Search News


Browse Archives

News

Growing Challenge to 'U.S. News'

May 18, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

In the two weeks since 12 college presidents started a challenge to the way U.S. News & World Report ranks colleges, the movement has gained numbers and may also be expanding beyond its base. At least 15 other colleges have now signed on, which organizers say is a major step forward because many had not expected much more movement until members of the Annapolis Group -- which includes hundreds of liberal arts colleges -- gather for a meeting next month where the topic is to be discussed.

Significantly, one of the new colleges joining the effort is Philander Smith College, whose president has enlisted the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education to send out an appeal urging all historically black colleges to join the campaign. The request going to black colleges will argue that the U.S. News rankings are inherently unfair to historically black colleges.

Lloyd Thacker, founder of the Education Conservancy and one of the organizers of the move against the rankings, said it was "very encouraging" to see more colleges stepping forward. He said he was especially heartened by the involvement of leaders of black colleges.

One of Thacker's main critiques of the rankings is that they discourage educationally and socially valuable policies, such as admitting and educating students who may have attended poor high schools. Black colleges see that as part of their mission, which is "educationally sound and important," Thacker said, yet they are punished in the rankings for not being wealthier and for not placing more emphasis on SAT scores. "This is about making the admissions process about education."

Thacker acknowledged that the movement still has not made the inroads he hopes to see soon among those who are at the very top of the rankings now. Such institutions "may have more at risk," Thacker said, but he added that some officials at such institutions have said that they remain open to the ideas other presidents are proposing and may join after the meeting of the Annapolis Group.

U.S. News has been insisting that it is not worried about the movement against its rankings. But while Robert Morse, who leads the rankings work, has always been available to answer questions from reporters, he said Thursday that he had to refer all calls to Goodman Media International, a New York City public relations agency. A spokeswoman there first said that it would be "more beneficial to everyone" if she and her colleagues screened questions before U.S. News officials commented, and that Brian Kelly, the editor, would respond to questions. But the spokeswoman later said said that he didn't have time to do so because he was traveling, and that Morse and others at the magazine could not answer questions even though they were not traveling.

The rankings have long been controversial with colleges, many of which argue that they encourage colleges to engage in educationally unsound policies and suggest a false precision about which colleges are "the best." The rankings are also extremely popular with would-be students and their parents -- and plenty of colleges boast about the rankings whenever they have a good year. Even some critics say that some parts of the rankings have encouraged colleges to do important things, such as focusing more on retention rates.

The 12 presidents who released a call for reform this month are not calling for a full-scale boycott of the U.S. News rankings. Rather they want colleges to stop filling out the survey of institutional reputations that makes up 25 percent of scores in the rankings -- the largest single factor in the formula. The presidents also call for colleagues to pledge not to use U.S. News rankings in promotional materials. The 12 colleges participating from the start are: Bethany, Dickinson, Earlham, Lafayette, Marlboro, St. John's (Annapolis), St. John's (Santa Fe), and Wheelock Colleges; and Drew, Heritage, Southwestern, and Trinity (D.C.) Universities.

Thacker said that 13 additional colleges had told him that they were joining, and 2 others told Inside Higher Ed that they were doing so. The additional colleges are: the College of the Southwest; Colorado, Eckerd, McDaniel, Moravian, Northwestern (Minn.), Philander Smith, Shimer, Unity, and Washington & Jefferson Colleges; and Denison, Furman, Missouri Baptist, Naropa and Ohio Wesleyan Universities.

Walter Kimbrough, the president of Philander Smith, said he joined the opposition to U.S. News because he read Thacker's critiques of the way admissions has evolved away from education values, and because he thinks the rankings hurt black colleges. The "best" colleges, according to U.S. News, are those that reject large percentages of applicants, admit only those with high SAT scores, and have huge endowments to pay for the very best student services, Kimbrough said. Such a methodology "penalized historically black colleges for our mission," he said.

Philander Smith and other black colleges reach out to students who may have attended poor high schools and who may not score well on standardized tests. These college want to find ways to admit students, not reject them, he said. "Our mission is to provide access to students who don't otherwise have access," he said. If Philander Smith succeeds with such students, and does so without a large endowment, why should a magazine somehow label the college as not being top-notch, he asked. "It's a lot easier for schools that have money."

