why the usnwr best college list is ridiculous

Anonymous
There is absolutely nothing merit-based (academics) in the rankings.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-college...culated-the-rankings

For schools that require scores there was a 5% weight factor--and for those w/out scores 0%.

That was it. 95% was just pure Bullsh*t

The most heavily weighted "peer assessment" 20% ha!

Student-faculty ratio (prob one of the most important factors for undergrads)...a mere 3%

nothing on gpa/selectivity, etc.


Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely nothing merit-based (academics) in the rankings.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-college...culated-the-rankings

For schools that require scores there was a 5% weight factor--and for those w/out scores 0%.

That was it. 95% was just pure Bullsh*t

The most heavily weighted "peer assessment" 20% ha!

Student-faculty ratio (prob one of the most important factors for undergrads)...a mere 3%

nothing on gpa/selectivity, etc.




The list became a joke over the years.
Anonymous
11% Pell Grant data

From today’s NYT article:

“Few franchises in American higher education are as contentious as the U.S. News rankings. Over the decades, their publisher has faced trouble with manipulated data, complaints about murky methodologies, accusations of revenge and the foundational question of whether it is appropriate to rank colleges.

To U.S. News, which retired its print newsmagazine in 2010, the rankings are a bastion of its largely bygone influence. They are also a source of millions of dollars each year, as universities pay licensing fees to promote how they fared.”

“Bowing to critiques that its model did not adequately account for ideals that administrators often talk about, like promoting social mobility, U.S. News put more weight on retention and graduation rates for people with need-based Pell grants. The result was that some public universities surged in the rankings, with more than a dozen jumping 50 spots or more, while a handful of private schools saw their stature drop.”

“Separately, Vanderbilt University was so thoroughly enraged by its five-spot dip in the U.S. News standings last year that the school commissioned a review of the methodologies of five rankings services. The resulting report argued that those rankings were rife with flaws, including faulty data and subjectivity.”


Anonymous
Yet, every college list still has the same schools ranked in the top 25, with the deck chairs shuffled a little bit.

Do you honestly think schools like Princeton, Harvard, CalTech, MIT will fall to the bottom if you were to assign higher weights to your ranking criteria?
Anonymous
it's still the gold standard, whether you like it or not.
Anonymous
Back in 1983, the inaugural U.S. News & World Report rankings first came out. The initial rankings were relatively simple, and they focused primarily on the national universities.

In that early focus of data in the 1980’s, it really relied on data such as faculty-to-student ratios, standardized test scores of admitted students, and financial resources per student to assess essentially the quality of the institution.

Back then, the methodology was relatively straightforward, especially compared with today’s rankings.

As the years went by, the rankings became more complicated and data driven.

Throughout the 1990’s, U.S. News rankings became more complex. They incorporated additional factors such as graduation rates, retention rates, the peer assessment survey, and alumni giving rates.

They took the merit/selectivity out of it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:it's still the gold standard, whether you like it or not.


Rankings are not useful and the USNWR one is particularly useless.

“Art & Science Group, a higher education consultancy, found that some 40 percent of students do not use rankings at all when they are picking colleges and that only 3 percent turn to them through the whole of their college searches.”
Anonymous
Tips given to colleges to move up the rankings---oh dear lord Insta world:

CONTROL YOUR BRAND NARRATIVE WITH STRATEGIC CONTENT MARKETING.
By creating compelling stories about your institution’s successes, particularly in areas valued by the rankings, you can influence perceptions and indirectly impact rankings.

Make sure that all the success stories you have are out there and available to the U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Rankings through a well-planned and well-executed content marketing strategy.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:...Vanderbilt University was so thoroughly enraged by its five-spot dip in the U.S. News standings ...


Understandable, since some people put so much weight on them, but hopefully there will be a growing understanding that while there's clearly a real and significant difference between the educational environment at #10 and #110, there is effectively no difference between #100 and #110, or between #10 and #15.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Tips given to colleges to move up the rankings---oh dear lord Insta world:

CONTROL YOUR BRAND NARRATIVE WITH STRATEGIC CONTENT MARKETING.
By creating compelling stories about your institution’s successes, particularly in areas valued by the rankings, you can influence perceptions and indirectly impact rankings.

Make sure that all the success stories you have are out there and available to the U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Rankings through a well-planned and well-executed content marketing strategy.


It was the age of the internet that really shook up the list with certain schools very actively doing a huge campaign to climb the rankings---drive up application numbers, huge amount of mailings/emails, etc.
Anonymous
“Selectivity” is so game-able.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:“Selectivity” is so game-able.


You can't game having full of 1500 SAT kids vs 1200 SAT kids
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:“Selectivity” is so game-able.


You can't game having full of 1500 SAT kids vs 1200 SAT kids


BUT--we have TEST OPTIONAL schools (TO last year) in the top 10

Next cycle--all TO should get dinged. There should be no TO in the top T1-T20. It's not really elite when you don't have academic standards for admission.
Anonymous
What's most ridiculous is the premise that there can be any objective ranking of colleges.

It's like ranking the best places to live in America. Online dorks may argue about median earnings, crime rates, etc. But, at the end of the day, it really doesn't make one city any better for any individual than another. BTW, USNWR does just this. Are you dorks packing your bags for Naples, FL or Boise, ID?
https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/best-places-to-live
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:“Selectivity” is so game-able.


You can't game having full of 1500 SAT kids vs 1200 SAT kids


BUT--we have TEST OPTIONAL schools (TO last year) in the top 10

Next cycle--all TO should get dinged. There should be no TO in the top T1-T20. It's not really elite when you don't have academic standards for admission.


Schools kids don't want to go to after admission should also be considered. If a school has a very low yield rate--I'm not sure how it could rank high. It's not a first choice destination-yet ranks high. Usually desirability factors into a list of best.

But, yes, I realize schools play games around that--by admitting kids they know will yield--calling them to accept so it doesn't factor into numbers.
Forum Index » College and University Discussion
Go to: