educators at them. After all, applications for graduate studies come to universities from all over the country and the world; it’s not that difficult to determine the level of education that a 3.8 GPA at University X got.</p>
<p>Presidents are not created out of clay. They have earned their PhDs, taught, been associated with multiple schools, gone to conferences, worked with colleagues at other institutions, reviewed graduate school applications, met with other college presidents, read journal papers, etc. Yes, their knowledge is somewhat field-specific, but in terms of undergraduate education, it can probably be generalized.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I highly doubt that the higher PA score of UMichigan in comparison to Dartmouth and Brown means that admissions committees at graduate schools look more favorably at UMichigan grads than Dartmouth or Brown grads. If this were actually true, Dartmouth and Brown wouldn’t come out SO much better on the WSJ survey. </p>
<p>I still don’t understand why WSJ doesn’t conduct that survey again and maybe expand the list to the top 10 grad schools in each discipline so as to mitigate the effect of which grad schools are listed. Unlike so many of these other rankings, it is unable to be manipulated except by what grad schools are included. If you make it 10 instead of 5 schools, this concern would be assuaged as well.</p>
<p>I love how some think that because someone attended a school 20-30-40 years ago, this somehow prepares them to make an informed judgment about what is going on there today. Hahahahahaha. We all know that academia venerates the status quo, but this is height of absurdity. Things do change. </p>
<p>Re the idea that Machen had enough familiarity to pass judgment on 263 schools (the comment “that’s actually not such an outrageous number to know something about” had me laughing out loud), do you realize that the Presidents, Provosts and Deans of Admission are asked to rate the UNDERGRADUATE programs based on FOUR factors:</p>
<ol>
<li> Scholarship record </li>
<li> Curriculum</li>
<li> Quality of faculty </li>
<li> Quality of graduates </li>
</ol>
<p>Beyond the fact that these voters are unlikely to have detailed knowledge on this for an entire university for more than a handful of institutions, there is absolutely no guidance at all on what is meant by these factors and how you judge these things. Would any of the PA defenders like to explain what each of these four factors are and how they were interpreted by the voters? </p>
<p>Beyond the large integrity issues that have been so exposed by these publications, PA voting is an impossible exercise. I analogize PA voting to arguing about art with one voter prizing the beautiful colors and pretty scenes of Monet while another esteems the abstract sculptures of Brancusi while a third cherishes the photographs of Mapplethorpe. No one wins the argument because no one is comparing the same thing. The statistical product of this misguided collection of votes is a conclusion without any meaning or value. </p>
<p>The PA scoring is a total sham, foisted on us by the folks at USNWR as a way to level the ranking playing field and to create a palatable result for those in academia. Thank God this travesty has been exposed with these silly ballots. We’ll probably get another year or two of votes out of this thing (with some major payback to U Florida and Clemson), but these disclosures have truly been a gift to us all and show us unmistakably the rottenness and comedy of the current system.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seems like you can’t even decide what a PA is for. One statement, it’s about colleges that an administrator is “truly familiar with” and the next it’s a reputation thing, regardless of quality. So which is it?</p>
<p>If someone ask me what golf courses I am “truly familiar with” I’d mention the courses that I’ve played recently enough that I can speak to their playing condition and merit. If instead, I mentioned a golf course and someone asked me how I enjoyed the course, the last time I played it and I told him, ‘well I never played it’, the guy would look at me like I had three heads (and deservedly so). But that’s just me, the word “familiar” actually has meaning to me. And it avoids someone looking at you like you’re an idiot and saying something like … ‘so when you said that you were familiar with the golf course, what did you think I wanted to know, golf courses that you’ve driven by?’ </p>
<p>If instead, PA is suppose to be a reputation thing, regardless of quality input, USN&WR need only change their instructions to:</p>
<p>Please check off the reputation of colleges/university in your category. You need not know anything about the school, where it is located, anyone there (past or present). Simply regurgitate back to us your informed or uninformed opinion. Thanks so much in advance as we value this information highly and weight it accordingly.</p>
<p>Gellino, first of all, there is no difference between a 4.4 and a 4.3 in the PA. And the reason why Darmouth and Brown place a higher percentage of their students in top Law schools, MBA programs and Medical schools in the WSJ survey is because:</p>
<p>1) A slightly higher percentage of students at Brown and Dartmouth apply to such programs</p>
<p>2) Admittedly, a slighltly higher percentage of students at Brown and Dartmouth are qualified for admission into such selective graduate programs</p>
<p>3) The WSJ survey was very East Coast-biased. 10 of the 15 programs evaluated were Ivy League programs and a 12th belonged to MIT. Only 4 of the 15 programs were Midwestern and from the West Coast.</p>
<p>This said, I am virtually certain that most adcoms would view applicants from Brown, Dartmouth and Michigan equally, assuming they have similar credentials (GPA, standardized test scores and work/research experience).</p>
<p>ctyankee, I don;t see how the two statements I made are mutually exclusive. I have always stated that the PA rating is opinion-based.</p>
<p>@Hawkette: academic knowledge/connections do not end when one gets a degree. If anything, knowledge of other institutions increases over time.</p>
<p>Some have argued that with a couple thousand PA submitters, the biases and gaming wash out in the end.
