<p>A - 1 vote</p>
<p>B - 6 votes</p>
<p>melody, relax. </p>
<p>The intention of this is to check whether PA has sense or not. I, for one, think PA is very important in ranking universities/schools. A number of people think it isn’t, however. So, I listed down here the schools and where they would place/rank when we will remove the PA, so that the people can see for themselves if indeed PA is immaterial, irrelevant and nonsense when ranking schools/universities. </p>
<p>Anyway, the votes we’ve gathered so far aren’t conclusive to draw a conclusion yet. So, lets ask some more people and see if you (and your cohorts) can still get more supporters/voters. Shall we? Then let’s discuss.</p>
<p>But again, you’re setting up a false duality. I don’t think the rankings should exist without some proxy like PA, nor do I think they should solely be based on even an ideal measure of what PA is supposed to be. I think that PA, as a proxy for faculty quality/institution reputation, is necessary, but highly flawed. Setting up a system solely based on PA or one completely devoid of it just creates lists that, like pretty much every poster has said, is severely flawed. Both have problems that are clear. Both are incomplete pictures.</p>
<p>I think faculty quality and an institutions reputation both matter, I think PA is basically a proxy for these two things, I think many measures outside of PA are also proxies for these two things. I think that even together, all of these attempts to capture quality and reputation are quite flawed, PA perhaps being one of the more flawed. I don’t think this component of rankings should be removed-- I think it needs to be seriously refined/rethought. I have no interest in a list devoid of this proxy without a replacement. I have no interest in a list that thinks that this already flawed measure is the sole measure of a university.</p>
<p>Again, you’re setting up a false choice for people who have various levels of information to pick from (not that different from PA itself, actual). This is not a proof positive for any method. Just like I’ve said one of the greatest flaws of USNWR is that if the rankings don’t come out as people expect them to look they won’t be seen as legitimate. If they don’t have a few surprises and a few movers, they won’t be compelling to look at. </p>
<p>PA is a big part of the matching expectations, so its no wonder that people with only a slim window of the outside view would consider that the “less flawed” ranking-- it’s the one based on perception from people who don’t have complete knowledge and it turns out the general public and academics alike, devoid of a full set of information, have a similar opinion. That’s not surprising to me at all.</p>
<p>You’re asking the wrong questions and providing the answers for people-- a guaranteed way to get useless information.</p>
<p>This poll itself is flawed because peer assessment is little more than the opinion of (admittedly accomplished) people about which are the best universities. We are asked here to answer which list fits our opinion of the proper ranking of universities. Of course the peer assessment one will look more right!</p>
<p>That said, I do choose B because of the logic above :)</p>
<p>I vote A.</p>
<p>B focuses A LOT on graduate program prestige. I believe A is a more accurate representation of undergraduate educational quality. Of course the top public schools are going to offer more research opportunities and higher profile research while smaller schools are going to offer a more undergraduate focused education. Both have their merits. Both rankings can be relevant to a different kind of student. Some people may prefer schools ranked higher in group B, while some may seek individual attention in an undergraduate education. The point is, they both same something different and both rankings can be useful to different types of people. I am just voting A because I prefer a more UG focused education and that is all personal preference.</p>
<p>Let me guess, since there are no Ohio schools in list B, you are all for list A. There are plenty of schools in List A that are graduate focused.</p>
<p>rjkofnovi: you’re an idiot. What does Ohio have to do with any of this? Just because I’m from Ohio? I don’t even go to an Ohio school. I go to William & Mary and will be going to WashU next year. Yes, there’s plenty of schools in List A that are graduate focused but you will notice they are ranked below schools that are traditionally more UG oriented. List B seems to put more research oriented schools in front of traditionally UG focused schools. I don’t get what business you have making accusations about a bias for Ohio schools… I could make an accusation that everyone who voted B has a strong bias towards UCB…(really guys? UCB at 6?)</p>
<p>
Not just the people who voted on this thread for list B…~2,000 academics must have had a strong bias for UCB too, because that’s the cohort that voted to make the list.</p>
<p>My my THEAjay89. You have a very short temper. Are you sure you’re not going to school in Ohio? Please remain calm. I see your point now that you’ve clarified it. So because William and Mary does not appear at all on List B, you are all for List A. ;-)</p>
<p>^ No, because his new school is #6 in list A.</p>
<p>…and Berkeley had the nerve to takes it’s place! But his/her new school is for graduate work. So it’s not really relevant.</p>
<p>I’m not stupid. Do I think WashU belongs at 6? Probably not. But does Cal? Probably not. I don’t understand why I was bashed for my initial post. There was absolutely no legitimacy to claiming that I have an Ohio bias. I’m transferring from W&M to WashU. I’m an undergrad. </p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad: I get it. You love your school and constantly tell us about its PA score in every thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s too bad that you think a person of your caliber (high school education, pre college teen) can out compete the collective opinion of the brightest mind in academia…</p>