Kimbrough said he would never change his college's mission to earn U.S. News points, but he said that the rankings hurt. Outside groups that aren't familiar with the mission of historically black colleges think the rankings mean something. Kimbrough said that if rankings judged colleges based on the percentage of Pell Grant eligible students, Philander Smith and other black colleges would best all of those on top of the lists now. "But now people get caught up in the designer school mentality" that U.S. News promotes, he said.

Some of those who haven't joined yet say that they want to wait for the development of alternative measures so that students have a replacement for the rankings. Many of these officials say that they agree with the criticisms that have been offered by those organizing the effort.

John Strassburger, president of Ursinus College, said he agrees with the flaws Thacker and others have identified and sees more problems with the rankings in a time that the Spellings Commission and others are criticizing colleges for being too expensive. Strassburger noted that the rankings reward colleges that have a lot of money and spend a lot of money -- assuming that spending is an indicator of quality. "No incentive to cut costs here, just the opposite" Strassburger said.

He added that the reputational survey that the presidents are urging their colleagues to boycott is particularly flawed. "Very few people, even those voting, could state which two colleges among Amherst, Swarthmore, Bucknell, Williams and Carleton have engineering. But they vote anyway," Strassburger said.

Strassburger's hesitation about joining the movement against U.S. News is that prospective students and their families do feel the need for rankings, especially now that geography and religion don't limit college choices as they once did for many people, and the options may seem daunting to some.

"The rankings create distinctions without differences, while effacing differences of consequence" like whether or not a college offers engineering, he said. But he added that he didn't sign the letter because "I think we need a positive strategy as well as a negative one." He said that he hopes that conversations starting next month "produce a positive strategy" because "coming up with the alternative is the challenge."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Growing Challenge to 'U.S. News'

  • US NEWS rankings
  • Posted by no nonsense on May 18, 2007 at 8:35am EDT
  • Ironically, on the sidebar of this story is an ad for St. Michaels College "ranked" by US NEWS.

    That college presidents are finally considering a move away from US NEWS it is hardly a move of knowledge or courage. To refuse to participate in a reputational survey is fine but hardly sufficient. Why not really show leadership and all agree not to cooperate with US NEWS and no longer submit any data whatsoever to a rankings whose face validity is a sham. Nothing in the rankings correlates with learning outcomes and close to 70% of the predicted rankings can be acribed to one variable-endowment per student.

    So here we have a false rankings, de facto promulgated by the cooperating presidents themselves. President Strassburger's circular reasoning, nay, rationalization for no action, is, sorry to say, exactly the leadership we have come to see as modal form higher education. Worse, these leaders actually know better--they have seen the critiques over 20 years about the invalid empirical nature of the US NEWS rankings and in face of that certain knowledge refuse to act.

    We claim to teach our students to right wrongs when it confronts them, even if one does not yet have the perfect solution. To date, college presidents flunk that test and only evidence a hypocrisy and self-serving nature unbecoming of a president.

  • Scott ... I Need Your Assistance!
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on May 18, 2007 at 9:15am EDT
  • Dear Scott:

    I wonder if you can confirm the truth of the rumors that several former Enron executives are getting together to form a new corporation, The American Idle, that will determine the ranking of American colleges, universities, departments, programs, and even faculty members in a one-on-one competition with each other. As I understand it, the former Enronians ...

    1. have, with Rupert Murdoch’s participation, made a bid to purchase the USN&WR and Maclean’s data bases, ranking algorithms, and reporting systems.

    2. have employed the team at the NCAA that wrote the algorithms employed to produce their BCS football rankings for the purpose of doing the same for the academic competition that seems to have captured the American mind every bit as pervasively (or is it perversely?) as the college football competition has.

    3. have contractual agreements with Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul, and Randy Jackson to host a weekly tv show, American Idle, in which schools and departments compete with each other ... and with the outcomes determined by the only judges that really matter, the American public.

    4. are simultaneously negotiating with the heirs of the estate of the late Wilfred "Bill" Winkenbach and with the articulate John Madden to market a new on-line game that is tentatively called “Fantasy Higher Ed: Create A College That Really Kicks Ass.”

    5. are negotiating with General Mills to put famous academics like Noam Chomsky, Herbert Simon, Robert Reich, David Horowitz, and Ward Churchill on the back of the Wheaties’ box.

