Notes

Where Do Rankings Come From?
The hottest and trusted rankings for undergraduate programs is without a doubt, the united states News and World Report rankings. Usually when someone gives a standard ranking to a school in america, this is the number they are referring to. These rankings do not in fact gauge the university as a whole; they measure primarily indicators linked to undergraduate education. In order that number isn't as meaningful as you might think it is. Regardless, whether you decide that the rankings are a perfectly accurate and useful tool for selecting a university, or not, you have to know what the number means. Let's look at the methodology of the united states News and World Report rankings, plus some critiques of it.

The Methodology and Critiques

First, the rankings supply the highest weight to peer assessment. This information is collected by asking university administrators--presidents, provosts and admissions deans--to rank universities. Reputation of a university can be important and it is very difficult to quantify; peer assessment is not a negative idea. However one critique of the method is that presidents and deans of admissions aren't necessarily in the very best position to have detailed and up-to-date information. For one thing, they are usually very busy running their very 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 unavailable to the public, surveyed. It will also be noted that every year, the amount of university administrators who fill out the peer assessment forms goes down!

The rankings also give high priority to retention rates-the amount of undergrad students who return to a university after their first year--and the quantity of undergrad students who graduate in six years (4 years being typical). However, critics of the rankings remember that some of this has related to the student, not the university. For example, a first-year may not return for a second year because he must help his family. Or because he doesn't just like the food. Sometimes, the student could have a highly specific need that's not met by the university--such as an excellent music recording studio, or a professor who focuses on Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Faculty resources measured by student-faculty ratio, amount of classes with under 20 students, amount of classes with an increase of than 50 students, average faculty salary, ratio of regular faculty, and faculty with the highest degrees in their field. Again this applies to faculty teaching undergrad only. And again you can find critics who explain that a lot of this has related to how rich the university is. Harvard is an extremely wealthy university which can afford to cover its professors well and hire enough professors to get a good student-faculty ratio. Needless to say, it's a good sign a university is spending its funds on professors and not, say, new fountains. But none of the tells us if the professors are teaching well or not. An extremely famous professor gets an unbelievable salary given the prestige and 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 being used. Alumni giving factors in, in the theory that graduates give to their university if they enjoyed the university. So universities who have a higher percentage of alumni donating money must give satisfaction. Not just a bad theory but it does imply that the financial resources 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 may not have wealthy alumni who can afford to donate in massive proportions.

Student selectivity is the next factor we arrived at. 15% of a universities' ranking is founded on the qualifications of enrolled first-year students and the proportion of accepted students versus applications. That is probably the most heavily criticized element because the key question is not how smart the students are if they can be found 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 enhance their score of this type by simply increasing the number of applications they accept or rejecting more students. Actually, this may be creating a highly negative trend in US higher education where students with good but not excellent qualifications will never be accepted to top schools that are trying to enhance their ratings.

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

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

Poor Number 20

As you statistics majors may have noticed, it is possible for low-ranked universities to be equal to or even more advanced than higher ranked universities in certain aspects. For example, Princeton is ranked number 1 this year. Brown University--widely considered to be a fantastic school in the US--is ranked 15th. Must be a much more inferior university, right?

You may 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 number 2 2 this year) is 1st. Actually, 97% of most freshman return to Brown for another year equal to Harvard's rate and only 1% less than Princeton. Only 10% of classes at both Princeton and Brown are over 50 people, meaning Brown also offers a lot of smaller classes where kids do not 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 the same analysis for any amount 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 really as selective because the University of Iowa, ranked 64th. The main point is the rankings aren't a single number handed down by God; it is a composite measure and t here fore 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 do not measure: quality of knowledge given, chances of students obtaining a good job after graduation, student satisfaction, academic rigor, usefulness of knowledge, and a bunch of items that might matter more for you than just how many alumni donated to the institution. Now, there are reasons why these things aren't measured, namely, it is hard to quantify student satisfaction or quality of knowledge given. And US News does its far better measure these exact things indirectly. The issue likely lies in the concept of rankings altogether instead of flaws in virtually any one methodology. So don't believe that little number is objective OR as useful since it seems!

Walton Burns can be an English language teacher and university placement consultant in Astana, Kazakhstan. Have a look at his blog for international students and English language learners at http://englishadvantage.blogspot.com
Here's my website: https://www.reverery.com/easily-upgrade-your-workout-with-these-best-activewear-brands/