US News and World Report university rankings
US News and World Report released its updated National University rankings with Michigan making #29 on the list. Northwestern kicks off the B1G at #13 and the next school after UM being Illinois at a tie for 42, Wisconsin at 47 and Ohio State at a tie for 54. Link: http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities Additionally, another list for top Engineering schools was released with UM coming in with a tie at #7, the top B1G school being Illinois at 6.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:51 AM ^
The sky really is falling.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:55 AM ^
When we all need to show our support for the University.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:01 AM ^
Public schools are not allowed in the Top 25 ranking for as long as I can remember.
They have a separate "Top 25 Public Schools" list that keeps the plebes from making too much noise.
I always find Georgia Tech to be incredibly overrated. Not impressed by their grads at all.
In one of the world rankings, there are also some bizarre results, like UCLA and another UC school rated above Michigan academically. Sorry, no.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:22 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 2:01 PM ^
Then why is Cal #20 and UCLA and UVA tied for #23?
Also UCLA and Cal (assume that's the other UC school you're referringto) have consistently been ranked ahead of UofM in these things for quite some time.
September 10th, 2014 at 8:23 AM ^
Went to UM for undergrad and GT for grad, both in engineering. Have worked in industry with grads from Berkeley, Stanford, etc., and helped with recruiting trips. I can assure you that Georgia Tech is every bit the school as the others. Once your in the top 10-20, it's more about the student.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:55 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 10:54 AM ^
that USNWR uses many factors for their rankings. Academics is only a small portion of the ranking. Quality of life, tuition cost, setting and many other factors are included.
Higher Times is a more reputable ranking in terms of pure acedemics. Compare that to High Times ranking which I would think we rank very high as well but I have not data to support this.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:01 AM ^
The 2013-14 Times Higher Education ranking is world wide, and is not weighted for private universities. Here, the Big Ten fares better: Michigan is #18, Northwestern #22, Wisconsin #30. For those keeping score at home, Sparty comes is at #83.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2013-14…
September 9th, 2014 at 5:20 PM ^
I was Ok with this ranking until I saw MSU ranked above Notre Dame. Granted i have not attened either school but that seems....wrong.
September 9th, 2014 at 1:33 PM ^
not surprised that our high ranking is pretty steady with that magazine.
September 9th, 2014 at 2:53 PM ^
that our ranking with High Times is very....err.....High.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:54 AM ^
I had no idea Illinois' engineering school was anywhere close to UM's, let a lone considered better by some.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:59 AM ^
Their engineering has always been legit as well as their chemistry program. Most of the OLED technology in TV's and such was pioneered there. They're no slouch.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:02 AM ^
...who led the Structural Engineering team for the Burj Khalifa holds an MS from U Illinois:
September 9th, 2014 at 11:10 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 11:34 AM ^
They've always been good in engineering; the rest of the school is fine but it's clearly something they pride themselves on.
That said, #5 and #7 really isn't much of a difference.
September 9th, 2014 at 10:54 AM ^
Nothing new here: the USNWR rankings use an algorithm that is heavily weighted toward private schools. Public universities are always ranked low in this, the Wal-Mart of college rankings.
September 9th, 2014 at 12:38 PM ^
The only people that take the US News Rankings seriously are high school seniors and their parents
September 9th, 2014 at 12:41 PM ^
In 1996, Gerhard Casper, the president of Stanford, wrote to the then editor of USNWR, James Fallows, about the fallacy of their rankings. His words then still apply:
" I am extremely skeptical that the quality of a university - any more than the quality of a magazine - can be measured statistically. However, even if it can, the producers of the U.S. News rankings remain far from discovering the method. Let me offer as prima facie evidence two great public universities: the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley. These clearly are among the very best universities in America - one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years, the U.S. News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to infer that they are second rate: Michigan 21-24-24, and Berkeley 23-26-27.
Such movement itself - while perhaps good for generating attention and sales - corrodes the credibility of these rankings and your magazine itself. Universities change very slowly - in many ways more slowly than even I would like. Yet, the people behind the U.S. News rankings lead readers to believe either that university quality pops up and down like politicians in polls, or that last year's rankings were wrong but this year's are right (until, of course, next year's prove them wrong). What else is one to make of Harvard's being #1 one year and #3 the next, or Northwestern's leaping in a single bound from #13 to #9? And it is not just this year. Could Johns Hopkins be the 22nd best national university two years ago, the 10th best last year, and the 15th best this year? Which is correct, that Columbia is #9 (two years ago), #15 (last year) or #11 (this year)? "
September 9th, 2014 at 11:02 AM ^
Behind UC Berkeley, UCLA, and University of Virginia.
Regarding Illinois and engineering, Illinois has long had a top-notch engineering program.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^
...could possibly put UCLA above us?
I try to think of an academic discipline they're known for and I'm blank.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:08 AM ^
of that I am aware.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:11 AM ^
I always thought that USC had the best film school out there.
I also see that UCLA's claimed acceptance rate is 20.4% vs. 33.3% for Michigan. I feel like Michigan was a lot more selective in the past.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:38 AM ^
Michigan has actually gottens significantly more selective in the past few years as a result of the jump in application numbers from joining the common app. UCLA is a pretty great school and tons of people want to go there.
