<p>When was the first US News published with an actual methodology ?</p>
<p>Yeah, Duke was overlooked in 1983, but in the next USNews ranking in 1985 it was #6 and has been parked around there ever since.</p>
<p>Do you have the peer assessment scores over the same period?</p>
<p>UltimateFrisbee: "Your forgetting that Duke is a young school and didn't achieve prominence until around the mid 1980s after the Nixon era, when the university launched its international and domestic campaign to expand its reputation dramatically."</p>
<p>Actually, Duke's amazing climb from a regional institution in the 1960's, a "country club" much like Northwestern and Vanderbilt were perceived at the time, to a national institution really happened during the tenure of DuKe President Terry Sanford in the 70's and early 80's. Today, Northwestern is trying to finally shed the last residual of it's regionalness (still some difficulty with getting respect in New England, as evidenced in this forum) and Vanderbilt is still faced with this challenge. As a side note, before the sixties, Stanford was shedding it's regional reputation as was Brown which was viewed with equal footing with Colgate until it was selected to be part of the Ivy League football conference.</p>
<p>From the Wikipedia about Terry Sanford:</p>
<p>Through a combination of careful attention to the feelings and thoughts of students, shrewd administrative appointments and sound fiscal leadership, Sanford elevated the University from a respected liberal arts institution in the South to one of the nation's preeminent academic powerhouses. In the Allen Building, home of the University administration, just as in the governor's office (he was Governor of North Carolina from 1961-1965), he preached the values of education.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Sanford%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Sanford</a></p>
<p>so 1985 is when the US News rankings essentially became the quasi-official rankings for college students...22 years and I think the same 9 or 10 schools have been at the top all of them.</p>
<p>Looks like these are tough rankings to go up on.</p>
<p>my 2006 mini site:</p>
<p><a href="http://usnews.knows.it%5B/url%5D">http://usnews.knows.it</a> </p>
<p>enjoy comparing</p>
<p>Wow, I had no idea about Sanford. Thanks for the info werner. Guess I was just flat out wrong lol.</p>
<p>thethoughtprocess: "so 1985 is when the US News rankings essentially became the quasi-official rankings for college students...22 years and I think the same 9 or 10 schools have been at the top all of them.</p>
<p>Looks like these are tough rankings to go up on."</p>
<p>Not quite true. In general yes. But if you look carefully, an amazing 17 school have been in the top 10 over the last 10 years.</p>
<p>Wow, which?</p>
<p>HYPSMC, Penn, Duke, Columbia, Dartmouth, Chicago, which other ones?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The main storyline besides the rise of Penn and WUSTL seems to be the decline of the top public schools in the rankings. Berkeley fell 8 spots, UCLA fell 9 spots, Michigan fell 3 spots, Virginia fell 6 spots, and UNC fell 7 spots. None of the top publics (at least of those listed by iceman) has gone up, and all but Michigan seem to have fallen significantly.
If I were to speculate, it would seem to indicate an increasing bias against public schools in the rankings, rather than any real change in quality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>quoted for truth... the publics go down...</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow, which? </p>
<p>HYPSMC, Penn, Duke, Columbia, Dartmouth, Chicago, which other ones?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Multiple Top 10 Appearances:
Brown - no. 10 ('99), no. 9 ('98), no. 8 ('97) and no. 9 ('96)
Cornell - no. 9 ('01), no. 6 ('99), no. 10 ('94), no. 9 ('91)
Northwestern - no. 10 ('03), no. 10 ('99), no. 9 ('98 and 97)</p>
<p>One Time Top 10 Appearance:
WUSTL - no. 9 ('04)
Emory - no. 9 ('98)</p>
<p>Emory!</p>
<p>Thanks for the info, I guess HYPSM Columbia Duke and Dartmouth are the only ones that have never left the top 10?</p>
<p>Columbia has left the top ten multiple times, Dartmouth was ranked no. 11 in 2000.</p>
<p>So just HYPSMC and Duke, k, looks like the rankings aren't THAT consistent</p>
<p>Caltech angers me..... Why not put Julliard on the list too. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Or RISD....</p>
<p>Consistency you say?</p>
<p>Aside from the "usual suspects" (i.e. HYPSMC), the USNWR rankings have been anything but consistent.</p>
<p>take this previous post:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2740641#post2740641%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=2740641#post2740641</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
- Brown makes a ten notch jump from No. 18 to No. 8 over the course of four years ('93-'97)
- UPenn also makes the "ten notch" jump from No. 16 to No. 6 over the course of five years ('94-'99)
- Northwestern does the "ten notch" in one single year! (Go Purple!) - from No. 24 ('91) up No. 14 ('92) - then proceeds another five notches in five years to No. 9 in ('97)
- Cornell jumps nine spots from No. 15 ('95) to No. 6 ('99) in a span of four years
- Cal (Berkeley) does a nose dive of fourteen spots from No. 13 ('91) to a lowly outside "Top 25" - No. 27 in ('97)
- University of Michigan: freefalls 17 spots in a 5 year span, from no. 7 ('88) to no. 24 in ('93)
- Washington University: leapfrogs 12 spots in a 5 year span, from no. 20 ('98) to no. 9 in ('03)
- CalTech goes from No. 9 (for three straight years '97-'99) then inexplicably jumps to the No. 1 spot on '00! Man I bet the geeks at MIT (always the bridesmaid never the No. 1 bride) were so livid their taped specs steamed up at the mere thought that it might be the ultimate ingenious prank from Pasadena...
