<p>A few months ago I came across U.S</a>. News Rankings Through the Years and I was wondering if someone could explain Duke's fall from the top 5 to the lower 10. I know ranking methodology has changed over the years, but it seems as though the fall has been in the last decade or so. Is it the lacrosse scandal (there is a notable decline after 2006)? </p>
<p>Btw, how do you think Duke will do next year?</p>
<p>the scandal may have had a small role but its not the full reason for the drop in rank. Im sure Duke next year will either stay where its at or maybe go up to the ranks of Chicago/Columbia, #8. Though rankings are all arbitrary and in the end any top 15 school are academically similar in nature (specific programs of studies and “prestige” are varying of course).</p>
<p>Well, if you ask me for my honest opinion, it’s this:</p>
<p>Duke has always been conscious of its US News ranking, and hence has always played the ‘rankings’ game. Other top schools, like Columbia and Chicago, haven’t done it as much in the past, but are figuring out that they can quickly ascend the rankings by making very slight adjustments to the way they report stats, just as Duke has for years.</p>
<p>It’s similar to how Penn is now tied with MIT, Stanford, and Caltech. If MIT and Stanford really wanted to beat Penn in the rankings, they wouldn’t have a problem doing so. They just think it’s not worth it, so they leave Penn alone and let them game the rankings with their 99% top-10 percentage. Even with Penn playing the rankings game, the chances of them moving past MIT and Stanford is fairly slim, even with the latter schools ignoring their rankings. With Columbia and Chicago actually trying now, I look for Penn to fade in the rankings just as Duke has, though. Duke may re-tie Chicago or Columbia next year, but after next year, I don’t see it getting back into the top 9 ever again.</p>
<p>Also, Duke doesn’t have the financial resources to compete with Chicago and Columbia, nor do they have the reputation. Just do a comparison of professors’ pay at these universities along with peer assessment, and you’ll see what I mean.</p>
<p>Average professor pay, 09-10:
Duke: $160.8k
Columbia: $188.6k
Chicago: $184.1k</p>
<p>That’s a pretty cogent argument, phuriku. So, what about schools like Dartmouth and Brown who seem to have a similar undergraduate focus as Duke? How do you think they would fare over the next decade?</p>
<p>Duke has never dropped past 10 and has always been the premier university in the South. </p>
<p>Durahm vs Chicago vs NYC…really? Besides Duke’s endowment is only somewhat smaller than UC and Columbia’s (due to the recent financial downturn)</p>
<p>So much blind hatred in your post</p>
<p>phuriku, you’re obviously trying to bring duke down.</p>
<p>in my opinion, duke’s rank WAS falling due to the perceived downfall of their basketball team. however, since duke won the NCAA championships this year and has proven their awesomeness, the will rise back up to #4 as they were in 2004. </p>
<p>Haha no i’m just kidding.</p>
<p>Phuriku, chicago’s fin aid doesnt even compare to duke’s. I definitely wouldnt say duke cant compare in terms of resources.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Chicago’s financial aid isn’t as good as Duke’s. And herein lies Duke’s problem in the ranking, and why Chicago will stay ahead of it (at least after next year, as I stated earlier. The reason I’m making this exception is that next year’s results will reflect the financial crisis, and so can be rather unpredictable. After next year, it should have stabilized somewhat). Professor salary is a HUGE component of the ranking. 7% of it, in fact. What percent is financial aid? 0%.</p>
<p>Chicago has realized that with a great marketing campaign and the subsequent increase in general interest and prestige, it can win students over without having great financial aid. And instead, it spends that money on whom? Professors. And these are the ones who are at the heart of the university and whose pay determines the ranks of the universities.</p>
<p>Now, I’m not saying that Duke’s prestige or its overall quality is declining or has been declining. I’m just saying that it’s going to be very difficult for it to climb in the rankings if it continues the kinds of policies it has been standing behind for the past few years, which certainly aren’t bad ones for undergraduates, at least as far as financial aid goes. But major universities (that is, those institutions having more of a graduate-student focus) benefit more by having highly paid professors than by having great financial aid packages, since these professors determine the research capabilities of the school, the successes of the graduate programs and the graduate students, and how much focus they give to the undergrads. (The professors at Chicago for instance all have to teach at least 1 undergraduate class per year, and although it doesn’t seem to be a popular opinion on CC, I think the vast majority of these professors are greatly dedicated to their undergraduate classes when said class sizes are below 30.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, haven’t we already seen what’s happened? Dartmouth has dropped from being clearly within the top 10 to being clearly outside the top 10 in a matter of a few years. In all honesty, I don’t see it entering the top 10 again. A similar scenario exists with Brown.</p>
<p>And as for those who are saying that I’m just trying to bring Duke down… well, I’m not. I’m interested in what the outcome of the USNWR rankings are going to be, and I try to have as accurate predictions as possible. I actually suggested last year that there was no way that Duke could drop below Chicago and Columbia, and then I realized what Columbia and Chicago were doing… frankly, I just can’t bring myself to believe that Duke will get even with them again in the rankings.</p>
<p>If USNWR uses avg prof salaries without adjusting for cost of living, then this is another reason not to get too invested in the ratings. The cost of living in NYC>Chicago>>>Durham and salaries would reflect that to some extent. Younger faculty that are raising families have to take this into account. As a case in point, I know someone who recently left the faculty at Stanford for Vandy because of the cost of housing.</p>
