With US News Being Challenged by Top Schools, Does it Make More Sense to Combine Rankings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

If the primary interest is ROI and financial outcomes, then Wall Street Journal and Forbes are the best rankings. Wall Street Journal actually has a subranking that ranks undergrad schools by outcomes:

1. Princeton
1. Yale
3. Duke
3. Harvard
3. MIT
3. Stanford
7. Cornell
8. Caltech
8. UChicago
8. Dartmouth
11. JHU
12. Northwestern
13. UPenn
14. Brown
15. Vanderbilt
16. UMich
17. WashU
18. UCLA
19. Amherst
19. Berkeley
21. Williams
22. UNC
23. Columbia
24. USC
25. Emory

+1 outcomes are a much better way to measure the usefulness of a school since that’s the main reason most people send their kids to college

But the devil is in the details--how much are outcomes tied to the status of the students' families? Are they controlling for all the factors? And how much of a difference is there in outcomes between 1 and 25 and between 25 and 50 etc.? Are these distinctions without a difference or are these meaningful?

Well which school is 50 and how well does it compare to Emory.

50 is Claremont McKenna College. Relatively, 49 is Purdue and 51 is Haverford College.

So the gap may not be that large honestly, although I do think Emory is the better school overall. Maybe LACs aren't great at ROI do to their liberal arts focus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem I have with Duke is that its overall departmental rankings are not nearly as high as its so called peers. A top ten school should be loaded with top ten, even top 20 departments. Duke is severely lacking in that regard.

Duke law and medicine are both T5. Law and Medicine covers a lot. You should be able to find a lot of sub-disciplines in T10 within law and medicine. Duke Business is T11, should have a lot of sub-disciplines in T10. Duke's BME is T3, public policy T5, environment T5, econ T5, just list a few.

Will also add that it has a great statistics department (T10) and nursing program (generally ranked 1-5 for everything). Duke econ students also generally have very good outcomes, and most finance/consulting/etc people major or minor in econ at duke. Their overall engineering program is solid along with their CS department (both are in/around T20). And other programs like Psycholgoy, biology, math, English, etc. are all ranked very well too.

So very few top ten programs. Thanks for confirming. By the way, Duke Econ is not top 5!

No horse in the race but just googling for best undergrad economics and Duke is 4 behind Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and ahead of UChicago: https://www.niche.com/colleges/search/best-colleges-for-economics/

Either way, for undergrad there are many great programs, including Duke

Niche?! Really....

[Anonymous]

In my view, universities should be ranked by how much their graduates are able to out-earn their parents. Just like the poster above said, “Wealthy students staying wealthy after graduation isn't impressive.”

[Anonymous]

One to one combine doesn't make sense.

It should be weighed.

I say 40% weight for USN&WR, then the rest weighed appropriately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
One to one combine doesn't make sense.

It should be weighed.

I say 40% weight for USN&WR, then the rest weighed appropriately.

Why do you think USNWR deserves that heavier weighting? What is the logic there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
One to one combine doesn't make sense.

It should be weighed.

I say 40% weight for USN&WR, then the rest weighed appropriately.

Why do you think USNWR deserves that heavier weighting? What is the logic there?

Why those nine selected in the first place? There are many more rankings.

Some are more influential and significant than others.

USN&WR is currently the most influential flagship ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
One to one combine doesn't make sense.

It should be weighed.

I say 40% weight for USN&WR, then the rest weighed appropriately.

Why do you think USNWR deserves that heavier weighting? What is the logic there?

Why would less respected and frankly irrelevant rankings like college simply, niche, and money have the same weighting as Usnews and WSJ?

[Anonymous]

I look at US News, WSJ, & Forbes college rankings but never use Wash Monthly or Niche.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

If the primary interest is ROI and financial outcomes, then Wall Street Journal and Forbes are the best rankings. Wall Street Journal actually has a subranking that ranks undergrad schools by outcomes:

1. Princeton
1. Yale
3. Duke
3. Harvard
3. MIT
3. Stanford
7. Cornell
8. Caltech
8. UChicago
8. Dartmouth
11. JHU
12. Northwestern
13. UPenn
14. Brown
15. Vanderbilt
16. UMich
17. WashU
18. UCLA
19. Amherst
19. Berkeley
21. Williams
22. UNC
23. Columbia
24. USC
25. Emory

Georgetown and Notre Dame are better than sevral schools here for ROI

Not really apparently. Especially when you take diversity into account. Wealthy students staying wealthy after graduation isn't impressive.

Very fair point, Georgetown takes a ridiculous amount of prep school kids. The only schools I've seen rival Georgetown in that regard are UChicago and Cornell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I look at US News, WSJ, & Forbes college rankings but never use Wash Monthly or Niche.

