College Rankings

[cspan37421]

The news at Clemson should come as no surprise (except that it was exposed) to those like me who have increasingly cringed at college rankings, particularly those by US News and World Report. FWIW, the article I read said that they jumped to #22 (as if that means anything):

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/762934.html

Back in the 80s when I was in school I wasn't aware of the serious methodological shortcomings of the rankings - not to mention the problems with the underlying theory itself. We were delighted (intoxicated) with the notion of being a "top ten" school - clearly ahead of some Ivy League ones, which was the precise affirmation we had been craving.

Over time, as I came to understand the issues, I gave it less and less credence. However, my kids have been involved in talent searches and summer programs, and I've seen how the schools market themselves to kids using these rankings. Some of you may recall t-shirts from Vanderbilt that declare Duke to be the "Vanderbilt of the East" (maybe they're still around). Well, in speeches to these kids, some (not all) of their top admins constantly compare themselves to Duke and their "Ivy League peers", and cite US News and World Report rankings as if it's some legitimate indicator. And I know Duke still cites US News ... others too.

The sad thing to me about all this is that many of these schools have intrinsic qualities that are worth bragging about. No, it's not a sound byte ranking number, but one could cite research breakthroughs, fine new facilities, speakers and conferences, etc. In other words, they've got plenty going for themselves without having to look so desperate like "we're just as good as Duke" or in Duke's case, "We're just as good as Princeton - and better than Brown." Not only is it, IMO, a mistake to rely on these rankings, it does a disservice to prospective students to market based on them.

I saw an article this morning that Reed College in OR, perhaps the most salient dissenting school (and earliest to do so?) from the US News and World Report rankings game, is having to cut financial aid. I don't know a great deal about Reed - I know a little - but I've said to my kids that it's worth a look if for no other reason than intellectual integrity on just this one matter.

And don't get me started on grade inflation. ;)

[Jarhead]

Here's another view of how Clemson games the system (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/campusnotes/at-clemson-some-funny-business-behind-rankings-success) from an Eric Ferreri blog in last Sunday's News and Observer. Two things: it explains the #22 ranking among public universities, and it amazes me that Ms Watt is still employed at Clemson. In any other environment, her statement would be closely followed by her resignation.

It is nice that the US News provides a ranking of the nation's universities, but why don't they give us one on which we can rely? That the Clemson President advanced Clemson's ranking simply by voting Clemson as #1 among all universities in his peer review discredits the magazine's entire ranking system.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

Here's another view of how Clemson games the system (http://blogs.newsobserver.com/campusnotes/at-clemson-some-funny-business-behind-rankings-success) from an Eric Ferreri blog in last Sunday's News and Observer. Two things: it explains the #22 ranking among public universities, and it amazes me that Ms Watt is still employed at Clemson. In any other environment, her statement would be closely followed by her resignation.

It is nice that the US News provides a ranking of the nation's universities, but why don't they give us one on which we can rely? That the Clemson President advanced Clemson's ranking simply by voting Clemson as #1 among all universities in his peer review discredits the magazine's entire ranking system.

Somehow reading that article from Campus Notes reminds me of the current problems involving ethics in college athletics, some under review by the NCAA.

[Bluedog]

That the Clemson President advanced Clemson's ranking simply by voting Clemson as #1 among all universities in his peer review discredits the magazine's entire ranking system.

I don't think the vote even counted. Based on the WaPo article linked on the front page,


"safeguards [are] in place to prevent strategic voting from affecting the results." The magazine, Morse wrote, subtracts some of the highest and lowest scores from respondents.

So, from that, it looks like they throw out the outliers from a statistical standpoint, which makes perfect sense. As long as their sample size is large enough, a few people gaming the system shouldn't make a difference. I'm not saying that the rankings are perfect (they're far from it), just that I don't think the Clemson president's voting had any appreciable effect on the ranking. HOWEVER, I do think colleges game the system by capping class sizes at 19, increasing the size of classes that are already over 50 (so the percentage decreass), rejecting applicants that are overqualified to decrease their admissions rate and their selectivity, etc. And those techniques can and do have an effect on the ranking.

