6 ms·

Honest question: What value do these rankings provide to society? [1] Ie. Practically what am I supposed to gather by the fact that Caltech is rated #1? Or S

by aik 14y ago

Honest question: What value do these rankings provide to society? [1] Ie. Practically what am I supposed to gather by the fact that Caltech is rated #1? Or Stockholm University #117? Should that mean I would benefit from attending Caltech over Stockholm U? Or do these rankings just help see what countries/states are research university superpowers (whatever benefit that brings -- e.g. increased international competition?)? I'm sure universities love to see themselves ranked well as it could bring them more prestige and attract better/more students. However it's extremely confusing how universities that have extremely varied missions can be measured on the exact same metrics in the exact same way, and from that form a valuable "ranking" that actually has worth. My understanding of the purpose of measuring is largely to increase feedback to stimulate growth and learning. Do these rankings help with this? I'm not sure. Perhaps I would be more comfortable if they would rename their ranking or define it less generally. One step forward would be to possibly form categories (or acknowledge existing categories) for universities and have one ranking table per category. [1] I found this in one of the articles on the site: "The world of higher education is changing, and the rankings help us to make sense of what is happening. These rankings were conceived to be much more than an annual beauty parade or marketing gimmick for university recruitment offices. We are delighted to continue to deliver what we promised we would." http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2012-13/world-ranking/analysis/great-responsibility http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-ranki...

