USNWR & New Groups for its Rankings

College Search & Selection
1

<p>Many times the arguments on USNWR rankings focus on the very different nature of the institutions being compared and how this undermines the quality of the assigned rankings. </p>

<p>How would the rankings look if one lumped similar type schools in the one controlled group, eg, three groups of schools:
1) Private universities with a diversified assortment of academic offerings,
2) Private and Public universities with a heavy concentration in a technical area of study (engineering, computer science, etc) that is greater than 25% of the student majors;
3) Public universities</p>

<p>There are almost certainly additional ways to slice these groups further (size?). </p>

<p>One of the results and benefits of this approach is more winners and higher ranks for nearly all of the colleges. :)</p>

<p>Probably more important is that this is more of an apples-to-apples comparison and more likely a better and more relevant depiction of how schools compare with schools that are more truly peer institutions. It is also likely that these groups are where the greatest amount of cross applications occur (state universities excluded as they crossover with all). </p>

<p>Using these groups for the USNWR Top 50 national universities (and using the same rank order as the 2007 survey), here is one possible way to group similar institutions: </p>

<pre><code>PRIVATE DIVERSIFIED
</code></pre>

<p>1 Princeton
2 Harvard
3 Yale
4 Stanford
5 U Penn
6 Duke
7 U Chicago
7 Dartmouth
7 Columbia
10 Cornell
10 Wash U StL
12 Northwestern
13 Brown
14 J Hopkins
15 Rice
16 Emory
16 Vanderbilt
18 Notre Dame
19 Georgetown
20 USC
20 Tufts
22 Wake Forest
23 Brandeis
24 Boston College
24 NYU
24 U Rochester
27 Tulane
27 Yeshiva</p>

<pre><code>ENGINEERING/TECH FOCUSED
</code></pre>

<p>1 MIT
1 Cal Tech
3 Carnegie Mellon
4 Lehigh
5 Georgia Tech
5 Case Western
7 Rensselaer</p>

<pre><code>PUBLIC
</code></pre>

<p>1 UC Berkeley
2 U Virginia
2 U Michigan
4 UCLA
5 U North Carolina
6 W & M
7 U Wisconsin
8 UC SD
9 U Illinois UC
10 U Washington
11 UC Irvine
12 UC Davis
12 Penn State
12 U Florida
12 U Texas
12 UC S Barbara</p>

2

<p>Hawkette, I have been a proponant of compartmentalized groupings, but not according to public, private and technical. I was thinking more along the lines of:</p>

<p>1) LACs </p>

<h1>1 Amherst, Swarthmore, Williams</h1>

<h1>4 Bowdoin, Carleton, Middlebury, Pomona, Wesleyan</h1>

<h1>9 Claremont McKenna, Davidson, Grinnell, Harvey Mudd, Haverford, Oberlin...</h1>

<p>2) Quasi LACs/Semi Research</p>

<h1>1 Princeton</h1>

<h1>2 Brown, Dartmouth, Duke</h1>

<h1>5 Emory, Georgetown, Rice, UVa, Vanderbilt, Washington U.</h1>

<h1>11 Tufts...</h1>

<p>3) Research Universities</p>

<h1>1 Harvard University, MIT, Stanford, Yale</h1>

<h1>5 Cal, Caltech, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Michigan, Northwestern and Penn</h1>

<h1>14 Carnegie Mellon, UCLA, UNC...</h1>

<p>Of course, there are many ways to skin a cat and I think yours works fine too.</p>

3

<p>Frankly, I have two problems with the list that I posted. First, I think that the group of Private Diversified is too large, but I am not sure how to break it up more finely (or if this is even possible or desirable). Second, I think that the public universities would be harmed by a separate ranking. If that were to occur, IMO in the public's mind, that would segregate them and some might interpret that as being a second class citizen. </p>

