<p>Every now and then we have postings on CC talking about how the rankings make no sense and that we should not have them. Very soon after that discussion has ended, there will be another set of rankings from a different organization and there will be an animated discussion on those rankings on CC.</p>
<p>The fundamental issue here is that as a culture we want to separate the wheat from the chaff. We want to determine the winners and the losers and the rankings are supposed to do that. They are not couched as winners and losers but as trying to provide a basis of comparison of excellence, whatever that means. </p>
<p>Pizzagirl says
*anyone who thinks that there are meaningful differences between, say, #5 and #15 is an idiot anyway. *</p>
<p>I agree with you but unfortunately there are many people who think there is a difference between #5 and #6.</p>
<p>It has to be remembered that rankings are geared to certain audience and as long as that audience laps it up, rating organizations will continue to throw out ratings. US News is no exception, they make a lot of money selling the ratings.</p>
<p>On the filp side, there are rating organizations that are trying to portray the issues in a different light. Rating by the Chinese organization is clearly an attempt to portray Asian universities more favorably than UNSW by using different criteria as is the UK ratings. There is nothing right or wrong about this, it just shows the flaws in the rating system.</p>
<p>So the bottom line is that as long as there are people who want ratings, there will be people to provide ratings, however flawed. The old principal of Caveat Emptor or buyer beware applies to ratings also.</p>