Here are the 2010-11 rankings. Not much change from 2009-10.

19. Notre Dame
21. Georgetown
55. Syracuse
64. Rutgers
64. Pitt
69. UConn
75. Marquette
136. DePaul
136. Seton Hall
143. St. John's
156. Cincinnati
176. Louisville
176. W. Virginia
176. S. Florida

Villanova and Providence are not considered national universities but rank 1-2 among regional schools in the North.

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...s-rankings

Even thought SYR is rated 3rd inthe Big East, I have to say these ratings are pure crap and even less useful than pre season FB ratings. It's just something for U.S News to do that I guess generates money and fame for them- waht else is the magazine known for?

Sort of like the SI swimsuit issue- something to keep the publication in business but hardly part of the publication's original mission but a gimmick that caught on. The goal of the rankings is to spread the intellectual wealth around to each region of the country.

(08-16-2010 11:18 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  Here are the 2010-11 rankings. Not much change from 2009-10.

19. Notre Dame
21. Georgetown
55. Syracuse
64. Rutgers
64. Pitt
69. UConn
75. Marquette
136. DePaul
136. Seton Hall
143. St. John's
156. Cincinnati
176. Louisville
176. W. Virginia
176. S. Florida



http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreview...s-rankings

Slight correction:

USF was tied with 8 other schools at #183.

Villanova?

So all of the Big East schools are Tier 1 now?

Tier 1 is the top 120 schools, or was last year.

Here's how you know the rankings are total BS. Clemson is the same ranking as Rutgers, Pitt and Minnesota at 64. I find that very hard to believe. Its all about endowments (which is important to a university) and popularity amongst other schools across the country. Popularity is obviously most important to their methodology. Naturally, Stevens and NJIT are not going to rank Rutgers or each other highly as they are the competition. So far the only criteria I've ever seen that assigns a numerical rank that made sense is the ARWU.

(08-17-2010 10:47 AM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Tier 1 is the top 120 schools, or was last year.

Not this year. It looks like US News and World Report collapsed Tiers 1 and 3 this year into Tier 1, and Tier 3 was Tier 4 last year.

Clemson has fine academics.

Just wait. After Nebraska has officially joined the Big Tin, their academic rating will somehow jump in the rankings. It's like magic...

(08-17-2010 10:54 AM)brista21 Wrote:  Here's how you know the rankings are total BS. Clemson is the same ranking as Rutgers, Pitt and Minnesota at 64. I find that very hard to believe. Its all about endowments (which is important to a university) and popularity amongst other schools across the country. Popularity is obviously most important to their methodology. Naturally, Stevens and NJIT are not going to rank Rutgers or each other highly as they are the competition. So far the only criteria I've ever seen that assigns a numerical rank that made sense is the ARWU.

Apples and Oranges. Not that I am going to defend US News rankings, but the whole point of the ARWU rankings and the methodology used is its focus on graduate research institutions. It truly isn't measuring all programs at university as a whole, but rather these six specific items -

the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, number of highly cited researchers selected by Thomson Scientific, number of articles published in journals of Nature and Science, number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index - Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and per capita performance with respect to the size of an institution.


In this regard it is much more comparable to the Center for Measuring University Performance (which only looks at US research institutions) but broadens the measurements to include some of the above but also to look at grad rates, endowments, grants awarded, doctorates granted, post doctorates, and SATs/ACTs ranges.

So MUP, is better overall, imho when determining best research universities in the U.S.

Cheers,
Neil

(08-17-2010 06:35 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(08-17-2010 10:54 AM)brista21 Wrote:  Here's how you know the rankings are total BS. Clemson is the same ranking as Rutgers, Pitt and Minnesota at 64. I find that very hard to believe. Its all about endowments (which is important to a university) and popularity amongst other schools across the country. Popularity is obviously most important to their methodology. Naturally, Stevens and NJIT are not going to rank Rutgers or each other highly as they are the competition. So far the only criteria I've ever seen that assigns a numerical rank that made sense is the ARWU.

Apples and Oranges. Not that I am going to defend US News rankings, but the whole point of the ARWU rankings and the methodology used is its focus on graduate research institutions. It truly isn't measuring all programs at university as a whole, but rather these six specific items -

the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, number of highly cited researchers selected by Thomson Scientific, number of articles published in journals of Nature and Science, number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index - Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and per capita performance with respect to the size of an institution.


