• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

US News 2024 Rankings (Wake #47)

Seems to me that citations will weigh heavily in favor of schools who specialize in disciplines with heavily cited work. Medical sciences, for example. Not all disciplines have the same citation rates. I have no idea if USNWR takes that into account, but I doubt it.
 
I am curious about the process. Does USNWR let schools know that criteria is changing? Do they interview schools as part of the ranking process or is it strictly data based?
 
WindyCityDeac said:
I am curious about the process. Does USNWR let schools know that criteria is changing? Do they interview schools as part of the ranking process or is it strictly data based?
Click to expand...
We had that statement ready to go this morning so yeah we knew
 
BarcaDeac said:
We had that statement ready to go this morning so yeah we knew
Click to expand...
US News announced the methodology changes in May of this year (so we would have known that we would be negatively impacted, though probably not to what degree) and the schools get an embargoed list of the rankings a week or two before they are released.
 
BarcaDeac said:
We had that statement ready to go this morning so yeah we knew
Click to expand...
So my only frame of reference is when Gartner ranks technology offerings. They communicate years in advance if they are changing the criteria...talk with the companies about their tech, etc.
So was wondering if USNWR used a similar methodology
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
US News announced the methodology changes in May of this year (so we would have known that we would be negatively impacted, though probably not to what degree) and the schools get an embargoed list of the rankings a week or two before they are released.
Click to expand...
i assume this was the public announcement?
 
The larger question(s) may be:

●Why did the USN&WR change now?
●Who pushed for the changes?

Maybe these have been answered elsewhere. I'm not terribly inclined to look because it's not that important to me. But, answers to the above would explain a lot. I am curious, though.
 
mercurydime said:
The larger question(s) may be:

●Why did the USN&WR change now?
●Who pushed for the changes?

Maybe these have been answered elsewhere. I'm not terribly inclined to look because it's not that important to me. But, answers to the above would explain a lot. I am curious, though.
Click to expand...
yeah i am much more curious about the process than i give a rip about being #47
 
WindyCityDeac said:
i assume this was the public announcement?
Click to expand...
This was what I found:

For the changes in methodology to the law school rankings, the law school knew about the changes about 5ish months before the new rankings came out, which appears to be about the same time frame as for the college changes.
 
Vanderbilt sent out an email today ripping US News. A lot of it seems very applicable to Wake.