September 9th, 2014 at 12:16 PM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 4:55 PM ^
Every decent student in California applies. I believe UCLA has more applicants than any school in the country.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:16 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 11:13 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 12:07 PM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 12:56 PM ^
Same application, same essay, just $70 more to apply to another school. I wouldn't be surprised to see a UC-SB level student apply to UCLA for another $70 due to the ease of applying whereas they might not have if the application was seperate.
September 9th, 2014 at 6:32 PM ^
Cal and Berkeley are the same thing. The official title of the university located in Berkeley, CA is simply the "University of California," and it is formally the flagship school for the UC system. When asked where they go, the students variously mostly answer "Berkeley," occasionally "Cal," or "UC Berkeley;" to my knowledge no one ever says they "go to California" the way students say they "Go to Michigan."
/Michigan and Berkeley alum
September 9th, 2014 at 11:04 AM ^
the slide has been steady and consistent. . . Not to mention the only public school ranked higher was UVA. . .
September 9th, 2014 at 11:21 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^
If you look at how the rankings have evolved, it's clear that most of the "slide" is due to changes in the system that favor smaller, private schools with low acceptance rate versus, you know, actual quality of education and resources available. I'm not trying to crap on certian schools, but Tufts and Wake Forest aren't on the same level of UM overall. They are just small schools with selective admissions.
And for all the whining about public schools, they are all lumped together pretty closely.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:07 AM ^
I quit paying attention to the US News rankings a while ago because of their weighting factors. Many of these rankings use factors like selectivity, which (it's been alleged) some universities manipulate by encouraging applications from kids who stand little or no chance of getting in. Times Higher Education rankings has us #20 in the world overall, and I've seen us as high as #13 worldwide in other surveys.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:23 AM ^
September 9th, 2014 at 11:09 AM ^
...Michigan's acceptance rate balloon up to 33.3%?
That's insanely high versus the acceptance rates 20 years ago.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:18 AM ^
why that is, but the one that makes the most sense is that they increased their acceptance rate especially for out of state students as the state ran into financial difficulty and cut funding to the universities. There is no real evidence behind that claim, it's just what I heard.
September 9th, 2014 at 1:37 PM ^
They are trying to get more of a 60/40 in-state/out-of-state ratio now (as opposed to the traditional 70/30), but both groups have a harder time getting admitted than ever before.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:25 AM ^
Michigan has had high acceptance rates for some time. Although I can't prove it, I believe Michigan is a safe school for many kids who ultimately attend the Ivies.
Does anyone have any data for the number of OOS students? I thought I read not too long ago that about 45 percent of undergraduate attendees are from OOS.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:41 AM ^
If you asked anyone from the east coast during my orientation, the first thing out of their mouths was that they applied to Columbia or Dartmouth and were waitlisted/rejected. Of course, they were worst applicants than me; I just wasn't dumb enough to apply to a school I didn't have a reasonable chance of getting into.
September 9th, 2014 at 12:06 PM ^
Dartmouth and perhaps a few other Ivies have been flooding high schools with invitations to apply--even for students who have zero chance of getting in. By inducing unqualified students to apply, the school can lower its published acceptance rate i.e., by raising the denominator of applicants without raising the numerator of acceptees. That lower acceptance rate will then help them rate more highly in the highly publicized school rankings.
Pretty disgusting, eh?
September 9th, 2014 at 3:04 PM ^
Wouldn't surprise me. I know law schools have done that in the past both ways; they encourage people to apply to make them seem more selective and then hire any unemployed graduates to goose the USNWR numbers. Personally, as a new dad, I'm not looking forward to 2030 when my daughter starts hearing about these crap rankings and starts worrying about them.
September 10th, 2014 at 8:57 AM ^
A buddy of mine is a high school guidance counselor and he recently told me of a mother who came into the his office to berate him because he had not suggested she apply to the Ivy Leagues. She waved a letter from Harvard at him encouraging her daughter to apply with her impressive academic record. Thing is, she was a B+ student with nothing noteworthy in her non-academic bio. Harvard, and probably other schools, gives false hope to students and parents just to bump up their applications and make them look more selective in the rankings.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:37 AM ^
Hate to break this to you, but the 33% acceptance rate is lower than previous years--it has approached 50% in recent years. Since UM started using the Common Application the number of applications has dramatically risen, this last year to almost 50,000. Over 16,000 acceptance letters were sent out, and about 6200 or so actually will enroll and show up. There are many very qualified applicants who use Michigan as a "safe" school to the very top ranked schools (HYPSM).
September 9th, 2014 at 1:31 PM ^
...Michigan's acceptance rate balloon up to 33.3%? That's insanely high versus the acceptance rates 20 years ago.Actually it's exactly the reverse. Twenty years our acceptance rate was around 60%. It's been plummeting in recent years, especially after we went to the Common Application.
September 9th, 2014 at 11:24 AM ^
What are the specific metrics that prevent M from being in the top 15 or so? My guess is acceptance rate and endowment/spending per student. Has anyone here really dug into the USNWR formula?
September 9th, 2014 at 11:42 AM ^
All that, plus class size plays a role. It is tied to stuff like endowment and the like, but these rankings just tend to favor small schools with "selective" acceptance rates.
September 9th, 2014 at 1:35 PM ^
"Alumni Giving Rate" kills us (and pretty much all other public universities).