US News Peer Reputation is unfair and should not exist

[Anonymous]

I believe that USNWR Peer Reputation is one of the most biased and inaccurate parts of the whole ranking system and should not be taken to account, especially considering that US News took out things like class size and student tests scores which, in my opinion, is much more objective and important. Take Vanderbilt vs U Wisconsin. By US News peer reputation, they are equal (4.2); that is just unfair to Vanderbilt students. So if my kid from Vandy and a kid from Wisconsin both apply to graduate school, then academics view them as the same?! Vanderbilt students worked hard to get there, parents of students worked hard jobs to pay for that tuition. You're telling me some kid from rural Wisconsin can go to a school which is considered equal in prestige to a school which has elite admission standards??

That's just unfair to the students who worked hard. Wisconsin is an average state school which has a >50% acceptance rate, yet still gets a 4.2 on peer rep ! That means academics view Wisconsin as better than BC, Tufts, Tulane, Notre Dame, Rice etc. It's just unfair and systematically biased.

[Anonymous]

Well I don’t know about your specific example of Vanderbilt vs Wisconsin, but OF COURSE the peer assessment is the main reason the USNWR rankings are so meaningless. How many college administrators know F all about more than a very small handful of other colleges. The main thing most of them know is, you guessed it, where they’ve fallen in past rankings. So it’s a subjectivity that keeps perpetuating itself. And it’s by far the single biggest factor. We’d all be better off if these rankings never had existed.

Trying to rank or reductively quantify something as complicated as a university against other universities as a whole is folly.

3..2…1 till someone chimes in “but rankings help me cull through 3000+ colleges”. 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

[Anonymous]

I suspect employer/recruiter ratings would differ meaningfully from ratings by academics/school administrators.

Tbh the peer ratings by academics probably do accurately reflect the quality of professors at the schools and the quality of PhD programs.

My instinct is recruiters use more lay prestige which is informed mostly by difficulty of admissions. Imo most of the value of a degree is just signaling.

If you can get past a really difficult adcom presumably you must have something going for you. Also the recruiter won’t be blamed if you end up sucking - “well they were good enough for X college.”

In this regard USNWR probably isn’t the best way to assess the practical value of a college(although it may be good for students who want to pursue PhD afterwards).

[Anonymous]

They should get rid of USNEWS rankings. Far too damaging in so many ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe that USNWR Peer Reputation is one of the most biased and inaccurate parts of the whole ranking system and should not be taken to account, especially considering that US News took out things like class size and student tests scores which, in my opinion, is much more objective and important. Take Vanderbilt vs U Wisconsin. By US News peer reputation, they are equal (4.2); that is just unfair to Vanderbilt students. So if my kid from Vandy and a kid from Wisconsin both apply to graduate school, then academics view them as the same?! Vanderbilt students worked hard to get there, parents of students worked hard jobs to pay for that tuition. You're telling me some kid from rural Wisconsin can go to a school which is considered equal in prestige to a school which has elite admission standards??

That's just unfair to the students who worked hard. Wisconsin is an average state school which has a >50% acceptance rate, yet still gets a 4.2 on peer rep ! That means academics view Wisconsin as better than BC, Tufts, Tulane, Notre Dame, Rice etc. It's just unfair and systematically biased.

You are looking at the peer rating factor incorrectly. It does not compare students -- rather it compares how each University as a whole is viewed by other University administrators. Wisconsin is a larger university than Vandy with a broader range of highly ranked departments and graduate and professional schools. Not surprisingly Wisconsin is ranked higher than Vanderbilt in every national and global university ranking published: 63 v 78 by USNEWS, 63 v. 92 by Times Higher Education, 63 v. 102 by QS etc. It is not unfair and biased, it is reality.

[Anonymous]

I agree with OP. The peer reviews are meaningless.

[Anonymous]

When your kid applies to graduate school it is the relative reputation of his/her undergrad major that primarily matters (not the overall university). If Vanderbilt has a far better biology department than Wisconsin you can be sure that Vanderbilt's advantage in the field of biology will be recognized by biology grad programs. USNEWS and other university wide rankings are simply irrelevant at that point.

[Anonymous]

Yep, there are so many ridiculous and meaningless methodologies in there. It's quite surprising how many people firmly believe this is the very best ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe that USNWR Peer Reputation is one of the most biased and inaccurate parts of the whole ranking system and should not be taken to account, especially considering that US News took out things like class size and student tests scores which, in my opinion, is much more objective and important. Take Vanderbilt vs U Wisconsin. By US News peer reputation, they are equal (4.2); that is just unfair to Vanderbilt students. So if my kid from Vandy and a kid from Wisconsin both apply to graduate school, then academics view them as the same?! Vanderbilt students worked hard to get there, parents of students worked hard jobs to pay for that tuition. You're telling me some kid from rural Wisconsin can go to a school which is considered equal in prestige to a school which has elite admission standards??

That's just unfair to the students who worked hard. Wisconsin is an average state school which has a >50% acceptance rate, yet still gets a 4.2 on peer rep ! That means academics view Wisconsin as better than BC, Tufts, Tulane, Notre Dame, Rice etc. It's just unfair and systematically biased.

Are you Effing kidding me? I agree peer review is problematic but for the reasons revealed by your elitist attitude. Not everyone can afford Vandy. My child is going to a small in-state school for peanuts (due to scholarships) despite having the opportunity to attend MUCH more highly ranked schools that gave nothing (ranked higher than your precious Vandy).

And why should "name brand" of school dictate who gets into grad school? FU for even suggesting it. My kid works their a$$ off too. And volunteers. And plays sports. And has lots of ECs. What they don't have is a lot of money for a pricey school and they shouldn't be disadvantaged just b/c your overprivileged on has the good fortune to attend a school like that on your dime.

You're revolting.

[Anonymous]

As a parent of public university and high school kids I honestly have given this zero thought. I doubt recruiters care either.

[Anonymous]

Now you know why UC Merced got ranked so high in spite of it being the absolute last place talented students want to go.

[Anonymous]

It's unfair to the rural WI kid that your UMC kid probably went to a HS that had more resources such that they could take more AP classes and what not.

[Anonymous]

Thank God for another US New ranking. I didn’t think I could make it past today without yet another of their ranking. Again. Personally' I'd never place UC Berkeley "hire" than Caltech.

[Anonymous]

Peer Assessment reviews are the ONLY thing that can’t be easily manipulated by individual schools at USNWR. I’m sorry that you feel your private school is academically superior to Wisconsin because it’s harder to get into. According to academe, it isn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When your kid applies to graduate school it is the relative reputation of his/her undergrad major that primarily matters (not the overall university). If Vanderbilt has a far better biology department than Wisconsin you can be sure that Vanderbilt's advantage in the field of biology will be recognized by biology grad programs. USNEWS and other university wide rankings are simply irrelevant at that point.

Of course Vandy doesn’t have a better Biology department so I get your point.