Why are international college rankings drastically different from the Usnews rankings?

College Search & Lists
21

<br>

<br>

<p>As a website, US News is best used for peer assessment in their graduate rankings, and for data on particular colleges and universities. It’s pretty useless for telling us what the ‘best colleges’ are imo.<<<</p>

<p>Not afraid of contradictions, aren’t you! Aren’t the peer assessments the subjective and non-scientific parts of the USNews? Aren’t the ARWU and THES also weighing their criteria to determine the outcome? Don’t you think that culling the schools from a chosen list and using journals from certain areas is a tad subjective? </p>

<p>Lol! </p>

22

<p>Yes, peer assessment is subjective based on what researchers think. But it’s not subjective based on what US News thinks. US News can adjust the weight of the criteria to achieve whatever ranking it desires. The academics are essentially just giving their opinion. The rankings for graduate programs are different because they’re rankings based essentially purely on data (opinion) rather than US News’ undergraduate ranking (which is based on data and whatever US News decides to weight such data to achieve the ranking it desires.)</p>

<p>I never said that the THE ranking was a better or more reputable in this regard. The most value part of the THE rankings for me is the reputation ranking which, like the US News graduate programs, is essentially just organized by opinion and not by THE weightings.</p>

<p>Even examining the two it’s clear there are big differences. Most academics rate a university or its programs as strong or distinguished based on their familiarity with the professors who teach their and the work that’s been done there. There’s at least some basis for their giving it the rating that they do. What basis is there for US News giving peer assessment a value of 25% as opposed to 15% or 5%? Why give student selectivity a value of 15% instead of 10% or 20%? Where’s the scientific basis for these weightings which determine the rankings that we see?</p>

<p>I suppose the best way to summarize my opinion is that I’m open to an objective ranking of subjective data (e.g. ranking things purely on the score they received from certain data.) I’m not open to the subjective ranking of subjective data (e.g. rankings based on subjective data that is then weighted, on little to no basis, which then determines the ranking)</p>

23

<p>Can’t say about THES, but ARWU isn’t trying to weight their criteria to gets some predetermined schools(s) to the top. It was originally set up as a way to benchmark the Chinese universities on research compared to other research universities around the world.</p>

<p>BTW, the ARWU rankings are roughly how the STEM and social science faculty would rate the research prowess of the universities.</p>

<p>As for an undergraduate education, eh. It really depends on the person. I certainly see the value of the type of education that the top LACs in this country off, but I know other people who actually prefer the undergrad experience of a giant public top research university.</p>

24

<p>@beyphy - I had a little trouble following your post, lots of dangling incomplete sentences and unclear references.</p>

<p>

Well, sure. For undergrad this is essentially meaningless because undergrad education is largely about effective teaching and a lot of non-research factors that the typical prof at School X has no idea about regarding schools A, B, C, and beyond. For grad school within their own field, it is quite meaningful to get the opinion of these people. Night and day, and we are talking undergrad rankings here.</p>

<p>

I have no idea what you are saying. Data is generally not opinion, at least not in the scientific sense. If you mean the data that resulted from a poll or questionnaire, then there is no difference between what USNews does for undergrad and grad, only a difference in the meaningfulness of that opinion. It is like going on the street and asking Joe Schmo what should be done to solve the Mideast problem. He no doubt has an opinion, but probably he knows so little factually that it is meaningless. Ask that same person what should be done to solve a problem in his field of expertise, then his opinion means something. I really have no idea what you are saying. Grad rankings are not based only on other profs opinions, they also look at publications, grant $, and other hard data. The methodology for grad and undergrad rankings are similar, it just is much more meaningful for grad rankings because the focus is so much more narrow.</p>

<p>I can’t argue, I don’t think with the rest of your post except for

You cannot make something that is arbitrary less arbitrary just because you think you have some objective way of weighting it, which is probably impossible anyway. That statement makes no sense to me.</p>

25

<p>

And your supporting evidence for this statement is…?</p>

26

<br>

<br>

<p>Pretty much all what is known about ARWU, QS, and THES. :wink: </p>

<p>PS In doubt, read the history and the updates in methodology of the international rankings. </p>

27

<p>@fallenchemist:</p>

<p>Look at how the academics rank by reputation in the USN STEM and social science grad school disciplines.</p>

28

<p>My uncle went to berkeley undergrad, ucla for law school, then moved to Hong Kong to head some bank there. He said UC’s (especially berkeley/LA) are very highly regarded there because they’re typically seen as the most asian schools in America haha it might not be true, but I trust him on it.</p>

