<p>I don’t understand the big deal about rankings. Everyone knows these are amazing schools. Are the people that take these numbers to heart so elitist that they must put have a rank on their college just to know they are better than everyone? You’re smart. Get over it.</p>
<p>If you’re going to appeal to that logic Bay, then the reason Caltech is at the top is because it does well in the myriad categories US News considers important (such as student-teacher ratio, etc.). That being said, you can’t really criticize the structure of the ratings in the first place (i.e. that Caltech is a National University and in the top ten) if you’re going to suggest that the only relevant methods of judging a university are those already in place.</p>
<p>Tyler-- although your first point is duly noted (lack of URMs is self-perpetuating) I can safely say that the academic achievements of our students don’t seem to be too hurt by the loss of the “best and brightest” of these URMs that don’t attend. Your following points are unfortunately mostly irrelevant, though. After making a large paragraph referencing diversity as being more than the percentage of URMs, you reply by suggesting that diversity is not important to Caltech and that I have trivialized diversity into “skin color”. Not only is that false, but it’s stupid. The entire point of my paragraph on diversity is that diversity is MORE than skin color. It’s MORE than the percentage of URMs. I can even quote myself: “My friends all have incredibly different upbringings, cultures, stories… and I value them all. If that’s not diversity, what is?” </p>
<p>Caltech has consistently attempted to increase diversity, through recruitment programs and scholarships. The difference between us and the other top 24 is that we do not practice affirmative action in admissions. If that makes us evil, so be it. I think it just makes us different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In today’s world, if you don’t exercise AA, you’re labeled racist. There’s a lot of pressure placed on some of these institutions. Do you truly believe that this isn’t a political issue?</p>
<p>Also, do you really believe that the minorities who are admitted are much different from the white people who are consequently put at a disadvantage in the admissions process? Most admitted minorities are from upper class, $100k+ income families that live in suburbia. Do you really think they present diverse perspectives? Do you really think they accurately represent the viewpoints of their respective ethnicities? You must be kidding. The black/hispanic people I know at my school are almost all with $200k+ incomes, and if you speak with them, you’ll see that they’re fundamentally no different from typical suburban white folk. (Of course, I’m not going to make silly generalizations. This isn’t always true.) I live in a 100% black apartment complex, and if you ask anyone there, they’ll tell you how it is. It’s not diversity. It’s skin color. I get many more diverse viewpoints from my neighborhood than from my classes.</p>
<p>
Well, three things can happen. </p>
<p>First, colleges can get hot or cold , no question about it. That probably explains moves of a couple points a year. I’m sure there is a tipping point effect, as people notice and get comfortable with changes at a college. Drexel, for example, has been upgrading itself very aggressively for 5-6 years. 19 places is a huge jump, and I’m suspicious of it, but I’m not surprised at all to see some rise, and not surprised that it lags the actual changes by a few years.</p>
<p>Second, given USNWR’s paradigm, some bulky events can make a significant difference in a year or two, especially in the fat part of the bell curve where these big moves occur most often: capital campaigns, big research contracts. </p>
<p>Third, colleges can change the way they report data, which can also make a big difference. A few years ago, the University of Chicago changed the way it reported a few things, and it bumped it up six or seven places (NOT in the fat part of the bell curve). I don’t remember what all of them were, but I think I recall that one of the most significant was that it reported its mandatory first-year writing seminars as discussion sections relating to the core humanities seminars, rather than independent grad-student-taught courses. There’s no question that was correct (the writing classes aren’t separately graded, I believe). That raised significantly the percentage of classes taught by full faculty. There were some other changes in financial information that it turned out Chicago was reporting differently than its peers. </p>
<p>As long as USNWR exercises some critical eye on the third, I don’t really see any problem with this. Obviously, the rankings are a moving target, and the number of meaningful changes this year vs. last is remarkably small given how squishy the whole process is.</p>
