USNWR Rankings Adjusted for Teaching Excellence-More Relevant/Reflective for Students

College Search & Selection
1

<p>While USNWR's PA scoring may reflect prestige among academics, I would strongly argue that the vast majority of undergraduate students care much more about having a good experience in the classroom. Students want to learn from their professors (and their peers) and IMO, great teaching and the classroom experience is an underappreciated element of the college search process. </p>

<p>So, how would the USNWR rankings change if the PA scoring were replaced by something more relevant to students and reflective of what most students are looking for in their undergraduate academic experience? See below for the USNWR rankings adjusted for the inclusion of Teaching Excellence ranks and the elimination of the PA scoring. While still far from a perfect measurement of the undergraduate quality of a college, this new ranking at least has the advantage of reflecting something that nearly every undergraduate student wants from his/her college, ie, great classroom teaching. </p>

<p>CONCLUSION: I think that these results are more reflective of the UNDERGRADUATE academic experience that a student will encounter at these national universities. </p>

<p>Note: The ranking data for Teaching Excellence is now dated, having been compiled in 1995. It is not at all certain that these trends hold true today. All other data/ranks are taken from the 2008 USNWR rankings.</p>

<p>Rank , Total Score , College , Teaching Rank-25% , Grad/Retention Rank-20% , Differential Score-5% , Faculty Resources Rank-20% , Selectivity Rank-15% , Financial Resources Rank-10% , Alumni Giving-5%</p>

<p>1 , 3.95 , Princeton , 5 , 2 , 0 , 3 , 3 , 12 , 1
2 , 5.50 , Yale , 10 , 3 , 0 , 9 , 1 , 2 , 5
3 , 6.50 , Harvard , 17 , 1 , 4 , 3 , 1 , 8 , 6
4 , 7.00 , Dartmouth , 1 , 7 , 1 , 15 , 7 , 11 , 3
5 , 7.45 , Duke , 7 , 9 , 0 , 3 , 12 , 14 , 2
6 , 7.70 , Stanford , 6 , 5 , 2 , 13 , 7 , 10 , 9
7 , 8.95 , Brown , 2 , 5 , 1 , 18 , 7 , 24 , 7
8 , 10.30 , U Penn , 26 , 7 , -1 , 1 , 7 , 8 , 8
9 , 11.45 , Caltech , 19 , 20 , -5 , 2 , 7 , 1 , 28
10 , 12.00 , Wash U , 22 , 17 , -3 , 7 , 6 , 4 , 11
11 , 12.05 , Rice , 4 , 15 , 1 , 15 , 13 , 24 , 13
12 , 13.50 , Columbia , 26 , 9 , 2 , 10 , 5 , 16 , 15
12 , 13.50 , U Chicago , 12 , 20 , -2 , 6 , 24 , 7 , 22
12 , 13.50 , Notre Dame , 9 , 3 , 4 , 21 , 15 , 38 , 4
15 , 13.55 , MIT , 26 , 9 , -2 , 20 , 3 , 4 , 10
16 , 13.90 , Northwestern , 18 , 13 , 0 , 7 , 19 , 12 , 27
17 , 14.65 , Emory , 13 , 26 , -7 , 10 , 15 , 17 , 12
18 , 17.20 , Cornell , 26 , 15 , 2 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 17
19 , 17.90 , Vanderbilt , 15 , 26 , 0 , 10 , 26 , 15 , 31
20 , 19.80 , Johns Hopkins , 26 , 20 , 3 , 22 , 24 , 3 , 17
21 , 22.55 , Tufts , 24 , 18 , 3 , 25 , 15 , 35 , 41
22 , 23.10 , Georgetown , 24 , 9 , 4 , 38 , 19 , 35 , 23
23 , 24.15 , U Virginia , 11 , 13 , 4 , 36 , 26 , 57 , 36
24 , 24.50 , Carnegie Mellon , 26 , 32 , -3 , 17 , 29 , 22 , 36
25 , 25.10 , Wake Forest , 20 , 26 , -1 , 38 , 38 , 6 , 21
26 , 25.95 , Lehigh , 26 , 31 , 4 , 19 , 26 , 47 , 13
27 , 26.65 , USC , 26 , 35 , -1 , 28 , 19 , 40 , 15
28 , 29.30 , Brandeis , 26 , 26 , 3 , 32 , 36 , 47 , 19
29 , 30.85 , W&M , 3 , 18 , 5 , 46 , 31 , 106 , 36
30 , 31.25 , UC Berkeley , 26 , 25 , 4 , 38 , 14 , 40 , 117
30 , 31.25 , U Rochester , 26 , 40 , -2 , 32 , 35 , 19 , 66
32 , 31.30 , UCLA , 26 , 24 , 6 , 42 , 19 , 26 , 117
33 , 31.85 , U North Carolina , 20 , 32 , 2 , 50 , 33 , 31 , 46
34 , 35.05 , Case Western , 26 , 46 , -10 , 36 , 40 , 20 , 93
35 , 35.35 , Boston Coll , 16 , 20 , 5 , 69 , 29 , 69 , 41
36 , 36.20 , U Michigan , 26 , 26 , 4 , 69 , 23 , 29 , 83
37 , 37.10 , NYU , 26 , 37 , -1 , 30 , 34 , 38 , 167
38 , 39.45 , Rensselaer , 26 , 37 , 1 , 55 , 48 , 40 , 66
39 , 40.60 , Tulane , 26 , 73 , -10 , 32 , 48 , 47 , 34
40 , 42.20 , Georgia Tech , 26 , 65 , -6 , 53 , 44 , 46 , 24</p>