29

<p>@PurpleTitan‌ @xiggi - I wasn’t disputing or doubting the assertion, I was simply asking for citation or support for it.</p>

30

<p>Yet the public is interested not only in research quality but in undergraduate quality, too… and that’s not just in the US. </p>

<p>However, none of the big three international rankings (ARWU, QS, THES) hold much weight to undergrad, if any, and some people may use a ranking as a shopping guide for undergrad. If there was a fourth international ranking, focused this time around on undergraduate education, I bet these rankings would look quite different.</p>

31

<p>^ I thought it didn’t matter much where you go for undergrad, that graduate school reputation was much more important.</p>

32

<p>@Catria:</p>

<p>Except that, unlike grad school (where most people going through the same program generally have the same purpose), people go to undergrad for different reasons and value different things. The schools that are best for getting you on to Wall Street and the schools that prepare you best for a PhD program and the schools that give you the best undergraduate grounding in CS and the schools that give you the best liberal arts education and the schools that are best for a fun memorable college experience are often not the same (in fact, often wildly different).</p>

<p>That’s why relying on any one ranking that try to distill all universities to one linear scale is really silly. </p>

33

<p>

</p>

<p>For people who wants/needs a graduate education, graduate reputation is much more important to them, but not everyone seeks a graduate education. Because, actually, some people have an educational plan that does not require a graduate degree.</p>

<p>Hence why the public is interested in undergraduate quality as well.</p>

34

<p>I think I was beginning to find that the USNews formula for ranking “quality undergraduate education” has allowed many of the highest ranking schools get away with some amazing crap in terms of academic rigor and quality, especially in the sector that concerns me (science education). If I had a child that wanted to major in science, I would honestly much rather send them to a lesser ranked state school with a reputation for teaching well/innovating in science (maybe Michigan, UMD College Park, Minnesota, Madison, Berkeley, Purdue, somewhere) than several of the top 20 privates. Seems like many of them are pretty much keeping their smart student bodies happy with “fun” and essentially trick them into thinking they are getting a top notch education unique from other universities (even some of their private peers, some in the top 20, some not) that are “actually” good at it (and good at educating, or at very minimum have a lot of rigor) in other fields. The course offerings and variety of courses in some science depts at some of these schools are completely lacking. If you get a hold of the syllabi, you notice that hardly none of them are trying something different from the traditional format of teaching (even for advanced courses). You see several of the assessments and are like “wow, this is an elite school? Really?!”</p>

<p>One would be in shock if you could compare science courses (and non) just between top 20’s. You would find some highly ranked schools (hint: Not HYPSMCtCh) that have academics more similar to those near the bottom/middle and then you would look at some near the bottom and go, “does this really even belong at this level?I guess their SAT scores say so, so they do” a sentiment I had after taking some of the biology courses at Emory, but then I saw some of the stuff at other top privates that were similarly ranked and concluded that we should definitely stay or perhaps all of us should leave and be replaced by schools who are actually trying much harder to be serious). Smart students, well-paid faculty (even those who can’t really teach…oh wait, as long as bad or good teachers teach in a smaller classroom than those at a public schools, it’s all good),shiny buildings, great amenities/nice housing, fun, and reasonable (rigor wise: Again, you don’t want to challenge the smart students too much or else the whole “fun” part will disappear from this list and less smart students may not come unless you’re like Chicago, JHU, Princeton, Caltech, MIT or something. Or worse, a disproportionate amount of them may struggle/be humbled and get below a B+ average, which is never supposed to happen to near “perfect” incoming freshmen. Their decline in self-esteem will be followed by a decline in retention, which is bad for the rank) academics is all it seems was required for many “top” schools (as ranked by USNWR). IE, spending on lots of things that hardly have anything to do with educational quality but do present a nice facade to newcomers (students, faculty, or parents). </p>