creamyhorror 14y ago
Let's face it, the main purpose of such rankings is to provide a pecking order for wider society to latch onto. Rankings factor into prestige, which factors into graduates' signalling for employment, which helps determine how well they can compete for the more desired jobs in society. Sure, most of the top institutions provide excellent learning experiences in themselves, but I'd guess the signalling effect of a top school supplies a major portion of the grad's desirability as an employee (especially when the hirers are from elite schools' old boys clubs themselves). Furthermore, prestigious universities with powerful alumni networks provide informational advantages, and alumni probably favor fellow alumni in business and recruitment. (That reminds me, maybe I should start reconnecting with college mates to look for a job...) I don't think the above is cynical - I think it's just realistic.
- zerostar07 14y ago
  Thus, by implication, if your career prospects rely partly on how others perceive you, instead of pure talent, they are pretty relevant.
snogglethorpe 14y ago
Pretty much any single ranking is going to be fairly meaningless for a prospective student, given the large differences between various faculties at most universities, except at a very coarse level (e.g. universities near the top are probably a good bet generally, and those near the bottom are to be considered with caution). However that doesn't really add anything that isn't already pretty obvious to most people. At best I suppose you could think of it as a kind of pat on the back for universities which do a good job generally. Give them a bit of kudos and publicity etc. That doesn't really do that much for the top-tier schools, but it might give some under-appreciated schools welcome attention.
batiudrami 14y ago
For me, it had a direct negative effect. My school (University of Western Australia - 190) prides itself on being one of the country's better schools. When it's rankings started to slip, it took active steps to try and improve them - a significant part being a higher focus on research, rather than undergraduate teaching (the list rewards academic achievement more highly than graduate satisfaction). The result of this, was the bottom 1/3 of my faculty (Mechanical/Chemical engineering), determined by research performance being fired. Some of these were awful, lazy teachers, sure, but others were that special kind of lecturer who resonates really well with students but produces limited academic work. In addition, those professors with tenure (often stereotyped as being lazy teachers) were not let go, compounding the problem.
- aik 14y ago
  >> others were that special kind of lecturer who resonates really well with students but produces limited academic work. Interesting. This is definitely in agreement with the point that many "[research]" universities exist for the research and not for learning/growth outcomes. If only a better solution existed...
- ramgorur 14y ago
  Well, it is not always necessary to "resonate well with students", especialy in a tertiary education scenario. May be this is a requirement for primary or high-school level, but for university? I don't think so. I did my undergrad from an insignificant public school in a third world country, but secured my masters (by research, no coursework) from one of the top 30 schools from that list and it was an enlightening experience. To say the truth, I have learned most of the undergrad craps by myself (thanks to our local book markets teeming with pirated/photocopied books) -- in my case, the contribution from the so called "good teachers" is almost none. the "quality of teaching" is a very subtle concept and thers is no apparently good way to measure it. I think it is the "research" that should matter the most. Above all, no one is interested in average GPA of students.
  - batiudrami 14y ago
    We...obviously have completely different philosophies on how universities should be run. A good lecturer is, in my opinion, paramount to learning. Too many of my classes had lecturers who were completely incompetent, and worse than that, didn't even make an effort to be good teachers, and I, like you, was forced to learn the content myself. Another, a man who is highly regarded (our school built him a lab just so he'd come here), used slides literally copied and pasted from Wikipedia. The result of this is I have a significant debt (though less than you get from a US college), and an education which is completely sub par.
aaron695 14y ago
Lists like these recognise in public University's that are good and gives all universities a reason to improve. Whether this ranking is more relevant to researchers or students you'd have to look at the methodology but they are very closely related anyway. The reason people hate rankings is most people(Bit above 50%)are below average intelligence or go to a below average university hence they hate it when it's pointed out to them. Even smart people still suffer for thinking they are more intelligent than they are hence they too do not like being rated. In summary, the truth is yes you are better off going to a higher rated university if external factors are equal. But most people can't handle the truth so it's up to you what you believe.
- jahewson 14y ago
  > The reason people hate rankings is most people(Bit above 50%)are below average intelligence or go to a below average university hence they hate it when it's pointed out to them. Sorry, what? Presuming that "intelligence" is normally distributed, then exactly half of the population will be above average and half below. By your thinking the top 50% should love rankings. I think the problem with rankings is that there's no foolproof metrics of comparison, so there will also be some grumbling.
- aik 14y ago
  >> Lists like these recognise in public University's that are good and gives all universities a reason to improve. I very much hope universities aren't shallow and lacking of a reasonable vision and mission to the point of requiring some random generic ranking to motivate efforts to improve. Many students might, however, be motivated by such things. That is, anyway, until they realize it's probably not a good strategy. Ie. If I want to become a lawyer or politician, I don't go to MIT; if I want to become a software engineer, I don't go to [insert random high ranking university without an engineering related program]. >> ...the truth is yes you are better off going to a higher rated university if external factors are equal. I'm curious what you mean by "if external factors are equal"? What external factors? Do you mean "if all universities had the same mission and vision, same degree programs, same culture, are located in the same place, attract the same type of students, etc."? I can agree with you then. However, I believe the fact is that the "external factors" are actually very, very different (back to my original comment).
sksksk 14y ago
I think the only use of these rankings is prestige. I went to a university that ranks quite highly in that list. And when I tell people what university I went to, they are quite impressed. However, my university's ranking is pulled up a lot because it's medical and languages schools are amongst the best in the world. In computer science (the subject I did) it is decent but definitely not as highly ranked. But I still benefit from the "brand" my university has
geebee 14y ago
I don't think they offer much. However, I'm still glad to see them. The reason I like lots of different rankings using lots of different criteria and weighting is that the tend to dilute the impact of any one single ranking. The reality is that people pay a lot of attention to rankings. Right now, US News and World Report does have an outsized impact on how people think of universities. And as a lot of people know, not a single public university shows up on their rankings. For instance, UC schools tend to have very well regarded faculty and graduate programs. The undergraduate programs are good too, but these schools admit large numbers of in-state students. The downside is that admissions standards are lower as a result, the upside is that far more low income students get a crack at an education at a true research university. US News rewards private research universities with very small undergraduate student bodies for the resulting "eliteness" of undergraduate admissions, which is actually ok. But does Berkeley or UCLA get any credit for enrolling more low income students than the entire ivy league each? No, not a bit, but they do get dinged for the impact on their numbers, which is how a university that is in the top 5 for almost every department still ends up outside the top 2. Then you have the Washington Monthly rankings, which perhaps over-emphasize this (along with graduate programs in engineering and science) and are stacked with top public research universities - though it doesn't get anywhere close to the US News kind of attention. Honestly, it is a little silly to see Harvard ranked so low. But it underscores how different a conclusion you can reach with very reasonable measurements. And then you have international rankings like this one, or the USNRC which tend to emphasize scholarship and research, and so forth. I guess I'd say I'd prefer to see no numerical rankings, but if we have to have them, I'd like so many that it becomes clear that numerical rankings may be measuring very different things and that no single list has an outsized impact on the way people perceive universities.

