Contradictory Rankings

[Charlie_chemist23]

USNEWS ranked global chemistry programs.  The US institutions within the global ranking are in a different order than in the USNEWS US chemistry rankings.  The methodology for the global rankings is largely statistical (publications, citations, etc.).  The methodology for the US ranking is purely reputation based on survey results.  It is sort of interesting to see how they compare.  Here are some of the discrepancies:

 

School:US rankings:Global ranking (only US schools included)

Northwestern:7th:3rd

UCLA:15th:5th

CalTech:1st:10th

Minnesota:24th:14th

Scripps:7th:not ranked(unless I missed it)

 

 

http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-science-schools/chemistry-rankings

http://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/chemistry?int=994b08

 

Any thoughts on which system more accurately ranks the schools?  My initial reaction is that the statistical method is better, but when it comes to the value of your degree, the reputation may be more important.

 

 

P.S.  I know these rankings aren't really important, but they are somewhat fun and interesting.

 

 

[ghostar]

Who cares?

[Eigen]

No ranking done by USNWR is really worth anything in regards to grad school.

Rankings as a whole are a horrible way to judge, and NEC rankings are the only ones I'd consider remotely sound.

[Charlie_chemist23]

Who cares?

 

I thought that it was mildly interesting that the same company ranked the same thing and got completely different results.

 

 

No ranking done by USNWR is really worth anything in regards to grad school.

Rankings as a whole are a horrible way to judge, and NEC rankings are the only ones I'd consider remotely sound.

 

As I indicated in my first post, I agree that rankings are pretty much useless and a horrible way to judge grad schools, but I think it would be naive to also think that they don't have a considerable impact on prospective students.  Why do you consider NEC rankings better than the rest?

[biochemistry professor]

Rankings can be useful, but you need to take them with a big grain of salt. Apply a +/-15 to them. Schools love to talk about how useless rankings are but brag that they are ranked highly.

 

One of the most important reasons why schools care about rankings is that the rankings help attract students. At a higher ranked program, your peers will generally be stronger. You will learn more from them, and they will form the core of your future professional network.

 

Prestige and reputation can be important if you move into a career outside your graduate training. Many graduates will not continue in chemistry or science. For example, if you move on to a career in patent law, it will be generally more helpful to have attended a big name school than a less recognized school with a strong program in subdiscipline X.

 

If you intend to make your career in a certain location, it can be more beneficial to attend the state flagship than a higher ranked school far away.