Usefulness of USNews Rankings

Frequently we talk in this NG about how a DL school is ranked by one or another source. The interest in ranking is genuine - prospective students are interested in knowing how creditable a program is before they invest time and money in earning a degree. The problem is that ranking schools on an objective basis is a virtually impossible task. Ranking lists make for interesting reading, but one has to evaluate schools and their match to one's needs on an individual basis.

At the risk of sounding like an apologist for NSU, I'd like to suggest that the grand daddy of all rankings - US News and World report - has a number of shortcomings with respect to our DL interests and isn't terribly useful for our discussion. The USNews lists, however, are probably more useful for traditional students.

Why do I say this?

1. Only some of the DL programs in question are ranked and these fall in different, and not comparable, categories. Hence, you can't compare even those that are ranked. For example NSU and Union Institute are rated in the National Universities list - but their major competitors Sarasota, Walden, Saybrook, Fielding and Capella aren't. It would be pure speculation to guess where USNews would put these four schools relative to NSU or Union. CSUDH is rated, but it is on the regional list. Jones and UoP aren't listed at all.

2. The USNews work is divided into undergraduate ("Colleges") and graduate sections. The graduate school lists are only of top programs and fail to mention any of the DL programs of interest. The "colleges" lists that do show DL schools of interest are focused on undergraduate education.

Does it matter to a prospective NSU or Union graduate student how USNews rates undergraduate education at these schools? In the case of NSU I can tell you that the various components - undergrad, graduate business, graduate computer science and graduate education - are operated very separately from each other. To infer anything about the DBA program from a rating of the undergraduate program, for example, is pretty hard.

3. USNews only covers US schools. There are a wide range of non-US schools of interest including those in Australia, South Africa and England. Again, one can only speculate how these shools would compare to those that US News ranks.

4. There is a significant difference of opinion about the validity of US News' methodology. Schools that are highly rated frequently promote their standing. Others grumble about the method. At best, the USNews approach is based on a set of values that you may agree or disagree with. They employ 16 measures in their research with specific weights. Do you believe that "Alumni giving rate" has any bearing on a school's quality? USNews does. On the other hand, accessibility of programs to working adults isn't one of their factors - but it probably is with most readers of this NG.

Ranking colleges is a virtually impossible task because the process is driven by what one values. USNews does a good job of providing information for prospective students, but I suggest that the weighting of factors is best done by a prospective student on his/her own. As for prospective DL students, there aren't enough DL programs covered in the USNews lists for their report to be terribly useful. For traditional students interested in schools that USNews does cover, the report is probably more useful.

Thanks - Andy

------------------
Andy Borchers, DBA
NSU (1996)

 

Compounding the USNews issue are the increasing number of schools that choose not to cooperate in supplying data. The school where I spent more time than any other, Reed College in Oregon, has refused to cooperate for years, and the alumni magazine suggests this is a growing trend.

Another issue, subject of a page one "expose" in the Wall Street Journal a few years ago, are the rather large number of schools that falsify the data they supply to US News in order to get higher rankings.

 

There was also an article in the WSJ a couple months ago about schools beefing up their yield statistic. Some colleges are denying admission to applicants whose SAT scores and GPAs fall well above the range of admitted applicants. The rationale is that only a small percentage of this elite pool would chose to attend if admitted. So much for the ‘safety’ school. I suppose this can be precluded if the overqualified applicant expresses interest above the norm such as requesting an interview, etc.

Pete

 

Pete points out: "Some colleges are denying admission to applicants whose SAT scores and GPAs fall well above the range of admitted applicants."

Indeed. And, according to an admissions officer I dined with last month, the average grade point average for applicants to Berkeley is now 4.3 on a scale of 0 to 4. In other words, the average applicant has an A+ average, because so many high schools are giving 4.5 and even 5.0 grades on their 4-point scale (for 'extra credit'), to raise the GPA for their students. So the poor applicants from high schools that "only" grade as high as 4.0 have a real handicap. This seems a bit like painting new numbers on the thermometer in order to cool down the room.

 

Needless to say I agree with Andy. Some comments:

I'm often surprised by how seriously people in the academic world take this stuff.

There are just too many individual variables. That's especially true on the graduate level and in fields where degrees are less of an interchangeable commodity.

