<p>What have been the biggest changes, up and down, in the USNWR college rankings over the past ten years? </p>
<p>I open the envelope and the biggest prizes go to USC (up 16 places from 43rd to 27th), Georgia Tech (up 10 places from 48th to 38th), U Illinois (up 7 places from 48th to 41st) and Carnegie Mellon (up 7 places from 28th to 21st). Within the Top 20 schools, the biggest gainers were U Penn (up 6 spots from 13th to 7th), Wash U (up 5 spots from 17th to 12th) and Caltech (up 5 spots from 9th to 4th). </p>
<p>The biggest decliners over the past ten years have been Brown (down 7 spots from 8th to 15th), UC Irvine (down 7 spots from 37th to 44th) and UC Davis (down 7 spots from 40th to 47th). In the Top 20, the next biggest decliners after Brown were Northwestern (down 5 spots from 9th to 14th) and Duke (down 4 spots from 4th to 8th). </p>
<p>Here are the USNWR Top 50 rankings in 2007 and what the USNWR ranking was ten years ago for each of these schools:</p>
<p>1 Princeton 2
2 Harvard 3
3 Yale 1
4 Cal Tech 9
4 Stanford 6
4 MIT 5
7 U Penn 13
8 Duke 4
9 U Chicago 12
9 Dartmouth 7
9 Columbia 11
12 Wash U StL 17
12 Cornell 14
14 Northwestern 9
15 Brown 8
16 J Hopkins 15
17 Rice 16
18 Emory 19
18 Vanderbilt 20
20 Notre Dame 17
21 UC Berkeley 27
21 Carnegie Mellon 28
23 Georgetown 23
24 U Michigan 24
24 U Virginia 21
26 UCLA 31
27 USC 43
27 Tufts 22
27 U North Carolina 25
30 Wake Forest 25
31 Brandeis 29
31 W & M 33
33 Lehigh 32
34 Boston College 38
34 NYU 35
34 U Rochester 30
34 U Wisconsin 41
38 UC SD 34
38 Georgia Tech 48
38 Case Western 38
41 U Illinois UC 48
42 Rensselaer nr
42 U Washington 42
44 UC Irvine 37
44 Tulane 36
44 Yeshiva 35
47 UC Davis 40
47 UC S Barbara 46
47 U Florida nr
47 Penn State nr
47 U Texas nr</p>
<p>In addition to hawkette's post, here's one for the liberal arts colleges comparing 1997 to 2007.</p>
<ol>
<li>Williams College (3)</li>
<li>Amherst College (2)</li>
<li>Swarthmore College (1)</li>
<li>Wellesley College (4)</li>
<li>Middlebury College (7)</li>
<li>Carleton College (9)</li>
<li>Pomona College (5)</li>
<li>Bowdoin College (8)</li>
<li>Haverford College (6)</li>
<li>Davidson College (11)</li>
<li>Wesleyan University (14)</li>
<li>Vassar College (17)</li>
<li>Claremont McKenna College (16)</li>
<li>Grinnell College (16)</li>
<li>Harvey Mudd College (n/a)</li>
<li>Colgate University (20)</li>
<li>Hamilton College (25)</li>
<li>Washington & Lee University (13)</li>
<li>Smith College (12)</li>
<li>Colby College (18)</li>
<li>Bryn Mawr College (10)</li>
<li>Oberlin College (24)</li>
<li>Bates College (22)</li>
<li>Mount Holyoke College (19)</li>
<li>Macalester College (32)</li>
<li>Barnard College (23)</li>
<li>Colorado College (28)</li>
<li>Scripps College (36)</li>
<li>Bucknell University (31)</li>
<li>Lafayette College (39)</li>
<li>Trinity College (21)</li>
<li>Kenyon College (33)</li>
<li>College of the Holy Cross (27)</li>
<li>University of Richmond (n/a)</li>
<li>Sewanee: the University of the South (29)</li>
<li>Whitman College (n/a)</li>
<li>Occidental College (38)</li>
<li>Bard College (40)</li>
<li>Connecticut College (26)</li>
<li>Union College (34)</li>
<li>Dickinson College (n/a)</li>
<li>Furman University (n/a)</li>
<li>Franklin & Marshall College (34)</li>
<li>Centre College (n/a)</li>
<li>Gettysburg College (n/a)</li>
<li>Rhodes College (n/a)</li>
<li>Sarah Lawrence College (23)</li>
<li>Skidmore College (n/a)</li>
<li>DePauw College (n/a)</li>
<li>Denison University (n/a)</li>
</ol>
<p>Thanks, littleathiest. Looks like several of the womens colleges got the worst of these comparisons. I wonder if they will ever be able to regain their prominence and compete again for the top female students or if this statistical/ranking decline is a secular, permanent change. </p>
<p>A thread that might be interesting would compare the rankings of 2007 with those expected in 2017.</p>
<p>Hopefully US news gets rid of its rankings and leaves it to the academics. Any raking that varies as much as does US news cannot be taken seriously.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hopefully US news gets rid of its rankings and leaves it to the academics. Any raking that varies as much as does US news cannot be taken seriously.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>US News has been pretty consistant throughout the years. I wouldn't say it fluctuates that much at all. Now, as far as accuracy goes...well, that's another story.</p>
<p>Among, others--I honestly don't feel like going down the list and through the years to find other year to year changes. Even over time, is Brown really "worse" than the seven schools which displaced it? Same with Northwestern and Duke. Is USC seriously considerably better than all the schools it leaped? How about WUSTL? In 98 to 99, when Penn miraculously jumped from 13 to 7, did it really, in the time frame of 1 year become that much better of a university? How can Hopkins be 22nd one year and 10 another? Did the school really improve that much? </p>
<p>I don't see how it's possible for a university to, in one year, become "better" than any others--especially about the level and quality of education about which most of us speak on these boards.</p>
<p>US News editors have already said that the "score" - ultimately that's what matters - between the top 10 is so close that differentiating between these schools is pointless but left to the reader. For instance:</p>