<p>Anyone have the SAT 25th-75th percentiles for the schools?</p>
<p>Also in determining how well a college does in the rankings- isn’t it better to look at overall score than the ranking itself?</p>
<p>If School #2 falls to #4 but has the same overall score (97)- then the school didn’t drop in quality.</p>
<p>^^^</p>
<p>Not sure US NEWS measures quality of education at a school</p>
<p>Stop beating up on Caltech!! We need a university that is hardcore about brilliant minds producing brilliant tecnological and scientific innovation. There’s a place for social improvement agendas. There’s also an important place in the education landscape for Caltech. It may not practice AA but I have a very hard time imagining that Caltech practices any sort of discrimination except on the basis of sheer academic measures - scores, grades, research exploits. Not saying it’s the only model to be followed. Just that Caltech produces much that is very, very valuable for our society in the way of technological and scientific innovation. We need that now more than ever. </p>
<p>And I’ll no doubt be told by many on here that other schools produce innovation while practicing AA. No argument with that. But Caltech is tiny and specialized. I think we need it doing its thing. I don’t think it’s a big threat to the recruitment model being employed by other schools despite its very impressive ranking in US News.</p>
<p>I find these statistics much more interesting:
“U.S. News’ Sees Drop in Participation
Even though many colleges will boast today about their placement in the annual rankings by U.S. News & World Report, more colleges than ever are declining to participate in the survey that makes up the single largest part of the magazine’s formula.<br>
Only 46 percent of colleges returned the “reputational” survey, where presidents rate similar institutions. This peer survey is particularly controversial because it is viewed as unscientific and likely to reward colleges that had great reputations in the past. But it makes up 25 percent of the magazine’s formula — more than the statistics gathered on such factors as graduation rates, faculty resources and so forth.
This year’s 46 percent participation rate is down from 51 percent last year, 58 percent the year before that, and 67 percent a few years prior. The drop this year was particularly steep for liberal arts colleges — to 44 percent from 55 percent. Much of the opposition to the magazine’s rankings has come from that sector of higher education.”
Whole article: [‘U.S</a>. News’ Sees Drop in Participation :: Inside Higher Ed :: Higher Education’s Source for News, Views and Jobs](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/22/usnews]'U.S”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/08/22/usnews)</p>
<p>^^I’ve always considered reputation to be the most bogus of all the factors in USNWR’s method. It measures only how others perceive the school and absolutely nothing about the school itself.</p>
<p>More bogus than where a bunch of name conscious high school kids who have never really set foot in a college except on a tour decide to matriculate? I think academics are highly aware of both reputations and any changes in same. After all, they don’t have much else to worry about most of the time and most of them have actually been to college and probably more than one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the news that MORE than 50% of the people polled by USNews are honest enough to drop this boondoggle is one we all should applaud. </p>
<p>Of course, the impact of the 46 and 44 percent who still use the survey to please their manipulative desires without being bothered by a shroud of pure ignorance is no less important than in prior years, as such negative continues to mar an otherwise reasonably helpful product.</p>
<p>^^hey xiggi, when are you and hawkette gonna disparage the counselor’s viewpoints/votes…they put UC Berkeley at #9. :D</p>
<p>Too bad the score is a very good proxy for other faculty quality based rankings. Say NAS members plus major awards won plus SJTU rankings plus research ranking. Otherwise it would be useless.</p>
<p>^^–^^</p>
<p>Of course! The much maligned Peer Assessment ought to be a VERY good proxy for obscure and misleading rankings that are mostly based on graduate school reputations. Too bad that this contradicts the spirit of a ranking that is supposed to be about **undergraduate ** education. </p>
<p>Perhaps Robert Morse should rename the USNews Best Colleges Edition to … The Best Mix of Colleges and Graduate Schools.</p>
<p>amen- the whole issue is just to fleece unsuspecting high schoolers and their families into buying the rag/mag.</p>