Everyone knows MIT is likely a better academic institution that Boise State. My issue is things like this…
Florida is 10 or so spots ahead of Texas. Yet, in every major (academic department) I looked up (which was many), Texas was ranked higher than Florida (often substantially higher). How can Texas be ‘better’ at everything than Florida but be ranked lower? They are likely both excellent universities, and I am sure outcomes for students are very similar. Still, I would personally pay more attention to these ranking if they actually made sense - which they don’t.
I don’t know (or really care enough to research the details) but assuming you’re meaning the state schools for Florida and Texas I suspect a component of it might be access. Unless you’re IN Texas your ability to attend a Texas school is severely limited due to the 10% OOS threshold. Florida - to my knowledge - has no such restriction. How many kids in TX wouldn’t get into those programs if they had to compete with the rest of the nation for the spots…
Add - that if they’re adding or going to put more weight into the diversity component of things I might expect Texas to take a hit because of it. Just a guess though.
Yes third, but significantly behind Time and Newsweek. Which is why the idea of college rankings was created, to provide the public a unique new product that their competitors weren’t providing.
The marching orders to the team they put together was (I’m paraphrasing): “the rankings should have many familiar names at the top to lend the list credibility, and several new names to pique the public’s interest”. And they’ve stuck to this directive ever since - tweaking factors every few years in response to public criticism, but only in a way that doesn’t disrupt the top rankings.
This was, of course, a clever and very successful strategy. Without these (and their other) rankings I’m pretty sure USNWR would not be around today.
Will there be a distinction between US and international students in determining diversity? If not, then colleges that have a high percentage of international students will benefit disproportionately.
Mich would have to move up five spots for that to happen. Also, 16% of the ranking will need to be added back. What if they add weight to financial resources? Then UCB would fall.
For statistical reasons, I believe double-digit changes in position will occur, perhaps fairly commonly. The likelihood of changes of this magnitude will be greater deeper in the rankings, however.
US News revamped the ratings system for US law schools. The changes produced some dramatic shifts. One that I recall was a Pennsylvania school (Duquesne) located in Pittsburgh that saw a major move to the upside based on the new criteria used in the ranking methodology.
P.S. Duquesne’s law school moved up 40 spots to #89 and FIU’s law school moved up 38 spots. However, the top ranked law schools moved the least. University of Georgia’s law school moved up 9 places to #20 and Duke moved up 6 spaces to about #6.
I highly doubt this. Because of their in state auto admit rules, I think they get a pretty diverse group of kids both in ethnicity and income levels.
The University of Texas is extremely diverse. They should also move up in the rankings because it’s such a large school, eliminating class size criteria should help.
I’m not going to engage in a debate. You can read about it in Jeff Selingo’s book “Who gets in and why”, and other online resources that describe the history of these rankings.
It is not necessarily the case that a rank-gaming limit of 19 per class is necessarily better for students than a size of 20-25 that may be specified otherwise, if the reduction to 19 means that the class gets full so that some students are rationed out of the class.
Fair - I was more inclined to be thinking about double digit shifts within the top 50 or so - which I would doubt. Much greater likelihood of those size shifts deeper in the rankings.
Tenured faculty (particularly at the full rather than associate professor rank) do tend to reflect the demographics of college (or more specifically PhD) students from a few decades ago (though demographics may vary by subject).
For reasons related to this, initial rankings — or those for which the methods have been substantially revised — may be the most “honest.” Without foreknowledge of their criteria, they can’t be gamed.