Who's Anxiously Waiting The Us News And World Report Rankings!

College Search & Selection
121

<p>
[quote]
Xiggi, Cornell and Penn are not the lowest ranked Ivy league schools, they are the ONLY Ivy league schools with undergrad business programs, which is why they are the only two that offer a BBA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I assume your comment relates to "There is a reason why such degree is only offered at the two lowest ranked Ivy League schools --if indeed it is indeed called a BBA and not something else." I am not certain which parts you seem to question.</p>

<p>Penn and Cornell ARE the two least selective Ivies. I was not quoting the US News rankings. </p>

<p>For your information, all students in the Wharton School's undergraduate program receive a Bachelor of Science in Economics degree from the University of Pennsylvania. Cornell University's Undergraduate Business Program grants Bachelor of Science (B.S.) degrees and it is a recent addition to the Department of Applied Economics and Management (AEM.)</p>

122

<p>Hey xiggi - I'm a long time admirer of your thoughtful posts. I just wanted to add that Cornell's AEM program is only recently accredited (2002) by the AACSB... it's not a recent addition to Cornell. AEM</a> Places Fourth in ?08 BusinessWeek Rankings | The Cornell Daily Sun</p>

123

<p>"In addition of describing the limitations of the survey, it also highlights the nefarious parts of the U.S. News modus operandi. Stacking the deck in order to ensure a "level playing field" is simply business as usual."</p>

<p>I couldn't agree more. The USNWR formula and data collection is designed to come to a particular outcome. What do you expect? That one edition (Amerca's Best Colleges) accounts for 25% of their annual sales. They cannot afford coming out with a ranking that would displease their primary market.</p>

124

<p>

Except that Wharton's overall acceptance rate is about 10%--the lowest of Penn's 4 undergraduate schools, and as low as or lower than all other Ivies except HYP. So there goes that theory. :)</p>

125

<p>xiggi:</p>

<p>I am extremely disapointed. Did you just realize that USNews' sole purpose is to sell magazines? (And, that the first "survey" which left the blue-bloods down the pecking order was not good for business, since ALL of those blue-bloods exist in the NE?)</p>

126

<p>USNews has its problems, but it generally does a good job of ranking schools. What other outcome could result from a change in the methodology of the ranking system of the magazne? Suddenly, we wake up to find Cal as the #1 school in the country? Not now, not ever.</p>

127

<p>Cal may not be deserving of the #1 spot for undergraduate rankings, but there is a difference between #1 and #21. Cal should be ranked between #6 and #10.</p>

128

<p>^^ I don't agree, at least not for undergrad (which clearly is not Cal's focus).</p>

129

<p>^^Alexandre:</p>

<p>that's my earlier point. Putting Cal, Mich and UVa in the same stratosphere as the blue bloods is NOT a way to sell magazines, particularly when your biggest population market is NE residents. :rolleyes:</p>

130

<p>EVERYONE is interested in USNews! Not just prep schoolers in New England and their families. Where in the world did you get the idea that this was the case? In fact, I would argue more people pay attention to the changes in rankings beyond the top 20 schools than they do about the top elite schools. If Tulane's ranking vastly improves and the school's data set shows a sign of recovering from the wrath of Hurricane Katrina, then that will be the real highlight story of this year's rankings, Whether Dartmouth overtakes Columbia or Duke overtakes Stanford...not so much.</p>

131

<p>
[quote]
I am extremely disapointed. Did you just realize that USNews' sole purpose is to sell magazines? (And, that the first "survey" which left the blue-bloods down the pecking order was not good for business, since ALL of those blue-bloods exist in the NE?)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sorry to disappoint you, BB! I do not see the problem with U.S. News selling lots of magazines or ranking editions. I consider the Best College a bargain, at least as far the raw data it compiles in an easy format. Fwiw, I would not at the earliest versions of the ranking with nostalgia ... and again for good reasons. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Cal may not be deserving of the #1 spot for undergraduate rankings, but there is a difference between #1 and #21. Cal should be ranked between #6 and #10.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, it'd only take a PA of 5.8/5.00. The current one keeps Cal above the spot it ... deserves in the undergraduate rankings. </p>