<p>That’s all well and good, but personally i prefer duke’s method of allocating its resources to benefit undergrads rather than doing what is best for its alleged “rank.” Also, i’ve always heard that chicago is similar to harvard in that it values its graduate programs far more than its undergraduates. And especially in these economic times i would say financial aid is a far more important factor than 1 or 2 ranks on us news. You see people turning down HYPSM for full rides to state schools. Anecdotally, duke gave me 20k more than chicago. Even if i were in love with chicago i wouldnt be able to justify paying that much more for a school of comparable academic quality.</p>
<p>A couple points. First, it’s funny that you guys are talking about UChicago as they are the school that has shot up in the USN&WR rankings in the past few years the most of any. They were in the 10-15 range every year but once since 1995, and then has been in the top ten ever since 2007. This is because they changed how they reported statistics to US News after consulting with US News. I can’t find the article, but it was clear that the counting of different things varied and UChicago put forth more effort in distributing favorable numbers. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with this as all other schools do it too (plus, UChicago was probably habitually underrated); I’m just pointing it out. This story alone should give people pause about the validity of US News’ methodology.</p>
<p>Secondly, RE: faculty pay: “The average faculty pay and benefits are adjusted for regional differences in cost of living.” Now, what are defined as a region (does that mean Northeast vs. South? New York City vs. Durham?), I have no idea. But US News has taken cost of living into consideration at some level.</p>
<p>[Methodology:</a> Undergraduate Ranking Criteria and Weights - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2009/08/19/methodology-undergraduate-ranking-criteria-and-weights.html]Methodology:”>http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2009/08/19/methodology-undergraduate-ranking-criteria-and-weights.html)</p>
<p>Third, Duke doesn’t “game” US News rankings more than any other school really, but there are a few criteria that Duke has paid particular attention to in order to make the school better (obviously, whether that is the only motivating factor is up for debate). One of those is alumni giving rate. Duke always rates high as they have a fervent campaign to call and ask for money. But hey, more money makes the university better and I think having a strong athletics program unlike a lot of other elite universities make alumni feel more connected and more likely to donate, but that’s my personal theory. This only accounts for like 5%, I think. Duke is not like UPenn where 99% fall in the top 10%. Not even close, so we get docked there. Another factor that comes to mind is classes under 20 as Duke caps A LOT of classes at 18, which falls just under the limit. Again, who knows if this is to fulfill US News criteria or some other university goal, and I’d imagine a lot of other schools have a similar cap. But hey, Duke isn’t Wash U who continually waitlists applicants they think are using them as a safety school.</p>
<p>In my opinion, simply based on “prestige” and desirability, Duke falls somewhere in the 8-14 range in the country. Being ranked 4th one year by US News a lot of things had to just fall in place in that one particular year. Doesn’t mean anything. But to say Duke is losing its luster and falling in the rankings is silly; small differences in a couple criteria can make a school fall two spots. You really think that if theoretically a school gives a few thousand dollar raise to all faculty that it’s a better university? Highly unlikely. US News gives a general sense of how schools are seen, but it’s not that precise and year-to-year fluctuations are to be expected. A small fall doesn’t indicate anything. If anything, Duke’s “fall” to #10 is largely a result of UChicago’s changing how they calculate certain numbers and UPenn’s rise. Those two schools make a “big” difference when you’re talking about a fall of two spots…</p>
<p>Jesus Christ, the degree of separation from #4 and #10 is 2 points in USNWR. Does ranking matter that much? UG is more than just academics and rankings. It’s the whole college experience. For UG, major probably matter more than prestige (unless you want to go into banking, top management consulting). Save some money and go to a prestigious professional school, where ranking actually matters.</p>
<p>This is like those “what’s different in these two pictures” puzzles for grammar school kids.</p>
<p>The pictures are substantially the same, and differ only in unimportant details.</p>
<p>I love it when false precision yields intense discussion of “differences”</p>
<p>P.S. The USNews ratings are +/- 3 points, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no dog in this fight, but how can you criticize other schools for gaming the rankings and still say this with a straight face? If Chicago’s WashU-style spamming isn’t gaming, then I don’t know what is. Not to mention, we won’t know Chicago’s final yield #'s until after the “summer melt.”</p>
<p>Given that many people applied to Chicago mostly due to the Common App and the marketing blitz, I doubt that Chicago’s yield will rise significantly, if at all. The only reason it probably won’t drop is because Chicago dug deeper into the EA applicant pool than it had in the past.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CORRECTION. Chicago did not necessarily dig deeper into the EA applicant pool. It’s just that with the increase in applications, the gap between the EA vs. RD acceptance rates for Chicago has widened deeply. What I meant is that there was a higher proportion of Chicago EA vs. RD admittees than in previous years, which will probably prevent its yield from falling.</p>
<p>The Chicago Class of 2014 is currently oversubscribed by close to 40 peeps, thereby betraying a higher than expected yield…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which of the following statements did you fail to understand??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>umm…neither.</p>
<p>Lol, are you always this obnoxious in the way you post, froggy? What school are you going to anyways?</p>
<p>Who gives a flying ****?</p>