<p>academic prestige? education quality? what the heck is it? should it be taken seriously or is it some Bull****?</p>
<p>i mean, Michigan has a higher peer-accessment score than Duke and UPenn (according to USNEWS 2004 edition), does it mean it delivers better education than Duke or Upenn?</p>
<p>Georgetown has a fairly low peer-accessment score, does it mean that it's not as good as people make it to be?</p>
<p>The Peer Assessment portion of the USN&WR rankings has been controversial for a couple of reasons. One is that it makes up 25% of the number used in the ranking. Another is that higher education officials who fill out the forms usually have a vested interest in promoting their own institutions and can hardly be called impartial. There has been a call for those who answer the annual poll conducted by USN&WR to have the Peer Assessment portion left blank and to rely on concrete numbers and not personal opinion in judging schools.</p>
<p>I thought colleges were not allowed to rate themselves in the Peer Assessment survey, only other colleges. This might be worth checking.</p>
<p>Even if colleges were allowed to rate themselves, that's 1 vote out of 1,000! There is no doubt that the peer assessment score is not 100% accurate, but it is the best indicator of academic reputation and quality in the eyes of academe.</p>
<p>It measures quality of sports teams, size of institution, and quality of graduate programmes. I'm not kidding.</p>
<p>It's a bad assessment because most college administrators know very little about most other schools. They can probably comment on the rigor of only a few other schools.</p>
<p>I have read that some universities- do some PR to up their peer assessments- some are more successful than others I daresay and some probably feel like that would defeat the purpose.</p>
<p>Reed college BTW has a decent score in this- doesn't have any sports teams to speak of- is less than 1,500 students with perhaps a handful of MALS students ( masters)
I rather doubt Reed does much PR with the intent of increasing their US News ranking if any-;)</p>
<p>I doubt that the dean at UNew Hampshire can find Walla Walla on a map....</p>
<p>Ariesathena, I have known several high ranking officals and many professors at the University of Michigan. Not one of them had a clue about sports. They could tell you that OSU was a big game and that Army and Navy rule? Huh? Not since the 1940s guys! LOL In short, it is preposterous to assume that sports have anything to do with peer assessment scores. If it did, MIT and CalTech would not even be ranked and Notre Dame would be ranked in the top 10.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I doubt that the dean at UNew Hampshire can find Walla Walla on a map....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In fairness, the deans at UNH have their hands full trying to find Durham on a map.</p>
<p>Alexandre: I disagree. </p>
<p>I had a teacher who went to Duke before it became a big sports school. People would say, "Oh, I've heard of Duke - it's in Texas, right?" Then, it gets a good basketball team and wham - everyone knows about it, rankings shoot up, and it is more prestigous. </p>
<p>I did not say that every school needs to have a good sports team in order to be prestigous. However, there is a strong link between sports and how much people know about colleges, and those people include very busy college administrators who just cannot have the time to ferret out every "hidden gem" college. </p>
<p>Not preposterous - it's reality. You are misreading my post - I never said that sports was the one and only factor or that a bad sports team would for certain damn a school in rankings. Just said that, overall, it's a factor. Schools with better athletics are better known. I did not say everything you tried to make my statement out to be.</p>
<p>I still disagree. 99% of the people involved in the peer assessment score are completely averse to sports. They not only are ignorant of sports, but they actually hate sports. If anything, schools with excellent sports programs probably get shafted in the peer assessment score. I agree that the quality of graduate programs plays a small role, but size and sports have nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>It's not meant to be a highly scientific measurement. You have plenty of other stats for that. It's simply the gut feelings and opinions of people who are supposedly in the know. Essentially, it's a measure of name recognition and prestige, which isn't necessarily tied in to educational quality. I do think the peer assessment scores are relatively in line with the general consensus.</p>
<p>Schools like Tufts get heavily penalized by this somewhat random peer assessment score. Particularly in areas like engineering, since its a small program. Although I don't buy the sports angle, and btw, Duke has had an amazing basketball program for decades, its not like they just burst onto the scene recently by any stretch.</p>
<p>LOL - 98% of those people hate sports? Are you serious or just arguing a point and pulling stuff out of your butt?</p>
<p>Even if they do hate sports, they are still more aware of schools whose prestige is in part derived from its sports teams. You don't have to root for Duke to know that it has a good team.</p>
<p>Ariesathena, I did not pull that stat out of anywhere. But if not a single one of the dozens of profs and high level administrators I have come into contact with at a school that has a decent sports programs like Michigan did not like sports, I would say that it is a safe bet that most people in academe do not care much about sports. I agree that a schools reputation in low-brow circles may be influenced by sports, but not at the highest levels of academe. </p>
<p>I agree with Norcalguy...the peer assessment is a vague and not entirely accurate rating that seems to somehow come close to the mark. One must not differentiate between a 4.4 anfd a 4.6 score...or between a 3.6 and a 3.9 score. Furthermore, he is right on when he says that the peer assessment score does not measure the quality of the education one will receive at a school. No rating could ever measure that since each person learns differently and learning at the university level is almost entirely dependent on the student.</p>
<p>That must be why Nebraska, Alabama, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Miami rate so highly.</p>
<p>so Michigan > Duke >> Georgetown?</p>
<p>I'd love it if someone could explain Yeshiva's ranking :)</p>
<p>It's law school is well-regarded (which is about all I know about the school).</p>
<p>No Untilted, it would be more like Duke = Michigan > Georgetown...and that's assuming we are talking about the peer assessment score.</p>