<p>One thing I love is when many of these schools build new science/engineering buildings and then pretend as if it will dramatically affect undergraduates (as if it was for them) and yet there is no evidence (or even a plan to) that teaching/curriculum will be improved/innovated in any way, shape, or form. It’s pretty much just going to attract more smart folks with it’s shininess (which it will, because we don’t actually care what happens in them or just assume that awesome teaching, research, or classes must happen in nice buildings, or some mixture of both sentiments. If the status quo of education in the depts. received no complaints, no need to change that part, just move it to a new facility with better equipment and spaces. As long as students think it’s “good enough” then it is actually excellent to the institution’s eyes ). The USNews ranking are only valid because we ultimately (yet often subconsciously) express the values (or lackthereof) they embody. It’s also perpetuated by the fact that places don’t (exuse me, I mean “can’t” as they will claim. It’s just impossible) assess learning. Wait, no one actually cares about that. Neither does USNews, what a shock? As anyone can tell, I find the state of US highered, especially when it comes to things like STEM education which needs a rebound in this country, even among some of the “so called” (that’s all I will give some of the top 20-30 schools) elite schools, frustrating. The rankings (especially USNews) just reflect the reasons to be frustrated. As far as public interest in educational quality, given how USNWR is held in such high esteem, I don’t think we actually know what educational quality is (or we agree with USNWR as to what it is, and what schools you can get it from). I feel USNWR is ranking undergraduate college experience minus the whole academic quality part because they can’t really measure it. I suppose they found some correlates to rank, but even those are sketchy beyond a threshold. Like, it’s kind of hard to predict that the school with a 1450 average will have higher quality teaching or more rigor in most areas than the place with the 1370-1400 average or something. While one would hope so, unfortunately it often is just plain false because un-ranked things like institutional character and its effect on the academic and teaching environment come into play (like you may not want to overly challenge students when most are hardcore pre-professionals or ultimately choose the school over a similar ranked one for non-academic factors often pertaining to social life, whereas you can feel free to do whatever for a school with many more considering doctoral programs or other opps. who were tipped in favor because of more academic factors). Anyway rant over.</p>

35

<p>International rankings use different standards than US standards. It places more emphasise on academics rather than by “reputation” I would say.</p>

36

<p>Yeah, international rankings focus on different things. See USNews vs Times:
USNews - GaTech #36, UIUC #41, and UT Austin #52.
Times - UT Austin #27, GaTech #28, UIUC #29</p>

37

<p>I’m not entirely familiar with how ARWU decides which college is ‘better’ than others, but I will chime in on USNWR.</p>

<p>I think that USNWR is good for a few reasons.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>It gives you a good glimpse on incoming freshman and transfer classes. For example, looking at USNWR, I can easily access the average admitted high school GPAs and standardized test scores for multiple schools within a few seconds, all without leaving the website. This alone lets students know which schools they should consider a ‘safety’ school, a ‘target’ school, and a ‘reach’ school. I think that in itself is very helpful.</p></li>
<li><p>Instead of looking at the rankings so specifically, I think it helps to consider, what I like to call, ‘ranking ranges.’ For example, in the 2014 USNWR, Boston College is ranked 31 andy the University of Rochester is ranked 32, along with other great institutions, like NYU. Based off this alone, what does that even mean? What does it mean by be one ranking higher than another school (what unit do you use to attach to that numerical value)? I like to think that the USNWR is good at providing ranges. For example, all else equal, I would argue that Harvard College is a better undergraduate institution than a school ranked in the 150s. But, looking at a smaller range, is Harvard College, currently ranked at number 2, that much better than MIT, currently at number 7? When I was looking at colleges, I would consider schools within 10-12 rankings of each other to be relatively similar in terms of quality. For example, Georgetown is ranked 20 and NYU is ranked 32. I would say that both of those schools are relatively similar in terms of their undergraduate quality (academics, student life, costs, after graduation statistics, etc.).</p></li>
<li><p>For those schools including the USNWR rankings into their admissions strategies, like Northeastern University is, it may be a blessing in disguise. From what I understand, the pieces of information that make up a good portion of a college’s ranking is its selectivity. Usually, the more selective the college is, the ‘better’ the students. I could see the USNWR ranking methodology providing schools incentives in the form of ranking and recognition to lower admission rates, making a better quality education. Of course, this is a big assumption that lower admissions rates makes a school’s academic quality better (my thinking is that, by having smaller class sizes, students will perform better academically).</p></li>
</ol>

<p>These are the three major points that I can make. Of course, this thread is filled with negative aspects of rankings, most of them legitimate. But, I think we should all realize that rankings can be a good thing if viewed appropriately and not as if school ranked 25 is better than school ranked 26.</p>

38

<p>@bernie12‌ USNWR also acknowledges that the Ivies aren’t the top STEM schools. This is their list of the top undergrad engineering programs, for example:</p>

<h1>1 Massachusetts Institute of Technology</h1>

<h1>2 Stanford</h1>

<h1>3 University of California, Berkeley</h1>

<h1>4 California Institute of Technology</h1>

<h1>5 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign</h1>

<h1>5 Georgia Institute of Technology</h1>

<h1>7 Carnegie Mellon University</h1>

<h1>7 Cornell University</h1>

<h1>7 University of Michigan- Ann Arbor</h1>

<h1>10 The University of Texas at Austin</h1>

<h1>10 Purdue University-West Lafayette</h1>

<p>Only one of those schools is an Ivy (and it’s considered a “lower Ivy” by most CCers). Only 3/6 of HYPMSCtCh schools with undergrad engineering programs are on there. </p>

