Ranking Categories May Change in the Upcoming College Rankings

Reader Comments
Back to blog

That was a truly good blog!

business english sınıfları çok başarılı of AL 11:34AM February 27, 2012

This surely makes great sense!!!

cain daytona no 4 of AL 12:53AM February 07, 2012

First class article..

taruhan bola of AL 5:40PM December 19, 2011

You couldnt be more right.

backlinks of AL 9:02PM December 12, 2011

This post could not be more right

google plus 1 of AL 5:51PM September 25, 2011

Ties might be in soccer but there are too many of them if schools are considered in so many areas

Richard Toth of CT 12:28PM August 08, 2010

I would strongly suggest against the "REGIONAL" term. I think is degrades the perception of quality of these Masters institutions and the publication as well. These are institutions of higher learning, not airlines.

kurt of CA 12:00PM July 28, 2010

As others have pointed out, the problem with using the term "Regional" is that many universities and schools attract people from all over the country, and other countries as well. If you call a school like Stanford regional, you're suggesting that it's popular among people in California (and maybe Oregon, even Washington!), but people outside that region wouldn't really bother going there. It's a little like calling JFK or Chicago O-Hare a "regional" airport, when those airports attract people from all over the country.
Perhaps you could call schools like Amherst "undergraduate schools," and places like Virginia Tech "undergraduate and graduate schools." It sounds clunkier, but you don't risk making some colleges sound less popular.

KBurchfiel of VA 3:55AM July 23, 2010

Could be better, though I like it the way it is. Some of these schools especially the private schools, would not really be considered regional at all. Please do better.

Ron Green of TX 8:31PM July 21, 2010

As a psychologist who has done a great deal of research
in the areas of perceptions, mind sets, and modes of
construal (or miscontrual), I have always found your
weighting of 25% on a college's peer reputation to be
excessive. Certain colleges like Amherst have achieved
an almost timeless reputation that is not easily changed
in the minds of most of those who submit reputation scores.
Think of it while visualizing pictures of former Presidents
-- some scorers grew up in the age of Eisenhower, others
during Nixon's presidency, still others with Bush Sr. or Clinton. During nearly all that time, Amherst, Swarthmore
et al were preeminent. The chances of either of them descending below 10th are slim and none, no matter what
they are currently doing to deserve their peer reputation.
It's like turning two of America's largest aircraft carriers
around simultaneously in New York Harbor -- it takes a very
long time for fixed perceptions and mind sets to change.
And many of the peer reputations of the top schools are
indeed very fixed perceptions. Is it not a "given" that
Amherst and Swarthmore will be ranked in the top ten for
the foreseeable future, even though other colleges like
Kenyon and Colorado College, to give two examples, may be
providing an equally good, if not better, education?
Conclusion? Keep the peer reputation scores -- just don't
continue to give those scores one-fourth the weight of
the total. And see if you can discover, in the new metrics
you are reviewing, some counterbalance to the inherent
tendency for reputations to become ossified in scorers'
minds, and hence, of less real world validity.