FAKE NEWS!!! Go blue!
“It’s all very suspicious Alexandre. It’s as if USNWR wanted to create controversies and discussions between UCB and UCLA being the two top ranked publics. Something is not right.”
Indeed. There is nothing wrong with UCLA’s ranking mind you. It is Cal and Michigan that are ranked lower than they should be. If the US News Methodology reflected differences inherent to private and public universities and audited data submitted by universities for accuracy and consistency, there is no doubt that Cal and Michigan would both be ranked higher.
The Michigan top 10% number here is dubious at best. Michigan’s top 10% classes were reported consistently between 92%-95% on the 2013 USNWR and prior issues. It dropped to 65% on 2014 USNWR all of a sudden, and is now at 75% currently. There is a footnote (5) indicating that “the number is based on fewer than 51% of incoming freshmen”. I wonder how USNWR got that number. Michigan stopped reporting top 10% class on the CDS since 2011-12 because fewer and fewer applicants reported class ranks. The last time Michigan reported on CDS was in 2010-11 (USNWR 2012). Michigan’s top 10% class was 92% then with 96% reporting. It was consistently around 90+% in prior years.
Do you really believe that Michigan’s student quality dropped from 92% to 65% in one year?
Test score accounts for 65% of the Selectivity rank (12.5% overall); top 10% accounts for 25%, and acceptance rate only 10%.
**Michigan Departmental Ranking 2017-18/b
Undergraduate Programs
Business (BBA) – #3
Engineering – #6
Best Undergraduate Teaching – #6
Most Innovative Schools – #8
Cited for excellency in these Special Undergraduate Programs:
[QUOTE=""]
First-Year Experience; Undergraduate Research; Learning Communities; Senior Capstone; Service Learning
[/QUOTE]
Graduate Programs
Business (full time MBA) – #11
Engineering – #5
Law – #8
Medicine – #9
Education – #15
Nursing – #11 / #15 (DNP)
Pharmacy – #3
Public Health – #4
Health Care Management – #1
Clinical Psychology – #16
Social Work – #1
English – #8
History – #6
Mathematics – #9
Statistics – #12
Computer Science – #13
Biological Sciences – #19
Chemistry – #15
Physics – #11
Earth Sciences – #8
Economics – #12
Political Science – #4
Psychology – #3
Sociology – #1
Public Affairs – #8
Library & Information Studies – #5
Architecture – #7 (DesignIntelligence)
Michigan's Music School and Musical Theatre programs are top ranked
Michigan is unique that it is excellent across the board, with top 10-top 15 ranked programs for almost all of its departments. Only two universities in the country, Stanford and Berkeley, can make that claim.
Go Blue!!!
I don’t know why people are worked up about the USNWR ranking. It measures what it measures. That doesn’t include the breadth of excellent grad programs (which does factor in indirectly with the academic reputation). It puts privates and publics on the same scale in a way that favors privates, not in small part because it doesn’t account for the excellent deal provided by in state tuition. Michigan’s instate yield of around 70% testifies to that.
Turtle17, I personally do not get worked up about the ranking because it hurts the University. There is nothing a ranking can do to hurt the Michigan. Michigan is one of the top 10 or 15 universities in the country where it really matters; in the eyes of academia and the corporate world. But what bothers me about the ranking is that it is deliberately manipulating data manufacture a ranking that will sell magazines because it speaks to the insecurities and incredulity of students and their unwitting parents. A good ranking should attempt to deliver a good product that educates people, not one that misleads them.
Excellent point about the class rank GoBlue81. If Michigan were to report it again, its selectivity ranking would likely be significantly higher. Sadly, like at Michigan, at most universities, only 25%-50% or so of incoming freshmen go to schools that report class rankings. For example at Cornell, only 25% of incoming freshmen went to high schools that ranking their students. Michigan is right not to include that statistic, but it is hurting it in the rankings.
USNews. ranking is always arguable and often a joke. One has to look at multiple rankings.
I do not like salary metrics for some obvious reasons:
- Largely self-selected, at least for kids at schools with great career placement
- Variations in cost of living lead to variations in salary for the same job
- STEM- and Finance-heavy schools have a built-in advantage
I think the key to career success is this: that you are doing a job you enjoy, a job you chose. Honestly, maybe employment satisfaction surveys would be a good way to measure that. You’d just have to make sure you secured a representative sample. (but this still relies heavily on the individual… not the school. Some people don’t know what they want to do. Is that the school’s fault?)