<p>I don’t have the 2014 rankings so the next part is based on the 2010 UG engineering ranking (but the overall is still 2014 since I’m lazy):</p>

<p>The Ivies-</p>

<h1>7. Cornell (#16 overall)</h1>

<h1>12. Princeton (#1 overall)</h1>

<h1>20. Columbia (#4 overall)</h1>

<h1>26. Harvard (#2 overall)</h1>

<h1>29. University of Pennsylvania (#7 overall)</h1>

<h1>40. Yale (#3 overall)</h1>

<h1>43. Brown (#14 overall)</h1>

<h1>51. Darmouth (#10 overall)</h1>

<p>Their public peers, only one of which is ranked in the top 25 this year (#20 UC-Berkeley) are clearly outperforming them. In the pre-professional arena, I’d say the Ivies only dominate in law (but that’s mostly grad school); in business, public schools and non-Ivy privates outside HYPMSCtCh also put up a huge fight.</p>

<p>And USNWR rankings do show that once you break down the data.</p>

<p>I don’t necessarily think that America is in big trouble when it comes to higher education in STEM (after all, those top 10 above beat almost everyone else in the world and are at least on the same level of undergrad education as Oxbridge, Ecole Polytechnique, the IITs, etc.). But what you pointed out- that there isn’t as much overlap as you’d expect between general “top 25” schools (especially the Ivies) and the top 25 in STEM. I don’t necessarily think that STEM is superior to all other fields (although the market seems to favor STEM, business, law, and medicine quite heavily- hence the rising popularity of pre-professional programs and the seemingly increasing unpopularity of liberal arts), but it does seem like the Ivies (and USNWR) need to step it up- not being good in STEM is a serious flaw. Several of them (like Harvard) also have reputations as GPA inflator schools, although there is definitely GPA deflation at Ivies like Princeton and Cornell; interestingly enough, these GPA deflator programs are the ones that outperform the other Ivies in STEM. The educational approach taken by the other 6 doesn’t appear to me to be the best one for the 21st century, but then again I’m a STEM major.</p>

39

<p>@bernie12:</p>

<p>That was a great post. Not to pick on Emory too much (or maybe I should, because they deserve it), but you can evidently major in CS there by taking 7-8 CS (and some math) classes; which does not have to include operating systems (1 of the 3 classes that I feel form the “core” of a CS major, the others being data structures and algorithms; and I’m generally leery of schools that combine them in to one class instead of two).</p>

<p>As a comparison, a top CS school like Illinois requires 14-15 courses (and a bunch of math & science courses) for their CS major.</p>

40

<p>@PurpleTitan: Tell me about it lol. Yeah, CS and Math at Emory are super weak. We have some science departments that stack up much better than I thought they did (at least to some “near peer” privates, all which have much higher SAT’s btw) when I was going through them. Those mainly include chemistry, biology, and neuroscience. I was sad to find that at least 2 of the schools that were ranked similarly had fairly low level courses in at least chem and biology that mainly had elements (assessments and lectures) that strongly encouraged surface learning. One of them literally had most freshman and sophomore biology courses giving purely multiple choice exams, and not the ones with many questions requiring higher cognitive levels. One was clearly mostly pure memorization of textbook facts (even made essay questions extremely close-ended and detail oriented as opposed to problem based) and pathways even at more advanced levels. I was just unpleasantly surprised and quite frankly disappointed…You think they would try to train really smart students better and push them a bit considering that we need more well-trained scientists and engineers. Given the standards I saw at those schools, I honestly almost take back what I thought about Emory’s versions in those depts and realize that many more instructors are trying hard here than lots of other places. We have many excellent biology courses where many teachers who use pbl and cbl taking up a larger and larger footprint in the curriculum. We also have a quantitative /computation suite of classes taught by excellent teachers (not even existent at one of the near peers). What I would change about the biol. major is to make students take ochem 2, add another upper level lab requirement, and require a class from the quantitative/computational suite. Neurobiol has amazing electives and has brought back or implemented many project lab/hands on courses. Chemistry is “supposedly” revamping its curriculum (cough, cough…I’ll believe it when I actually see the course atlas of 2015 or 2016. Department has many excellent elements, especially at sophomore and freshmen levels, but only a couple of the upper level instructors or courses are worth any more than a school good at teaching chemistry…maybe this will change, they did just get a huge HHMI grant to help. How that money will be spent, I don’t know).</p>