    And, Scott, if this is true, do you know when AI will have an IPO? I can hardly wait to invest in a corporation that will market these essential functions to the American public in a format that captures both their fundamental nature and their importance.

  • No News Is Bad News for US News
  • Posted by Edward Hershey on May 18, 2007 at 9:20am EDT
  • A news magazine refusing to comment? Hardly surprising given that the rankings have been a shameless exercise in business — circulation, advertising, guides, promotional off-prints sold to colleges — and not journalism from day one.

    It is fitting to recall that US News ratings started as only a reputational and only after a number of college presidents protested the silliness of being asked to rate other colleges did US News add more criteria. I guess we can categorize this under the heading of "Be Careful What You Wish For" because what developed was the current pseudo-scientific matrix of presumed measures of comparative quaiity and strength such as fundraising prowess, credentials of admits, and exclusitivity.

    Some years back after MacLeans Magazine, apparently sensing that US News had happened upon a financial bonanza, started rating Canadian colleges, one exasperated admissions officer noted that judging a college on the quality of its incoming students was like rating hospitals based on the health of their patientson the way in, not out. The funny thing about his observation is that here in the US a hospital rankings system was developing, largely based on mortality figures, and it emerged that a number of hospitals became so concerned they began turning aside complicated cases and patients with poor prognoses!

  • University Rankings
  • Posted by Larry Shawn Bassham , Graduate Student at Oklahoma State University on May 18, 2007 at 9:40am EDT
  • This year as an ad hoc committee of the Graduate and Professional Student Government Association of the Oklahoma State University a report was filed to the general body concerning the ranking system used by American higher education system.

    The single factor of 25% of popularity is the condemning flaw. Comparing all universities across the board with no consideration of the individual institution's mission statements. The result is comparing apples, oranges, grapes and banannas.

    In the presentation (powerpoint) a common theme emerged: "End the ratings game instead of playing it." Recommending to spend more resources on internal quality rather than skewed numbers of marketing.

  • Pull out altogether!!
  • Posted by chris nelson , President at St. John's College, Annapolis on May 18, 2007 at 9:40am EDT
  • No Nonsense has it right. Participation in any part of the rankings perpetuates the view that rankings have some legitimacy and serve a purpose that might be helpful to prospective students and their families. This is false and most of us know this. We know that any metric that would rank colleges on a single scale suggests that we're all trying to do the same thing, when we're not. We should recognize that rankings limit choice by narrowing our ways of talking about ourselves, when we should instead be providing through all our other means the kind of information that is important in making a choice of school ---- including things like academic programs offered, areas of concentration available, class sizes, faculty availability, student and residential life and the like.

    It may help some to know that we have not responded to any part of the USNews survey in a decade, and it has had no adverse effect on applications or admissions at St. John's College in Annapolis, MD and Santa Fe, NM. In fact, we have been picking up some discerning students who understand just how much the ranking and testing industries are ruining higher education.

    Chris Nelson,

    President, St. John's College, Annapolis, MD

  • Losers Want New Rules
  • Posted by West Coast Prof on May 18, 2007 at 12:05pm EDT
  • The colleges that are protesting and boycotting the rankings appear to be those who fare poorly by such standards as selectivity, graduation rate, alumni loyalty, faculty salary, SAT scores, size of classes, and other index criteria. It's understandable that these institutions -- some quite obscure -- feel they are fine schools and don't want to lose enrollment because of the magazine rankings.

    There are many guidebooks that evaluate colleges by different criteria: academically selective, traditionally Black, religious, even party schools. At least two books provide detailed opinions by students about life at their campus. Thus there's plenty of different college guides for any prospective student, no matter what their values and goals.

    A poster asserted that the magazine rankings do not correlate with student learning outcomes. I'd like to see data on that point. In my view, small classes, well-paid faculty, high peer intelligence, strong retention and graduation rate, and devoted alumni are among the strong indicators for the best academic outcomes.