“But what bothers me about the ranking is that it is deliberately manipulating data manufacture a ranking that will sell magazines because it speaks to the insecurities and incredulity of students and their unwitting parents.”
What bothers me is reading about how the university is slipping based on the biased USNWR rankings in the college search and selection here on CC.
I suspect UCLA doesn’t report their financial resources properly. Graduate medical school costs are supposed to be included, but they probably include all of their Ronald Reagan Medical Center costs. Cal should lump in UCSF just for good measure… 
Michigan needs to take steps to rectify its slipping ranking. The methodology might be suspect, but the publication has a large audience, and slipping rankings does hurt the University’s reputation.
Michigan doesn’t have to like the game, but it still needs to play it.
I honestly feel that USNWR is deliberately adjusting their rankings to appeal to the people that actually pay to see them.
There is actually a 6th component (not listed) – Faculty Compensation which is weighed 35% in the category.
I doubt if ULCA’s faculty are better compensated than Michigan’s. US News is known to be sloppy with numbers. I doubt if they calibrated the compensation with cost of living. LA is definitely more expensive than AA (166 vs. 122). That accounts for the #22 vs. #50 gap despite Michigan winning in most of the other indicators.
Here is an example of US News being sloppy with their data. Look at the Best College eBook that comes with your online Compass. I noticed in 2016 that they forgot to change the Best Engineering Program ranking (Michigan moving from #7 to #6; Cornell #10 to #9). I wrote US News about this, and I was copied on a mail from Morse drawing attention to this matter … so I thought it would be fixed. Not at all. The same error remained on the 2016 issue and repeated on the 2017 eBook issue. You can see for yourself as the 2017 issue is still up. Curious to see if it remains on the 2018 issue.
I think this is what happened… US News relies on automated data programs to generate most of their statistics. This is one element missing in their programs (the engineering specialties were update). Kinda wonder what other glitches they might have…
Only **19%**of Michigan’s freshmen students submitted high school class ranking. Yet USNWR still counts it towards 25% of this category.
JW1231, the ranking actually does not hurt Michigan’s reputation where it matters most (in academia or corporate circles). If you look at any academic or corporate reputation ranking, Michigan has remained steady over the last 25 years.
It does, however, affect Michigan’s reputation among high school students, but Michigan’s ranking has not been slipping in recent years. It has been ranked between 26-29 for the last 15 year or so. We have pointed to several problems above. There are some things Michigan can do to help itself:
- Return to listing the top 10% high school class ranking percentage of the incoming freshman class. As GoBlue81 points out, only 50% of Michigan's incoming freshmen attend high schools that rank students, but that isn't uncommon. Only 50% of Harvard's incoming freshmen attended schools that rank their students, while at Cornell, that number is a much lower 25%. Listing their top 10% figure alone should help Michigan's selectivity ranking significantly; probably from the current #37 to #20 or so.
- Limit its freshman class size to 5,500 or fewer students. 6,500-7,000 freshmen is way too much.
“There is actually a 6th component (not listed) – Faculty Compensation which is weighed 35% in the category.”
That is unfair. Universities located in areas with very expensive housing markets and cost of living, such as California, New York City, Boston, Washington DC etc…will pay their faculty more than universities in college towns and rural areas, where housing and cost of living are significantly lower.
“Only 19%of Michigan’s freshmen students submitted high school class ranking. Yet USNWR still counts it towards 25% of this category.”
Are you certain about that GoBlue81? The last time Michigan published class rankings in the CDS, over 90% of incoming freshmen submitted their high school rank, which seems very high. At most peer universities, 25%-50% of incoming freshmen submit their high school rank.
I would question that myself if it were not reported by a most reliable source, US News & World Report. Under the Michigan page --> Applying --> Entering Class Stats --> Under Fall 2016 High School Rank, it states that “Freshman students submitting high school class standing: 19%”.
The last time Michigan reported class rank on CDS was in 2010-11. I suppose college admissions have changed drastically over the last 6 years.