Dear students,
Vanderbilt is stronger than at any time in its history: Our students and faculty are our most qualified ever. Our finances are remarkably sound, our fundraising is reaching new highs and our research enterprise is thriving. As a result, our graduates are thriving as well.
In the U.S. News & World Report college rankings released today, Vanderbilt again placed among the top 20 national universities, tying with Dartmouth for 18th. Last year, we tied with Brown for 13th.
The change in our ranking is entirely due to changes in U.S. News’ methodology. Indeed, on the rankings criteria that stayed the same as in previous years, we maintained or improved our performance. 
U.S News’ change in methodology has led to dramatic movement in the rankings overall, disadvantaging many private research universities while privileging large public institutions. To look at just a few examples, The University of Chicago dropped from sixth to 12th. Dartmouth moved down six places. Berkeley and UCLA are now tied for 15th after placing 20th last year, and UNC advanced seven places to 22nd. Some schools have seen quite dramatic declines: Wake Forest slid 18 places, Tulane 29. Washington University in St. Louis dropped out of the top 20, and NYU lost 10 places, moving to 35 from 25.
Specifically, U.S. News has made significant methodological changes that reduce the emphasis on metrics that measure faculty and student quality—and that increase the emphasis on social mobility, which they measure using incomplete and misleading data.
Measuring social mobility is an important consideration, to be sure. Vanderbilt is profoundly committed to offering access to qualified students from all backgrounds. But it is deeply misleading for U.S. News to commingle this policy concern with measures of education quality.
Among the new methodology’s many flaws, the following are most glaring:
  • Some of the rankings’ key measures of academic quality, where Vanderbilt has historically done well—such as faculty with the highest degrees attainable in their fields and the percentage of entering students who are in the top 10 percent of their high-school class—were eliminated, while others, including faculty resources, were assigned less weight. Previously, U.S. News eliminated student selectivity as a factor
  • Criteria related to social mobility have been given more weight, such as the percentage of Pell students. Students from all backgrounds succeed at Vanderbilt at a higher rate than at many other institutions, but because Vanderbilt’s overall percentage of Pell and first-generation students is lower than at many state institutions, U.S. News’ metric for Vanderbilt is lower, affecting our ranking.
  • Data about earnings, indebtedness and first-generation students are being sourced for the first time from the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard. The scorecard only captures about one-third of Vanderbilt undergraduates—those who receive Pell grants or federal loans. In other words, U.S. News is not factoring in the two-thirds of our graduates who did not rely on federal funds when determining the value of a Vanderbilt education, resulting in a highly non-representative sample. To put it differently, the U.S. News ranking puts no value on the career outcomes of any of our students not receiving federal aid. That is particularly ironic, considering that the main reason so few of our students rely on federally subsidized aid is because of the generous aid we provide through Opportunity Vanderbilt and other programs—a total of $366 million in 2022–23.
  • U.S. News is no longer including financial information about academic expenditures from Vanderbilt University Medical Center when calculating our score for expenditures per student, despite our sharing faculty, facilities and funds with VUMC and overseeing much of that at our cost. Because Vanderbilt and VUMC are separate legal entities, we report our finances separately to the federal government. We have challenged this decision with U.S. News in recent months, since VUMC makes such a significant contribution to our educational environment—and many of our peers factor in the expenditures of their medical centers—to no avail.
As a research university, we are particularly distressed by the lack of rigor and competence that has increasingly characterized U.S. News’ annual lists. This year’s changes come after several years of questionable decisions by U.S. News & World Report. Columbia University withdrew from participation in the rankings earlier this year in protest, as have several professional schools, including our own Law School. There was similar turmoil in the rankings of schools of medicine; some, such as Harvard Medical School, have withdrawn from participating in the rankings. At Vanderbilt, we are considering our next steps in light of this year’s developments.
In the future, we will share more of the data and metrics that we believe are the most pertinent to academic excellence and outstanding outcomes for our graduates. In the near term, we are offering a webinar on Friday, Sept. 29, at noon CT, in which Vanderbilt’s Data and Strategic Analytics team will share their analysis of this year’s U.S. News rankings and answer your questions. Register here.
As always, we are interested in hearing from you on this matter or any other related to your experience at Vanderbilt. Thank you again for choosing to be a Commodore. We wish you a rich and fulfilling fall semester.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
atldeac23 said:
Vanderbilt sent out an email today ripping US News. A lot of it seems very applicable to Wake.
Click to expand...
This seems like a huge flaw in the data that Wake didn't point out in its communications (or if they did, I missed it). I would imagine Wake has a similar issue, but maybe a much bigger percentage of our undergrads take out federal loans (since we know our Pell grant recipients are negligible).
  • Data about earnings, indebtedness and first-generation students are being sourced for the first time from the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard. The scorecard only captures about one-third of Vanderbilt undergraduates—those who receive Pell grants or federal loans. In other words, U.S. News is not factoring in the two-thirds of our graduates who did not rely on federal funds when determining the value of a Vanderbilt education, resulting in a highly non-representative sample. To put it differently, the U.S. News ranking puts no value on the career outcomes of any of our students not receiving federal aid. That is particularly ironic, considering that the main reason so few of our students rely on federally subsidized aid is because of the generous aid we provide through Opportunity Vanderbilt and other programs—a total of $366 million in 2022–23.
 
you all are gullible to buy into that defense. Federal aid through various grants is the foundational first line of financial aid that makes up your financial aid package - need based aid granted by the school is granted on top/in addition to federal aid. The school is going to let the federal and state government subsidize as much of the aid as possible. The only students who aren’t receiving federal grant money are ones who aren’t eligible for it. Vandy and Wake crying about what percentage of their students aren’t receiving federal aid is just telling on themselves. It’s not a logical defense for anyone familiar with the process of applying for need based aid.
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
you all are gullible to buy into that defense. Federal aid through various grants is the foundational first line of financial aid that makes up your financial aid package - need based aid granted by the school is granted on top of federal aid. The school is going to let the federal and state government subsidize as much of the aid as possible. The only students who aren’t receiving federal grant money are ones who aren’t eligible for it. Vandy and Wake crying about what percentage of their students aren’t receiving federal aid are just telling on themselves. It’s not a logical defense for anyone familiar with the process of applying for need based aid.
Click to expand...
It's absolutely a valid criticism to only use data from 1/3 of a given school's undergrad population for a factor such as how many of the school's graduates earn more than a high school graduate.

ETA: Wake is clearly currently, for the most part, a school for the wealthy. There's really no debating that. But that is taken into account in the new methodology with the Pell grant graduation rate and performance factors. All I am saying is that if how many of the school's graduates earn more than a high school graduate is a factor (and it is, with a 5% weight) US News thinks is important, then using a data set that excludes a significant portion of the school's population (apparently 2/3 for Vandy) doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
USN&R is using the same data set for every school, Vandy is inventing a completely arbitrary distinction to complain that their ranking is based on too small a sample size because they don’t have enough low income students. Like I said, crybaby bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top