<p>Ok, I'm not trying to defend them or anything, it's just I have a hard time explaining to some of my friends why they are bad and they just use it to sell magazines.
Though this would probably be easier now with Florida, USC and Clemson accused of gaming the rankings.</p>
<p>Malicious intent was not President Bernie Machen’s objective (unlike Clemson University). The Florida institions that he rated marginal were spot on. All of them have lousy graduate programs, tiny endowments, less than stellar undergraduates, and lousy research expenditures.</p>
<p>Bernie Machen could of shafted Penn State, Syracuse, George Washington, University of Maryland, UIUC, and the University of Miami so that UF could do better on the rankings. He did nothing of the sort and they received a fair assessment in my opinion.</p>
<p>Not everyone thinks the US News rankings are bad. Among those who do, some people accept the concept of producing ranked lists, but question the US News methods. Others challenge the very idea of producing these lists at all.</p>
<p>As for the first class of critics, any ranking system must choose specific criteria and ignore others. The choices can be controversial. Some people question USNWR’s use of subjective “peer assessment” reports, which account for 25% of the ranking score. One concern is that the responses may be biased, even to the point of deliberately inflating or deflating some ratings. Another concern is that nobody can possibly have an informed opinion about hundreds and hundreds of schools. Stateuniversity.com produces an alternate ranking that attempts to rely only on “objective” inputs (but some of the outputs seem rather odd).</p>
<p>Some people question the use of alumni giving rates as a criterion for the USNWR rankings. These rates may be based on objective data, but not everyone sees how they reflect institutional quality. I suppose the premise behind this metric is that higher institutional quality translates to more satisfied, and more financially successful, graduates.</p>
<p>Among those who question the very concept of ranked lists, Reed College is notorious for its refusal even to participate in the USNWR rankings. However, it does cooperate with some other assessments they consider more comprehensive. Here is an article about Reed’s position:
[Reed</a> Magazine: November 1997 > News of the College](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/nov1997/news/3.html]Reed”>http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/nov1997/news/3.html)</p>
<p>Excerpt, by Reed President Koblik:
</p>
<p>Excerpt, by Reed Director of Public Affairs Harriet Watson:
</p>
<p>The fundamental question is whether universities (not LACs - that’s a whole different spectrum) as a whole can be ranked as a whole. In my opinion, the answer is a definite no. A student will not spend large amounts of time with every student at their school. They will not take every course at the school, or sample every professor. They won’t even utilize the same facilities. A prospective engineering major has fundamentally different needs from a prospective Finnish major.</p>
<p>I believe that the only valid rankings would have the following attributes:</p>
<p>1) Specific to an individual major or field
2) Includes job/grad school placement
3) Utilizes SAT Math scores</p>
<p>I think the USNWR objective data is great. I consider USNWR an enormously useful tool for aspiring college students as there is a ton of useful data about a huge variety of schools. Comparisons can easily be made and ideas/college search/college applications strategies can be refined with the use of their objective data.</p>
<p>On the matter of rankings, however, that is where I’m troubled. Subjective decisions such as whether to include the hated Peer Assessment scoring or how to weight various metrics make for a result that certainly cannot be considered absolute and applicable to all students. USNWR would be doing us all an enormous service if they did away with the weightings and provided a user-interface that lets the student decide what is important to him/her, thus permitting a customized ranking.</p>
<p>If forced to create an absolute ranking for UNDERGRADUATE schools, my strong belief is that USNWR should stick to variables that actually relate to the undergraduate experience, namely:</p>
<ol>
<li> Strength of student body (stronger students rank higher)</li>
<li> Size of the classroom (smaller classes rank higher)</li>
<li> Institutional commitment to great classroom experience (more profs, less or no TAs)</li>
<li> Deep resources and willingness to spend on undergrads (more money is good and using for things like great undergraduate financial aid is visible)</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is a world of difference between being accused of gaming the rankings and being … caught. The admissions of manipulations and admissions by officials of the same have been known for years. </p>
<p>It is about the reach a level where USNews won’t be able to look the other way much further. One could expect every college newspaper worth the paper it is printed on (or the pixels) to assign someone the task of obtaining copies of the confidential surveys.</p>
<p>The USNews provides a great service, but one that is marred by a single component that has encouraged dishonesty and gamesmanship.</p>
<p>12 spoons of sugar, that’s bad.</p>
<p>
Maclean’s (the Canadian equivalent) offers this.
