New U.S. News Rankings

[cdm601]

I am of the opinion that people should not pay too much attention to graduate school rankings but U.S. News did give a "sneak peek" at the top 10 education schools today. The magazine, in its wisdom, also posted the schools in what is probably the ranked order (they certainly are not in the alphabetical order U.S. News said it was posting them in): http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/2013/03/06/2014-best-graduate-schools-preview-top-10-education-schools

[m26]

The ed school rankings are even more useless than their other rankings. But yeah, let's see who's #1 (I'm saying SUSE, although that may be too logical. Maybe Texas, in an upset.)

[Lilac13]

I always wonder how trustworthy their rankings are. I just have so many questions....Who do they survey? What is their sample size? Is the sample representative? What types of questions are they asking survey respondents? Anyone have any insight as to how they come up with these ratings?

Edited March 6, 2013 by EW33

[roygbiv9460]

My thought on those rankings is that they want to sell magazines and get people to visit their website and potentially subscribe, so they try to create "intrigue" and would want to change rankings year to year.  Take it with a grain of salt, I guess.  

 

But I do know that alumni participation, i.e. monetary gifts, reunions, university "clubs" etc etc is a big part of the rankings.  

[cdm601]

They definitely have some issues with their methodology but some of the data can be useful (I don't pay to have full access to it though):

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/2012/03/12/methodology-graduate-education-program-rankings-methodology

[RandiZ]

How could Johns Hopkins be in the top 10 if 2013 is the first year they are accepting PhD candidates and their application deadline is April 1st, which means they could not have all of the stats on all the applicants?

 

Certainly I look at the US News rankings as one piece of information albeit a small piece of the puzzle.

[PhDHigherED]

The survey portion of the rankings is sent to academic administrators and asks them to rank institutions by their perception of quality. Working in a Provost's office, I have seen the survey for undergraduate institutions come through the office. They also use several empirical measures alongside the peer survey results, such as funding, GRE scores, and acceptance rates. But, yes, this is a pretty thin way to rank programs. The speciality rankings (e.g. higher education, etc.) are even less reliable, in my opinion. At least in education, they are based entirely on the peer survey results. It's been a year or two since I have really investigated the methods, but this is what I recall. It may have changed since, though.

[m26]

How could Johns Hopkins be in the top 10 if 2013 is the first year they are accepting PhD candidates and their application deadline is April 1st, which means they could not have all of the stats on all the applicants?

 

Maybe it included EdD's? It was ranked last year. (Top 10 too)

Edited March 7, 2013 by m26

[FreedomInEducation]

The magazine, in its wisdom, also posted the schools in what is probably the ranked order (they certainly are not in the alphabetical order U.S. News said it was posting them in): http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/2013/03/06/2014-best-graduate-schools-preview-top-10-education-schools

 

Bingo.

[Mexipino]

Pretty old article, but very relevent today. Personally I wouldn't play too much attention to the U.S. News Rankings.

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0009.thompson.html

[wildviolet]

I have a question about Johns Hopkins, too (even though it's my alma mater, I didn't study education for my BA).

 

All of the other schools in the Top 20 seem legit to me. Personally, I would put more emphasis on the specialty rankings (in which my institution ranks very highly for my field within education) and even more on the reputation and scholarship of my advisor.

Edited March 12, 2013 by wildviolet

[edpsych2013]

Personally, I would put more emphasis on the specialty rankings (in which my institution ranks very highly for my field within education) and even more on the reputation and scholarship of my advisor.

 

Agreed. I also wonder why some schools, like Madison and Michigan, are ranked so high on almost all of the specialty rankings but are relatively lower on the overall rankings.

[PhDHigherED]

Agreed. I also wonder why some schools, like Madison and Michigan, are ranked so high on almost all of the specialty rankings but are relatively lower on the overall rankings.

