<p>basically for those who are two lazy to read: Clemson released it's peer assessment surveys to the public and in fact Clemson rated itself as the highest school, higher than schools like Yale, UC-Berkeley etc...</p>
<p>The question for the peer assessment is, is Clemson's excuse that in their opinion they are the best school in the country (if a university president didn't think that, he'd probably be fired haha), or is this just a lame excuse that nobody's buying it?</p>
<p>Personally, I'm not buying this excuse. Clemson is good and it should give itself high ratings too but you have to admit that there at least several schools that are doing a better job than you.</p>
<p>Here's what President Barker had to say in defense of his actions:</p>
<p>"The request from U.S. News is to measure the academic quality of undergraduate programs. It did not say research programs, it did not say prestige. It did not say size of endowments, or anything other than undergraduate education. And I took that charge seriously, measuring what I would think would be the full package of the undergraduate experience," including faculty-student ratio, relationships between faculty and students in and out of class ... do they spend time having lunch together. I believe that Clemson does that better than anyone. That's why my ranking for Clemson is where it is. You'll notice I did not give anyone a 5, because I did not believe any of us had reached that level.... I'm a hard grader............ Other schools would bring a great deal to the table, and I was adding that component of fiscal discipline on top of the quality of what's going on. There are hundreds of forms that are submitted each year, and one form doesn't move a school one way or the other, to use one form to game the system is impossible. I think a university president needs to believe in what the school is doing. Clemson is my alma mater, but also my school. I would not deny that I have some bias, but what I'm doing there is my reflection on what's happening in undergraduate education."</p>
<p>Clemson IS the best university in the nation. Best because its President says so, and best because USNWR rates it the fastest rising institution in the nation. WHAT’S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? CAN’T YOU READ THE RATINGS??? It’s truly a shame that Clemson doesn’t have enough space to accept all those students now attending UCal-Berkeley, UVA, UMich, etc. who really deserve better than their sad schools offer.</p>
<p>I think this controversy seems overblown. Basically, they have just been playing the system to improve their ranking. As a side effect of this, the school has in fact gotten better. </p>
<p>Their goal may be slightly unethical but the results are positive. I don’t have any real problems with smaller class sizes, higher admission standards, and professors getting paid more.</p>
<p>^ Speaking strictly for myself, I think there’s a big difference between “We want to be a Top 20 school” and “We want to be ranked a Top 20 school.” Kind of analogous to “The government is committed to maintaining democracy” and “The government is committed to maintaining the perception of democracy.” JMHO of course.</p>
<p>Captain Renault: I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
[a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: Oh, thank you very much.</p>
<p>I am pleased all of this is “gaming” information is finally coming out and I hope reaching a critical mass to once and for all bury USNWR (its only money maker are these inane lists). In addition to what’s going on at Clemson, I have maintained that any ranking system that has UC Santa Barbara, Irvine and Davis in the top 50 ranked over UT, UF, Penn State (flagship unis.), Tulane, GWU, and Miami, as does USNWR, is a joke. </p>
<p>These UC schools are gaming the system with their artificially high estimated top 10 percent of high school class numbers. For example, Davis reports 96 percent, whereas Harvard reports 95 percent, Stanford reports 91 percent, Vanderbilt 80. This is juxtaposed with these UC schools’ low SAT/ACT achievement. Davis: average SAT1160/ACT24; Irvine: SAT1120/ACT24; SB: SAT1185/ACT25. By any reasonable standard these numbers are atrocious for purported top 50 schools. Ridiculous.</p>