  • ratings are about class privileges not education
  • Posted by Joseph A. Soares , Associate Professor at Wake Forest University on May 18, 2007 at 12:05pm EDT
  • I entirely agree that the US News ratings are completely biased in favor of elite private colleges and their wealthy clientele. We need action to reform the ratings industry. The University of California used its market weight to force the College Board to eliminate the socially biased old SAT, and now we need a similar move by colleges to eradicate the biases of the US News ratings. At minimum, all colleges should implement the reform reported in this article of boycotting the “reputation” section of the survey. In addition, colleges should insist on the inclusion of a social class diversity index, as suggested by Lloyd Thacker, Walter Kimbrough. If we rated colleges on their enrollment of Pell grant or low SES students, it would appropriately boost the standing of state universities and Historically Black Colleges. My new book, The Power of Privilege: Yale and America’s Elite Colleges, Stanford University Press, 2007 (reviewed in Inside Higher Education April 11, 2007) makes the case for overturning the ratings industry. If elite colleges were more concerned with education than with protecting their social-class market position, they would lead on this.

  • Posted by PhD student , St. Johns experience is different at UT - Austin on May 18, 2007 at 12:10pm EDT
  • Yes Chris, St. John's can drop away from the US News and World Report if it wants to because of its particular reputation as university that offers the premier classical education in the U.S.A. This is not to say that other universities who quit the ranking will lose out - but it does mean that your experiences, quite possibly, will not work out for other schools in the same way. As a university with a reputation for being different, you are not necessarily courting a demographic base that reads the US News and World Reports but who reads Plato, Plutarch, and Livy.

    I think that liberal arts schools shouldn't necessarily have to undergo such a massive zero sum ranking system, but I do think that the survey is accurate if one wants to know the national reputation for specific universities. If a university, such as St. Johns, is a well known feeder for graduate school, and it feels it does not need to be known through national magazines, then I think it is a good thing not to participate. But if a college wants to recruit nationally, and it does not have the national reputation it wants, then the US News and World Reports may be a way to climb to a higher position.

    While all colleges serve different missions and people, we would be lying if prestige didn't matter -- look at the faculty at the better liberal arts colleges -- they are almost all from top 20 schools. When the liberal arts schools (like Earlham) quit hiring mostly from top ranked US News and World Reports graduate schools, then i'll really listen to them. But until they totally break with the system, then they are in a slight sense hypocritical. There is a paradox that exists here that hasn't been addressed in full.

    Just a few thoughts from a PhD student.

  • Posted by Another West Coast Professor , the bubble reputation on May 18, 2007 at 1:35pm EDT
  • I teach at a highly-ranked private research university (not one of "the losers" mentioned above), yet I am disturbed by its incessant pursuit of reputation and its effect on undergraduate teaching. I understand both the market forces and egotism involved in the pursuit, yet they have their educational costs.

    To increase our professional reputation, my department (at the urging of the administration) has been hiring "at the top," while two-thirds of the courses in our undergraduate major are being taught by part-timers (whose names, of course, do not appear in our brochures). I suspect most are good teachers, but they don't fit with sales pitches for the $30,000-plus annual tuition.

    One of my sons is an assistant professor in one of the sciences at a major Ivy, and he teaches one course a year (including an undergraduate course every other year). I went to another name-brand college, receiving a mediocre undergraduate education, but my younger son will go, by choice, to a non-prestigious college where serious and exciting teaching is done. But so many applicants and especially their parents are driven by reputations, more interested in the names on sweatshirts than the real quality of undergraduate education.

    The U.S. News rankings are but one part of the problem of academic marketing.

  • Beyond the beauty contest
  • Posted by CriticalThinker on May 18, 2007 at 1:45pm EDT
  • Yes, the USNWR rankings are flawed -- but, not entirely because of the absurb weight given to purported "academic reputation." The USNWR's rankings are flawed because the measure input, not output, which is really what parents and students are hungering to discover.

    Why not look at the percentage of students who enter graduate or professional school within five years of graduate? What about looking at how quickly students find employment and their starting salaries? And, consider adjusting these outputs based on SAT scores and student socioeconomic backgrounds.

  • This Is It For Me ... I’m Bowing Out
  • Posted by RWH on May 18, 2007 at 3:05pm EDT
  • I rarely become so frustrated with a discussion or argument that I walk away from it. But the “debates” about the ranking systems of USN&WR and Maclean’s are just so outrageous I’m bowing out. See (especially posts by RWH in)

    March 12 ... http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/12/usnews

    March 18 ... http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/19/usnews

    March 30 ... http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/30/rankings

    April 2 ... http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/04/12/keller

    April 12 ... http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/04/12/keller

    May 7 ... http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/05/07/usnews

    May 10 ... http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2007/05/10/mccormick

    Final comments:

    1. Is there a defensible hierarchy of (i) departments, (ii) programs, (iii) schools, (iv) colleges, or (v) universities in these United States? ... Answer: Yes, there are many, depending upon one’s objective function and decision-making procedures. Nevertheless, these hierarchies cannot be meaningfully captured on linear scales, and, however they are configured, they are extremely fuzzy at the boundaries of arbitrarily (subjectively) identified partitions.