<p>It seems that U.S News does plenty to keep the playing field level, but that is NOT by "screwing" the public universities. According to Morse's own admission, the opposite is true: he is using intangibles to propr up the public schools. This might be a matter of personal opinion, but I don't think there a single public university that "deserves" to be ranked higher than it is currently by US News, and especially not Cal.</p>

132

<p>"The current one keeps Cal above the spot it ... deserves in the undergraduate rankings. U.S News does plenty to keep the playing field level, but that is NOT by "screwing" the public universities. The opposite is true as there isn't a single public university that "deserves" to be ranked higher than it is currently by US News."</p>

<p>I don't agree xiggi (surprise, surprise! hehe!), but there is no point in discussing this issue since it won't get us anywhere.</p>

133

<p>Who DOESN'T care about the US News rankings? The vast majority of rising HS seniors who will enroll in college in the fall of 2009, that's who. </p>

<p>According to the U.S. census, two-third of 2009 HS graduates---roughly 2 million out of the 3 million or so total HS grads---will enroll in college in 2009. Of these, a little over 700,000 will enroll in community colleges or other JuCos. The rest--almost 1.3 million--will enroll in four-year colleges. How many of these will apply to Harvard? Probably around 27,000 or so, about 2% of the total seeking admission to 4-year colleges. Add in those applying to other Ivies but not Harvard, and you get to what, maybe 4 or 5%? </p>

<p>How many will get into US News-ranked top 10, top 20, even top 50-ranked schools? A fairly trivial percentage I'd wager, though you're welcome to do the math and prove me wrong.</p>

<p>Fact is, this mad competitive chase for admission to top-ranked schools is largely a game for a small and privileged few---the academic elites to be sure, but with a strong crossover to socio-economic elites as well. Large enough and wealthy enough that there's money to be made by US News. But the fact is the vast majority of those who enroll in college for the first time in the fall of 2009 will be very happy to enroll in a non-selective institution, very likely public. Their reasons for doing so will for the most part be sound and pragmatic: it can get them a decent education at an affordable cost, and it can advance their career goals and life prospects. Will they be envious of those who get into HYPS? For the most part, probably not; it won't even enter their minds. Some of them--perhaps surprisingly large numbers of them---could get into that competitive chase if they so chose; but many will elect not to, either consciously or by default.</p>

<p>I was struck by this figure: excluding the service academies (a special case), the college with the highest "yield" after Harvard (78.7%) and Yale (71.0%) is the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, at 70.5%. The University of Nebraska-Lincoln? Ranked #91 in US News for national universities, with a 73% admit rate? Why would so many applicants make it their #1 choice? Surely it's not just that they can't get into a higher-ranked schools: UN-L's middle 50% ACT scores are 23-28, meaning 1/4 of their entering class has an ACT score of 28 or better, enough to put them in contention for all but a small handful of elite research universities and LACs. So it's not that applicants don't have other choices, if they elect to pursue them. So why UN-L? Well, it's easy really: decent school, low cost, close to home, and these hard-headed, no-nonsense Nebraskans see no need to enter the competitive rat-race to get into a more highly ranked school. In short, they don't give a hoot about US News or any other ""prestige" ranking. They're in it for a decent education at a good price, and their state U, bless it, provides that.</p>

<p>So before you get caught up in this year's US News-induced feeding frenzy, keep in mind those sensible, pragmatic, no-nonsense Nebraskans. Prestige, especially as measured by magazine rankings, isn't everything. In fact, it may not be worth very much at all. That's not to say you shouldn't pursue your dreams and noblest ambitions. Just don't let your dreams and ambitions be highjacked by the false god of prestige.</p>

134

<p>
[quote]
It seems that U.S News does plenty to keep the playing field level... According to Morse's own admission, the opposite is true: he is using intangibles...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Absolutely -- all the better to sell magazines to an anxious public. :)</p>

<p>Indeed, just as the first ranking was lambasted for ranking several publics in teh top 20 ("how dare they?"), the current one puts them in a spot that 'feels just about right'. </p>

<p>But, from a methodolical standpoint, PA is the only ranking statistic that is not so wealth-correlated (no causation, here!) either of the college resources or entering student body.</p>

135

<p>University of Nebraska-Lincoln is the powerhouse math school that is where the AMC, AIME, USAMO test comes from. Just look at the back of the contests to see for yourself.</p>

