The Engineering Rankings vs. Physics Theory
There is another new explanation about why it's very difficult for engineering schools to change their rankings in the U.S. News America's Best Graduate Schools. The problem is that this new theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
The new hypothesis of why the U.S. News graduate engineering rankings don't change much comes from Adrian Bejan, a mechanical engineering professor at Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering. He says there is an engineering explanation for this, and it's linked to "constructal theory," which he developed. Bejan's premise is that constructal theory" shows that the hierarchy of universities will stay quite rigid despite improvements at individual schools.
For those who are interested in a detailed academic explanation, his paper "Why University Rankings Do Not Change: Education as Natural Hierarchical Flow of Architecture" appears in the latest issue of the International Journal of Design & Nature.
It's true that there is very little change in the U.S. News graduate engineering school rankings from one year to the next. The reason that the rankings are relatively stable is that many engineering schools themselves don't change much year to year. However, some engineering schools have risen in the rankings since 1990. Why? They go up in rank when they make changes such as significantly increasing the amount of externally funded engineering research they conduct or adding quality programs in new engineering disciplines. In addition, some have also fallen in the rankings when they vastly reduce the number of engineering programs they offer or the dollar amount of research they conduct.
So, the explanation doesn't have anything to with the laws of physics.
Tags: engineering | graduate schools | rankings | engineering graduate school
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (2) | Print
Reader Comments
General comment on the nature of the question asked and answered
This ranking v. theory post is old, so I imagine receiving a reading of further comment is longest odds. Given the importance of the issues we will try nevertheless.
I have reviewed both the Morse and Bejan contributions to the question of physics theory and university program ranking, and would offer as a tentative conclusion, that both correct.
Morse observes that in the cases of which he is aware -- on what others could he comment? -- it has taken major change to a program to alter the perceptions of quality that lead to a change in rankings. All should (and Prof Bejan does) grant as much. This does not, however speak to the exclusivity of major change as mechanism leading to altered perception, etc., or to the possibility of further complexities that might underlie it. In this regard, Prof. Bejan's blocked river analogy is apt.
What is somewhat troubling, and prompts my comment, is the apparent smugness that seems present in the Morse evaluation of the possibility that complexity of mechanism might also be involved. I would suggest that while is is best practice to assume simplicity, it is intellectually and scientifically dangerous to demand or impose it; Occam is but a starting point, and there is no gainsaying Nature's periodic, if not frequent, defiance of this dictum.
Finally, I would suggest that the real question regarding Prof Bejan's reported observations is whether they provide a sound basis for hypothesis, which can then be explored through further research. (Pronouncements alone do not lend themselves to this.)
Perhaps the critique here is, simply, a critique of medium; neither of message, or messenger, but mode -- a statement of the nature of the venues in which each chooses to work.
Prof Bejan's work in academia, by it's nature, positions it to discover, at times, the obvious (Prof. Amaral's work at NICO on the complexity of emailing patterns being a ready example). One would hope that when this occurs, it is acknowledged; Prof. Bejan does seem to do this (though acknowledgment is somewhat diminished by the salesmanship required of modern science reporting). That only obvious mechanisms operate in some cases does not address whether, in others, the underlying mechanisms are **not** obvious (Morse notwithstanding). History does address this: many crucial leaps in the sciences have occurred because observant practitioners -- and indeed, physics theorists -- have attended to exceptions.
And the Morse medium -- well, is it not something of the demand of blogs, to simply offer comment on the work of others, commentary which by it's nature (and audience, and market-demands) lends itself more to the superficial than to the complex?
Chacun son goût. Mais, I for one would prefer that my physicians and surgeon, my public policy specialists and urban planners, and yes, even those who comment on how program rankings change, be involved in (or at least attend to) research into their respective areas and questions.
constructal theory of education as a global flow system
Dear Mr. Morse,
Your observation that some individual cases deviate from the pattern revealed by the many is not new: it is also in my paper (!), for example, in the discussion of Fig. 1 on the fourth page, in the International Journal of Design & Nature, www.constructal.org
Your observation is not a refutation of physics. In my paper, I used as metaphor the global flow of river basins. The fact that one tree log blocks one channel does not take away from the global tendency of the multi-scale river system to flow more and more easily in time. There are many examples of this kind in natural organization, when large numbers of moving entities of the same kind are involved. Your observation is an example of why it has been so difficult for a deterministic principle of design in nature to emerge in science.
Your other statement (It's true that there is very little change...) is the reconfirmation of the physics that the constructal law covers predictively. We agree.
The global university system is only the latest natural design predicted with the constructal law--some of these developments are compiled at www.constructal.org
With best wishes,
Adrian Bejan
JA Jones Distinguished Professor
Duke University
advertisement