    2. Do the ranking systems of USN&WR and Maclean’s have any value at all” ... Answer: No. First, neither are based upon theories which have constructs for which their input variables are either “complete” or good surrogate measurements (of the non-existent constructs). In addition, their rankings are largely based upon (i) highly correlated variables and (ii) subjective judgments. And, finally, their aggregation algorithms are just so simple-minded it should embarrass any well-informed research scientist to even think about defending them.

    3. Would ANY ranking system of colleges and universities be useful for anyone (even prospective college students and their parents)? ... Answer: Only those potential users who are so ignorant of the world around them that they need People Magazine to help them make their decisions. Frankly, there is so much variation in the needs and expectations of those who would potentially make use of a ranking system and so much variation in the ranking mechanisms themselves, such a system would be of virtually no value at all.

    4. Is there any value to be derived from using readily available data to help anyone (students, prospective parents, faculty, granting agencies, etc) appreciate the objective function-dependent hierarchies suggested in Comment 1? ... You bet! Give us the data! And we wouldn’t even turn down a collection of well-thought-out, formal, decision-making algorithms like the ones Geoff Davis described in the March 30 citation above. But they had better be based upon really comprehensive objective functions.

    5. Does the answer to Comment 3 mean it is a waste of time to expend any energy at all trying to improve the USN&WR or Maclean’s ranking systems? ... Answer: Absolutely! ... and despite the silly suggestions of representatives of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. See the May 10 citation above.

    6. Doesn’t this mean you’re leaving us in the lurch? Maclean’s and USN&WR’s may not be the optimal decision-mechanisms, but they’re the best we’ve got? ... Answer: That response is tantamount to saying “I’m just so intellectually challenged I can only choose and act in response to a list, even if I don’t know how the list was prepared. If one were inclined to be thoughtful about this and if one really cared about making good, if not optimal, decisions, it would be trivial to formulate truly useful alternatives to decision-making that depends on linear scales (ranking systems). See, for example the April 12 citation above.

    7. Is there a high correlation between education and intelligence? ... Answer: Probably not. Based only on my personal experience, I know very few electricians and plumbers (generally poorly educated) who are not very smart ... and some of the stupidest people I know have Ph.Ds. But so do I ... so what do I know?

    Anyway, insofar as this fruitless discussion is concerned, “I’m outta here!”

  • Posted by Pamela on May 18, 2007 at 3:05pm EDT
  • Unbelievable! Our society has become so lame that we can no longer have winners. Who is challenging Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Berkley, MIT, Duke, Virginia, Cornell, Michigan, Princeton etc...as the finest institutions in the nation? More of the same whining that leads to every kid getting a ribbon for 'competing' in any childhood event. America needs to stop complaining and start competing. Face it, the world has winners and losers. Lastly, I don't care what realistic criteria you apply, those schools will still attact and produce the best our nation has to offer.

  • Ph.Ds
  • Posted by Yet another West Coast prof on May 18, 2007 at 3:05pm EDT
  • Critical Thinker writes

    'Why not look at the percentage of students who enter graduate or professional school within five years of graduate?'

    Consider this

    http://web.reed.edu/ir/phd.html

    Reed has not participated in the US News rankings since 1995 (and has been arbitrarily penalized by them for it).

    This might also be of interest

    http://web.reed.edu/ir/outcomes.html

  • Colleges Can Do Better
  • Posted by Carolyn Lawrence on May 18, 2007 at 3:50pm EDT
  • One of the reasons students and parents turn to rankings such as U.S. News & World Report is that they are looking for information. Ironically, the colleges themselves could go a long way to ending this need by all agreeing to provide their full Common Data Set, the data they send to publishers, right on their admissions websites. The CDS includes the type of information prospective students need to make informed decisions: details about admissions rates, admissions criteria, test scores, GPAs, retention rates, and faculty.

