U.S. News Ranking Methodology - Very Honest Blog article

[Figaro]

There's so much emphasis on rankings of MSW programs (and many others) based on U.S. News and Princeton Review's Gourman rankings, but everyone needs to question just how meaningful these rankings are. Here's a blog article written by Richard Gelles, the Dean of Penn's School of Public Policy and Practice.... it is an eye opener and I really respect his honesty here.  The point is that you really can't go by these rankings alone to determine the "best" school.  Take them with a grain of salt and find "the best school for you."  I think we might do a better job by trying to speak with people who have the kinds of jobs we want and ask them about where they went to school and what they know.  I'm interested in the rankings, too, but I'm just not going to believe that they are completely accurate and dependable.

http://sp2admissionsblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/beyond-rankings-assessing-msw-programs.html

[pmelwani]

Thanks for sharing this! It was really insightful. I applied to a mix of programs that were top tier and not so top tier and am going to look at them more closely now based on the suggestions from this article.

[lola9900]

Here is another article on MSW admission rates and rankings:  http://sweduc.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/msw-and-phd-admission-rates/

[Lifesaver]

Reading those articles just raised my blood pressure a few points. Awesome

[Figaro]

^{I read some of the other stuff written by the writer of the one with the link supplied by Lola9900.  Although he's obviously a brilliant man, I'm personally not going to put a lot of weight on what he wrote for this one.  The data is now outdated, I am extremely skeptical of its accuracy (come on! since when does one of the only Ivies offering an MSW have a nearly 50% acceptance rate? that's bats) and some of the stuff he has written seems to reflect a pessimism and negativity toward the profession, I think, because he had some really bad experiences with professors while pursuing his doctorate. Just my opinion: he seems like a bitter, cynical fart to me with an axe to grind.  BTW - I was recently told at Pitt that they are expecting, this year, about a 30% acceptance rate if they get the banner year for submissions it is proving so far to be. About half the people at the recent information session hadn't even formally applied yet.  I'm not sure what they're waiting for - engraved invitations are not forthcoming.  So - you all can do what you want to do, but I weight Mr. Gelles' blog article greatly and will stop caring that much about rankings when it's obvious that the rankings are pretty much bogus.}

[lola9900]

Figaro,

If you read the article carefully, I believe that was the point of it: the article by Kirk et. al is pointing out the USNWR rankings don't work for the MSW field. 

 

While I do agree that the article takes a cynical view of MSW programs, I don't disagree with the authors' premise that academia has a lot vested in generating as much money as it can -- with state budgetary issues from California to Michigan to Rhode Island, many schools (from primary to higher education) are experiencing the squeeze.  The difference is that higher ed can pass the buck on to its students.  This is, perhaps, one of Kirks main points -- the MSW programs are money-makers.  Many (most?) don't provide funding (or at least most students don't receive funding), therefore students take out student loans, and programs like Columbia and USC, which I have heard can cost as much as $80k to get through, will be the beneficiary.  Does that mean that USC and Columbia don't have good programs.  Nope. Not at all. But, as it has been discussed through the years on this forum, the MSW program requirements are so regulated that most (all?) schools are required to provide essentially the same curriculum (and often the same field placements if within the same locale). 

 

So what does a graduate of Columbia or USC get that a graduate of Hunter or UCLA doesn't? Name recognition?  As has been discussed, this doesn't tend to buy you much in social work (according to those in practice) at the master's level.  At the PhD level, that is a different story.  (See the post "state school v. Ivy" (or something similar written by a professor of social work) for a further discussion of this).  Note some argue that it buys you something if you are Macro focused; others contradict this.

 

My intent in providing the link to the study is (hopefully) to help others avoid overpaying for their MSWs.  I have a law degree, so when I looked into getting my MSW, my first instinct was to get into an Ivy because they would have the best recruiters.  I still believe that is true for law school (I would advise anyone thinking about law school to only go if they could get into a top 10 program or if they could go for free (and really only if they could get into a top 10 program because law school is a lot of work)).  But after reading the posts here and elsewhere and talking to people I know in the field, I have come to the conclusion that it's what you make of your MSW program (e.g. field placements, networking, taking coursework outside of the social work area (policy classes for macro)), rather than the stature of the school that you are going to.  All that aside, I did think very carefully about where I wanted to attend (geographically) because that is where I plan to live after I graduate.  Thus, location and cost were the dominating factors for me (rather than prestige).  

 

Your point re: decrease in acceptance rates: With the increase in the number of applicants over the past few years, the acceptance rates may have decreased (assuming that the number of students per class size remains constant).  Because the last year for data points was 2004, e.g. pre-tanking economy, there are likely more students applying today than in 2004 (or prior), which would account for such a decrease. But as the study is actually a culmination of several years of data points (published in 2009, but using data over 15 years), it is likely that the ordering of the most selective to the least selective and those with the highest yield and those with the lowest yield remain fairly consistent.  Will there be certain schools that go up and down in these rankings?  Sure.  But I would guess that they don't change by leaps and bounds, unless there is some external environmental cause (e.g. programmatic changes, etc.)  For example, the study points out the BC and BU have the lowest yields (i.e. number of the students who actually matriculate), but the study accounts for this by pointing out the local competition.  BC, BU and Simmons are all in Boston.  Many students apply to 2 or 3 of these programs.  If they get accepted to 1, they will have to decline the other(s) (creating a lower yield for those other school(s)). 