In this regard it is much more comparable to the Center for Measuring University Performance (which only looks at US research institutions) but broadens the measurements to include some of the above but also to look at grad rates, endowments, grants awarded, doctorates granted, post doctorates, and SATs/ACTs ranges.

So MUP, is better overall, imho when determining best research universities in the U.S.

Cheers,
Neil

Agreed Omni. the Center for Measuring University Performance trumps the other measurement systems for evaluating university performance.

(08-17-2010 06:35 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Apples and Oranges. Not that I am going to defend US News rankings, but the whole point of the ARWU rankings and the methodology used is its focus on graduate research institutions. It truly isn't measuring all programs at university as a whole, but rather these six specific items -

the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, number of highly cited researchers selected by Thomson Scientific, number of articles published in journals of Nature and Science, number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index - Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and per capita performance with respect to the size of an institution.

If you assume published research in the hard sciences is the sum of a university, maybe, but a lot of schools, particularly in the liberal arts, are not so closely tied to a "number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index".

The US News ratings roughly correlate to admissions selectivity--if USF was accepting 30% of its applicants rather than 70%, ratings would improve. Right now, it doesn't.

(08-17-2010 07:52 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(08-17-2010 06:35 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Apples and Oranges. Not that I am going to defend US News rankings, but the whole point of the ARWU rankings and the methodology used is its focus on graduate research institutions. It truly isn't measuring all programs at university as a whole, but rather these six specific items -

the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, number of highly cited researchers selected by Thomson Scientific, number of articles published in journals of Nature and Science, number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index - Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and per capita performance with respect to the size of an institution.

If you assume published research in the hard sciences is the sum of a university, maybe, but a lot of schools, particularly in the liberal arts, are not so closely tied to a "number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index".

The US News ratings roughly correlate to admissions selectivity--if USF was accepting 30% of its applicants rather than 70%, ratings would improve. Right now, it doesn't.

My point was MUP in comparison with ARWU and other research oriented surveys, not in comparison with US News that is trying to measure something completely different.

I prefer the Princeton Review myself in that regard.

Cheers,
Neil

(08-17-2010 07:52 PM)DFW HOYA Wrote:  

(08-17-2010 06:35 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Apples and Oranges. Not that I am going to defend US News rankings, but the whole point of the ARWU rankings and the methodology used is its focus on graduate research institutions. It truly isn't measuring all programs at university as a whole, but rather these six specific items -

the number of alumni and staff winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals, number of highly cited researchers selected by Thomson Scientific, number of articles published in journals of Nature and Science, number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index - Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index, and per capita performance with respect to the size of an institution.

If you assume published research in the hard sciences is the sum of a university, maybe, but a lot of schools, particularly in the liberal arts, are not so closely tied to a "number of articles indexed in Science Citation Index".

The US News ratings roughly correlate to admissions selectivity--if USF was accepting 30% of its applicants rather than 70%, ratings would improve. Right now, it doesn't.

Actually according to their data USF's acceptance rate is 48% falling in the more selective category.

USF is working very hard to strengthen their undergraduate programs, for a long time we spent more time and money making our graduate programs and resarch programs stronger and thats why our rankings are better in those categories

(08-17-2010 08:00 PM)KnightChris Wrote:  LOL @ the expansion board. I just went on there and there were a couple threads from fans of different schools bragging, "we're Tier 2!" Clearly not realizing that this year's Tier 2 = last year's Tier 4.

We're Tier 1!

(08-17-2010 10:34 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(08-17-2010 08:00 PM)KnightChris Wrote:  LOL @ the expansion board. I just went on there and there were a couple threads from fans of different schools bragging, "we're Tier 2!" Clearly not realizing that this year's Tier 2 = last year's Tier 4.

We're Tier 1!

SO ARE WE!!

HIGH FIVE

woot!

(08-17-2010 10:57 AM)MichaelSavage Wrote:  Clemson has fine academics.

No they don't.

(08-18-2010 07:40 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(08-17-2010 10:34 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(08-17-2010 08:00 PM)KnightChris Wrote:  LOL @ the expansion board. I just went on there and there were a couple threads from fans of different schools bragging, "we're Tier 2!" Clearly not realizing that this year's Tier 2 = last year's Tier 4.

We're Tier 1!

SO ARE WE!!

HIGH FIVE

BOOYAAH!!!!