Nothing could be further from the truth. There are systematic anti-religious biases, size biases (boosting the state flagships beyond their overall mediocrity and hammering schools like Rice), regional biases (Rice again), and more. All built on the premise that a busy administrator can judge more than two or three other schools from personal experience. I don’t count 5 year old experience as relevant in an annual update.
And of course these same administrators are most often regarded by their students as out-of-touch with what is happening on their own campuses, particularly in the classroom.</p>
<p>I don’t see them ever eliminating PA. Perhaps they will decrease its weight, but I think it is USNews’ best way to capture things that can’t be captures otherwise. Flawed it may be. Without it, however, how does one capture the unique character and quality of schools like, for one truly interesting example, Alverno?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, where do you draw the line? Do you really think graduate admissions officers want Cal/Berkeley grads over Georgetown or Rice grads because of the difference in PA? The WSJ survey doesn’t bear this out either. If you play around with the search functions in LinkedIn, you would would see on a relative basis there isn’t that much difference between using top 5 schools vs top 10 schools in each category, although it would have helped the WSJ’s credibility. Plus, most of the top grad schools are on the East coast.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I totally disagree with this. Despite currently being involved in both admissions and job recruiting for the schools I attended, I definitely have less knowledge about the schools now than when I attended them.</p>
<p>okay, let me get this straight hawkette. You are arguing that school administrators have limited knowledge about many schools and that PA is a sham. Yet at the same time, you have argued vigorously at various points for including an Employer Assessment in the data points. For example, as part of your attempt at an employer ranking, in Feb. 2009, you stated
</p>
<p>So, employers know lots about schools, but administrators do not.</p>
<p>In addition, you have argued that although imperfect, a teaching excellence ranking by the same college administrators you disparage, would be much better. As you stated,
</p>
<p>So, somehow these same academics are able to rank teaching, but not reputation.</p>
<p>Finally, you have argued that students are really the people to ask about schools. So, you have stated that the SparkNotes student survey is probably a pretty good indicator of faculty quality (“Keep in mind that this is not a scientifically done survey, but I suspect that the conclusions they suggest are broadly accurate”) and that you’d like to see student/alumni opinions included in the rankings (“I have long advocated the inclusion of business and student/alumni opinions on the quality of the product on offer at America’s universities and IMO that these views have every bit as much legitimacy as the views of academics in judging the quality/prestige of a college.”)</p>
<p>Don’t you think that you’re a tad inconsistent here? PA is not perfect, but it is an opinion survey of people who are generally more knowledgeable about schools than students or employers. Some administrators are completely untrustworthy–i.e., Barker at Clemson–and some are making genuine attempts to do their best–i.e., Machen, although they favor their own schools (and by the way, I agree that I don’t think that you should be allowed to rank your own school).</p>
<p>midatlmom, an opinion survey is just that : an opinion survey. It lacks objectivity (an objective opinion is an oxymoron) and those completing it do not necessarily have “more knowledge” than others. The bias that goes into their “individual opinions” makes them less valuable. You say that “some administrators are completely untrustworthy” and that “Machen made some genuine attempts to do his best” ?? - Where did you get the enlightenment from in order to arrive to that conclusion ? Only Machen knows and only all the other presidents know. </p>
<p>It seems to me that you are just taking a leap of faith even against the current empirical evidence. And just because you want to believe, it does not translate into reality.</p>
<p>momwaitingfornew
</p>
<p>I think you may have brought up the ugly truth</p>
<p>
Bingo!</p>
<p>
Double Bingo
JACKPOT</p>