USNews uses the Carnegie Foundation classification system, but gives the classes new and very misleading names. Carnegie just classifies them by the highest degree offered, subdividing those classes by size. USNews renames the programs of all sizes that offer doctorates "national universities". Schools that offer masters become "regional universities", while schools without a significant graduate school are "liberal arts colleges".

Of course, some of the 'regional' schools are nationally known, and some of the 'national' schools aren't, but that doesn't bother USNews.

The Carnegie Foundation has another category for specialized graduate schools without undergraduate programs that USNews simply ignores in its undergraduate rankings. Thats where you find CIIS, Saybrook, Fielding and so on. The very fact that these schools are ignored says something important about the appropriateness of the USNews "tier" rankings for making graduate school decisions.

I think that it does to the extent that poorly informed people misinterpret the rankings. Most people, including many academics who should know better, seem to treat the rankings as simple indicators of overall quality, at all levels in all fields. There is an appalling amount of posing and posturing going on around this stuff.

The category of "foreign school" is necessarily an impossibly broad one. What do Potchefstroom, Southern Queensland, Heriot Watt and Athabasca have in common? Besides the fact that they are not in the United States. As soon as you look at them you see that they are old universities and recent startups, they offer different subjects by DL, they offer them at different levels, using different delivery media and mechanics. And if you are contemplatng something like doctoral work, you have to look at research specialties and stuff like that.

USNews obviously selects for a traditional undergraduate program that admits 18-year-olds to full-time on-campus study. They demand high initial selectivity and a low drop-out rate after that. They do not want part-time students. They want traditional liberal arts and do not approve of vocational programs.

Distance education undergraduate degree programs will get a bad rating by definition. A school that emphasizes non-traditional education will be fourth tier, almost surely.

That means that if one emphasizes doing DL at a 'top-tier' school, then one needs to find a distance education program that can hide behind an on-campus program that is designed on totally different principles, and which serves to shield it. In effect it becomes a "free-rider" on a prestige rating earned by criteria that it could not itself pass.

This is not without harm to higher education. It has already been noted that schools lie about their stats.

There are other dodges. One thing that a prestige school like Harvard might do is put their DL offerings in their "extension" division, and then not include extension statistics in their USNews submission. Or a school like Maryland might spin off their non-traditional offerings into a separate "campus" (UMUC), even if it is physically located on the main campus. That way UMUC takes the heat and College Park's reputation isn't hurt. Or, like the University of California, a prestige system might decide to stay out of degree-level distance education entirely, leaving it to the California State University which is much more committed to non-traditional education.

 

Absolutely Bill. The temptation is great to apply the ranking broadly. It gets a lot of media play when it comes out (from NPR to the National News) in terms of who is on top.
It is probably also true that some people will simply look at the ranking to determine the quality of the school. NSU gets "dissed" using this as does Touro College (parent of Touro University) another 4th tier school.

If it meets your need and is accredited then go for it. That does not mean that there are not people out there who will talk down a school because of it's tier ranking. I remember in Canada some teenagers asking where everyone was going to college and then saying "Oh, generic school". As I mentioned in an earlier thread a Canadian University I read about is trying to tailor their program to move up in the MacLean's ranking. I think they said uping the admission requirements a tad would do wonders. The whole thing get's so competitve. I heard someone the other day "dissing" Southern Methodist University in terms of it's quality. I guess it is human nature.

North

 

For all their usefulness, collegiate ratings in advertiser-support media remind me of an astrological saying:

A wise man consults the stars, a fool is lead by them.


jim

 

I agree with everything that everyone said. Especially the stuff about playing with statistics for all schools that might be rated higher than my alma mater!