Duke, for instance, has a lot of classes capped at 18. I'm not sure if that's for USN&WR reasons or just coincidence...it's just an observation (they also have seminars capped at 12). According to Duke, though, something like 75-80% of courses are below 20 students. In my four years, I think I only had two classes with fewer than 20 students (Writing 20 and a biomedical engineering design course). And it's not like I took only generic intro classes - I was a biomedical engineering major (requiring extensive math, physics, chem, and bio) and psych minor. However, many of the courses did split up into smaller lab/discussion sections, so maybe those count. Just the lecture portions were >20.

[Bluedog]

University of Southern California's engineering school is also accused of rankings rigging in this article:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/08/usc

It claimed 30 members of the National Academy on its faculty. USN&WR only counts "full time, tenure track" as being on the faculty. On USC's website, it has 34. Three aren't full-time faculty. Four have emeritus status. And 10 have jobs elsewhere and/or aren't listed in the USC directory. I'm sure the vast majority of schools skew the numbers a bit though. Also note that Duke's Dean of engineering (Thomas Katsouleas) is a former USC professor.

[cspan37421]

My experience at Duke was that class size had no correlation with course quality. I would hate to find out Duke consciously sets policy in any significant way based on characteristics that USN&WR editors hold in high esteem.

Not to belabor the point, but I do differ from you, Jarhead, in thinking that it's nice that they rank colleges, and that there could even be one on which we could rely. In my view, there are too many potential factors that could be important to a prospective student for any one ranking to be appropriate for all - or even many. For instance, what about proximity to one's hometown, or geographical characteristics (mountains, plains, urban, rural, coastal, etc)? Those were important to me when I applied, and I doubt they're represented in USN&WR rankings system.

But worse than all this is the 25% weight on peer assessment or peer reputation. It's a huge subjective factor that has little validity, IMO. Add this to lack of auditing of data (as I've seen reported - interesting comment above that they note outliers), it's really garbage IMO. Each kid should come up with their own ranking system, period.

IF USN&WR wanted to rank colleges by tuition costs, that would be helpful. There are other individual, objective measures which would be informative and valid. What they do, however, is just perpetuate the HYP (Harvard, Yale, Princeton) hegemony. I recall reading somewhere on slashdot that one of the data compilers explained that they knew their system was "right" because HYP came out on top every year.

[rthomas]

The only college ranking that means anything at all is the Princeton Review Top Party Schools

http://www.campusgrotto.com/princeton-reviews-top-party-schools.html

4. West Virginia University - WVU is near the top of every top party school list. West Virginia throws typical parties where you'll usually find a couch burning in the middle of the street.

Dude, like...it's the only thing that matters.

[hurleyfor3]

Judging from the people I knew at Duke, if we're the seventh-best college or whatever in the country, this country is in serious, serious trouble.

[hurleyfor3]

The only college ranking that means anything at all is the Princeton Review Top Party Schools

http://www.campusgrotto.com/princeton-reviews-top-party-schools.html

4. West Virginia University - WVU is near the top of every top party school list. West Virginia throws typical parties where you'll usually find a couch burning in the middle of the street.

Dude, like...it's the only thing that matters.

Ever notice how many spectacular NCAA tournament flameouts we've had against party schools? Florida, LSU, West Virginia... you can probably count Unlv in there as well.

[weezie]

Judging from the people I knew at Duke, if we're the seventh-best college or whatever in the country, this country is in serious, serious trouble.

After perusing the latest Duke alumni mag, celebrating 25 years of people congratulating themselves for their extreme excellence, I was left with a slightly nauseous feeling. Duke seems to be pretty much in love with it-s-own- darn-self as of late. But then again, I'm too old to really be of much import to the whole shebang.

[Devil in the Blue Dress]

After perusing the latest Duke alumni mag, celebrating 25 years of people congratulating themselves for their extreme excellence, I was left with a slightly nauseous feeling. Duke seems to be pretty much in love with it-s-own- darn-self as of late. But then again, I'm too old to really be of much import to the whole shebang.
That element on campus was first noted with the arrival of Douglas Knight and the expectations of being like the Ivies.

In today's Durham Herald there is an article about the retirement of one of the major fund raisers at Duke. http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/durham/4-1168181.cfm Susan Ross commented on how the alumni changed from "preachers, teachers, small-town lawyers and doctors" to more wealthy alumni because Duke was attracting a different kind of student beginning in the 1970's. As an alum I can tell you that how we're treated by Duke personnel has changed a bit, too. Weezie's on to something......