- But, the "Bob Beaman-Olympian-Like-Jump" Award goes to JHU. Johns Hopkins jumps a whopping twelve spots in one year from No. 22 ('95) to No. 10 ('96) then proceeds to break into the Top 10 to go to No. 7 ('00)</p>
<p>Of course the "usual suspects" HYPSM all occupy the 1-5/6/7 spots interchangeably year in, year out (I mean you HAVE to keep SOME semblance of credibility, right?) - the real "fun" / "controversy" (or should we call it "manufactured controversy for the sake of controversy" = 'did you see the latest ranking???' = sell copies") is to "spice it up" a la Vegas Style - "roll the dice, baby! who do we got this year!! - whatever happens at USNWR stays at USNWR!</p>
<p>Let's get real folks!!! You've been took. You've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok...</p>
<p>It is absolutely ludicrous for any reasonable, educated (heck, uneducated) person to believe that a university (college) "jumps" (or falls) 10 notches over the short span of a year (let alone 12 notches). How does a university "do so well" over the course of a year to merit a leapfrog over 10 other institutions which were deemed "superior" a year (or two/three) ago? Conversely, how does a university "do so poorly" that it drops a similar amount in such a short time frame? Answer: it doesn't. they don't.</p>
<p>Viewing the USNWR decade compilation has been an eye-opener - an instant "top down" view of the insanity of trying to come up with a "legitimate college ranking".</p>
<p>Complete and utter nonsense.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It raises some very good questions: how exactly does a university "jump" in quality (or "jumpfrog" is more like it) over 10 other universities in ONE YEAR? Conversely, how does a university degrade in quality as to freefall 10+ places in the short span of ONE YEAR?</p>
<p>They don't folks.</p>
<p>That is probably when the rankings adjusted measures</p>
<p>So, since 1985, the only schools to be in the top 10 are HYPSMCDuke</p>
<p>ok, thats still 7 spots, meaning 7 schools are consistently ranked 10, and Columbia and Dartmouth have more often than not been ranked in the top 10.</p>
<p>Its not as if the rankings are completely random - they are consistent in tiers, as in, the same schools are at the very top, then right below, then below them. Also, look at the actual scores for the schools. The scores are so close to each other at the top that a change in one point leads to a few points change.</p>
<p>What this means is that rapid changes in the rankings don't mean the schools becoming very different, but instead that the differences between schools (especially in 5-11th place) are very small.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What this means is that rapid changes in the rankings don't mean the schools becoming very different, but instead that the differences between schools (especially in 5-11th place) are very small.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Or in other words that these "rankings" (esp. at the 7-15 level) per se, are really meaningless. (I wholly agree with your comment about teirs btw).</p>
<p>For instance, there has been a lot of talk about Chicago's SIX SPOT jump from 15 to 9 this year, now I'm not really interested in whether this is "justified" or whether Chicago "played the game" etc. etc. The point really is, doesn't this really show how unreliable this ranking system is?</p>
<p>The fact is there really isn't a difference between no. 7-15 level. Is Chicago REALLY BETTER than Brown and Cornell? Is Duke a "better" school than UPenn, Dartmouth, Cornell, Columbia, Brown, NWU, Chicago?</p>
<p>Put another way, according to USNWR this year, Chicago is "better" than the following schools: </p>
<p>Cornell University
Washington University
Northwestern University
Brown University
Johns Hopkins University</p>
<p>However, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE schools were either equal to or "better" than Chicago JUST ONE SHORT YEAR AGO.</p>
<p>Make sense to you? It doesn't to me.</p>
<p>It's a bunch of BS.</p>
<p>Yeah, agreed, the specific nature of the ranking is debatable, though I feel the general pattern of schools is good (HYPSM at the top, Columbia Penn Duke Dartmouth Chicago, then JHU NU Wash U etc.</p>