Notes

Where Do Rankings RESULT FROM?
The most popular and widely used 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, it is the number they are discussing. These rankings 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 you might think it is. In any case, whether you decide that the rankings certainly are a perfectly accurate and useful tool for choosing a university, or not, you need to understand what the number means. Let's look at the methodology of the united states News and World Report rankings, and 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. Trustworthiness of a university could be important and it is very difficult to quantify; peer assessment isn't 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 possess detailed and up-to-date information. To begin with, 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 standard of a university education. Nor are students, who may have inside information unavailable to the public, surveyed. It will also be noted that each year, the amount of university administrators who fill out the peer assessment forms falls!

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 amount of undergrad students who graduate in six years (4 years being typical). However, critics of the rankings remember that some of this has to do with the student, not the university. For instance, a first-year may not return for a second year because he must help his family. Or because he doesn't like the food. Occasionally, the student may have an extremely specific need that is not met by the university--such as an excellent music recording studio, or perhaps a professor who specializes in Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Faculty resources measured by student-faculty ratio, number 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 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 a very wealthy university which can afford to pay its professors well and hire enough professors to have a good student-faculty ratio. Needless to say, it is a good sign a university is spending its funds on professors rather than, say, new fountains. But none of the tells us if the professors are teaching well or not. An extremely 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 any measure of how exactly those funds are being used. Alumni giving factors in, in the idea that graduates give to their university should 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 mean that the money of a university have a higher 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 are more likely to donate, being in a position to do so. check here may 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 based on the qualifications of enrolled first-year students and the proportion of accepted students versus applications. That is probably the most heavily criticized element as the key question isn't 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 enhance their score in this area by simply increasing the quantity of applications they accept or rejecting more students. In fact, this may be developing a highly negative trend in US higher education where students with good however, not excellent qualifications will not be accepted to top schools that are trying to enhance their ratings.

Now graduation rate, a measure of what the student gets out of your university, is a factor in the rankings, only 5%. But that is measured by the difference between your actual rate and the magazines prediction. Which 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. Most of the critiques I make listed below are also noted t here , along with recommendations for improvement.

Poor Number 20

As you statistics majors could have noticed, it's possible for low-ranked universities to be add up to or even more advanced than higher ranked universities using aspects. For instance, Princeton is ranked number one this year. Brown University--widely regarded as a fantastic school in the US--is ranked 15th. Should be a more inferior university, right?

You could be surprised to listen to that Brown is 3rd in the country for graduation and retention rank. Princeton is really only 2nd, while Harvard (overall ranked #2 2 this year) is 1st. Actually, 97% of all freshman return to Brown for a second year add up 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 offers a large amount 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 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 as the University of Iowa, ranked 64th. The main point is the rankings are not a single number handed down by God; it is just a composite measure and therefore the final result doesn't mean the university is superior in every way.

So now you know what the rankings measure. Note what they do not measure: quality of knowledge given, likelihood of students obtaining a good job after graduation, student satisfaction, academic rigor, usefulness of knowledge, and a bunch of things that might matter more to you than how many alumni donated to the institution. Now, there are explanations why these exact 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 things indirectly. The problem likely lies in the idea of rankings altogether rather than flaws in virtually any one methodology. So don't think 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
Website: http://atlas.dustforce.com/user/mcgeecheek7