Alumni donations having any factor in this is ridiculous. It favors sports schools with booster programs or schools with the elite/legacy families (Ivies, etc). I attended a school that puts out a lot of teachers and social workers. These are critical people to the world and they do not have the money to donate to their alma mater. I personally loved my school and have the money to donate, but instead give to actual charities that need it. That bears no reflection on the quality of the education I had and, I would argue, actually shows I got a better education than someone from a school who learned somewhere along the line that donated to an already rich alma mater like Harvard or a sports school like Alabama. (and a lot of other criteria are crazy but I am leaving that to others)
Williamof MD3:59PM April 28, 2012
I totally agree with the comments from J.Gal of Tx. As a scholar of ancient Greece, I can confirm that the HNWR (Helenic News and World Report) began using professor pay as part of the formula to rank the ancient Greek Universities. Now Greece has decline into to debt-ridden laughing stock of the European Union. Shame on you USNWR!
Andy Lof NY3:06PM April 14, 2012
This college rankings methodology is at the heart of what is wrong with America.
By using "professor pay" as one of the key metrics, colleges and universities have a direct financial incentive to inflate tuitions, increase the federal dependency of institutions of higher education, and decrease the freedoms of individual students. This creates a "culture of federal dependency" and also a "culture of government servitude", which shines as a bad example to the nation and the world and leads to casual attitudes towards the federal debt and inflation, not to mention individual liberties, which will eventually lead to the ruin of America, just as it has lead to the ruin of Greece.
Colleges and universities should, instead, be discouraged from federal dependency by widely watched rankings like this US News ranking. This will not only change the national debate about federal dependency, but it will also change the character of educated US citizens for the better.
The methodology used for MBA rankings seems more appropriate for college rankings. Issues like "percent of graduates employed", "pay rate of graduates", "satisfaction of graduates," "satisfaction of employers with graduates" are far more important than faculty pay grades.
As a Harvard College graduate myself, I am somewhat dissatisfied with the breadth of the curriculum that was offered to me in the late 1980's. For example, I was unable to find any courses on agriculture, a field of study which interested me greatly. Looking back on it, this was also a result of the federal dependency of the institution. The classes and fields of study that were emphasized by the college were dictated by Congress, via federal funding priorities, rather than by my own interests as a student and/or any general sense of obligation for offering a "full menu" of fields of study to young students who might like to explore a wide range of opportunities during their college years. In retrospect, I realize that Harvard's curriculum was not built for me. Rather, it was built to serve the socialist goals of the federal government. So, I believe that the college rankings should be altered to include a factor that measures the "breadth of curriculum."
Finally, and to re-emphasize the importance of decreasing federal dependency, colleges should be penalized for federal dependency, not rewarded for it via high professor salaries and higher rankings. The percentage of the operating budget paid by federal grants should be a penalizing factor, while colleges like College of the Ozarks, which have sworn off of federal funding 100%, should be rewarded by an elevated ranking and stature.
The importance of these rankings in shaping the character of our nation cannot be over-emphasized. At US News & World Report, you truly hold the future of America in your hands. Don't let America become the world's next Greece!
Jonathan L Galof TX6:54PM March 30, 2012
why is this list so different from the times rankings?
I don't get why faculty salary is given so much credit. Just giving your faculty a raise can affect 7% of your school's score. The same goes for reputation. It is a subjective measure that shouldn't be included in an otherwise statistical survey. If it is included, it should count for 5% at most. There are other factors that should be taken into consideration like alumni starting salaries (in proportion to the median for their degree) as well as proportion of alumni that go on to complete graduate degrees.
Bobof FL5:07PM March 03, 2012
just trying to find some info out about a school in california called fashion institute of design merchandising, in la
sue milkovichof OH11:53AM February 09, 2012
It is well known that schools inflate their data. US News should go directly to the source, ETS (SAT) to verify the data.
Also, in your faculty analysis you don't include research productivity or research investment. It is well known that faculty who is involved in knowledge discovery are more effective and relevant teachers.
I was also surprised to see that diversity is not included in your rankings. I see a lot of "very white" schools that are ranked very high, and that unfortunately will not prepare students for the real world.
My advice to US News: 1) Do not trust the numbers that schools give you, go directly to the source of the data; 2) Good faculty makes a good school, so do a better job looking at this (Gonzaga's Faculty is mediocre, so I can't understand why it ranks in the 2nd position); 3) Visit the school and assess what it is told to you. Do an audit!; 4) Look at diversity.
Evaof CA6:16PM February 04, 2012
Chris of MA, the SAT scores are of the enrolled class. If you look at them, you'll see the University of Chicago has higher scores than Stanford. So do several of the ivies, including Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and Princeton. The student bodies are quite comparable and this ranking provides the back up data to support it.
I think the actual rankings aren't all that helpful, but looking at the individual data points can help prospective students make more informed decisions and dispel certain myths (like the U of C student body can't be compared to Stanford's student body).
Timof NY7:31PM December 29, 2011
why is binghamton so far below schools like Indiana and Penn State that are far easier to get into?
Jon Mertof NY5:57PM December 09, 2011
This is the most absurd way of ranking the universities!
The factors going into the analysis, I agree are very difficult if one has to measure the effectiveness of what the schools do -- turn out great students who would be productive and responsible citizens of the society and the world at large. How do the factors that your magazine is linked to this goal? Just having some random factors like alumni giving, professors salary, cannot substitute for good diligence and the results. If you look at your rankings there are great institutions than rank low and some random schools at higher level -- results do not pass the smell test. The public universities in your ranking have a definite disadvantage because of the factors chosen however great the institutions may be and private institutions advantage however bad they may be.
Perhaps ranking by Asian and British organizations apply more relevant due diligence. Especially the one from Shanghai also seems to be more impartial.
One of the glaring missing factors in all these rankings is related to how the alumni have done in leading and creating big innovation engine of the country, creating jobs and making lasting contributions to the world. While it may be tied to the individual talents, schools would have also molded them to a good extent.
Lastly, I am sure many have told you to rethink the way the ranking is done, and given you probably have not changed in the last few years I have seen, only way it will happen is if your rankings are seen as irrelavant by your readers. Dont be surprised if it happens sooner than later!
Reader Comments
Back to article
William of MD 3:59PM April 28, 2012
Andy L of NY 3:06PM April 14, 2012
Jonathan L Gal of TX 6:54PM March 30, 2012
Izak of WI 11:33PM March 22, 2012
Bob of FL 5:07PM March 03, 2012
sue milkovich of OH 11:53AM February 09, 2012
Eva of CA 6:16PM February 04, 2012
Tim of NY 7:31PM December 29, 2011
Jon Mert of NY 5:57PM December 09, 2011
nv of CA 1:21AM December 06, 2011