Where Do Rankings RESULT FROM

The hottest and trusted rankings for undergraduate programs is undoubtedly, the united states News and World Report rankings. Usually when someone gives a standard ranking to a school in the US, this can be the number they are discussing. These rankings usually do not in fact measure the university all together; they measure primarily indicators related to undergraduate education. In order that number isn't as meaningful as it might seem it is. Regardless, whether you decide that the rankings are a perfectly accurate and useful tool for selecting a university, or not, you need to understand what the quantity means. Let's look at the methodology of the US News and World Report rankings, plus some critiques of it.

The Methodology and Critiques

First, the rankings give the highest weight to peer assessment. These details is collected by asking university administrators--presidents, provosts and admissions deans--to rank universities. Trustworthiness of a university could be important in fact it is very hard to quantify; peer assessment is not a bad idea. However one critique of the method is that presidents and deans of admissions are not necessarily in the very best position to have detailed and up-to-date information. To begin with, they are usually very busy running their own university. For another, no-one consults professors, who have a tendency to know their colleagues at other universities well and who heavily influence the caliber of a university education. Nor are students, and also require inside information not available to the general public, surveyed. It will also be noted that every year, the amount of university administrators who fill out the peer assessment forms falls!

The rankings also give high priority to retention rates-the number of undergrad students who return to a university after their first year--and the amount of undergrad students who graduate in six years (4 years being typical). However, critics of the rankings note that some of it has related to the student, not the university. For instance, a first-year might not return for a second year because he needs to help his family. Or because he doesn't just like the food. In some instances, the student could have a highly specific need that is not met by the university--such being an excellent music recording studio, or a professor who specializes in Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Faculty resources measured by student-faculty ratio, amount of classes with under 20 students, number of classes with an increase of than 50 students, average faculty salary, ratio of full time faculty, and faculty with the best degrees within their field. Again this pertains to faculty teaching undergrad only. And again you can find critics who point out that a lot of this has to do with how rich the university is. Harvard is an extremely wealthy university which can afford to cover its professors well and hire enough professors to have a good student-faculty ratio. Of course, it is a good sign a university is spending its funds on professors and not, say, new fountains. But none of this tells us if the professors are teaching well or not. A very famous professor gets an incredible salary given the prestige or even the consulting business he brings to the university, and never set foot in a classroom.

Notably, spending per student factors into rankings too without the way of measuring how exactly those funds are increasingly being used. Alumni giving factors in, in the idea that graduates give to their university if they enjoyed the university. So universities who have a high percentage of alumni donating money must give satisfaction. Not a bad theory nonetheless it does imply that the money of a university have a high overall weight in the rankings, directly and indirectly. Also, some universities are more likely to produce highly-paid alumni than others. And highly-paid alumni will donate, being able to do so. An excellent arts school might not have wealthy alumni who can afford to donate in massive proportions.

Student selectivity is the next factor we come to. 15% of a universities' ranking is founded on the qualifications of enrolled first-year students and the proportion of accepted students versus applications. This is probably the most heavily criticized element because the key question is not how smart the students are if they come in. It's how smart the students are if they leave! Does the university add value to its students or does it just accept smart students who learn nothing for four years. Lots of people also remember that some universities improve their score of this type by simply increasing the amount of applications they accept or rejecting more students. Actually, this may be developing a highly negative trend in US advanced schooling where students with good however, not excellent qualifications will never be accepted to top schools that are trying to boost their ratings.

Now graduation rate, a way of measuring what the student gets out from the university, is a element in the rankings, only 5%. But this is measured by the difference between the actual rate and the magazines prediction. That is a somewhat subjective and indirect way to measure what students escape a university.

The Washington Monthly in addition has published a report on the rankings commissioned by US News and World Report in 1997. Many of the critiques I make here are also noted there, along with recommendations for improvement.

Poor Number 20

As you statistics majors may have noticed, it is possible for low-ranked universities to be add up to or even superior to higher ranked universities in certain aspects. For instance, Princeton is ranked number one this year. Brown University--widely considered to be an excellent school in the US--is ranked 15th. Should be a much more inferior university, right?

You might be surprised to listen to that Brown is 3rd in the united kingdom for graduation and retention rank. Princeton is really only 2nd, while Harvard (overall ranked #2 2 this season) is 1st. Actually, 97% of all freshman return to Brown for another year equal to Harvard's rate and only 1% lower than Princeton. Only 10% of classes at both Princeton and Brown are over 50 people, meaning Brown also provides a lot of smaller classes where kids don't get lost or remain unknown to professors. Brown has more full-time professors than either Princeton or Harvard (94% at Brown, 91% at Princeton and 92% at Harvard). Selectivity in term of SAT scores of accepted students is virtually identical at all three universities.

I could do exactly the same analysis for any number of universities. Even Colorado State University, ranked 124th has more full-time faculty and fewer classes under 50 students than Princeton or Harvard and is as selective as the University of Iowa, ranked 64th. The main point is the rankings are not a single number handed down by God; it is a composite measure and as such the ultimate result doesn't mean the university is superior atlanta divorce attorneys way.

So now you know what the rankings measure. Note what they don't measure: quality of knowledge given, likelihood of students getting a good job after graduation, student satisfaction, academic rigor, usefulness of knowledge, and a lot of things that might matter more for you than just how many alumni donated to the institution. Now, there are reasons why these exact things aren't measured, namely, it's really hard to quantify student satisfaction or quality of knowledge given. And US News does its far better measure these things indirectly. The issue likely lies in the concept of rankings altogether instead of flaws in any one methodology. So don't think that little number is objective OR as useful as it seems!

Walton Burns can be an English language teacher and university placement consultant in Astana, Kazakhstan. Check out his blog for international students and English language learners at http://englishadvantage.blogspot.com