2

<p>my goodness, wtheck happened to MIT! it went down to 15th! </p>

<p>
[quote]
The ranking data for Teaching Excellence is now dated, having been compiled in 1995.

[/quote]

lol i guess they used to have sucky lecturers back in the 90s.</p>

3

<p>I should note that I assigned a universal rank of 26th for all schools that did not place in the USNWR Top 25 Teaching Excellence ranks. It is quite possible that the ranks above for some of these colleges are inflated.</p>

<p>xjis,
MIT carries a #1 ranking (along with HPS) for PA ranking. HPS each ranked in the Top 25 for Teaching Excellence survey and so they were able to maintain their high ranks. MIT did not rank and thus was assigned a rank of 26th, thus causing its drop.</p>

4

<p>so the data is way back from 1995, only top 25 schools were ranked in TE, you ranked all the rest 26th in TE (including MIT), and you overall ranked the schools upto 40th based on that data?</p>

<p>i see more than one thing wrong with this ranking. if you feel so inclined to drop PA, i'd rather do so rather than adding this TE in when you don't even have sufficient data available on that category.</p>

<p>but then again, i guess you probably did that since you weren't sure how to weight other factors with PA out.</p>

5

<p>

The 90s were only a decade ago. What makes you think things have changed significantly?</p>

6

<p>In before crap-storm about Duke ranking too high and Berkeley too low.</p>

<p>I don't get the point of these rankings.</p>

7

<p>xjis,
I have done other ranking posts that are ex-PA and can do it again, but would prefer to stay on topic here as I think that what happens in the classroom is THE meaningful issue for the great majority of students. But you are right about the weights as I (and likely everyone who is reading this) would individually assign different weights to the variables that USNWR ranks on.</p>

<p>noobcake,
The point is that these rankings are likely more relevant to the undergraduate academic experience that a student will encounter when he/she arrives at ABC College. Incorporating the Teaching Excellence strength into these rankings will more closely reflect what is actually taking place in the classroom and not some undefined perception of prestige as judged by some undisclosed academics.</p>

8

<p>
[quote]
More Relevant/Reflective for Students

[/quote]

A more appropriate title would be:
"Rankings Viewed thru Hawkette's College Goggles" </p>

<p>:rolleyes:</p>

9

<p>


</p>

<p>i guess your own belief doesn't apply to teaching excellence rankings. (a decade isn't long enough for you?)</p>

<p>ah, whatever. i've had enough with this USNWR nonsense throughout multiple threads anyway. you win. you must be right, :)</p>

10

<p>xjis,
I'm putting the information out there. Interpret it as you wish. I fully accept that there may be changes in what is going on at these colleges, including in the classroom. That is why I included the disclaimer. </p>

<p>As for your comment about "USNWR nonsense" please realize that I have subtracted one USNWR survey (PA rankings) for another (Teaching Excellence). My personal preference is that neither is included and the rankings are compiled using solely objective data, but if we're forced to use subjective inputs, my preference is for something that is most relevant to the undergraduate student's experience on that campus.</p>

11

<p>if possible, you can at least pull all the data from 1995. that way, at least all the data will be "compatible" among different categories. you don't pull one ranking from 1995 and other from 2008 and sh**. </p>

<p>even then, the fact that only 25 schools were ranked in TE category doesn't help.</p>

<p>and seriously, i don't care if berkeley is ranked too low or duke is ranked too high, because i don't goto either school anyway.</p>

<p>but that ranking is flawed even from your implementation of its methodology and i was just pointing that out. if you don't understand why it's so wrong to pull different rankings from different years, oh well, i guess you will never work for USNWR.</p>

12

<p>Ho-hum. Haven't we seen this before? Any "adjustment" of the numbers that elevates Duke, Wash U, Vandy, and Emory at the expense of UC Berkeley and U Michigan, and hawkette is right on it.</p>

13

<p>bclintonk,
I understand your sensitivity about the undergraduate ranking decline of your U Michigan, but it has been pretty well established that without the PA score, U Michigan's ranking would drop as the school's objective data compares poorly with the other top national universities. Sorry. </p>