<p>I do think that the breakout of the more technically inclined schools is a pretty easy and sensible decision. I nearly separated out Johns Hopkins also (24% are health professions, 7% biology, 15% engineering) and Fiske very clearly states that those who think it is not biomedical-focused are kidding themselves. But there weren't other medically-focused schools and thus I put it in with the larger pack. </p>

<p>Re the list you provided, it looks like you made some bracketing by college size which I guess is a somewhat natural fall-out from the research/no or less research priorities of a college. I’m not sure how many students in non-technical areas make this distinction in deciding where to go to college. Maybe you or others will have more ideas about this or other divisions. </p>

<p>Also, I was Shocked! Shocked! to see how you slipped U Michigan in between Hopkins and Northwestern. :)</p>

4

<p>I think that, more so than private/public, the most important distinction is really between diversified/specialized and research/non-research.</p>

<p>Also, I'm not sure Princeton qualifies as "semi-research/quasi-LAC" considering that: </p>

<p>1) Graduate students account for 30 % of Princeton's student body, and </p>

<p>2) Judging from the [url=<a href="http://chronicle.com/stats/productivity/page.php?institution=81&byinst=Go"&gt;http://chronicle.com/stats/productivity/page.php?institution=81&byinst=Go&lt;/a&gt;] faculty scholarly productivity indices <a href="which,%20unlike%20silly%20magazine%20rankings,%20are%20the%20%20best%20indicators%20of%20research%20strength">/url</a>, Princeton is a research leader in areas such as engineering, social sciences (economics, political sci and sociology), pure and applied mathematics, astrophysics, humanities (english, history, etc.), evolutionary biology, and others.</p>

5

<p>How about private/public diversified?</p>

6

<p>Something along these lines is actually going on. USNews doesn't make up its categories, but classifies schools according to the "Carngie Classifications" </p>

<p><a href="http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=783&search_flag=true&start=783&BASIC2005=17&back=true%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=783&search_flag=true&start=783&BASIC2005=17&back=true&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The latest revisions took place in 2005, and will be used for the first time by US News this fall. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2007/6/6/categorizing-colleges.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2007/6/6/categorizing-colleges.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The Carnegie Foundation produced a new, multi-dimensional classification that points out exactly the types of ambiguities that make comparing MIT, UCLA, UMich, Wake Forest, Dartmouth, and Princeton in the same list seem a bit like apples and oranges. The full scheme takes into account:</p>

<pre><code>*Public/Private
* Undergraduate Instructional Program
* Graduate Instructional Program
* Enrollment Profile
* Undergraduate Profile
* Size & Setting
* Basic Classification
</code></pre>

<p>USNews claims it will use the new basic classification, and this will mean one major change: Research Universities/High Research Production will be in a separate category from Research Universities/Very High Research Production. This actually seems like a step backward, since the former category, which includes schools like BC, W&M, GW will inevitably be seen as "worse" than the latter (the very high research group includes a number of schools--I'll avoid singling them out--which probably have not been seen as quite as presigious). American University and Hofstra will be in an odd Doctoral category with some strange bedfellows.</p>

<p>The LAC list looks fairly stable; initially a few LACs (Bryn Mawr and Middlebury stick in my mind) were reclassified as Master's institutions because of the # of graduate degrees that they awarded, but they appealed, precisely because it would pull them out of the more prestigeous Baccalaureate category in USNews.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
USNews claims it will use the new basic classification, and this will mean one major change: Research Universities/High Research Production will be in a separate category from Research Universities/Very High Research Production.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The impact of the new classification system is likely to be small given that all top 25 national universities in last year's USN&WR ranking probably fall into the latter category (RU/VHRP) anyway.</p>

8

<p>the problem wiht the tech-focused ranking is that some of those schools have undergrad biz programs, and CMU has an excellent art program. Hopkins has a top-ranked classics major....</p>

9

<p>bluebayou,
I understand the objection to the tech classification as it puts an institution in a box that is perhaps too small for the institution. Fair point. But there is a quantifiable reason for making this grouping and you can argue one way on the other depending on the degree of concentration at an individual college. Consider the following on student majors (taken from collegeboard.com):</p>