<p>Princeton - 100
Harvard - 99
Yale - 98
Caltech - 94
Stanford - 94
MIT - 94
Penn - 93
Duke - 92
Chicago - 89
Dartmouth - 89
Columbia - 89
WUSTL - 87
Cornell - 87
Northwestern - 86
Brown - 85</p>
<p>Now all that is left is to determine where to draw the line. If there are 100 points total, how big of a deal, really, is it for a school to have one more point than another. If people started looking at the rankings as nothing more than a collection of data given a scale of points, they'd realize that according to this, Stanford, considered by many to be clearly "better" than Penn, only has one more point. Likewise, Columbia/Dartmouth/UChi only have 2 more points than WUSTL and Cornell. Once one looks at the incredibly small difference, it becomes harder to say "this school is better because it's ranked a little higher."</p>
<p>Of course, the premise of this argument is that US News' formula is credible to begin with, but if one is discussing the rankings and using them as a measure of comparing schools, that should have already been assumed.</p>
<p>"Hopefully US news gets rid of its rankings and leaves it to the academics. Any raking that varies as much as does US news cannot be taken seriously."</p>
<p>What a joke. The actual raw scores for each school vary very little, and a major factor is that the "academics" change Peer Assessment scores one year to the next.</p>
<p>Actual "academics" don't know very much about the 100 or so undergraduates they are supposed to rank, just grad schools/large schools with prominent research.</p>
<p>coolguyusa123,
While I understand your sentiments about year to year changes in USNWR rankings, I think you are overstating the degree of changes that have taken place over time. Frankly, IMO, there have been TOO FEW adjustments to these rankings to reflect the broadening excellence of American colleges. Northeastern schools in general and the Ivies in particular have long and strong histories and, with the exception of Brown, have all held or improved their position over the last decade. But other schools around the country now have student bodies of similar strength yet rarely do they get accorded the same level of respect, prestige or ranking. </p>
<p>People outside of the Northeast appreciate the strength of the schools in their home regions and know that the students/graduates of these schools are every bit the equal of students attending any of the Ivies not named HYP and that the undergraduate experience that these schools offer can be superior for many, many students. My personal hope is that the future USNWR ranks will be more reflective of this broadening excellence and the shifting geographical demographics to the South and the West that have been ongoing for a decade or more. I don't expect the Peer Assessment scores to lead this change as they are lagging indicators based on (sometimes ancient) history. But the raw data on the quality of the undergraduate experience (Selectivity, Faculty Resources, Financial Resources) offered at these schools is highly competitive with the lower Ivies. Furthermore, I would contend that the full undergraduate experience-academic, social, athletic-of these schools has great appeal to many students and families. </p>
<p>I consider the following as underrated schools on a national level, but with student bodies that are on par with the lower Ivies and with institutional reputations that command equal or more respect and prestige in their home regions. </p>
<p>West: UCLA, USC </p>
<p>Midwest: Wash U, U Chicago, Northwestern, Notre Dame </p>
<p>I don't buy that schools beneath the Top 25 don't get respect. That may be true on CC and among narrowly-focused people who can't see beyond the Top 25, but hundreds of thousands of students are aiming for and are interested in schools in 25-50 ranks and in the lower tiers. Yes, the experiences they offer DO have appeal to many families. That's why they continue to get lots of applications and enjoy solid enrollment. Students who have an unhealthy reliance on US News (and the chops to get into a Top-tier school) may not find these schools, but that's no skin off the nose of the many people who think more broadly and are well-served on these campuses.</p>
<p>It's also hard to argue that Wash U, Chicago, Northwestern, and others listed are ill-served by these dumb rankings--they're in the Top 25. National Universities in the Northeast command less than half the places in the Top 25. Is that more than their fair share? Maybe, but it's not like reputable places elsewhere are being kicked to the basement.</p>
<p>I do agree with hawkette and others who say that the changes are relatively small--I don't think the ones cited were "horrendous" changes. Keep in mind, whether a school moves one place or seven places in the Top 25, it's still being put on the top of a pretty big heap. That goes for the entire Top 50, as far as I am concerned.</p>
<p>why is this an argumentative thread......??? there was already a post like this b4, but 4 1966. this is just a thread to get ppl to argue about "what they think it should be" but in reality...what is already done, is done.</p>
<p>I am impressed with USC's jump in the rankings, and I expect that pattern of improvement to continue. I am certain USC will finally surpass UCLA in the 2008 rankings.</p>