We're #8. No wait, now we're #7!

[weezie]

But first in the hearts of our Blue Devils. Tied with penn:

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

[swood1000]

It's good that the US News listing is regarded as having the most credibility. According NPR (http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/09/13/493144907/new-college-rankings-are-out-npr-ed-rates-the-rankings%3C/a), US News gives too much weight to selectivity and reputation. Washington Monthly (http://washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide) has Duke at #11, Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/list/#tab:rank) at #26, and CNN Money (http://money.cnn.com/gallery/real_estate/2013/09/12/highest-paid-graduates/) not in the top 16 (unlike the State University of New York Maritime College).

[luvdahops]

It's good that the US News listing is regarded as having the most credibility. According NPR (http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/09/13/493144907/new-college-rankings-are-out-npr-ed-rates-the-rankings%3C/a), US News gives too much weight to selectivity and reputation. Washington Monthly (http://washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide) has Duke at #11, Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/list/#tab:rank) at #26, and CNN Money (http://money.cnn.com/gallery/real_estate/2013/09/12/highest-paid-graduates/) not in the top 16 (unlike the State University of New York Maritime College).

The Forbes list is absurdly biased toward private schools in the Northeast

[weezie]

...]CNN Money not in the top 16 (unlike the State University of New York Maritime College).

Bet that's a sweet t-shirt though, I'll give it to them there.

And Washington Monthly???!!! :D :D :D That's hilarious.

[dudog84]

On the msn.com front page, the lead to the link "The top20 national universities" has a pic of Duke students. Not sure if this is rotated and I got lucky. Or the internet knows everything and therefore as a Duke grad I got that pic.

[ipatent]

It's always nice to see Duke get the recognition, but there's a lot of overlap between the percentile median 25%-75% ranges of the top 20 or so private schools, and most state universities have a core group of students that would measure up to that range as well. I liked going to a school that had major sports, mild winters, a nice forest with running trails nearby instead of tenements like Penn, Yale or Columbia and a short drive to beaches with palmettos and warm water.

[burnspbesq]

There will be consternation in Westwood.

[-jk]

There will be consternation in Westwood.

Indeed. UCLA kids think USC is a safety school!

Oops...

-jk

[ipatent]

They moved Villanova from the regional university grouping into the national universities.... should we take them more seriously as a fixture in the top 10 now?

[johnb]

Americans love these rankings, and they play a big role in recruitment and fund raising. It feels good to get a good ranking, and--especially when my "team" gets well regarded--rankings mean something. I just don't know what, exactly.

I can tell you that administrators care more about these rankings than we do, and they definitely tweak admissions decisions to game the system, which is understandable but sad. Why should US News decide admissions policy for dozens of universities? We can try to remain above the fray, but that's just a dumb decision.

While I do worry that the tail wags the dog, and it seems more accurate to put schools into clusters rather than a list, but Duke has been the beneficiary of these rankings. Being consistently and publicly ranked in the top 10 has transformed the school into a nationally elite place. Obviously, we still have to back it up via a million different activities, but the activities alone are quiet compared to the supposedly definitive rankings. I also wonder whether we gain a bit by being southern. These lists are dominated by the northeastern schools, and it probably makes sense to include done geographic diversity. The gods made us the southern reps in the elite club, which allows us to ride the wave, but it could have easily been Vandy, Tulane, or Emory. Not sure historically why we bumped up, and they remain excellent but regional universities...

[ipatent]

I can tell you that administrators care more about these rankings than we do, and they definitely tweak admissions decisions to game the system, which is understandable but sad.

Ratings affect the interest rates at which a college can borrow money...perhaps not much of a factor for the ones that have been near the top for a while, but for most schools it is important when they want to construct that new dorm or chemistry lab.


The gods made us the southern reps in the elite club, which allows us to ride the wave, but it could have easily been Vandy, Tulane, or Emory. Not sure historically why we bumped up, and they remain excellent but regional universities...