<p>As for your charge that the Teaching Excellence rankings favor Duke, Wash U, Vandy and Emory, I suggest that you check the math. The fact is that the big winners are some colleges that are frequently noted on CC and elsewhere as providing an excellent undergraduate academic environment, namely Dartmouth, Brown, Notre Dame, Tufts, and Rice. </p>

<p>If anything, my "adjustment" probably reveals a truer ranking of what one can expect on the undergraduate level than what one will get from the regular USNWR rankings. </p>

<p>Ranking change from PA scoring to Teaching Excellence scoring, College</p>

<p>7 , Dartmouth
7 , Brown
7 , Notre Dame
7 , Tufts
6 , Rice
5 , Wake Forest
5 , Lehigh
5 , U Rochester
4 , W&M
3 , Duke
3 , Brandeis</p>

<p>2 , Wash U
1 , Yale
1 , Georgetown
0 , Princeton
0 , Emory
0 , Vanderbilt
0 , U Virginia
0 , USC
0 , Boston Coll
-1 , Harvard
-2 , Stanford
-2 , Northwestern
-2 , Carnegie Mellon</p>

<p>-3 , U Penn
-3 , Columbia
-3 , U Chicago
-3 , NYU
-4 , Caltech
-5 , U North Carolina
-5 , Georgia Tech
-6 , Cornell
-6 , Johns Hopkins
-7 , UCLA
-8 , MIT
-9 , UC Berkeley
-11 , U Michigan</p>

14

<p>PA of Berkeley 4.8
PA of Michigan 4.5
PA of Duke 4.4 (dropped from 4.6 two years ago)</p>

<p>Ever wonder why hawkette discounts the PA? Trust me, if Duke had a higher PA, she'd not be questioning the USNWR findings on this matter.</p>

15

<p>rjko,
I congratulate you once again on your superb ability to think creatively and really try to get a fuller understanding of what's important in an undergraduate institution....NOT!!</p>

<p>Any ranking methodology is going to have holes, including this one, but that does not change the fact that this adjusted ranking likely bears a much closer resemblance to colleges that provide the best UNDERGRADUATE academic experience than does the traditional USWNR ranking. </p>

<p>Maybe you will understand better and see it more clearly if I repost the list without all of the sub-data. The only one that seems seriously misplaced here is MIT. Other than that, I think this ranking is a better proxy for the quality of the undergraduate academic experience. Here again is the undergraduate ranking using Teaching Excellence as the standard for faculty strength rather than PA scoring. </p>

<p>The Top UNDERGRADUATE National Universities</p>

<p>1 , Princeton
2 , Yale
3 , Harvard
4 , Dartmouth
5 , Duke
6 , Stanford
7 , Brown
8 , U Penn
9 , Caltech
10 , Wash U
11 , Rice
12 , Columbia
12 , U Chicago
12 , Notre Dame
15 , MIT
16 , Northwestern
17 , Emory
18 , Cornell
19 , Vanderbilt
20 , Johns Hopkins
21 , Tufts
22 , Georgetown
23 , U Virginia
24 , Carnegie Mellon
25 , Wake Forest
26 , Lehigh
27 , USC
28 , Brandeis
29 , W&M
30 , UC Berkeley
30 , U Rochester</p>

16

<p>See my above statement again hawkette. I stand by what I said.</p>

17

<p>Yes, I'm sure you do. </p>

<p>The problem, of course, is that it is all that you can and do say and thus the true value and weakness of your position is revealed...over and over again.</p>

18

<p>How many students participated in the teaching excellence study of 1995?</p>

<p>How many from each school?</p>

<p>How were these students chosen?</p>

19

<p>........and your constant uneven statistics that attempt to show that Berkeley and Michigan are inferior to other schools in the top 25 over and over again. The other problem is that you never have attended Duke and you never state where you went to school. I believe you have a personal agenda against publicly funded schools. Perhaps you attended one and felt you got a subpar education. Whatever the case, your obsession with showing that public schools are not worthy of top considerations are indicative of your bias. I believe that the PA is a full 25% of the scoring for USNWR. The highest number taken into account for total scoring. I mention the PA over and over again because I feel it is the MOST important statistic in the USNWR findings. You feel differently. Sobeit.</p>

20

<p>But hawkette, you repeat yourself over and over again, using old data and making up innumerable useless charts to get your point across--I understand why rjkofnovi would feel frustrated.</p>

<p>As I have stated before, if you don't believe in PA, then you should not believe in a 13 year old completely subjective survey about teaching excellence by the same people. If you do believe in the teaching survey, then you should also believe in PA.</p>

<p>You attempt to have it both ways--or should I say your way--and then complain that others must be biased or not understand. On the contrary, we do understand--we understand that your data is frequently misused and that your logic is flawed.</p>