What's up with Vanderbilt's rankings?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Vanderbilt University
1

I know you shouldn’t get caught up with rankings and should instead focus on a school that’s a right fit for you. However, I’m just curious. Vanderbilt University has an acceptance rate of 10%, one of the most selective schools in the nation. Despite this, it was ranked considerably low on thebestschools.org’s Top 100 Best Universities list, having a worse ranking than schools like Rutgers and UC Irvine (both are not nearly as selective). Why isn’t it considered more prestigious if it’s so difficult to get into?

Here’s the list by the way: http://www.thebestschools.org/features/100-best-universities-in-world-today/

2

…because selectivity has very little to do with the quality of academics at a school. This obsession with admission rates is beyond me.

What are some (more) important factors of a school’s academic quality?

  • Class sizes
  • Opportunity for solo or small-group time with professors
  • Research and internship opportunities
  • That profs have their fields’ terminal degrees
  • Academic rigor (i think that “hard” is good)
  • Solid academic support
  • The ability to switch majors (important, since most students change their mind at least once)

Of course, academic quality is not the only variable involved in the overall quality of a university. But it’s the biggest one.

3

It’s just another list. Look at the methodology.

4

Selectivity is an indicator of how many people want to go to that school vs how many it admits. People choose schools for reasons other than being “better” academically (which is a highly subjective concept anyway), therefore selectivity is not correlated with academic quality.

5

Selectivity–in addition to the above–doesn’t play much of a role in the rankings methodology.

6

Here’s a description of the Shanghai/ARWU ranking methodology:
http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Methodology-2015.html

Its focus is on faculty research performance.

7

Also the three world wide rankings make little if any adjustment for the size of the school. Hence Arizona State comes out ranked higher than Emory, Tufts and Case Western Reserve universities. All three of those schools are much more selective than ASU.

8

@Jasper272 : If Vanderbilt did not start its admissions scheme (the same as WUSTL) of hoarding apps and cherrypicking extremely high SATs, it would not even be at the rank it is. So, in fact, the method of their admissions and communications office has had an effect. However, you get diminished returns on just focusing on admissions stats (WUSTL). You will rank high and even rise at some times, but since things like peer and counselor ranking matter sometimes, those (typically seasoned admins with affiliations with other more elite programs) at other schools will know what is up.

Out of the three super stats sensitive schools (I would say Chicago, VU, WUSTL), only Chicago has the academic credibility to be far in the top 10, partly because of the halo effect coming from the strength of its research infrastructure and graduate programs, and another part because their undergraduate academics are known to be unusually (emphasis on this, same could be said for JHU, Stanford, and Duke, who do not make the super stats sensitive category) strong. This is what is required to get in the top 10. focusing on UG admissions will only get you but so far. Many schools above 15 and especially those in the top 10 have lower “stats” than VU and WUSTL, but are generally regarded as somewhat higher caliber schools overall, included the UG entities. In addition, the students are just different, mny of the schools with lower stats and higher or similar rank get students who win all the prizes so it is some mixture in difference of student ambition and how the school facilitates.

I have always noted this, but when you look at that metric, VU even after the drop in admit rate and inception of skyhigh SATs (as in, even if you only count graduating classes only after the bottom quartile of the SAT range hit 1400), still performs more like those schools between 15 and 25, in fact often being outperformed in some years. VU and WUSTL have to get serious about taking the next step beyond the admissions game. There is evidence that VU is now considering some things according to its strategic plan, but many of the things have already been in place at the identical caliber UG programs around and below it. I think the immersion VU “may” have some potential though. However, getting future matriculates on board fully is another story. Academic change usually requires some culture change as well as getting a huge threshold of faculty on board (as in they will likely have to change what they do or take on more responsibilities. Change ain’t easy especially when everyone claims they like or love the status quo).

@TomSrOfBoston : I only applied to publics for my PhD in chemistry this year lol and paid little attention to overall ranking (was mainly interested in departmental and who worked in the dept, what they did, some of the scientific accomplishments of the school…plus wanted to feel like I was part of something bigger, which often publics give that feeling more so. At prestigious private, you feel just glad to be there because it is prestigious, but at a public, even a prestigious, it feels as if one legitimately contribute to making the place greater. I always felt this sense of complacency at even my private UG and that many take the “eliteness” for granted. Wanted something new. In addition, many public schools are located in college towns or areas where they more so energize the whole area right around which I find nicer).

9

@Jasper272 Also, might I add that it is an extremely strong performance in a world ranking (seriously, do you know how many schools are in the world?)! Most other world rankings do not put them that high so that strong performance indicates something is working according to the methodology used here, but now that I have looked, it doesn’t rank undergraduate programs (even if it did, again, admit statistics are easily controlled by the goals and marketing of the admissions office and school administration. The more aggressive, the better the outcome). It mainly ranks research productivity and the prestige will more so reflect however AWRU quantifies research infrastructure and horsepower which should break the top 100 at basically any elite in the U.S. with an engineering school (in fact, many other world rankings would likely bias towards those with STEM horsepower, so places like CMU and Georgia Tech would be ranked above many selective privates in the U.S as well as many institutions elsewhere). Many schools in the world actually outperform in that category. It is not a true prestige and popularity ranking) the way that USNWR has made us think about it (and as I said above, even that has minimal effect when beyond a certain threshold for that ranking). Many schools that are more productive in the world go unknown and may be mainly PhD granting institutions. For Vanderbilt to be more stable in ARWU (though it kind of is…usually between 50 and 60 something I think), it “simply” has to improve graduate academics and research productivity/infrastructure. It requires money and strategic investment. WUSTL is likely bolstered here by medicine and extremely investments in say, engineering (Vanderbilt has a new building, but WUSTL looks like its building program in engineering was much more aggressive).