<p>There is a new methodology. Will it benefit or harm our beloved Cal?</p>
<p>Hopefully it won’t get anymore offensive.</p>
<p>Typically methodologies that favor large size (research output, etc) favor Cal and methodologies that favor small size (acceptance rate, average scores, student faculty ratio) tend to disfavor Cal. Methodologies that rely heavily on “prestige” or “peer review” also tend to favor Cal.</p>
<p>methodologies that favor endowments tend to favor privates over publics</p>
<p>When do these rankings come out again?</p>
<p>Aug 17. They already announced the top 25 names, but not the numbers. [Best</a> Colleges Preview: Top 25 National Universities - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2010/08/09/best-colleges-preview-top-25-national-universities.html]Best”>http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/best-colleges/2010/08/09/best-colleges-preview-top-25-national-universities.html)</p>
<p>Cal’s already gonna lose like 5 ranks just because its freshman retention rate is so low compared to other universities. But then again, what’s so good about having a high retention rate? Shouldn’t those who really suck get kicked out of school?</p>
<p>did they announce what the new methodology is?</p>
<p>The president of stanford argued that the only thing changing every year is the US news methodologies rather than actual changes in the schools. I’ll quote the interesting tidbits:</p>
<p>“Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27.”</p>
<p>“…the people behind the U.S. News rankings lead readers to believe either that university quality pops up and down like politicians in polls, or that last year’s rankings were wrong but this year’s are right (until, of course, next year’s prove them wrong). What else is one to make of Harvard’s being #1 one year and #3 the next, or Northwestern’s leaping in a single bound from #13 to #9? And it is not just this year. Could Johns Hopkins be the 22nd best national university two years ago, the 10th best last year, and the 15th best this year? Which is correct, that Columbia is #9 (two years ago), #15 (last year) or #11 (this year)?”</p>
<p>" Knowing that universities - and, in most cases, the statistics they submit - change little from one year to the next, I can only conclude that what are changing are the formulas the magazine’s number massagers employ."</p>
<p>more here:</p>
<p>[Universities</a> joining Stanford in posting web site data as alternative to <i>U.S. News</i>](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/970418rankings.html]Universities”>Universities joining Stanford in posting web site data as alternative to <I>U.S. News</I>)</p>
<p>^ I wish every single College Confidential reader could see that</p>
<p>USNWR’s methodology is the Creationism of college evaluation and ranking</p>
<p>Just gonna go out on a limb here and guess it’ll be somewhere between 18th and 25th.</p>
<p>Does everyone think it will still be the top public school in the country? Or will it lose out to UCLA?</p>
<p>^^ the state considers Cal to be the official flagship so I don’t think it will lose out in funding and such. but, it might lose out in popularity.</p>