How Reliable Are University Rankings?
1–10 of 90 posts
Re: How Reliable Are University Rankings?
#2Here is the code used by the paper: https://github.com/alidasdan/university-rankings
Re: How Reliable Are University Rankings?
#3https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2014/08/26/how-northeast...
> Freeland swept into Northeastern with a brand-new mantra: recalibrate the school to climb up the ranks. “There’s no question that the system invites gaming,” Freeland tells me. “We made a systematic effort to influence [the outcome].” He directed university researchers to break the U.S. News code and replicate its formulas.
Re: How Reliable Are University Rankings?
#4Why is there such a fixation on university rankings in the United States? Postsecondary rankings don't seem to matter as much in other Western countries.
Re: How Reliable Are University Rankings?
#5Why is there such a fixation on university rankings in the United States? Postsecondary rankings don't seem to matter as much in other Western countries.
It’s what drives enrollment and tuition fees are a huge part of revenue. In other countries, there’s more state support and you don’t need to market universities
Re: How Reliable Are University Rankings?
#6If you only read one sentence from this article, it should be this one:
> In this paper, we take a fresh look at this ranking scheme using the public College dataset; we both formally and experimentally show in multiple ways that this ranking scheme is not reliable and cannot be trusted as authoritative because it is too sensitive to weight changes and can easily be gamed.
Re: How Reliable Are University Rankings?
#7Gaming of rankings aside, the ratings organizations themselves offer various 'services' to colleges looking for a reputation boost.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/05/29/methodology-q...
For instance, QS sells a 'star-ranking' system for schools. Coincidentally the schools who paid for a '5-star' ranking, such as the Unviersity of Bristol or the Universiti Malaya are also placed higher on the actual QS ranking than those that did not, including Georgia Tech, the University of Washington, Ecole Polytechnique and UIUC.
Re: How Reliable Are University Rankings?
#8Regardless, you should think hard before accepting at the "top" university that will take you. Many times it's better to be a big fish in a small pond than vice versa.
Also, in terms of learning, it's really about the access you can get to the ten or so percent of the faculty that actually worth anything. Figure out who they are and go after them.
Also, network, network, network. Smart or not, everyone you meet in school might give you a reference/job/funding someday.
(source: hard experience)
Re: How Reliable Are University Rankings?
#9From the abstract:
*>we both formally and experimentally show in multiple ways that this ranking scheme is not reliable and cannot be trusted as authoritative because it is too sensitive to weight changes and can easily be gamed.
That's a feature, not a bug, as far as USNWR (the magazine doing the ranking) is concerned. A more reliable ranking would be more stable and therefore less interesting for the universities. Why pay attention to it if Harvard, Standford, MIT are always 1, 2, 3? It's much more "interesting" and certainly sells more copies/gets more clicks if the rankings have a certain amount of volatility. The fact that it's easily game-able also makes it more attractive to universities because they can do something proactive if they're dissatisfied with their ranking. All these factors combine to make the ranking itself seem more important and prestigious.
Re: How Reliable Are University Rankings?
#10https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2014/08/26/how-northeast... > Freeland swept into Northeastern with a brand-new mantra: recalibrate the school to climb up the ranks. “There’s no question that the system invites gaming,” Freeland tells me. “We made a systematic effort to influence [the outcome].” He directed university researchers to break the U.S. News code and replicate its formulas.
Yeah this kind of gaming is probably widespread. UChicago is known for "artificially" driving down their acceptance rate with lots of decision rounds and marketing. Cornell isn't releasing their numbers at all this year - I'd guess because they don't like them.