Bill Huffman
Lucky SOB that somehow got into and out of the Berkeley Computer Science program without ever getting an A+ in a class. (at least not that I remember)

 

I don't totally disagree with your points but you need to keep a few things in mind.
Yes, US news should not be your only source for deciding upon education plans. However, to suggest that it is irrelevant is incorrect. The report should be used as a data point, one which is directionally correct. It is possible to disect the rankings to gather more precise data regarding a school.
Only the most irrational apologist would suggest that any of the fourth tier schools are actually among the best in the nation... or that a school which has one of the poorest undergraduate academic reputations in the nation actually has graduate programs which would rank 4.9 if ranked independently. There are always debates at the margin but the basic tiers of schools and their real and/or perceived quality is generally accepted.
Also, in the real world competition is not amongst DL schools... when you try to utilize your degree in the real world such arguments as "yes, I know it ranks like shit overall but it is the best distance learning program in the nation" is not going to get you very far. Frankly, that is why I like such "non-distance learning type programs" as Heriot-Watt, CSDH, the UK/Aussie reasearch docs, etc. With these schools/programs the DL issue fades away... you compete head-to-head with the traditional folks.

 

Indeed, it is human nature!

Consider the following cases of bias:

1. An Ivy League grad boasts that his degree is more prestigious than a RA state college degree.
2. A US RA grad believes his degree is better than a non-US GAAP degree, or vice versa.
3. Two students graduate from the same school, one traditionally, the other via DL. The first believes his degree is superior to the latter.
4. The Harvard grad believes his degree is better than the Princeton degree.
5. A Duke grad believes his degree is better than a Trinity C&U grad, oops the Duke grad has a legitimate claim!!!
6. Two grads have RA DL degrees, one 100% non-residency, the other had a 30 day residency. The latter feels his is superior because he had a 30 day residency.

No matter how its sliced, there will always be some type of bias and prejudice in this pie called academe!

Russell

 

In the National Research Council research rankings, fourth tier Old Dominion came in at #17 in Oceanography, ahead of Stanford at #18. Third tier University of Rhode Island turned in a blazing #6 in the nation, ahead of any number of first tier ivys, the Naval Postgraduate School and lots of other heavyweights.

In Linguistics, fourth tier U. Texas Arlington came in #40, and fourth tier Indiana U. of PA made #41, right behind first tier Rice at #39. Third tier Hawaii-Manoa made #25, ahead of Yale at #30.

In Ecology and Evolution, fourth tier Northern Arizona U. made #40, ahead of first tier North Carolina Chapel Hill at #42 and first tier Brown at #44.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics third tier Hawaii-Manoa turned in an impressive #11, ahead of Yale at #15, Columbia at #18 and Stanford at #22.

 

The University of Illinois library has a very good university rankings site. Included is a bibliographic essay on the controversies that the rankings have generated, with links to the full-text papers, articles and addresses themselves.

The University of Illinois library has a good university rankings site.

Included is a bibliographic essay on the controversies the rankings have generated, with links to the full-text papers, articles and addresses.
http://www.library.uiuc.edu/edx/rankoversy.htm

There are links on the left side of the page leading to undergraduate, graduate, foreign and specialized rankings of all sorts.

 

One man is from Mars and the rest are from the real world of DL. Now that you have told us what irrational apologist say, I will also like to know the views of irrational bigots.

Ike

 

One man is from Mars and the rest are from the real world of DL. Now that you have told us what irrational apologists say, I will also like to know the views of irrational bigots.

Ike

(Corrections)

 

One of the main points to remember about the U.S. News rankings is that they basically reflect "word on the street" reputations of the ranked schools that have evolved over time. You won't find many surprises. For example, if you look at the current U.S. News rankings of top law schools, they aren't much different than previous rankings done by others 20-25 years ago or general consensus lists done 40-50 years ago.

In terms of the reputational ratings that drive much of the U.S. News ranking formula, conventional biases endure. The reputational ratings are done by people who, by and large, attended prestigious schools, so it becomes a self-reinforcing hierarchy. Furthermore, schools with more flexible admissions policies suffer because their GPA/test score medians are lower.

Primarily DL institutions would have a hard time under the criteria used by U.S. News. Admissions policies are fairly open, test scores often aren't even required, application levels are lower, etc. Also, with largely adjunct faculties, most DL institutions aren't going to be known for producing scholarship. All these factors do nothing to diminish DL in my eyes as a valid educational delivery mode, but they certainly don't help with U.S. News.

 

The reasonable person would agree with #1.

Not enough knowledge on GAAP to comment.

The standards should be the same here.

The Harvard grad must have not read USNews ranking this past year where Princeton was #1.

Yes.

The superior thinking one needs to have a conversation with the Princeton and Harvard grad.

EsqPhD