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 | rankings
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (1)
Reader Comments
Add your thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our comment guidelines.advertisement
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
Mar 19, 2008 01:02:27 AM [permalink] [report comment]