Niche is fairly popular and deserves a fair look. It will only continue to strengthen its methodology as it gets a lot of pageviews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

If the primary interest is ROI and financial outcomes, then Wall Street Journal and Forbes are the best rankings. Wall Street Journal actually has a subranking that ranks undergrad schools by outcomes:

1. Princeton
1. Yale
3. Duke
3. Harvard
3. MIT
3. Stanford
7. Cornell
8. Caltech
8. UChicago
8. Dartmouth
11. JHU
12. Northwestern
13. UPenn
14. Brown
15. Vanderbilt
16. UMich
17. WashU
18. UCLA
19. Amherst
19. Berkeley
21. Williams
22. UNC
23. Columbia
24. USC
25. Emory

Georgetown and Notre Dame are better than sevral schools here for ROI

Not really apparently. Especially when you take diversity into account. Wealthy students staying wealthy after graduation isn't impressive.

Very fair point, Georgetown takes a ridiculous amount of prep school kids. The only schools I've seen rival Georgetown in that regard are UChicago and Cornell.

UChicago sure likes the Big 3 kids who got dinged by the Ivies ED1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I look at US News, WSJ, & Forbes college rankings but never use Wash Monthly or Niche.

Niche is fairly popular and deserves a fair look. It will only continue to strengthen its methodology as it gets a lot of pageviews.

I mostly referenced USN&WR, Niche, and College Scorecard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
One to one combine doesn't make sense.

It should be weighed.

I say 40% weight for USN&WR, then the rest weighed appropriately.

If it is based on importance to consumers, USNWR should be at least 70%+ (and I'm not a USNWR fan by any stretch of the imagination)!

This is a helpful primer on a few of the rankings (USNWR, Forbes, and Niche):
https://blog.prepscholar.com/all-the-college-ranking-lists-you-should-read

WSJ still isn't a major player at this point. In my opinion, they've made a serious mistake keeping their college rankings and info behind their paywall. You have to access the rankings through their partner (Times Higher Education, which is far lesser known in the US). This impacts the branding and traffic significantly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

If the primary interest is ROI and financial outcomes, then Wall Street Journal and Forbes are the best rankings. Wall Street Journal actually has a subranking that ranks undergrad schools by outcomes:

1. Princeton
1. Yale
3. Duke
3. Harvard
3. MIT
3. Stanford
7. Cornell
8. Caltech
8. UChicago
8. Dartmouth
11. JHU
12. Northwestern
13. UPenn
14. Brown
15. Vanderbilt
16. UMich
17. WashU
18. UCLA
19. Amherst
19. Berkeley
21. Williams
22. UNC
23. Columbia
24. USC
25. Emory

Georgetown and Notre Dame are better than sevral schools here for ROI

Not really apparently. Especially when you take diversity into account. Wealthy students staying wealthy after graduation isn't impressive.

Very fair point, Georgetown takes a ridiculous amount of prep school kids. The only schools I've seen rival Georgetown in that regard are UChicago and Cornell.

I think NotrenDame is worse. Only want Catholic school kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This page is exactly what’s wrong with rankings. Quibbling over Duke, Georgetown, Columbia is nonsense. There is no way anyone can credibly say any of these are “better” than the others. They are just different, with different areas of strength and different weakness. Many of the supposed strengths and weaknesses are just value judgments. There is no actual science behind college rankings and we should all just ignore them.

And, to the poster who keeps chiming in that it helped them cull down the 3000+ colleges, you could absolutely do that without any ordinal ranking.

Why is the blame on the consumers seeking information instead of the subterfuge by the schools by trying to block public information about admissions processes and graduate outcomes?

These schools basically are telling us, “Forget about rankings and pick a school that makes you *feel* good.” I’m sorry, but when people are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for each child, that’s crap.

Frankly, the most honest information is probably coming from the Department of Education College Scorecard. It’s incomplete information since it’s only based on those who took out federal student loans, but it’s at least better than the fuzzy platitudes of the schools. It’s funny that, as far as I’ve seen, the schools that have so much zeal in criticizing the US News rankings rarely point to any other alternative like the College Scorecard (lest they find about the amount of student loans people are taking out for how a whole lot of schools and/or majors that have pretty terrible income prospects).

If the primary interest is ROI and financial outcomes, then Wall Street Journal and Forbes are the best rankings. Wall Street Journal actually has a subranking that ranks undergrad schools by outcomes:

1. Princeton
1. Yale
3. Duke
3. Harvard
3. MIT
3. Stanford
7. Cornell
8. Caltech
8. UChicago
8. Dartmouth
11. JHU
12. Northwestern
13. UPenn
14. Brown
15. Vanderbilt
16. UMich
17. WashU
18. UCLA
19. Amherst
19. Berkeley
21. Williams
22. UNC
23. Columbia
24. USC
25. Emory

Why is Columbia that low? Are they including GS?