<p>mj93, Peer review is the most ridiculous thing ever invented. Here’s how US News tries to justify it:</p>
<p>“Peer assessment (weighting: 25 percent). The U.S. News ranking formula gives greatest weight to the opinions of those in a position to judge a school’s undergraduate academic excellence. The peer assessment survey allows the top academics we consult—presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions—to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching. Each individual is asked to rate peer schools’ academic programs on a scale from 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished).”</p>
<p>I say: Since when did college leaders become experts on OTHER colleges? They are paid to improve THEIR college, not to evaluate others. Honestly, how well do you think the president of NYU knows the University of Arizona? Do you think Princeton’s Dean of Admissions spends a lot of time around the faculty of Texas? Definitely not an objective ranking.</p>
<p>If you look at it, the schools that score the highest in peer review (outside of the elites) are just the biggest and most well-known jock schools. Michigan ties <em>Penn and Duke</em> with a 4.5 but Dartmouth gets a 4.4? Huh? Wisconsin a 4.2 but WUStL a 4.1? Texas a 4.1 but Emory a 4.0? Indiana, Purdue, PSU, and Minnesota a 3.8 but Tufts a 3.7? Arizona a 3.6 but Wake Forest a 3.5? Lehigh a 3.2, less than UMass, Oregon, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa State, and Virginia Tech? Utah at 3.2 outscores Pepperdine, at 3.1? </p>
<p>R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S</p>