USNWR is biased in favor of public schools

<p>So let me get this straight. The OP thinks US News is biased in favor of publics because Dartmouth is ranked #11, behind 10 other private universities and 10 places ahead of the highest-ranked public, UC Berkeley. Huh? Do they teach you logic up there at Dartmouth?</p>

<p>Now the OP might have a point if he were to claim the US News PA score for “national universities” is biased in favor of schools with top graduate programs. That’s a plausible claim as schools like Berkeley and Michigan that have outstanding graduate programs across a full spectrum of academic disciplines generally score higher in PA than more undergraduate-focused institutions like Dartmouth. But that’s not a bias in favor of publics, it’s a bias (if at all) in favor of major research universities.and strong graduate programs (the two usually go hand-in-hand). Because notice who else does especially well in PA: Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, Caltech, Chicago, Penn, Columbia, Duke—all private, and all ranked ahead of Dartmouth in both PA and in the overall US News rankings. In fact, there are exactly two–count 'em—public universities that get higher PA scores than Dartmouth, namely UC Berkeley and Michigan, and neither is anywhere close to Dartmouth’s level in the overall US News ranking. So if Dartmouth has a beef with the way US News does its rankings, it can’t be a bias in favor of publics that’s holding Dartmouth back. It’s that rightly or wrongly it’s judged by the presidents, provosts, and admissions directors of other national universities to be not quite as strong as the 10 private universities ahead of it. Now it’s true that those self-same presidents, provosts, and admissions directors also think two public universities, UC Berkeley and Michigan, are stronger than Dartmouth, but that judgment with respect to those two publics in no way affects Dartmouth’s overall US News ranking. Berkeley and Michigan could each have a PA score of 2.0 and it wouldn’t affect Dartmouth’s overall ranking in US News. If Dartmouth wants to move up and thinks it’s entitled to move up, it has to move up relative to the 10 schools ahead of it, all private universities. Whining that schools 10 and 15 places behind it in the US News ranking are somehow overrated just won’t cut it. Not even close. It’s a somewhat pathetic excuse.</p>

<p>

That is true to a point…however, an advantage of larger public schools is that they can teach kids how to have some gumption and seek opportunities out for themselves…it’s a big world out there you need to learn to navigate…not everything in life can be spoon fed.</p>

<p>

Maybe for some…but at least Berkeley offers some pretty kick ass programs (such as engineering) that schools like Emory, Georgetown and Vandy don’t even offer.</p>

<p>This is exactly what PA is measuring…distinguished academic program offerings. The higher rated PA schools offer more breadth and depth.</p>

<p>

See, that’s just the thing. Peer assessment doesn’t seem to accurately measure top 10 programs.</p>

<p>If that were true,

  • Michigan would have a much higher PA
  • Duke and Hopkins would have the same PA
  • UCLA and UNC would have a higher PA than UVA
  • WUStL and Brown would have a much lower PA
    …none of which is the case.</p>

<p>Actually there is no proof that smaller classes in college are beneficial in any measurable way. As kids grow older the importance of class size declines markedly.</p>

<p>Drawing lines between undregrad and grad programs is not easy. I’d guess many advanced MIT undergrads take classes that also have grad students in them. I know this is true at top state U’s. So where does one stop and the other begin?</p>

<p>And measuring per capita results always gives the smaller school an advantge. But larger schools often do offer many more majors and programs.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why is there so much Duke hate when certain beloved Ivy League school(s) have less top ranked programs in the nation and garner much higher PA scores. Then all of a sudden, the USNWR rank becomes an undergraduate rank.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Except that there are waaaay too many students asking dumb questions (bcos they didn’t read the material before hand) and wasting the Professor’s and MY time bcos I did prep beforehand. Of course, then there are those trying to curry favor with the Prof (‘pick me, pick me, pick me’) bcos they are sucking for recognition and recs. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>I agree with OP that PA is biased, but more toward schools with big graduate/research programs, than just towards public schools. IMO medium school that primarily focus on undergrads really get the shaft on PA, even though you could argue they do a superior job in undergrad teaching. The irony is the majority of purchasers of that mag issue are families making an undergrad decision as opposed to grad students.</p>

<p>I feel Rice, Georgetown, Tufts, William & Mary, and Wake Forest should all be rated about 5-10 spots higher, esp if the metric was quality of student body.</p>

<p>if USNWR left out the state schools, then people who get the impression that “nooo you gotta be rich to go to a good school”.<br>
and here in the US u cant discriminate against the rich. noooo how could you? (sarc)</p>

<p>Not sure About wake but I agree swish. I’m obviously biased :)</p>

<p>US National Wildlife Reserve?</p>

<p>:D</p>

<p>Just because there is no public in the top 20 doesn’t mean USNews isn’t biased towards them.</p>

<p>I don’t really support the idea that USNews is biased towards them, but I’m just saying too many people are dismissing the idea just because there’s no public in the top 20. Who knows, perhaps UCSD deserves to be ranked 50 instead of 34~.</p>

<p>Ucsd is beast when it comes to science, ir, and marine bio</p>

<p>USNWR is biased in favor of schools with small classes, large endowments, good students, and renowned academics.</p>

<p>USNWR is biased in favor of old, large schools especially in the northeast.</p>

<p>Oh yeah, right there in the methodology, I missed that part.
Proximity to Boston, Massachusetts: 40%
Year of Founding: 25%</p>

<p>Except if that were true tufts wouldn’t have a gutter ranking.</p>

<p>I’ve been waiting to post this at some point, but a friend of mine is very good friends with the son of the president of US News. I asked him about the rankings, and he told me that the president laughs about them and how much of a joke they are. It’s purely for money. It’s a shame that people (especially here) take them so seriously and so much as fact.</p>

<p>

Is it more impressive for a school like Berkeley to have 130 NAS members than a school like Dartmouth to have 2 … yeah, you read it right, two!</p>

<p>Is it more impressive for a school like Berkeley to have 75 NAE members than a school like Darmouth to have 3 ?</p>

<p>What do you think now?</p>

<p>Xmas-</p>

<p>Thats no surprise to anyone with a little common sense. Its the “swimsuit” issue for USNWR. You have to be very naive to give these rankings any type of merit. Colleges are not commodities. You might as well have a ranking of artists (Da vinci has such a better PA than Monet!!) or Beauty queens ( Miss California is much more endowed than Miss Rhode Island!!). </p>

<p>Oh well, a fool and his money…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, in fairness, the truth is, Dartmouth is a misclassified LAC. It’s a LAC that just happens to have some graduate programs, just like Bryn Mawr.</p>