[cspan37421]

After perusing the latest Duke alumni mag, celebrating 25 years of people congratulating themselves for their extreme excellence, I was left with a slightly nauseous feeling. Duke seems to be pretty much in love with it-s-own- darn-self as of late. But then again, I'm too old to really be of much import to the whole shebang.

I know a Duke professor who didn't feel that Duke was academically-oriented enough. He was one of my favorite professors, and was still at Duke up until a couple years ago. He felt that the top students at Duke were certainly quite good, but he felt that way about the top students anywhere (and presumably he knew a bit due to having taken sabbaticals, visiting professorships, through the years). It was more the average student that left him underwhelmed. It was a sense that they had peaked already, and were really not intellectually curious anymore. I think he also felt that athletics was overemphasized in Duke's culture, esp. for a school that envisioned itself as "just as good as the Ivies."

He's no longer at Duke - he went to a state university in N.E. I don't know how he feels about the average student there, though.

Weezie, in the 25-year retrospective in Duke Mag, the "Hot Colleges" article is mentioned under 1984, USN&WR is mentioned in 1985 (for best student athletes) and 1996 for "Duke jumps to fourth place in U.S. News and World Report College Rankings." I guess that makes us better than at least 5 Ivy League schools, right? </sarcasm>

[Bluedog]

Ouch! Lots of Duke bashing in this thread! I thought we're all supposed to be in love with Duke. ;) I agree that the article in Duke magazine about the 25 people was pretty terrible, but the students I met at Duke were very involved, intelligent, intellectual, impressive in a wide array of areas, and well-rounded individuals. Not saying that we're the greatest school in the world, but after studying abroad at a highly thought of school in the UK, I gained a new appreciation for the subtle brilliance of many of my Duke classmates. It was just incomparable the difference in quality of the students - but I feel that most Duke students are very understated with their intelligence, and you wouldn't necessarily think that they were extremely intelligent upon meeting them. That's actually one thing that appealed to me about Duke.

I certainly think Duke's a similar intellectual level as UPenn, Dartmouth, Cornell, and Northwestern, for example. It's certainly less academically oriented (i.e. more fun, more parties) than UChicago, Cal Tech, Princeton, and the like. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other - they just fit different students' needs in different ways. It's good to have choice. Obviously, not everybody at these schools is that impressive from an intellectual/academic standpoint. But there certainly are a lot of them, and those that aren't bring other strengths to the campus usually (athletics, leadership, extracurriculars, massive partying skills). It's all relative - I'd say there are VERY few campuses where the overwhelming majority of students is intellectual at all times of the day. Duke's student body is clearly more pre-professional (med, business, law) than other institutions and its students' priorities reflect that. Again, I think it's similar to UPenn or Dartmouth on the pre-professional level. UChicago and Cal Tech I'm sure churn out a lot more PhD's than Duke does....And I'd think Duke produces more CEO's and lawyers...Rankings usually tell very little about the school really and don't mean much.

[cspan37421]

Good post, Bluedog. Remember the saying about Univ of Chicago - "where fun goes to die." And I like what you said about "subtle brilliance" - I hope it's true, though it's not much use if one's intelligence is TOO understated! Indeed, good that we have choices, though for 17 and 18 yr olds its hard to know in advance what a school is really going to be like. But there are more tools today to help find that out.

It should also be noted that a school does not have a uniform social or academic culture, it's usu. an aggregation of smaller cultures, based on living group, major, extracurricular activities, etc. There's something for everyone. What we call a "party school" or a purely academic school really just puts one label to a more complex reality, usu. the label applies to the most salient culture of the school.

[weezie]

I didn't mean to cast any derision upon Duke students, not at all. Heck, I gave birth to one!

I was aiming more for a comment upon the way the administration and faculty came across in the artfully photographed :p article as so truly "extra-special" and more with it than the rest of the mortal race.
Just living on a higher plain than me, I guess. :rolleyes:

[Reisen]

FWIW, I looked at Reed when I visited colleges about 12 years ago (gah, I feel old). I flew out to Portland to visit, and having visited Portland several times since then, I will say it's a great city.