<p>“So, where do you draw the line? Do you really think graduate admissions officers want Cal/Berkeley grads over Georgetown or Rice grads because of the difference in PA? The WSJ survey doesn’t bear this out either. If you play around with the search functions in LinkedIn, you would would see on a relative basis there isn’t that much difference between using top 5 schools vs top 10 schools in each category, although it would have helped the WSJ’s credibility. Plus, most of the top grad schools are on the East coast.”</p>
<p>Cal and Georgetown are two outliers in the PA game. Georgetown has a huge number (relatively speaking of course) of students applying to professional programs, particularly Law and MBA programs. Cal has a huge number of Pell Grant students (to the tune of 35% compared to 7% at Georgetown). Also, many Cal students chose PhD and Engineering graduate programs, neither of which are reflected in the WSJ survey. </p>
<p>And although a large number of top graduate programs are located in the East Coast, many are also located in the Midwest and West Coast. For MBA programs, Cal, Chicago, Michigan, Northwestern, Stanford and UCLA are all among the top dozen in the nation. That’s 50% of the top programs. For Law School, Cal, Chicago, Michigan, Northwestern and Stanford are all considered N14 Law schools. For Medical school, Chicago, Michigan, Stanford, UCLA, UCSF and UDub are all among the very best. </p>
<p>Gelino, if you truly believe that admissions committees actually think less of Cal and Michigan alums than they do of Brown, Dartmouth, Georgetown or Rice alums, that is your prerogative, but I still think the PA is, in general, a pretty good indicator of what academe thinks. </p>
<p>“If you play around with the search functions in LinkedIn, you would would see on a relative basis there isn’t that much difference between using top 5 schools vs top 10 schools in each category, although it would have helped the WSJ’s credibility”</p>
<p>First of all, are you sure you want to play this game Gellino. Do you have any idea how many Michigan alums attend Michigan Medical school, Michigan graduate Engineering, Michigan Law and Michigan MBA…to say nothing of Michigan’s top 10 graduate PhD programs? Each year, anywhere from 40-60 Michigan students enroll into each of those professional programs. That’s 200 students enrolling into Michigan’s four major top-ranked programs programs. It is safe to say twice as many Michigan alums enroll into other top 15 or so professional graduate programs. I would not underestimate Cal and Michigan’s placement into top graduate programs if I were you.</p>
<p>Lastly, I definitely agree that the WSJ should expend its study to the top 10-15 graduate programs, including top Graduate Engineering programs and top PhD programs in the traditional disciplines such as Anthropology, Biology, Chemistry, Economics, English, History, Mathematics, Physics and Political Science, Psychology and Sociology.</p>
<p>To the people who say that Machen gamed the system and tired to bolster Florida’s rank, what evidence do you have? He gave his school a 5. How do you think people would have reacted if he gave his school a 3? I personally have no issues with a President giving his university a 5 regardless of what school it is. I would be worried if a President underscored his school though because that sends a poor message to the students and alums.</p>
<p>He did undercut Florida schools, but not by much. One poster said FSU should have been rated a 4. If FSU is a 4 then most schools in the top 50 should be 5s. It’s all a relative scale. The Florida schools he gave 1s maybe deserved 2s, but I doubt he rated them so poorly to bolster Florida’s ranking. Does UF gain anything if undercuts those schools well outside the top 100? If UF is competitng with these schools for students it loses out not because of US News rank, but because those other schools offer merit scholarships to students not qualified for UF merit scholarships.</p>
<p>PA is a necessary evil. Without it things like SAT score and acceptance rate have more effect on a school’s rank than how it is viewed by academics. It is not perfect, but US News rankings are better with it than without it.</p>
<p>
Alex, if you want those numbers you’re better off doing the research yourself. WSJ is made for professionals and I can’t see them doing research on PhD programs. I agree that it should expand the rankings to more than the top 5 programs (which make it way too north east centric) but I can’t see them ranking outside of top Med, Law, and MBA programs.</p>
<p>myopinion</p>