    Unfortunately, only a few colleges (Reed among them) put the CDS where prospective students and parents can find it easily on their website. Most often, colleges and universities hide it away under "institutional research" or don't even put it on their website at all.

    If all colleges and universities made the CDS available and easily to find, students and parents might finally start feeling that they have enough information to create the only ranking that really matters: the one based upon individual criteria and fit.

  • Colleges can do better
  • Posted by Yet another West Coast prof on May 18, 2007 at 10:05pm EDT
  • Carolyn Lawrence suggests that colleges should make their common data set information more easily available. This may be generally true, but I googled 'reed common data set' and found their information immediately. I know that teen agers are more adept at finding out things from the Internet than I.

    Perhaps a greater problem is knowing what to look for.

  • Posted by Nancy on May 18, 2007 at 10:05pm EDT
  • In response to Pamela, I respectfully suggest that there are many small liberal arts colleges that provide a much higher quality undergraduate education than just about any of the institutions you name. The strength of the large research universities is in their research and graduate programs, not necessarily in their undergraduate education. Yet the rankings are used most heavily by students looking for a college. Alas, they are appealingly simplistic by purporting to rank the "best," when for the college applicant the real question is "what's best for ME" - a question that no ranking system can address.

  • USNews and Other Rankings
  • Posted by Ellen on May 19, 2007 at 7:30am EDT
  • Vibe magazine (high African American readership)is planning on doing a special edition just for ranking the HBCU's! They are using the exact same reputational survey used by US News (it indeed comes from US News). It will be interesting to see if Philander Smith or any of the other NAFEO schools (those considering not respsonding to the traditional US News survey) respond to this one. I beg to differ with the Philander Smith president's contention that measuring by number of Pell Grand recipients is a better idea. How quickly we forget the strategy 30 or so years ago when schools were anxious to bring in a more "diverse" population and enrolled many low income students and students of color. Higher ed never saw a revolving door swing so fast! Institutions not ready for such a new population, a new population inadequately prepared for the institutions (in many, but certainly not all, cases) led to dreams not only defered but dashed. Sure, many HBCU's have huge numbers of students who are Pell eligible, but they have some of the most frightening attrition rates imaginable. And still...still...they are the highest producers of African American students graduating from college and going into graduate and professional schools (as a whole). How about adding enrolling low income students AND graduating them? Who is doing that better than anyone? Those are the schools that should be in the top 50 somewhere.

  • Posted by P. Kromayer on May 20, 2007 at 10:30pm EDT
  • It is common practice to discredit the messenger, if you don't like the message that he is delivering. Is that what is happening here?

  • Back for a comment
  • Posted by Kevin , Undergraduate on May 21, 2007 at 5:00am EDT
  • Perhaps the people who take so much offense at the US News rankings should develop their own rankings and promote them to compete with the US News rather than simply asserting that all schools are great (which seems to be the jist of the critics statements).

  • I Can Write Comments, But I Can’t Read!
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on May 21, 2007 at 8:40am EDT
  • Kevin, the outrageousness of your remark is answered in Statement 3 in the latest post by RWH above.

  • Mary - Very Fair Point
  • Posted by Pamela on May 21, 2007 at 10:20am EDT
  • To Mary's previous post: very fair point. I don't completely agree with your statement but I definitely didn't intend to undervalue to quality of many of the nation's small liberal arts colleges.

    As for point#3, please...why would anyone care? Graduating from one of the aforementioned schools (Harvard, Yale etc.) means instant credibility in almost any professional setting. It also probably initially means a salary premium of anywhere from 15-30%. In my opinion, the post-secondary education competition structure merits these rewards. Kids earn the right to graduate from these schools through hard work and personal distinction. We live in a capitalistic society based on competition!! Let's not leave the real world completely while on this message board!

  • Missing the Irony
  • Posted by StudentView on May 21, 2007 at 12:15pm EDT
  • This is so funny! For decades now, we've told students that they need to "acheive" if they want in. This achievenment is largely defined by a score attained during a 3 hour Saturday morning survey. Students know that they must learn the tricks of this survey and learn to 'answer well'-- knowing that this isn't an accurate portrayal of who they 'really are'. Not answering well means they'll be ranked below others being considered. Ranking low means being left out. It's just now fair.

    See the irony?