by aik 14y ago

creamyhorror 14y ago

Let's face it, the main purpose of such rankings is to provide a pecking order for wider society to latch onto. Rankings factor into prestige, which factors into graduates' signalling for employment, which helps determine how well they can compete for the more desired jobs in society. Sure, most of the top institutions provide excellent learning experiences in themselves, but I'd guess the signalling effect of a top school supplies a major portion of the grad's desirability as an employee (especially when the hirers are from elite schools' old boys clubs themselves). Furthermore, prestigious universities with powerful alumni networks provide informational advantages, and alumni probably favor fellow alumni in business and recruitment. (That reminds me, maybe I should start reconnecting with college mates to look for a job...) I don't think the above is cynical - I think it's just realistic.

zerostar07 14y ago
Thus, by implication, if your career prospects rely partly on how others perceive you, instead of pure talent, they are pretty relevant.

snogglethorpe 14y ago

Pretty much any single ranking is going to be fairly meaningless for a prospective student, given the large differences between various faculties at most universities, except at a very coarse level (e.g. universities near the top are probably a good bet generally, and those near the bottom are to be considered with caution). However that doesn't really add anything that isn't already pretty obvious to most people. At best I suppose you could think of it as a kind of pat on the back for universities which do a good job generally. Give them a bit of kudos and publicity etc. That doesn't really do that much for the top-tier schools, but it might give some under-appreciated schools welcome attention.

batiudrami 14y ago

For me, it had a direct negative effect. My school (University of Western Australia - 190) prides itself on being one of the country's better schools. When it's rankings started to slip, it took active steps to try and improve them - a significant part being a higher focus on research, rather than undergraduate teaching (the list rewards academic achievement more highly than graduate satisfaction). The result of this, was the bottom 1/3 of my faculty (Mechanical/Chemical engineering), determined by research performance being fired. Some of these were awful, lazy teachers, sure, but others were that special kind of lecturer who resonates really well with students but produces limited academic work. In addition, those professors with tenure (often stereotyped as being lazy teachers) were not let go, compounding the problem.

aik 14y ago
>> others were that special kind of lecturer who resonates really well with students but produces limited academic work. Interesting. This is definitely in agreement with the point that many "[research]" universities exist for the research and not for learning/growth outcomes. If only a better solution existed...
ramgorur 14y ago
Well, it is not always necessary to "resonate well with students", especialy in a tertiary education scenario. May be this is a requirement for primary or high-school level, but for university? I don't think so. I did my undergrad from an insignificant public school in a third world country, but secured my masters (by research, no coursework) from one of the top 30 schools from that list and it was an enlightening experience. To say the truth, I have learned most of the undergrad craps by myself (thanks to our local book markets teeming with pirated/photocopied books) -- in my case, the contribution from the so called "good teachers" is almost none. the "quality of teaching" is a very subtle concept and thers is no apparently good way to measure it. I think it is the "research" that should matter the most. Above all, no one is interested in average GPA of students.
- batiudrami 14y ago
  We...obviously have completely different philosophies on how universities should be run. A good lecturer is, in my opinion, paramount to learning. Too many of my classes had lecturers who were completely incompetent, and worse than that, didn't even make an effort to be good teachers, and I, like you, was forced to learn the content myself. Another, a man who is highly regarded (our school built him a lab just so he'd come here), used slides literally copied and pasted from Wikipedia. The result of this is I have a significant debt (though less than you get from a US college), and an education which is completely sub par.

