Your Annual Reminder to Ignore the USNWR College Rankings

[fractalmstr]

<p>

… getting better “dough” makes the “ovens” better over time as well–that is, getting better students leads to more prestige which leads to recruitment of better faculty, and so on.

</p>

<p>I think that’s really the problem. You have this tiny, exclusive, wealthy group of colleges at the very top that attract the vast majority of the high achievers simply because those students choose to make their college selection based heavily on the rankings… Those rankings, again, are largely based on inputs. This, of course, means that the top schools feed on top students, which in turn keeps those top schools on top. </p>

<p>So the question then becomes: What happens to the lower ranked schools if they can’t attract the top students? They can try and throw money at the problem (which they are) in hopes to improve, but the top students would never know about these improvements since they are fixated on the top schools… and even if they did know about these lesser ranked schools making improvements, they would likely be turned off by the lower student stats at those schools, which again, will not improve unless higher caliber students are admitted… It’s a catch-22.</p>

<p>I can’t speak to whether or not the rankings were intentionally designed to prevent large movements within, but I can say that they are currently set-up in a way to secure the top, prestigious schools in place, while preventing lesser ranked schools from realistically improving.</p>

<p>The system is one-sided, which is why it is loathed by so many colleges out there. It doesn’t promote a level playing field, and it doesn’t allow for a competitive environment across tiers. The tier you’re in is pretty much the tier you’re stuck with.</p>

[Hunt]

<p>

What happens to the lower ranked schools if they can’t attract the top students? They can try and throw money at the problem (which they are) in hopes to improve, but the top students would never know about these improvements since they are fixated on the top schools…

How did Wash U get to be a top-ranked school? By doing just what you’ve indicated. And Chicago as well. There are lots of top students, and the top tier has expanded.</p>

[fractalmstr]

<p>Chicago has been always been highly ranked… Washington U might have opted out of the rankings in 1983 - I can’t find data on it. </p>

<p>[U.S&lt;/a&gt;. News Best Colleges Rankings 1983-2014 - The Airspace](<a href=“The Air Space - Play beyond Reality”>The Air Space - Play beyond Reality)</p>

<p>Regardless, look at all of the schools which were ranked… all of rankings have been virtually unchanged since 1983.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>Chicago was 6 in 1983 but had dropped down to 15 in 2006.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>You might ask yourself where Chicago would be ranked in 2014 if they reported the statistics of 1983, or 1993, or even 2003. Take a look at how selectivity has changed at Chcago in the past 5-6 years, and identify the reason why there was an abrupt change in their rankings. </p>

<p>Hints: Chicago massaged its reporting methodology to fit the “reward” scale of USNews. After that, it becomes a chicken and egg story. Did the students start apply in greater nunber because it was seen as the best bet (low admission rates) for a now more prestigigious school? Or did they perceive that a departure from the uncommon-uber-alles made the school a valid peer to the HYPS family? </p>

<p>Who knows, but was is certain if that the data of Chicago circa 1983 would NOT yield their current ranking, any more than Reed would be among the top 10 LAC schools.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>By the way, here is Chicago’s ranking from 1983 through 2006</p>

<p>University of Chicago 6 5 8 10 9 11 10 9 9 10 11 12 14 14 13 10 9 12 13 14 15 9</p>

<p>As far as the rankings being unchanged, take a look at the schools that were NOT ranked in 1983:</p>

<p>Penn, Duke, WUSTL, Columbia, Northwestern … and more</p>

<p>[U.S&lt;/a&gt;. News Rankings Through the Years](<a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/20070908142457/http://chronicle.com/stats/usnews/]U.S”>U.S. News Rankings Through the Years)</p>

[45_Percenter]

<p>As we all know, these rankings are very much a numbers game, and Chicago was just late to the party:</p>

<p>

Bob Morse, director of data research at U.S. News & World Report, said he was surprised that university officials had done such a poor job checking their data in the past.</p>

<p>“It is rare that a school like the University of Chicago admitted that they were not doing their federal financial data correctly,” he said. “They came across as an institution … that in some cases wasn’t doing as serious a job reporting some of their data as they could have.”</p>

<p>Behnke said the university also changed other calculations, but he declined to say in which areas.</p>

<p>“Frankly, I don’t want to help my competitors,” he said. “Let them figure it out. The problem is that they probably already figured it out. We’re late to the game.”

</p>

<p>[U&lt;/a&gt;. of C. jumps to 9th place in ranking of universities - Chicago Tribune](<a href=“http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-08-18/news/0608180238_1_world-report-rankings-national-universities-student]U”>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2006-08-18/news/0608180238_1_world-report-rankings-national-universities-student)</p>

[xiggi]

<p>And the whole world can see what those changes were. All that is needed is to access the ubiquitous Common Data Set published religiously by the University of Chicago. </p>

<p>Oops, seems that Theodore left solid departing instructions and learned from Lee Stetson! :)</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

take a look at the schools that were NOT ranked in 1983:</p>

<p>Penn, Duke, WUSTL, Columbia, Northwestern … and more

</p>

<p>They weren’t on anyones radar until the kids of the baby boomers started going to college.</p>

[45_Percenter]

<p>

@xiggi

And the whole world can see what those changes were. All that is needed is to access the ubiquitous Common Data Set published religiously by the University of Chicago. </p>

<p>Oops, seems that Theodore left solid departing instructions and learned from Lee Stetson!

</p>

<p>Well in that regard, Stetson’s legacy does NOT live on at Penn (assuming that he was the one responsible for not publishing the CDS):</p>

<p>[Penn:</a> Institutional Research & Analysis](<a href=“http://www.upenn.edu/ir/Common%20Data%20Set.html]Penn:”>http://www.upenn.edu/ir/Common%20Data%20Set.html)</p>

<p>:rolleyes:</p>

[45_Percenter]

<p>

@UCBChemEGrad

They weren’t on anyones radar until the kids of the baby boomers started going to college.

Yep, it took the Gen Xers and Millennials to bring out of the shadows such previously obscure schools as Penn, Duke, WUSTL, Columbia, Northwestern, etc.</p>

<p>Thank goodness they came along to lead the rest of us out of the Dark Ages. :p</p>

[texaspg]

<p>Just curious - Is Trump a Millennial or he just marries them? He has been touting Wharton for past 30 years. No one reads his books is the problem.</p>

[45_Percenter]

<p>^ [Cringe.]</p>

<p>Thanks for that Wharton buzzkill. :rolleyes:</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>I’ve been around CC enough to know Wharton is on a whole other level than Penn… :p</p>

<p>“You’re fired!”</p>