  • Oh No ... I Feel A Haiku Coming On ...
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on May 21, 2007 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Mary, you smart ass / A name change won’t prove your point. / Nancy, huh? ... Fat chance!

    [Disclaimer: The author of this post may have accessed Wikipedia within the past 24 hours]

  • Hmmm ... Could Your Name Possible Be "Pam-I-Am?"
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on May 21, 2007 at 2:55pm EDT
  • Pamela, your latest post is really difficult to decipher. I assume the #3 to which you refer is in the post by RWH (that seems to be the only “Comment 3” anywhere around). If so, the only inference to be drawn from your second paragraph ...

    “graduating from one of the aforementioned schools (Harvard, Yale etc.) means instant credibility in almost any professional setting ... it also probably initially means a salary premium of anywhere from 15-30% ...”

    is that, poor, lame souls that we are, the only way we could possibly identify one of your so-called “finest institutions” is by checking the USN&WR rankings.

    I’m embarrassed to say something as obvious as this, but the best colleges and universities in the land were easily recognizable long before a news magazine got into the college ranking business and they will be trivial to identify long after we laugh those news magazines off the academic landscape.

    As for your “Let’s not leave the real world completely while on this message board!” ... your posts strike me as adding very little to understanding the so-called “real world.” That is the case because no one – and I do mean NO ONE – has ever discounted the value of matriculating at and graduating from an excellent college or university ... and quite independent of what USN&WR might have to say about it.

    It appears to me that you’re spending too much time writing and not enough time reading.

  • Only one piece of the puzzle
  • Posted by Paul on May 24, 2007 at 11:10am EDT
  • Just thought I add input from a parent that actually had a senior in HS this year and along with my son used the rankings to help choose a college. The US News rankings report was just one of the resources used by my son to pick a college. Other resources employed were visits to colleges, talking to administrators, teachers and current students, college web sites, majors offered, College Prowler book (reviews by actual students), availability of financial assistance, costs, etc.

    The point I am trying to make is that we did not use just one source in selecting a college. We used lots of sources and inputs. The US News ranking report was useful because it provided a lot of both objective and subjective information. Our search would not have been as complete without it. As a result I would recommend it as a tool to any other students or parents who asked me.

    By the way my son will be attending the University of Michigan and majoring in engineering.

  • INSIGHTFUL BALANCE
  • Posted by Carol on May 26, 2007 at 10:15am EDT
  • Thank you Paul for bringing some balanced perspective to this discussion board. My daugher is a freshman in HS and I have just started gathering information on how to look for a college. I know I will spend the next 3 years accumulating a lot of information from multiple sources. I did not even know about USNWR ranking list until I stumbled over the article. Guess I am too much of a People reader.

  • Yes Paul, Thanks For The Balance
  • Posted by RWH on May 29, 2007 at 5:40am EDT
  • Just writing “RWH” in these discussions of USN&WR and MacLean’s is tantamount to saying “methodologically flawed, illogical, unnecessary, brain-dead.” Then someone comes along (Paul and Carol) who don’t say a single word in defense of all of the things wrong with the so-called methodology of either “news” magazine rankings except “Oh we used it ... and we’re – at least our children – are happy.

    Well, my friends, please let me tell you that I am twice over a faculty member at Michigan. My oldest son, a software design engineer at Hewlett-Packard, has degrees in Cultural Anthropology and Computer Science from U of M, and my youngest son, an Electrical Engineering and Computer Science graduate of Michigan, is currently employed in the School of Engineering there. And guess what? Somehow or other we figured out that various departments in the School of Engineering at Michigan were not quite as good as those departments at Cal Tech and MIT, but they were damned good anyway ... and for my sons they were flat out optimal ... and the only time we ever looked at the USN&WR rankings was when we were arguing with friends whose sons or daughters were at Georgia Tech, Rensselaer, or Clemson. And guess what else? It was all a joke for us, because we knew that Georgia Tech, Rensselaer, and Clemson have some excellent engineering departments and it would take a first-class idiot to put any stock in comparisons based on USN&WR rankings, especially given that their relevant variables and aggregation algorithms are grossly deficient (very close to brain dead).

    I can guarantee you, Paul, that your son made a very good choice ... my sons and I love U of M. But if you had told me he had opted for MIT, Rose-Hulman, or Virginia Tech I would say, “Lucky him!”