<p>Pretty Strong Concentration of Engineering & Science Oriented Students</p>

<p>MIT-51% Engineering & CS, 11% Physical Sciences, 10% Biology, 7% Business & Marketing, 6% Math, 5% Interdisciplinary Studies</p>

<p>Caltech-40% Engineering & CS, 32% Physical Sciences, 15% Biology, 10% Math</p>

<p>Georgia Tech-66% Engineering & CS, 14% Business & Marketing</p>

<p>Renesselaer-71% Engineering & CS, 7% Business & Marketing, 5% Biology, </p>

<p>Less Engineering/Science Oriented</p>

<p>Carnegie Mellon-36% Engineering & CS, 12% Business & Marketing, 11% Visual & Performing Arts, 6% Inter-disciplinary Studies, 5% Physical Sciences</p>

<p>Lehigh-32% Engineering & CS, 28% Business & Marketing, 11% Social Sciences, 6% Psychology, 5% Biology</p>

<p>Case Western-31% Engineering & CS, 11% Social Sciences, 10% Business & Marketing, 9% Biology, 8% Psychology, 6% Health Professions, 5% Physical Sciences</p>

<p>Johns Hopkins-31% Health Professions & Biology, 17% Social Sciences, 6% Inter-disciplinary Studies, 6% Visual & Performing Arts</p>

10

<p>I am going to have to say that the tech classification is definitely needed, as these school's majority of focus is completely different from most, much for the same reason that LACs are set apart.</p>

11

<p>There are 2 main problems with the breakdown of "tech" and "non-tech" schools:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Most applicants do not make this distinction. Many of them apply to both types of schools since most majors are offered by both types of schools. Trying to pigeon hole students makes no sense. Virginia Tech football, Georgia Tech basketball and Michigan Tech hockey could easily trounce most of the "well rounded" schools on your list.</p></li>
<li><p>Why not make a distinction between "humanities oriented" and "non-humanities oriented" schools. By your criteria, any school that is more than 50% humanities majors should be in its own category. Like the above distinction, this also makes equally little sense.</p></li>
</ol>

12

<p>I like Alexandre's ranking.</p>

13

<p>The Carnegie system also makes exactly these distinctions: undergrad categories for schools that grant predominantly arts&sciences degress; those that are balanced between professional/technical degress and arts and sciences; and those that are weighted toward the professional degrees. There are further categories for the number of graduate students. </p>

<p>U. S. News doesn't plan on using the part of the classification scheme, but it would be easy to individualize lists.</p>

14

<p>MarathonMan88,
Would you mind posting the breakdown for the USNWR Top 30 so that we can get a clearer sense of these divisions that you list above (even if USNWR itself is not going to use these distinctions)?</p>

15

<p>Alex's list is pretty good, although I'd put Michigan in the 4th tier underneath Carnegie, UCLA and UNC...</p>

<p>ha-ha -- that was a small joke Alex.</p>

16

<p>The_prestige, given our "history", I think the addendum was not only appropriate and tasteful, but necessary! Hehe!</p>

17

<p>Here's a sampling of some of the ways colleges' undergrad programs (remember there are other parameters for grad programs, size, et al.) under the new Carnegie System.</p>

<p>First part of their intro

[quote]
The instructional program classification is based on three pieces of information: the level of undergraduate degrees awarded (associate’s or bachelor’s), the proportion of bachelor’s degree majors in the arts and sciences and in professional fields, and the extent to which an institution awards graduate degrees in the same fields in which it awards undergraduate degrees.</p>

<p>The distinction between arts and sciences and professional undergraduate majors is one that has been made in the Classification since 1987 (but only for undergraduate colleges), and researchers and others in the higher education community have also made similar distinctions. We are extending and elaborating the previous analysis by (1) applying it to almost all baccalaureate-level institutions, (2) making finer distinctions along the arts & sciences – professions continuum, and (3) recognizing a “middle ground” where the two domains exist in relative balance with respect to graduating students’ major concentrations.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Arts and Science-No graduate co-existence
Most of the top 50 LACs</p>

