Washington Monthly's College Rankings

College Search & Selection
1

<p>Washington Monthly has come up with a new set of college rankings, and it certainly isn't what one might expect:
- Penn State #3, U of Penn #30
- Texas A & M #5, Harvard #28, Princeton #43</p>

<p>The rankings are [url=<a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.national.html%5Dhere%5B/url"&gt;http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.national.html]here[/url&lt;/a&gt;], with the article home [url=<a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.collegechart.html%5Dhere%5B/url"&gt;http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.collegechart.html]here[/url&lt;/a&gt;].&lt;/p>

<p>I'm sure many CC members will dismiss the rankings as unsupportable, and the methodology not only flawed but really odd.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, there is an important point to be drawn from this set of rankings - it's both impossible and meaningless to rank colleges on an absolute scale. What counts is what is important and relevant to the student and the student's needs and aspirations. By discarding the USNews variables and using a different set of criteria, Washington Monthly came up with a set of rankings that looked nothing like USNews. This is what each student should be doing - deciding what criteria really count, and creating a personal set of rankings that may put Yale way outside the top 25 and Indiana at #1. One student's rankings may look entirely different than her classmate's set. Too many students and parents are willing to substitute the judgment of magazine editors for their own assessment of what's important in choosing a college.</p>

<p>To be sure, magazines CAN provide some good comparative information. They do this best when they stay within a tight classification and focus on differences as opposed to making better/worse judgments. Knowing that a Toyota Camry has more power but lower gas mileage than a Nissan Maxima (I have no idea if that is true) is important if I'm looking for a family sedan; I can choose the car that fits my need for speed or frugality. Having the editors tell me the Camry is #1 and the Maxima is #3 is useless and potentially misleading if the Maxima meets more of my needs. Even worse is telling me that the Hummer H2 is the Car of the Year - it may be fantastic if one is looking for extreme off-roading, but an awful choice for a consumer whose highest priority is fuel economy. This is exactly what magazine college rankings do - they apply a one-size-fits-all standard to a problem with dozens of variables.</p>

<p>OK, I'll get off the soapbox... What do you like or dislike about these rankings or the methodology?</p>

2

<p>Everyone knows UC Riverside is better than Harvard.</p>

3

<p>I can't believe the criteria for "service"--I mean seriously, ROTC enrollment and Peace Corps? How about percent of students going into teaching, government service and non-profit employment? In research, it seems they essentially double-count PhDs in science and engineering, and the fact that science and engineering PhDs are counted in absolute numbers. Mostly this is an interesting exercise that forced me to admit that I have only the vaguest idea of the USNWR criteria, and that it is all pretty silly.</p>

4

<p>Have they confused BU with BC? They have BU's U.S. News ranking listed as 40.</p>

5

<p>I think you guys are missing the point Roger is making. His point is that rankings of the "best" vary on what one values. </p>

<p>For example, for die hard Engineers, schools like Georgia Tech, Harvey Mudd, Purdue and Carnegie Mellon would make most students' top 10 list. Harvard, Yale, Brown, Dartmouth, Duke and several other very popular universities would no doubt be left out. Of course, that's in addition to schools like Cal, Caltech, Cornell, MIT, Michigan, Northwestern, Princeton and Stanford.</p>

<p>If a student really wants a school with lots of Division I sports school spirit, the Ivy League, MIT, Chicago and most elite LACs would be left out in favor of schools like Texas A&M, UT-Austin and Wisconsin-Madison. Of course, that's in addition to schools like Duke, Georgetown, Michigan, Notre Dame and Stanford. </p>

<p>If a student's definition of a great university is one that combines academics with skiing, schools like Cal, Columbia, Harvard, Michigan and Stanford would not be ranked near the top 20 whereas schools like Colorado College, UC-Boulder, and UVt would make the top 10 list. Of course, that's in addition to schools like Dartmouth, Middlebury and Williams.</p>

6

<p>This is a really excellent point.</p>

<p>I would add however, that there are a number of criteria that most people generally consider important for a "Best" college though people differ about the weights. The problem with US News is that it has become successful precisely by using variables that a lot of people agree on, a few that are more controversial, and then playing with weights so that you get variable results from year to year. Yet they have successfully appropriated the claim to the most widely recognized "Best" rankings thus shifting -- sometimes in unpredictable ways -- which schools are thought of as best.</p>

<p>Their greatest accomplishment has been to highlight overlooked programs that are on the rise. Their worst "sin" has been to get schools to fixate on whatever will jack them up a few places from year to year, while changing the very weights they use from year to year.</p>

<p>I do believe we need more accountability in higher education. I just wish there guardians who helped us get a better handle on what the real value-added of most schools is.</p>

7

<p>My initial reaction is that they are evaluating engineering and sciences. Practical programs (from the future employment standpoint) that permit one to make a social mobility argument, if desired, particularly when AA is factored in. If I may be allowed a little Pennsylvania partisanship, Penn State is fantastic in those areas, and Cornell U deserves its reputation, as well. However, any rating system that places Amherst ahead of Williams clearly has its flaws [that's a joke, son--Foghorn Leghorn]. Penn State is a really great and underappreciated school.</p>

