<p>Many posters will refer to a X deparment at Y College being ranked #Z. Does anyone know the sources and the methodologies that people are using for these rankings?</p>
<p>Heresay. Thats really it.</p>
<p>There are very few undergraduate department rankings. Business and Engineering are probably the main reliable undergraduate department rankings availlable. </p>
<p>In most cases, people try to associate an undergraduate department with the quality of its graduate program. Since undergrads, particularly upper classmen, have access to the same faculty, research and facilities, that's not too much of a stretch. However, LACs and non-research intensive departments may have very cometitive undergraduate programs in a particular discipline, so looking purely at graduate school rankings doesn't draw a complete picture.</p>
<p>Some posters are referring to the Gourman rankings, I think.</p>
<p>alexandre,
You often refer to rankings when talking about U Michigan and other schools. What rankings are you drawing from? Is it Gourman or are there other rankings that I don't know about?</p>
<p>Most are using US News grad dept rankings. A few use NRC grad rankings and only a couple Gourman. I'd assume US News unless it says otherwise. The grad rankings are done with a survey of school deans and dept heads.</p>
<p>I never use Gourman. In fact, I usually warn against Gourman. Along with the Princeton Review, it is one of the less useful university books availlable.</p>
<p>I generally use the USNWR and sometimes, BW (for B-school rankings).</p>
<p>But all I have found from USNWR is rankings for engineering and sub categories and business. Do rankings exist for areas of study like psychology or foreign languages or history, etc and where do I find them?</p>
<p>most of the rankings are based on peer reviews, to answer the OP's question</p>
<p>That's correct Hawkette, like I said in post #3, there are very few reliable undergraduate rankings availlable. Business and Engineering are two such majors where one can actually get decent rankings. In my posts, I generally clearly state that the groupings I provide are rough estimates based on graduate rankings and that many LACs offer equally good options for undergrads. I even usually list the LACs good in a particular major based on the size of the department and course variety and availlability.</p>
<p>In support of the Gourman rankings, I want to point out that they agree closely with current US News rankings for business and engineering and they mostly agree with the general consensus on CC, including lists posted by Alexandre. The Gourman ranking formula tends to favor research universities. I find that people who have not studied the Gourman rankings closely tend to repeat criticisms of Gourman that were made by a group of librarians many years ago. But, they are hard pressed to point out specific errors in the Gourman rankings.</p>
<p>In looking at reviews for the Gourman rankings on Amazon, a frequent complaint seemed to be that Gourman never shows his formula, almost as if the whole ranking were his personal opinion.</p>
<p>I've wondered this. Here's the Gourman ranking for linguistics:</p>
<p>UCLA
U Chicago
UC Berkeley
U Penn
Cornell
UC San Diego
Yale
U Illinois Urbana Champaign
Stanford
MIT
U Michigan Ann Arbor
Indiana U Bloomington
U Wisconsin Madison
U Washington
NYU
Ohio State
U Rochester
Harvard
U Hawaii Manoa
U Kansas
Rice
U Texas Austin
U Pittsburgh
U Arizona
U Minnesota
UC Irvine
U Florida
U Iowa
U Mass Amherst
UC Santa Barbara</p>
<p>Did he just forget UC Santa Cruz, which clearly has one of the best linguistics programs? It makes me wonder whether this occurs in other rankings of his, too. So I'm a bit wary of the Gourman rankings.</p>
<p>Uh, ok, some critcisms of Gourman...</p>
<p>They've barely changed in like 20 years (or however long they've been out). In that time period Penn's student body climbed from top 20 to arguably top 10.</p>
<p>He has no real methodology. Its not clear what he looks at, how much he weights certain things, and how he even finds out.</p>
<p>There's no index that contains any relevant information about ANY program.</p>
<p>He says they are for undergrad, but did he really look at hundreds of schools and research all of them, or simply use existing graduate rankings. He probably assumes big research schools have great undergrads because their grad schools are strong - but doesn't note the seperate identities of undergrad and grad, and how different the two really are.</p>