Can’t all the objective data you want be easily obtained from the NCES?</p>
<p>The U.S. News rankings aren’t bad. Some people just take it too seriously.</p>
<p>^Well put. Also, those who think they’re bad are probably just upset that their school isn’t ranker higher lol.</p>
<p>The USNWR rankings are a useful tool for prospective students, but in my opinion they are vastly overused and overvalued by people. It would be more beneficial for a student to use USNWR to get a good idea of what the strengths and weaknesses of their potential future colleges are, and also to find out what schools are strong in their field. Once a student has a general idea of where to apply, then they should put the USNWR rankings aside and use other factors (campus life, “vibe”, cost, location, etc) to make their decision.</p>
<p>The problems start when people get too caught up in the rankings and let USNWR make their college choices for them. There are many important things that aren’t factored into USNWR’s rankings, and it is up to the student to figure out if they would be happier at a school ranked #30 by USNWR than a school ranked #8.</p>
<p>If you think U.S. News are bad, you ain’t seen nothing. </p>
<p>Forbes.com tried it and could have done a better job (a much better job) by pulling names pulling names out of a hat…</p>
<p>The rankings sell magazines because we are innately attracted to numerical scores and charts which make the world around us easier to process. They’re bad because the peer assessment ensures that schools with pre-existing high reputations keep doing well and those with lower reputations have a hard time moving up. And they take the focus off of teaching quality and put it on class sizes, alumni giving, SATs, admit rate, and other metrics that don’t necessarily affect your classroom experience(save for class sizes).</p>
<p>
[quote=]
The U.S. News rankings aren’t bad. Some people just take it too seriously.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, some of my friends refuse to look at schools outside of the top 50, even for their safeties. They are smart and all, but come on.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>One could argue that many of the components of the rankings encourage gamesmanship and dishonesty. It’s not like USC was caught playing around with Peer Assessment.</p>
<p>(unless the component you’re referring to is the fact that schools are ranked, rather than PA)</p>
<p>USNEWS ranking isn’t bad at all, and has become a big help in what universities I should apply to and my expectations of admission in each. Not only has USNEWS help me identify the schools prestige/ respect but also open other resourceful helpful information. Some may argue not having USNEWS as a resource ( or others) ones future could have been devastating and failure of expectations.</p>
<p>Coolbrezze, you think it would be devastating to go to a school that does not do well in the rankings? Case-in-point.</p>
<p>I don’t think the idea of making lists is evil, it is just that I dislike the criteria which is designed to make sure that the Ivies stay at the top, which isn’t subjective at all. I dislike how it’s determined by info that the schools’ submit themselves, which means the ones who care more are always going to do better in them. I also strongly dislike that the lists are taken so incredibly seriously all the time. These lists would be better if people didn’t religiously quote from them as if it were scripture. Whenever someone asks for suggestions of good programs in say…architecture, people go off to pull the Top 5 ranked architecture schools. It would be better if people weren’t as empirical and only spoke from experience. “I have toured this arch school personally” or “I have gotten a stellar education from this arch school” far outweighs, “Well, here’s what US News & World Report has to say on the matter from info the schools bother to submit themselves.”</p>
<p>^
When you mention experience, USNEWS ranking is base off experience, academics etc… I think it’s logical.</p>
<p>The use mentioned above (starting a list) is, in my opinion, the only valid use of the USNWR rankings. They fail at both ranking and comparison, but a school in the top 5 is probably at least somewhat decent in the respective field.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think it will be devastating for many, I’m saying results could be devastating base off what one intentions were. A lot of doors could be shut on them, and would have known what to expect/ competition etc… by looking at USNEWS ranking on how many universities ( rankings give an ideal etc…) are looked upon by their teaching here and there etc…</p>