8

<p>thanks for posting this roger- it is almost sickening how people take the usnews as THE gospel for assessing quality of a college.</p>

9

<p>Frankly, most of these rankings are both confusing and useless to me. My D is getting ready to apply to college and she has outlined several important criteria for choosing her schools, some of which don't even appear on most of these ratings, such as top architecture school (in the eyes of employers) and Division I sports (she's an athlete and wants that atmosphere). </p>

<p>As a result, a highly regarded, top-ranked school like Wash U StL is a washout. Their arch school is excellent, campus is beautiful - both of which my daughter loved - but when she heard the guide say few students ever went to games of WashU's excellent DIII teams, she crossed it off her list. Arbitrary, but real.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, we've heard Chicago architects speak highly of U of Cincinnati and Ball State (who?) grads, saying they'd hire them in a second. Both are buried on USNWR, and only #118 and #211 respectively on this list. Yet both are among the top schools in the Design Intelligence ratings of undergraduate architecture schools.</p>

<p>Although her current favorites are UCs, Big Ten or equivalent schools, she is giving Cincy and Ball State serious consideration because of their reputation in her field of choice. Only time will tell which is best for her.</p>

<p>So I echo the voices who caution against the obsession over "Best" rankings. As I'm learning with my daughter, it is more important to look for the college where your D/S will be both happiest and well-educated. And being well-educated doesn't only mean HYPS.</p>

10

<p><em>Waiting for someone to freak out because Harvard isn't #1</em></p>

11

<p>alexandre nails another one. what is most important are PERSONAL criteria, not ones from magazines. i would recommend developing an elaborate grid of screening criteria, each weighted according to importance. sometimes funky stuff can tip the scales, like the accomplishments of a certain campus club, or fraternity, or the intramural program, or the fact that here is where one of the few intercollegiate shooting or bowling progams exist. one recent guide was just released that measures how tolerant each campus is toward alternate lifestyles. i remember one person saying that he chose san jose state because of its world class judo program which had absolutely no link to academics. another made the choice based on proximity to a father she never knew. magazines are in the business of selling copies of magazines. unless you only care about status or what others think, be your own judge.</p>

12

<p>upon further examination of the criteria--which absolutely will generate much discussion (and thus much attention on washington monthly, obviously intentional)--several factors seem to emerge when compared to more widely disseminated polls:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>state universities benefit more from the service criteria given their larger footprint in programs such as ROTC, a carry-over from the land grant years of many decades prior.</p></li>
<li><p>historically black colleges also seem to benefit more from the service criteria, perhaps given the socioeconomic profiles of their student bodies.</p></li>
<li><p>elite privates such as the ivies are penalized by these same service criteria.</p></li>
<li><p>universities without large science and engineering units are penalized due to the higher weightings here.</p></li>
<li><p>many california universities seem to have benefitted from these rankings disproportionately, though in odd ways. for example, this poll lists biola (a christian private) and laverne (both with an academically weak faculty and student body with relatively few distinguishing features) ahead of any unit in the california state university system, which only can claim san diego state anywhere among its 23 campuses. san diego's score is 144 places lower than its USNWR ranking, surpassed only by yeshiva at 155.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>bottom line: just another poll, this one skewed heavily toward public service and science/engineering--yet amazingly none of the military academies are anywhere to be found in spite of their vaunted reputations on both planes. thank you, roger, for calling this one out.</p>

13

<p>very good point roger and one that should put an end to discussion of the merits of this particular list. i suspect, however, posters will dispute this endlessly.....</p>

14

<p>What is Washington Monthly?</p>

<p>Anyone that puts Texas A&M as number five must be an alum or getting paid a LOT of money by Texas A&M.</p>

15

<p>I do think it's kind of fun to take a totally different set of criteria and see how colleges stack up.</p>

16

<p>Serves a purpose..if...nothing else...will get students thinking about schools other than the ones listed as "Top CC" on this board. Students interested in LAC's should certainly look at that list, which has a number of schools not typically mentioned on this board. (Thrilled to see the women's colleges ranked so high!)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.libarts.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.libarts.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

17

<p>Let's face it. What we REALLY look for whenever somebody comes out with one of these lists is where our own alma maters rank. And therein lies a problem, because I think that the Washington Monthly criteria are poorly thought out, yet my school, Cornell, is in the top 10. Hmmm..... I have to think about this one.</p>

18

<p>precisely the purpose of washington monthly, to generate a buzz. i was an assistant professor at penn state and was a student at three different other big ten schools through to the doctorate and i cannot begin to imagine how these four institutions could possibly be ranked so far apart as in this poll.</p>

<p>but just like football or basketball polls the debate generated creates all kinds of smoke and even some fire.</p>

19

<p>um... is it me or does Washington Monthly seem to lack an editor? read the title of this article: <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.carey.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.carey.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

20

<p>I think the next way to rank schools will be to write their names on a piece of paper and pull them out of a hat.</p>

<p>And yes our students 'is' learning. Sounds like Ali G</p>