aaron695 14y ago

Lists like these recognise in public University's that are good and gives all universities a reason to improve. Whether this ranking is more relevant to researchers or students you'd have to look at the methodology but they are very closely related anyway. The reason people hate rankings is most people(Bit above 50%)are below average intelligence or go to a below average university hence they hate it when it's pointed out to them. Even smart people still suffer for thinking they are more intelligent than they are hence they too do not like being rated. In summary, the truth is yes you are better off going to a higher rated university if external factors are equal. But most people can't handle the truth so it's up to you what you believe.

jahewson 14y ago
> The reason people hate rankings is most people(Bit above 50%)are below average intelligence or go to a below average university hence they hate it when it's pointed out to them. Sorry, what? Presuming that "intelligence" is normally distributed, then exactly half of the population will be above average and half below. By your thinking the top 50% should love rankings. I think the problem with rankings is that there's no foolproof metrics of comparison, so there will also be some grumbling.
aik 14y ago
>> Lists like these recognise in public University's that are good and gives all universities a reason to improve. I very much hope universities aren't shallow and lacking of a reasonable vision and mission to the point of requiring some random generic ranking to motivate efforts to improve. Many students might, however, be motivated by such things. That is, anyway, until they realize it's probably not a good strategy. Ie. If I want to become a lawyer or politician, I don't go to MIT; if I want to become a software engineer, I don't go to [insert random high ranking university without an engineering related program]. >> ...the truth is yes you are better off going to a higher rated university if external factors are equal. I'm curious what you mean by "if external factors are equal"? What external factors? Do you mean "if all universities had the same mission and vision, same degree programs, same culture, are located in the same place, attract the same type of students, etc."? I can agree with you then. However, I believe the fact is that the "external factors" are actually very, very different (back to my original comment).

sksksk 14y ago

I think the only use of these rankings is prestige. I went to a university that ranks quite highly in that list. And when I tell people what university I went to, they are quite impressed. However, my university's ranking is pulled up a lot because it's medical and languages schools are amongst the best in the world. In computer science (the subject I did) it is decent but definitely not as highly ranked. But I still benefit from the "brand" my university has

geebee 14y ago

I don't think they offer much. However, I'm still glad to see them. The reason I like lots of different rankings using lots of different criteria and weighting is that the tend to dilute the impact of any one single ranking. The reality is that people pay a lot of attention to rankings. Right now, US News and World Report does have an outsized impact on how people think of universities. And as a lot of people know, not a single public university shows up on their rankings. For instance, UC schools tend to have very well regarded faculty and graduate programs. The undergraduate programs are good too, but these schools admit large numbers of in-state students. The downside is that admissions standards are lower as a result, the upside is that far more low income students get a crack at an education at a true research university. US News rewards private research universities with very small undergraduate student bodies for the resulting "eliteness" of undergraduate admissions, which is actually ok. But does Berkeley or UCLA get any credit for enrolling more low income students than the entire ivy league each? No, not a bit, but they do get dinged for the impact on their numbers, which is how a university that is in the top 5 for almost every department still ends up outside the top 2. Then you have the Washington Monthly rankings, which perhaps over-emphasize this (along with graduate programs in engineering and science) and are stacked with top public research universities - though it doesn't get anywhere close to the US News kind of attention. Honestly, it is a little silly to see Harvard ranked so low. But it underscores how different a conclusion you can reach with very reasonable measurements. And then you have international rankings like this one, or the USNRC which tend to emphasize scholarship and research, and so forth. I guess I'd say I'd prefer to see no numerical rankings, but if we have to have them, I'd like so many that it becomes clear that numerical rankings may be measuring very different things and that no single list has an outsized impact on the way people perceive universities.