<p>Arts and Science-Some graduate co-existence
Bard
Clark University
Colgate
College of Wm & Mary
Oberlin
Skidmore
Smith
Wesleyan
Williams</p>

<p>Arts and Science--High graduate co-existence</p>

<p>Brandeis
Brown
Columbia
Emory
Harvard
Stanford
UC-Berkeley, Irvine, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz
UCLA
Chicago
Vanderbilt
Yale</p>

<p>Arts and Science + Professional--No graduate co-existence
Gettysburg
Harvey Mudd</p>

<p>Arts and Science + Professional--Some graduate coexistence
Bucknell
Fordham</p>

<p>Arts and Science + Professional--High graduate coexistence
American
BC
CIT
Duke
GW
Georgetown
Johns Hopkins
NYU
Northwestern
Princeton
Rice
Tufts
UC-Davis, Riverside, SD
UNC
Penn
Pitt
WUSTL</p>

<p>Balanced Arts & Scienceds Professional--no graduation coexistence
Air Force Academy
Coast Guard Academy
WVU</p>

<p>Balanced Arts & Scienceds Professional--some graduation coexistence
College of New Jersey
Elon
Ithaca
Pepperdine
SUNY-Geneseo</p>

<p>Balanced Arts & Sciences Professional--high grad coexistence</p>

<p>BU
Carnegie-Mellon
FSU
Lehigh
Ohio State</p>

<p>Professional + Arts and Science--no graduate coexistence
Big list but no top 100 types</p>

<p>Professional + A&S--some graduate
Baylor
Indiana State
SUNY Buffalo</p>

<p>Professional + A&S--high graduate
Clemson
Howard
Northeastern
Penn State
Univ. of Florida</p>

<p>*Professional -- no grad *
Merchant Marine Academy</p>

<p>Professional--some grad
no top 100 names</p>

<p>Professional--high grad
ditto</p>

18

<p>And here is a link for those wanting to look up all the classification info on particular schools:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=782%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=782&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

19

<p>MarathonMan88,
Many thanks for the info and the link. Similar to what you did above, I arranged the info for the USNWR Top 50 National Universities by classification and I added the adjusted "NEW" ranks:</p>

<pre><code>A&S Focus: High Graduate co-existence
</code></pre>

<p>1 Harvard
2 Yale
3 Stanford
4 U Chicago
4 Columbia
6 Brown
7 Emory
7 Vanderbilt
9 UC Berkeley
10 UCLA
11 Brandeis
12 U Rochester
13 UC Irvine
14 UC S Barbara</p>

<pre><code>A&S Focus: Some Graduate co-existence
</code></pre>

<p>1 Dartmouth
2 W & M</p>

<pre><code>A&S plus professions; High Graduate co-existence
</code></pre>

<p>1 Princeton
2 Cal Tech
3 U Penn
4 Duke
5 Wash U StL
6 Northwestern
7 J Hopkins
8 Rice
9 Georgetown
10 U Michigan
10 U Virginia
12 Tufts
12 U North Carolina
14 Wake Forest
15 Boston College
15 NYU
15 U Wisconsin
18 UC SD
19 U Washington
20 Tulane
20 Yeshiva
22 UC Davis</p>

<pre><code>Balanced A&S/professions; High Graduate co-existence
</code></pre>

<p>1 MIT
2 Cornell
3 Notre Dame
4 Carnegie Mellon
5 USC
6 Lehigh
7 Case Western
8 U Illinois UC
9 U Texas</p>

<pre><code>Professions plus A&S; High Graduate co-existence
</code></pre>

<p>1 Georgia Tech
2 Rensselaer
3 U Florida
4 Penn State</p>