<p>Does anyone ever look at US News & World Report's International College Rankings? Or does everyone just care about the national one...</p>
<p>Just curious.</p>
<p>The ranking of US universities that would be obtained by removing the non-US schools from the international ranking is:</p>
<p>[ol]
[<em>] Harvard
[</em>] Yale
[<em>] Caltech
[</em>] Chicago
[<em>] MIT
[</em>] Columbia
[<em>] Penn
[</em>] Princeton
[<em>] Duke
[</em>] Johns Hopkins
[<em>] Cornell
[</em>] Stanford
[<em>] Michigan
[</em>] Carnegie Mellon
[<em>] Brown
[</em>] UCLA
[<em>] Northwestern
[</em>] Berkeley
[<em>] BU
[</em>] Dartmouth
[<em>] Wisconsin-Madison
[</em>] UCSD
[<em>] Univ of Washington
[</em>] WUSTL
[<em>] Emory
[</em>] UT-Austin
[<em>] Univ of Illinois
[</em>] Rice
[<em>] UC Davis
[</em>] Case Western
[<em>] UVA
[</em>] Univ of Pittsburgh
[<em>] UCSB
[</em>] Purdue
[<em>] Vanderbilt
[</em>] UNC
[<em>] USC
[</em>] Penn State
[<em>] Georgetown
[</em>] Univ of Rochester
[<em>] Ohio State Univ
[</em>] Univ of MD
[<em>] Stony Brook Univ
[</em>] UC Irvine
[<em>] Texas A&M
[</em>] Univ of Arizona
[<em>] Rutgers
[</em>] Tufts
[<em>] Univ of FL
[</em>] Notre Dame
[/ol]</p>
<p>As you can see, that differs significantly from the separate US News national ranking, which uses a different methodology.</p>
<p>Except for a few surprises (like Stanford’s relatively low ranking for example), I think the list above is more accurate than the national ranking properly. Universities like Emory, Rice, Vanderbilt, WUSTL, Dartmouth, Notre Dame, and Georgetown are overrated in the national list.</p>
<p>^ IMO, that ranking is not very credible.</p>
<p>here are some examples:</p>
<p>-MIT is lower than Chicago</p>
<p>-Stanford is lower than Cornell</p>
<p>-UCSB is higher than Georgetown</p>
<p>-University of Virginia is lower than the University of Wisconsin</p>
<p>why did you go through the trouble of removing int’l schools when the OP asked for it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Big difference between 4/5 and 11/12? All of them are peer schools anyways.</p>
<p>University of Wisconsin has a much better reputation than UVA internationally (I have no knowledge of the methodology used for this ranking.</p>
<p>This ranking also incorporates graduate schools. Chicago is equal to or slightly better than MIT, since it has a wider range of prestigious programs.</p>
<p>“This ranking also incorporates graduate schools. Chicago is equal to or slightly better than MIT, since it has a wider range of prestigious programs.”</p>
<p>precisely. UChicago has many more prestigious professional schools as well.</p>
<p>^I don’t think it includes professional schools, otherwise Stanford would be at least Top 10, but probably Top 5.</p>
<p>um… OP, you missed NYU. It’s between Berkeley and BU. And IMO I think this ranking is more credible b/c it reflects each university’s strength as a whole rather than just the undergraduate experience.</p>
<p>Sorry, I may have missed NYU because I did it manually and didn’t check the list for errors/omissions afterwards.</p>
<p>Texas A&M over Tufts? Are you freaking kidding me?</p>
<p>US News didn’t actually write that ranking. It’s called the Times Higher Education - QS ranking, and it has been received somewhat critically every since its inception.</p>
<p>bruno123: What do you mean when you say that certain schools like Emory, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc., are “overrated”. How would even propose going about to study that they are overrated? To even have a valid subjective opinion you would’ve had to have studied at every school on the top 100 list to have a reason for comparison.</p>
<p>flyingllama: So basically what you’re saying is that the ranking isn’t credible because it doesn’t match up to your own standards, or because it doesn’t match what you think the rankings should be. The rankings are different on an international level, and the methodology is different. The National rankings focus on points that are important to undergraduate education. The international rankings focus more on research output. Internationally, yes, Wisconsin-Madison has a better reputation than Virginia (even within graduate schools and research output domestically, Wisconsin has a better reputation than Virginia), and so it is with MIT v. Chicago and UCSB v. Georgetown.</p>
<p>Texas A&M has more research output than Tufts, and it is wider known internationally than Tufts, so that makes sense too. The schools that are important to 18-year-old undergrads just aren’t important to scholars and businesspeople across the globe.</p>
<p>I go to Texas A&M, and when I traveled abroad, everybody I talked to had heard of it. I doubt the same could be said for Tufts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A comparison between their overall US News national rank and their peer review rank (including both academic peer review and employer peer review) suggests that they are overrated. They are also overrated in comparison to their research productivity as measured by indicators like publications or citations per faculty (another component of the QS/US News international ranking methodology). </p>
<p>Of course, one doesn’t need to have studied in all colleges in the world to rank or compare them. That is an absurd statement.</p>
<p>In honest terms I think the US international ranking is more accurate in terms of pure academics, employment, and faculty. Michigan ranks # 13 on this list if you don’t include international schools, but 27th in the national ranking. People may ask why? Michigan has the largest Alumni Network in the world. Its various schools attract employers(Ross, Engineering, LSA) and academically 70% of its programs rank in the top 10. The ranking isn’t based, (In my opinion) partially on bull **** almuni giving rates and graduation factors. How does graduation rates and selectivity portray the excellence of a university? Can someone explain that to me.</p>
<p>Selectivity: The more selective the school is, the more likely it is that the school will be comprised of hard-working, well-rounded individuals who will be successful both in and out of the classroom. Less selective colleges don’t have that luxury and it could be said that the kids at the bottom are more likely to drag down the kids at the top of a less selective college, whereas it’s more likely that the kids at the bottom at a selective school will rise up to meet the kids at the top. Just guessing here.</p>
<p>Graduation Rates: The school does a good job of selecting students who can handle the workload and then once they’re students, the school does a good job of advising and guiding the students. Graduation rates aren’t really that good at determining the quality because so many factors can affect them i.e. difficulty of the school, most popular majors and price.</p>
<p>Hmm…understandable.</p>
<p>
[quote=]
Texas A&M over Tufts? Are you freaking kidding me?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Within Texas, A&M is overshadowed by UT-Austin, but it is actually quite strong in the sciences and engineering and has made significant strides in the liberal arts, business, etc. with the support of its $6B+ endowment and, some would say, rabid alumni support.</p>
<p>Universities should solely be ranked on faculty quality, academic output, and quantity of citations. They should be ranked on the strength of what the university offers; it’s a little fishy to give substantial weight to selectivity, SAT ranges, alumni giving, and graduation rates.</p>