<p>How can you trust Gourman rankings at all? Especially contrasting this with Newsweek, US News, WSJ, THES, etc. that clearly state methodology, and which parts of the ranking are subjective.</p>
<p>Some universities list the various specialty rankings that may include individual undergraduate department rankings. </p>
<p>Florida State does this as noted here: <a href="http://www.fsu.edu/highlights/rankings.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.fsu.edu/highlights/rankings.html</a></p>
<p>How reliable are these rankings? I would assume many times only someone specialized in that particular area could tell how reasonable the rankings turn out.</p>
<p>kyledavid80-
The Gourman rankings for GRADUATE programs DOES list UC Santa Cruz at #11. The Gourman Report used different criteria for ranking graduate programs and undergraduate programs. Cal Tech is surprisingly left off or ranked low for some undergrad programs because of this.</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess-
I have the original 1967 Gourman Report and I assure you that the rankings have changed over time. You would not expect them to change very much because schools change very, very slowly. Relative rankings tend to change very little.</p>
<p>The amount of self-perpetuating misinformation about the Gourman Report is amazing. Here is a description of the Gourman Methodology which is available to anyone who really wanted to investigate. The weights given to the criteria listed below are different for different majors. I have posted this before.</p>
<p>INTRODUCTION</p>
<p>Since 1967, The Gourman Report has made an intensive effort to determine what
constitutes academic excellence or quality in American colleges and .universities.
The result of that research and study is found within this book. </p>
<p>The Gourman Report is the only qualitative guide to institutions of higher education
that assigns a precise, numerical score to each school and program. This score is
derived from a comprehensive assessment of each program's strengths and
shortcomings. This method makes it simple to examine the effectiveness of a given
educational program, or compare one program to another. </p>
<p>These deceptively simple numerical ratings take into account a wide variety of
empirical data. The Gourman Report is not a popularity contest or an opinion poll,
but an objective evaluation of complex information drawn from the public record,
private research foundations, and universities themselves. Many of the resources
employed in this research, while public, are not easily accessible. Individual
researchers attempting to collect this data in order to compare institutions or
programs would face a daunting task. </p>
<p>This book is intended for use by: </p>
<p>• Young people and parents wishing to make informed choices
about higher education.
• Educators and administrators interested in an independent
evaluation of their programs .. </p>
<p>• Prospective employers who wish to assess the educational
qualifications of college graduates.
• Schools wishing to improve undergraduate programs
• Foundations involved in funding colleges and universities.
• Individuals interested in identifying fraudulent or inferior
institutions ..
• Citizens concerned about the quality of today's higher education.
For all of these researchers, the breadth and convenience of the data in The
Gourman Report can greatly facilitate the study of higher education. </p>
<p>Method of Evaluation </p>
<p>Much of the material used in compiling The Gourman Report is internal-drawn
from educators and administrators at the schools themselves. These individuals are
permitted to evaluate only their own programs-as they know them from daily
experience-and not the programs of other institutions. Unsolicited appraisals are </p>
<p>occasionally considered (and weighed accordingly), but the bulk 'of our
contributions come from people chosen for their academic qualifications, their
published works, and their interest in improving the quality of higher education. It
attests to the dedication of these individuals (and also to the serious problems in
higher education today) that over 90% of our requests for contributions are met
with a positive response. </p>
<p>In addition, The Gourman Report draws on many external resources which are a
matter of record, such as funding for public universities as authorized by legislative