136

<p>Xiggi, without PA, do you think the USNWR rankings would reflect the quality of undergraduate education at the schools it ranks?</p>

<p>Do you think the metrics USNWR uses (without PA) and how it assigns the weights of each metric are the indicators of undergraduate education?</p>

<p>What do you really know about the education students receive at Cal? Don't mention SAT scores. Talk about the education.</p>

<p>Tell me.</p>

137

<p>I think that a factor I would love to see in the US News rankings is something like percentage of graduate/doctoral students teaching undergraduates. I do think that it is a negative thing (for the most part) to have someone considered to be more of a peer than a professor lecture you. Sometimes in my classes I often think I know more than my professor, and when you don't respect them it's hard to learn from them.</p>

<p>Student selectivity and class size are important. It's nice to be surrounded by motivated, intellectual students other than those who are constantly thinking "dude, where's the party tonight, what bar are we hitting up?". It's also nice not to sit in a lecture hall where a professor is lecturing you all day with no interaction.</p>

<p>Those will likely be factors that measure "quality of education" to me. To be honest though, I don't really care about the quality of my education. I care about the reputation of my school towards employers and the ROI that my degree will bring. That's where peer assessment comes in, the perception of your school towards others. I want to know that employers perceive my school to be good. I also would love to see a a ranking for ROI. Take the average student's cost after financial aid, compare it to starting salaries, and see if the degree is actually holding it's value.</p>

138

<p>I definitely agree with A2. % of graduate/doctoral students teaching undergraduates seems like a statistic that would show how much the school cares about its undergrads.</p>

139

<p>
[quote]
Xiggi, without PA, do you think the USNWR rankings would reflect the quality of undergraduate education at the schools it ranks?</p>

<p>Do you think the metrics USNWR uses (without PA) and how it assigns the weights of each metric are the indicators of undergraduate education?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>DS, my issue if NOT about the Peer Assessment in general, it's about the CURRENT application of an extremely loose definition. For the record, anf for the nth time, my utopian situation would STILL have a PA. Actually, in my version, the PA would be greatly expanded and represent an entire ranking. The PA would have multiple and WELL defined columns --probably 10 metrics that amount to 100. The current 75% representing the objective measurements (even if not beyond crticism) would be reworked in a separate ranking, and BOTH would be presented separately and not MEANT to be combined. </p>

<p>Since we are talking about utopia, the absolute best improvement of this entire exercise would be to make all the surveys public. If a voice is important to be heard, I'd like to know from where t sounds. I'd like to know what schools vote for Wellesley and for whom Wellesley votes. If there is NOTHING to hide, please make it public. A few schools already take the stance to publish ALL their completed survey on their website. Such schools believe that it USnews or Peterson's ask then to complete a survey, they should do because it helps the STUDENTS. However, they also believe that the information should be available to EVERYONE, not a group of researchers who will massage the results until the projected result is obtained. </p>

<p>In conclusion, I believe the PA should be a very important metric. Important enought to warrant its own entire ranking! However, as it stands today, it is so poorly defined that one respondent survey can be based on elements that are quite distant from an UNDERGRADUATE education. </p>

<p>Thus, we SHOULD be better off with a legitimate PA, but that is NOT what we have today. </p>

<p>However, none of this matters. The USNews will not change, and if the 2009 is any indication, they are not about to force schools to report correct information, and they are not about to curb their reliance on manipulated and ill-defined data. </p>

<p>At the end of the day, BlueBayou must be right, this is all about selling magazines. Some people love to see how their school perform on the PA, and that is all that matters to them. Others look at the remaining data. The US News is what it is; the account of Carolyn should be in everyone's mind when clutching the magazine and we should all remember the lack of transparency and the probably lack of integriity and knowledge of many participants. </p>

<p>HTH</p>

140

<p>Xiggi, you didn't answer my questions. I didn't ask about another or better PA. What do you think of the other parts of the rankings?</p>

<p>Of course, the rankings are about money. If people didn't buy the issue, the rankings would be over.</p>

<p>If you were to judge something, wouldn't you judge that something differently if you knew it would be made public?</p>

<p>Wouldn't you be more likely to judge Wellseley positively if you knew they were going to find out how you ranked the school? </p>

<p>It's kind of hard to say "You suck" to a person's face, especially if that person gets to judge you.</p>