<p>jamesnew, you are exactly right. AU is a very young school, younger in fact than its 1893 founding would suggest. Ground was broken in 1896. But the first students weren’t enrolled until 1914, and they were graduate students. Then came WWI.</p>
<p>Undergraduate programs didn’t start until 1925 and the university struggled mightily to stay open through the Great Depression. By 1940, enrollment was up to 1,000 students but then WWII stalled progress yet again. </p>
<p>It really wasn’t until the end of World War II, a mere 65 years ago, that American University really got off the ground. The school is by any practical measure an infant compared to all those venerable names that occupy the Top 30. Yet many of its programs are nationally recognized and it is, overall, rated 80th nationally. That’s really a remarkable achievement.</p>
<p>You mention AU’s functionality. That is precisely what I was getting at when I pointed out that all of AU’s teachers are not traditional academicians. Many have extensive, real world experience in their subjects. 25% of the USN&WR rankings is based on competing academicians “opinion” of “intangibles”. I have no evidence to support this, but I would guess that AU’s faculty is rated lower by peers than it would be if it were dominated by ivory-tower academicians and the school had been around two or three centuries.</p>
<p>Higher rankings would be a good thing, but only if AU stays true to its identity and does not try to adapt itself to the arbitrary and rather meaningless measures on which the rankings are presently based. </p>
<p>AU really is a different kind of school, and should keep on doing what it’s doing, only better each year. I think that is happening under the current leadership and AU’s continued progress will be reflected in measures apart from the bogus USN&WR rankings.</p>