<p>Do you honestly think U know more than the people answering the PA scores…</p>
<p>Let’s be real. None of us on this forum is qualified to speak on any of this… Our opinion is ten times more flawed than the PA score… Nearly half of us here haven’t even completed our highschool education yet… let alone completed college!</p>
<p>We are far too young and inexperienced to think we are qualified to speak on the strengths and weaknesses of these rankings. We just don’t know enough to be qualified to speak on where a college should be placed on the rankings.</p>
<p>THEAjay, I didn’t bring this subject up…I just correct misconceptions/misstatements.</p>
<p>If you have a beef with the list, go talk to the voters and campaign for your case.</p>
<p>Phead: Do you think you know more about WashU then everyone else in the world? Because you CONSTANTLY rip on it for no apparent reason in a good number of your posts. I get your point and no I do not think I know more but you are the one that is constantly saying that WashU does not belong where it does and LOL about it many times as well. So you’re being a little hypocritical here.</p>
<p>Also, I am a current freshman in college, not a pre-college teen…</p>
<p>Phead128,</p>
<p>I have a graduate degree from one of those hoity toity “top publics” and I think most of the rankings are absolutely atrocious. Now, how shall we square that circle ad hominem?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think I’m necessarily that much LESS qualified than the average professor or dean, who is going to probably have a much more limited view of the entire university scene than I do, having spent years on this site and doing work with admissions issues. Will he probably know more about his field? Certainly. But I do guarantee you that I know just as much as most PhDs about my field in terms of rankings.</p>
<p>But that’s all a Macguffin, really. The issue is whether PA is a reliable metric. And there we have a real humdinger: is it? I don’t know, and others certainly do not.</p>
<p>Give me another example of a school that breached the top 10 that had a PA score lower than UCLA, and same as UNC, Wisconsin, and CMU.</p>
<p>It’s also not a coincidence that The Chronicle of Higher Education came out with a special report on WUSTL gaming the rankings… So they do game the rankings… They are highly overrated… My WashU friend who is a BME major says the university tries very hard to boast it’s standings in the rankings and to try to emulate the stature of the Ivy league schools… My opinion is not completely unfounded… Many students feel that WUSTL is only ranked #12 because it games the rankings… Do you think WUSTL should ahead of Brown, Nortwestern, Cornell, Johns Hopkins? I really dont’. </p>
<p>WUSTL tied with MIT at #6 without PA just goes to show that without PA scores… WUSTL can easily rival HYP… and that in the future, the acronmy will be changed to HYPSW… with MIT kicked out of the picture! Do you think WUSTL should be tied with MIT?</p>
<p>[The</a> Chronicle: 5/25/2007: Ranking Profiles](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i38/38a01502.htm#washington]The”>http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i38/38a01502.htm#washington)</p>
<p>
IMO, not at all reliable for choosing a college, but accurate for what it is supposed to be measuring - “DISTINGUISHED ACADEMIC PROGRAMS”.</p>
<p>To clarify. I have absolutely no beef with any of the lists. I even stated in my initial post that it was simply my personal preference. My initial post did not at all deserve any bashing. You love your school, I love mine (or my future one). Of course we are going to be biased in our opinions. If you look at both lists, you will see that A seems to have a lot of the private schools ranked higher while B seems to have a lot of the top publics ranked higher. UCB is a great school, I am not in the least bit arguing that. It’s just a matter of which criteria we deem important when looking at rankings. I apologize if I was a little short on my temper but I do not feel I at all deserved to be bashed and made fun of the way I was.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Deans are out of touch with the university scene? You’ll be surprised…</p>
<p>Deans have access to USNews as well… including FSP Analytics which is a subscription based service many universities use to gauge their relative performance of their departments against other peer universities… </p>
<p>Many Deans use various advance tools to benchmark their entire university and individual programs against national standards, have information to compare their university and programs to peers across the country, and can make strategic decisions based on reliable and objective data. </p>
<p>Universities pay private contractors to these research and analysis of the universities for them… It’s like hiring a consultant on how to make the university more efficient, more competitive, and more cost efficient… They do this against other peer groups and against the national standard.</p>
<p>To say that Deans and President’s do not know what their peer groups are doing is like saying that the Director Admissions of Hopkins doesn’t know what the Director of Admissions at Northwestern, Cornell, or UVA is doing… Their are competing against the same subset of professional talent, high quality students, and research grant money. So of course they will know how well they are doing relative to their peers…</p>