 

As I have stated in other posts, one of the weaknesses of the study is the timing.  If you have a more recent study or evidence to the contrary, please post.  As I said, I am very much interested in attending a school that will give me the best shot at my dream job, so I welcome any literature that can point out which schools are likely to do so. That's why I am reading these boards.  But to dismiss the study out-of-hand I think is a mistake, particularly because it was a longitudinal study. But again, it doesn't take into account the biggest recession since the Great Depression...so.....it is not without flaws.

 

PS:  As for the credibility of the authors of the study -- the data that they used was published by the Council on Social Work Education.

 

PPS:  You don't have to agree with the stats, you don't have to read them, and you don't have to act upon them.  I just include the article, so that others swayed by the USNWR rankings might think more critically about them.  I also hope that it might help some make a more financially sound decision when selecting their MSW programs.  But if you want to "go fancy" -- have at it

[Figaro]

Lola – I will reiterate that I agree with you about the U.S. News rankings issue.  The blog of Mr. Gelles is about making the point that the U.S. News rankings should not be given so much consideration.  I am in no way pushing "fancy," although neither do I think that fancy should disqualify a school either. The blog of Mr. Gelles was useful to me and I posted it to help others.  That’s all.  Because the article you posted is based on an analysis of data collected from 1990 to 2004, it’s just too old to be entirely meaningful to me for making such an important decision.  I read the blog article from this same guy (talking about the writer of the article you posted) and I urge you to read it.  It’s called “A Debate With a Social Work Professor.” Then, tell me if someone who publishes correspondence like that is somebody you want listen to for advice.  Not me.  Once I began reading other things he wrote, I quickly determined that I prefer look to others for advice. I like my information analyzer un-poisoned by bitterness and vengeance.

I’m not sure if I’m going “fancy” yet or not. Right now, I am studying data from the schools that have admitted me so far and looking for answers to questions.  However, I’m not ruling out “fancy.” I’m wildly enthusiastic about fancy if it serves my career goals.  My not-as-fancy school choice is also fantastic in my estimation, so I couldn’t be happier right now unless somebody offers me a lot of grant money and a new car for a bonus.  If my fancy school (I’m getting to like that word a lot; it get's me all fluttery inside) is possible financially, I would be a moron not to seriously consider going there.  No matter how much some of us might wish otherwise, the names of the Ivies can open doors. When the job market is competitive, that’s important.  An Ivy degree might help me in my area of interest with job competitiveness. That’s something I’m still sorting out because I really don’t know yet. If the two federal programs are used (the loan forgiveness program and the one that adjusts loan payments to income), with a huge portion of a large loan forgiven in ten years, then the amount of debt might not be as important for the purpose of making this decision.  Therefore, the cost of the program may not have to be the highest criteria. It makes me sad to see so many people rule out excellent schools when maybe they don’t have to.  I’m not throwing in the towel on a program unless and until I am sure I can’t afford it or decide that it isn’t the right place for me anyway.  This is a struggle for many of us with all the information available, especially when so much is contradictory.  

Good luck with your decisions and career. 

[lola9900]

Figaro,

Have you read the study?  You seem focused on the blog and one of this guy's rants.  I think if you read the study (which was published in a peer refereed journal), you might come away with a different perspective....or not.  I am certainly not the fancy police.  You seem intent on your current course.  I wish you the  best of luck

 

PS:  The word "fancy" was taken from the post "A professors insight: .... state v. ivy...." (or something akin to that), which I believe I mentioned in my earlier post. 

 

I would strongly urge others on this sight to read the professors post, if you haven't already.  It provides information from someone who has been the in the field quite some time, as well as insight from upper-class MSWers and soon-to-be PhD students.  The consensus seems to be that it doesn't much matter where you go for your MSW; go to the most affordable school.  There were some posts that argued that while it doesn't matter, generally, it does matter (at least somewhat) if you are focused on macro or international social work. 

[Figaro]

Figaro,

Have you read the study?  You seem focused on the blog and one of this guy's rants.  I think if you read the study (which was published in a peer refereed journal), you might come away with a different perspective....or not.  I am certainly not the fancy police.  You seem intent on your current course.  I wish you the  best of luck

 

Lola -  I'll try one more time to say that I agree with you about the rankings. That's what Mr. Gelles' blog article is about in the first place. I'm not sure if you read it.  He isn't urging people to go to expensive schools.  Your cited blog article is based on a study where the data for it was collected between 10 and 24 years ago, published by an outfit I never heard of and analyzed by a person with an axe to grind and maybe some other things going on that I can only wonder about.  So, no. I it isn't changing my perspective. It's just too old, Lola.  It's not useful in 2014. They started collecting the data several years before I was even born. A lot has changed since then.  We can't trust U.S. News, so I'm not going to blindly accept this, especially when I can see with my own eyes just how outdated and wrong it is.  If you find it useful, that's great. You can base your career decisions on it.

 

I am looking at the federal government's projections for jobs and finding answers to the questions Mr. Gelles advises about the schools on my list.  My "current course" is to choose a university out of the ones that accept me and go there to earn my MSW, so yes, I am intent upon it. My professors at my present school helped guide me in this decision.  Some areas of social work pay less than others and that should be a consideration for anyone when they choose their program. I am not entering one of the lower salaried specialty areas.  I am exploring the various federal programs and discussing it a lot with people I trust.  That's just me.  Whatever others choose to do is up to them. It's no skin off my nose if you or anyone else wants to be dissuaded from cherished academic plans (or a favorite university) by a really old journal article and a bitter old guy's analysis of it. You mentioned that you're a lawyer.  As a successful lawyer who is now going back to school get an MSW (??), you must be very busy and so am I.  I have this semester to finish before I begin grad school.  Thanks for your good wishes. Good luck to you as well, and to everyone else here.