<p>bclintonk has made some very convincing posts about the machen results. While there are definitely some anomalies, most of his results are not far outside the norm and there is really no evidence that he has systematically attempted to “game” the system or has acted in bad faith. Do you have any such evidence, other than the fact that he rated his own school too high? </p>
<p>I stand corrected in that of course I do not know what goes on in the heart and mind of President Machen. But it seems to me that you have made the same mistake that you accuse me of making. You have stated on numerous occasions that you believe that the Machen survey is not honest (i.e., "Not surprising that UF has been cooking the rankings just like Clemson and USC and “As far as Machen’s dishonesty while completing the US News survey, this may be rampant across the nation”). On what basis do you claim to know that Machen was dishonest?</p>
<p>It seems to me that you are assuming that Machen is dishonest and untrustworthy, while I have seen no evidence of that. I suppose that either (or none) of us might be right, but you have not given any objective reasons for your views, unlike bclintonk’s analyses.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you mean that you do alumni interviews and recruiting at/for your alma mater, then this is not the same as actually being in higher education. </p>
<p>Let’s say that I’m on the faculty of university X. I review grad school applications, along with several of my colleagues, from all over the country. I work with grad students admitted to the program. Each year, I’m faced with the quality of the undergraduate education at multiple universities. If I don’t make it my business to know the quality of the undergraduates who apply, I will risk losing valuable time and funding. I must know. .</p>
<p>I also went to a PhD program that awarded degrees to 25 students a year. Yes, that knowledge of those 25 student/year and their undergraduate education may now be dated, but I know where they now work, and with whom. I meet up with them at conferences and discuss education/departments. We keep track of each other. </p>
<p>I attend talks with hundreds of professors in attendance. I can tell which colleagues are good lecturers and which are not. I can tell the quality of their research. University affiliations are always noted in poster sessions, publications, conference proceedings.</p>
<p>I collaborate with colleagues from universities A,B, and C, and I know how involved their undergraduate students are and of what caliber. The students go off to graduate school. But they keep in touch. Through a connection with the professor from University C, I begin collaborating with him and two colleagues from University D and E.</p>
<p>When I go up for tenure, I need outside evaluators of my research. I must know which letters will carry the most weight because of the standards that person AND his university has because my tenure case depends on it. </p>
<p>I become a dean, then a provost, then a president of (usually) different universities. I know the strengths and weaknesses of each. I know which colleges are likely to entice my admitted undergraduates away from me and which my school can trump. I know exactly WHY this is, or I’m not doing my job. I know the quality of my faculty and how they measure up to all the other faculty members I know. I meet with other presidents, and we discuss the issues our colleges face.</p>
<p>I could go on and on. Much of reputation is derived not from job placement right out of undergrad but from how undergraduates fare in the graduate school process and then in industry and academia. Yes, the glimpse into other institutions is colored by the president’s experience, and no, he/she cannot know all 263 schools. However, you’d probably be surprised by how much a university president does know.</p>
<p>Despite the (somewhat) subjective nature of PA, students applying to undergraduate institutions must know what it is. If you strip that out of the rankings, you can end up with schools that don’t fare well in the graduate admissions process because professors don’t respect them as much as USNWR might suggest. So Joe Student attends #20 college (that’s just pulled out of the air, with no significance) thinking that he’s attending a “top 20” school, only to discover that his GPA of 3.7 is not as highly regarded as a 3.7 at #30. Supporters of the rankings say that consumers should know what they are buying. To them, I say, “Exactly.”</p>