That said, I wasn't impressed. The school itself was really nice, nice campus, and I think they had the only working nuclear reactor that students were allowed to work on or something (it's been a while, so I don't remember the details).

However, the student body didn't work for me at all. For one thing, I'm a non-smoker, and very interested in sports and fitness. I've never seen so many smoking students in my life, including the student tour guide, while we were touring!

[cspan37421]

I've never seen so many smoking students in my life, including the student tour guide, while we were touring!

now that is funny!

Having said that, I've seen a lot more smoking students at Duke in my last few visits than 20+ years ago when I was a student. I think it's the Nasher Effect.

[Bluedog]

now that is funny!

Having said that, I've seen a lot more smoking students at Duke in my last few visits than 20+ years ago when I was a student. I think it's the Nasher Effect.

Really? I graduated recently and can only think of two smokers...But, admittedly, I didn't hang out with people who were more likely to be cigarette smokers. I rarely saw anybody smoke on campus. Perhaps you visit the smoking areas of Duke campus as most places you aren't even allowed to anymore. I recall watching a video for one of my courses that was made by Duke students in the 90s, and they were smoking in the video inside the BC! Seemed outrageous to me...smoking INSIDE a building? Seems like such a distant past...I feel fairly confident saying the smoking rate of Duke student's is way below the national average for college students and below Duke's rate in decades past as well....But maybe that's just me blowing smoke.

[Jarhead]

Really? I graduated recently and can only think of two smokers...But, admittedly, I didn't hang out with people who were more likely to be cigarette smokers. I rarely saw anybody smoke on campus. Perhaps you visit the smoking areas of Duke campus as most places you aren't even allowed to anymore. I recall watching a video for one of my courses that was made by Duke students in the 90s, and they were smoking in the video inside the BC! Seemed outrageous to me...smoking INSIDE a building? Seems like such a distant past...I feel fairly confident saying the smoking rate of Duke student's is way below the national average for college students and below Duke's rate in decades past as well....But maybe that's just me blowing smoke.

In my days on campus, we even smoked in class, and even some faculty members did. The only place we couldn't smoke was on the bus to East Campus. Some students even earned money from tobacco companies by passing out free sample packages on the quads. The smoke in Cameron was dense. Were we different kind of people? I don't think so. The University produced as many top rung people then as it does today, adjusted downward only for the size of the student body, less that 5,000 undergraduates. Oh yeah, most of the men, and a share of the women were veterans on the GI Bill. Tuition was $500.

[hurleyfor3]

Oh, I knew a ton of smokers at Duke. But they weren't smoking cigarettes.

[cspan37421]

In my days on campus, we even smoked in class, and even some faculty members did.

Yep. Late 1980s, literature class. Horrible grad student teacher walks in, sits down, lights up a Salem, and mutters, "I don't feel like teaching today. [exhales smoke] Why don't you guys just talk about the book."

Tuition was $5000/semester then, so that class was $1250 wholly wasted.

[dukebluelemur]

Not to derail the smoking discussion... but a few comments. I think its schools like Reed that stand to gain the most from rankings. I'm thinking of those schools with a strong regional reputation but little national name recognition (Furman, in the south, would be another good example). The polls are a way to get that. As a person who has switched coasts, I can see a lot of value in a (plausibly) impartial source that verifies the academic merit of lesser known universities. As a way for potential employers to weigh the value of an education at an estabilshment with which they aren't familiar, I think it fills an important need. I dont think I know of a single person here where I am on the east coast who knows about Reed. Yet its a school that, when I was at HS in Oregon, it had the reputation as being the best academic university north of Stanford. The reactor is way cool too.

The smoking thing is funny... when I was looking at it Reed's nickname was Weed... come to think of it, that would have been around 11 years ago. Jeez I feel old.

And yes, the polling methods really do stink.

[Jim3k]

At one time Reed was pushing out a Rhodes scholar every year or so. I don't know how they rank against other schools, but they've had 32 so far. Not bad for a school with an undergraduate student population of about 1400.

[Shammrog]

American college kids are lame! We have no idea how to party:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2482111/Cambridge-students-vomit-and-collapse-after-wild-party.html