bodies, required filings by schools to meet standards of non-discrimination, and
material provided by the institutions (and independently verified) about faculty
makeup and experience, fields of study offered, and physical plant. </p>
<p>Finally, The Gourman Report draws upon the findings of individuals, associations </p>
<p>and agencies whose business it is to make accurate projections of the success that </p>
<p>will be enjoyed by graduates from given institutions and disciplines. While the </p>
<p>methods employed by these resources are proprietary, their findings have </p>
<p>consistently been validated by experience, and they are an important part .of our </p>
<p>research. </p>
<p>The Gourman Report's rating of educational institutions is analogous to the grading
of a college essay examination. What may appear to be a subjective process is in
fact a patient sifting of empiricar data by analysts who understand both the "subject
matter" (the fields of study under evaluation), and the "students" (the colleges and
universities themselves). The fact that there are virtually no "tie" scores indicates
the accuracy and effectiveness of this methodology. So does the consistent
affirmation of the ratings in The Gourman Report by readers who are in a position
to evaluate certain programs themselves. </p>
<p>The following criteria are taken into consideration in the evaluation of each
educational program and institution. It should be noted that, because disciplines
vary in their educational methodology, the significance given each criterion will vary
from the rating of one discipline to the next; however, our evaluation is consistent
for all schools listed within each field of study. </p>
<ol>
<li>Auspices, control and organization of the institution; </li>
<li>Number of educational programs offered and degrees conferred
(with additional attention to "sub-fields" available to students
within a particular discipline);</li>
<li>Age (experience level) of the institution and of the individual
discipline or program and division;</li>
<li>Faculty, including qualifications, experience, intellectual interests,
attainments, and professional productivity (including research);</li>
<li><p>Students, including quality of scholastic work and records of
graduates both in graduate study and in practice;
• The Goullnan Report-Undergraduate </p></li>
<li><p>Basis of and requirements for admission of students (overall and
by individual discipline) </p></li>
<li><p>Number of students enrolled (overall and for each discipline); </p></li>
<li><p>Curriculum and curricular content of the program or discipline
and division;</p></li>
<li><p>Standards and quality of instruction (including teaching loads); </p></li>
<li><p>Quality of administration, including attitudes and policy toward
teaching, research and scholarly production in each discipline,
and administration research;</p></li>
<li><p>Quality and availability of non-departmental areas such as
counseling and career placement services;</p></li>
<li><p>Quality of physical plant devoted to undergraduate, graduate and
professional levels; </p></li>
<li><p>Finances, including budgets, investments, expenditures and
sources of income for both public and private institutions;</p></li>
<li><p>Library, including number of volumes, appropriateness of
materials to individual disciplines, and accessibility of materials;</p></li>
<li><p>Computer facility sufficient to support current research activities
for both faculty and students;</p></li>
<li><p>Sufficient funding for research equipment and infrastructure; </p></li>
<li><p>Number of teaching and research assistantships; </p></li>
<li><p>Academic-athletic balance.
ipecific information about the data used to rank institutions and programs is
Ivailable in Appendix A and Appendix B.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Uh, this seriously can't be the criteria. This completely discredits Gourman's claim to be an undergrad ranking. I think this might be for the grad section of the Gourman rankings or something, because it specifically states it looks at graduate work and graduate resources. So let me know if you can find some criteria from Gourman that is more undergrad oriented.</p>
<p>However, These criteria don't make sense for undergrad OR grad:
- Age of the program (more points for every year older or what?)
- Athletic-academic balance (when ranking individual departments why does this matter?)
