Peer reputation scores US news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Princeton 4.8
2. Columbia 4.7
Harvard 4.9
MIT 4.9
5. Yale 4.8
6. Stanford 4.9
U Chicago 4.6
8. UPenn 4.6
Caltech 4.6
9. Duke 4.5
John's Hopkins 4.7
Northwestern 4.4
13. Dartmouth 4.4
14. Brown 4.5
Vanderbilt 4.3
WashU 4.2
17. Cornell 4.6
Rice 4.1
19. Notre Dame 4.2
20. UCLA 4.4
21. Emory 4.2
22. UC Berkeley 4.7
23. Georgetown 4.2
U Michigan 4.5
25. Carnegie Mellon 4.3
UVA 4.3
You're welcome! However a caveat... There are several important factors that should go into the rankings and peer reputation is only one factor. Student selectivity and institutional resources matter for the entire quality of the school. Peer Reputation can also be gamer as well.

From this list, I can see other measurements for Columbia, Chicago, Rice must have been through the roof compared with other colleges they shared their rankings with. On the other hand, Stanford's other measurements should have been terribly worse.

Rice is a mini Princeton. Very small, a lot of money, and very high student quality.

I've always sensed the USNWR reputation ranking is more or a graduate/overall rating, despite it being used in the undergraduate ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Princeton 4.8
2. Columbia 4.7
Harvard 4.9
MIT 4.9
5. Yale 4.8
6. Stanford 4.9
U Chicago 4.6
8. UPenn 4.6
Caltech 4.6
9. Duke 4.5
John's Hopkins 4.7
Northwestern 4.4
13. Dartmouth 4.4
14. Brown 4.5
Vanderbilt 4.3
WashU 4.2
17. Cornell 4.6
Rice 4.1
19. Notre Dame 4.2
20. UCLA 4.4
21. Emory 4.2
22. UC Berkeley 4.7
23. Georgetown 4.2
U Michigan 4.5
25. Carnegie Mellon 4.3
UVA 4.3
You're welcome! However a caveat... There are several important factors that should go into the rankings and peer reputation is only one factor. Student selectivity and institutional resources matter for the entire quality of the school. Peer Reputation can also be gamer as well.

From this list, I can see other measurements for Columbia, Chicago, Rice must have been through the roof compared with other colleges they shared their rankings with. On the other hand, Stanford's other measurements should have been terribly worse.

Rice is a mini Princeton. Very small, a lot of money, and very high student quality.

Student quality at Rice is not "very high", at least not in comparison to the schools listed here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:1. Princeton 4.8
2. Columbia 4.7
Harvard 4.9
MIT 4.9
5. Yale 4.8
6. Stanford 4.9
U Chicago 4.6
8. UPenn 4.6
Caltech 4.6
9. Duke 4.5
John's Hopkins 4.7
Northwestern 4.4
13. Dartmouth 4.4
14. Brown 4.5
Vanderbilt 4.3
WashU 4.2
17. Cornell 4.6
Rice 4.1
19. Notre Dame 4.2
20. UCLA 4.4
21. Emory 4.2
22. UC Berkeley 4.7
23. Georgetown 4.2
U Michigan 4.5
25. Carnegie Mellon 4.3
UVA 4.3
You're welcome! However a caveat... There are several important factors that should go into the rankings and peer reputation is only one factor. Student selectivity and institutional resources matter for the entire quality of the school. Peer Reputation can also be gamer as well.

However they come up with these numbers, they match my perception of eliteness for the schools quite well. Re-arrange the schools based on the number, those with same number being a tie, then done with the rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PA scores once again prove that Michigan and particularly Berkeley, are woefully under-ranked

Berkeley and Michigan aren't hard to get into, maybe that's why they're ranked lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PA scores once again prove that Michigan and particularly Berkeley, are woefully under-ranked

Berkeley and Michigan aren't hard to get into, maybe that's why they're ranked lower.

Whe;was the last time you applied to either one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These scores are largely static and are provided by people who have very little idea what is going on at other schools.

This is true.
This is why we need to come to DCUM for unbiased, knowledgeable info on these schools.

LOL

[Anonymous]

What are the peer reputation scores for the liberal arts colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These scores are largely static and are provided by people who have very little idea what is going on at other schools.

This is true.
This is why we need to come to DCUM for unbiased, knowledgeable info on these schools.

Obviously that way sucks as well.

[Anonymous]

Anyone know how the peer scores stack up for the liberal arts colleges?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That’s the only data I trust at USNWR. Everything else is easily manipulated, particularly by privates schools, and has been an ongoing concern for decades.

Sooo....the least informed aspect of the data is what you trust? The gut feeling of admin about schools -many of which they've barely heard of (and can be influenced by a bottle of hot sauce). You trust that over research expenditures, faculty accomplishments, student-teacher ratios, students graduating salaries, 6 yr graduation rates etc. Sure things like yield rates and number of applications can be manipulated through marketing but a ton of other things can't.

[Anonymous]

The peer assessment score just maintains the status quo. It's a ridiculous factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s the only data I trust at USNWR. Everything else is easily manipulated, particularly by privates schools, and has been an ongoing concern for decades.

Sooo....the least informed aspect of the data is what you trust? The gut feeling of admin about schools -many of which they've barely heard of (and can be influenced by a bottle of hot sauce). You trust that over research expenditures, faculty accomplishments, student-teacher ratios, students graduating salaries, 6 yr graduation rates etc. Sure things like yield rates and number of applications can be manipulated through marketing but a ton of other things can't.

True, HYSP they'll always have the "reputation." They'll always come out on top in these rankings.

I know one school that's been high on the "up and coming" list for more than 25 years, but it's never up and come because of the solid reputational rankings of these big brand names in education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s the only data I trust at USNWR. Everything else is easily manipulated, particularly by privates schools, and has been an ongoing concern for decades.

Sooo....the least informed aspect of the data is what you trust? The gut feeling of admin about schools -many of which they've barely heard of (and can be influenced by a bottle of hot sauce). You trust that over research expenditures, faculty accomplishments, student-teacher ratios, students graduating salaries, 6 yr graduation rates etc. Sure things like yield rates and number of applications can be manipulated through marketing but a ton of other things can't.

True, HYSP they'll always have the "reputation." They'll always come out on top in these rankings.

I know one school that's been high on the "up and coming" list for more than 25 years, but it's never up and come because of the solid reputational rankings of these big brand names in education.

USNWR's approach has kind of cemented things in place at the top. The biggest shakeup recently was with the Pell grant stuff, but that starts impacting around 20.

Before that, the biggest shakeups were from the schools that figured out how to kind of game the rankings better than other schools. Some of those have become cemented into the top level where they didn't really play before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s the only data I trust at USNWR. Everything else is easily manipulated, particularly by privates schools, and has been an ongoing concern for decades.

Sooo....the least informed aspect of the data is what you trust? The gut feeling of admin about schools -many of which they've barely heard of (and can be influenced by a bottle of hot sauce). You trust that over research expenditures, faculty accomplishments, student-teacher ratios, students graduating salaries, 6 yr graduation rates etc. Sure things like yield rates and number of applications can be manipulated through marketing but a ton of other things can't.

Thousand of academics respond to the peer reviews. Data can be as easily manipulated. For example, student teacher ratios. There are privates who don’t include grad students in their ratios, as if grad students aren’t using much of the same faculty as undergrad ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PA scores once again prove that Michigan and particularly Berkeley, are woefully under-ranked

Berkeley and Michigan aren't hard to get into, maybe that's why they're ranked lower.

Admit rates for some top Michigan PhD stem programs were < 5% 2 years ago. Probably even harder now.