 

You can find the ranking methodology here: http://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/2013/03/11/methodology-best-education-schools-rankings

 

I tend to think the specialty rankings are less reliable because they are derived completely from the peer assessment survey which asks education school deans to rank institutions according to their perceived quality. These perceptions may reflect reality, but I think you can find cases where that is not the case. For example, Penn State is ranked #4 in my field (higher education). There are historical reasons why they are perceived so highly, but I think it would be hard to make a case that their current program is superior to HGSE, Stanford, UPenn, and Vanderbilt (among others).

 

The overall education school rankings do include some empirical measures, but still rely heavily on the peer assessment surveys. I think it's helpful to take all the rankings with a grain of salt and look for a program that is truly the best fit for your interests. But, clearly, prestige matters a great deal and the ranking can be a helpful indicator. You might just have to dig a bit to find out how close the rankings match reality.

[RandiZ]

Pretty old article, but very relevent today. Personally I wouldn't play too much attention to the U.S. News Rankings.

 

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0009.thompson.html

Thanks for this.

[ZeChocMoose]

I tend to think the specialty rankings are less reliable because they are derived completely from the peer assessment survey which asks education school deans to rank institutions according to their perceived quality. These perceptions may reflect reality, but I think you can find cases where that is not the case. For example, Penn State is ranked #4 in my field (higher education). There are historical reasons why they are perceived so highly, but I think it would be hard to make a case that their current program is superior to HGSE, Stanford, UPenn, and Vanderbilt (among others).

 

I think specialty rankings tend to be more useful than overall school rankings because people within a field tend to be more familiar with them.  I would compare them over time to see how a program is fairing though.  For the Penn State example, you'll see that they have been dropping in the ranking over the last couple of years which might be a signal to explore further.  You'll discover that there has been a turnover in their faculty which might explain some of the drop in the rankings.

 

That being said, I wouldn't interpret the program that is ranked #6 is "better" than the program that is ranked #10. That is how U.S. News wants you to interpret them but there is not enough evidence (I think) to do so. I do think the specialty rankings are generally accurate at least in higher ed of what are the decent programs in the field.  

 

 

Agreed. I also wonder why some schools, like Madison and Michigan, are ranked so high on almost all of the specialty rankings but are relatively lower on the overall rankings.

 

U.S. News ranking methodologies tend to favor private schools over public ones so that is probably some of what is going on.  There was a great article in the Chronicle about this although it did focus on the undergraduate level and not the graduate level.

[michigan girl]

I agree with ZeChocMoose that the specialty rankings in education are more important than the overall rankings. In higher education administration, there are public universities (Michigan, UCLA, Indiana, etc.) with stronger higher education graduate programs than Harvard and Vanderbilt. At the doctoral level, it would make sense to apply to programs that are ranked high in certain subfields and have prominent professors who teach in those subfields.

[nerdvana]

That being said, I wouldn't interpret the program that is ranked #6 is "better" than the program that is ranked #10. That is how U.S. News wants you to interpret them but there is not enough evidence (I think) to do so. I do think the specialty rankings are generally accurate at least in higher ed of what are the decent programs in the field.

 

I agree with this statement - like all rankings, it's a quick and dirty way to get a sense of where the good programs likely are and to provide a platform for further research. Looking at programs in depth will give prospective students a sense of who the faculty are, the faculty at other universities with whom they're working (snowballing to identify even more programs of interest), and what kind of research is going on.

Edited March 13, 2013 by nerdvana

[wildviolet]

I agree with ZeChocMoose because my particular College of Education is huge! We have five different departments and many programs. My particular department is very strong, but the overall ranking of the college is lower, probably due to the rankings of the other departments. Another important factor is job placement. Where are recent graduates able to secure a position? Another thing to follow is trends. Even within my department, we are hiring faculty for my specific discipline, which broadens opportunities for research and teaching. So in the past five years, the number of faculty in my discipline has grown, which provides me with flexibility should my research interests change.

 

Also, while some may say that rankings don't matter, the College boasts about them and uses them to attract students.