- Number of students (obviously a bigger school will win at this)</p>
<p>And these critera prove, beyond doubt, Gourman report is not really an undergrad ranking:</p>
<ul>
<li>Number of Students (Dartmouth has 1300 undergrads...Berkeley has more)</li>
<li>Quality of students in graduate scholastic work and in practice (Dartmouth doesn't have many grad students either...too bad for them)</li>
<li>Number of teaching assistantships (Dartmouth doesn't use many TA's, since its undergrad focused)
etc. In fact, every criteria mentions research or some sort of graduate ideal, but there is no mention of faculty/student ratios, undergrad courses being taught by professors, and in fact it favors the usage of TA's since having more TA's inflates its rank (whereas most private schools don't want to use TA's and want professors to do more of the teaching).</li>
</ul>
<p>Thank you for providing a copy of the criterion used by Gourman, as it proves beyond doubt that it is a laughable measure of undergrad strength. Also, it skews even graduate programs to favor larger programs. I will try and find some more info about the Gourman that will shed some light on my questions on what its real goals are.</p>
<p>Those are a lot of words about methodology, but still no information about what his decisions about weights, etc. are based on. "Graded like a college essay" does not tell me what I need to know. And since when does the absence of a "tie" score indicate methodology is sound? </p>
<p>I don't care if Gourman's ranking tend to be kind to the institution where I currently work; I don't know of anyone in my field who trusts them as valid or reliable.</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess-
Do you really think your sarcastic tone and extremist remarks will prove anything?</p>
<p>As I said, the Gourman Report applied different weights to the criteria depending on the methodology and weighted criteria differently for graduate and undergraduate. The numerical rankings published in the Gourman Report are a composite of many criteria and produce a wholistic picture of the programs. The criteria you dismissed as irrelevant to undergraduate education ARE relevant to undergraduate education.</p>
<p>The age of the program...start-up program versus a mature, established program...this is a legitimate concern.</p>
<p>Athletic-academic balance...every department is embedded in the overall environment...it probably should not weigh heavily in the ranking of an individual department but would be a concern to many students in every department.</p>
<p>Number of students...the bigger schools do win on this point...but the number of students in a department is important. Effective departments tend to attract more students relative to the overall size of the school. Departments need a critical mass. And I would generally say that bigger is generally better up to the point where resources are strained. But, as long as the resources are there, including faculty, bigger means better. At the same time, I can understand the appeal of LACs and concede that the individual attention at LACs might be a plus. Yes, the Gourman Report formula does overlook LACs, which is a limitation.</p>
<p>The presence of a graduate program has advantages and disadvantages. I think there is an optimal ratio of graduate students to undergraduate students. But, I would argue that, in general, opportunities for involvement in research and scholarship activities are advantageous to undergraduates.</p>
<p>hoedown-
Ties are possible in the Gourman Report but very unlikely on a 400 or 500-point scale (1-5 to the hundreths place). There is at least one tie in the Gourman Report, maybe more. The lack of ties is not a valid criticism. You are merely repeating what you have heard.</p>
<p>And, it does not bother me that Gourman did not make all his specific weights and data available to the public. The bottom line is: Are the rankings valid? Yes, they are valid. They can be corroborated by delving into the details of any program and by comparing the Gourman rankings with other rankings. The information is available to validate the Gourman Report rankings.</p>
<p>Until someone can point out some glaring inaccuracies in the Gourman Report rankings, all this indignant sputtering about the Gourman Report is just a lot of hot air. Show me how the rankings are incorrect in some significant, pervasive way. If you can't, then a rational person would reconsider their position.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The lack of ties is not a valid criticism. You are merely repeating what you have heard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>?? </p>
<p>Nope.</p>
<p>I am not repeating "what I have heard." I am citing something you posted yourself! Go re-read the methodology you shared with us. It's in your post, the information posted, see the first paragraph after the one that is mistakenly double-spaced. See? Your source (Gourman himself?) stated (I paraphrase) "no ties demonstrate the effectiveness of this methodology." </p>
<p>I don't understand the mathematical/statistical truth in that statement. I am unfamiliar with the role of ties (or lack thereof) in establishing reliability or face validity, content validity, criterion validity, or anything other kind of validity he's talking about. Perhaps that's an area of measurement I'm unfamiliar with; if you have information that clarifies this--and I assume you do, given your jibes about "sputtering indignantly" and "hot air"-- I'd welcome it.</p>
<p>My comments aren't extremist, but moreso just suprised at how ridiculous the Gourman criteria really are. Athletics? Age of department? Number of library books, number of TA's, number of computers? All of these favor large schools such as Michigan, and hurt small schools that are undergrad focused such as Dartmouth.</p>