There was an article in Parade magazine in the late '60s that galvanized Duke's rise. The U.S. News rankings came later. The national press has not been unfriendly to Duke in the last fifty years, and it is certainly possible that senior policymakers thought it desirable to foster the growth of a few elite academic centers outside the Northeast. Stanford has gone through a similar transformation in the West.

[sagegrouse]

Americans love these rankings, and they play a big role in recruitment and fund raising. It feels good to get a good ranking, and--especially when my "team" gets well regarded--rankings mean something. I just don't know what, exactly.

I can tell you that administrators care more about these rankings than we do, and they definitely tweak admissions decisions to game the system, which is understandable but sad. Why should US News decide admissions policy for dozens of universities? We can try to remain above the fray, but that's just a dumb decision.

While I do worry that the tail wags the dog, and it seems more accurate to put schools into clusters rather than a list, but Duke has been the beneficiary of these rankings. Being consistently and publicly ranked in the top 10 has transformed the school into a nationally elite place. Obviously, we still have to back it up via a million different activities, but the activities alone are quiet compared to the supposedly definitive rankings. I also wonder whether we gain a bit by being southern. These lists are dominated by the northeastern schools, and it probably makes sense to include done geographic diversity. The gods made us the southern reps in the elite club, which allows us to ride the wave, but it could have easily been Vandy, Tulane, or Emory. Not sure historically why we bumped up, and they remain excellent but regional universities...

The objective is to increase the acceptance and enrollment rates without denying admission to highly qualified applicants who are likely to enroll. "Acceptance rate" and "enrolment rate" are two metrics used in ranking schools. and they can be gamed! One way this occurs is in rejecting applicants who the school deems as unlikely to enroll. Maybe those schools with less of a financial aid program would turn down a qualified applicant who can't afford to come. Maybe it involves rejecting an applicant, for example, at the very top of the pool but with two parents and several other relatives who attended Duke (or Stanford, etc.). The judgment would be -- this kid isn't coming -- and the acceptance decision would be affected. I don't know whether the schools use formal prediction models or just throw applicants into bins. It seems irksome to me, but probably is harmless.

Duke doesn't appear to do it very much. When we took our grandson to UVa, however, the admissions counselor really said, "Don't put in your application that your first choice is Duke." Duke said it doesn't matter who your first choice is. Of course, Duke's schtick is to rely heavily on "early decision." That way, one half the entering class is 100 percent sure (almost) to accept Duke's offer of enrollment. The enrollment rate for those who decide in April is much lower. (The young lad was happy to stay home and attend the U. of Denver.)

[chris13]

It's always nice to see Duke get the recognition, but there's a lot of overlap between the percentile median 25%-75% ranges of the top 20 or so private schools, and most state universities have a core group of students that would measure up to that range as well. I liked going to a school that had major sports, mild winters, a nice forest with running trails nearby instead of tenements like Penn, Yale or Columbia and a short drive to beaches with palmettos and warm water.

I'm far removed from the age range for college, but when I look at this list, if I could go to any of the top 6, I'd pick Stanford. It's not clear to me why it's not number 1. When you factor in weather, location, and proximity and relationships to Silicon Valley, I can't imagine turning them down for any of the 5 above them. Not that I ever had to worry about that. Their campus is as beautiful as any campus I've ever seen, and it's way nicer in January and February than any in the Top 10 except maybe Duke.

[DavidBenAkiva]

I have a love/hate relationship with these rankings. I love to see Duke listed so high, but I hate so much about these lists. What accounts for the variability in rankings by the same institution from year to year? For example, Duke was ranked 5th in 2006, then down to 10th in 2012, and up to 8th in 2013 (Source (http://theairspace.net/commentary/u-s-news-best-college-rankings-1983-2013/)). What accounts for this? Well, U.S. News knows that it needs to shake things up every year, so they adjust their methodology to ensure that some new top 10 schools appear on the list. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "news."

Another fun thing US News does, at least for its hospital rankings and I assume its college and high school rankings, is sell its seal or rating stickers for marketing purposes. In fact, this is an entire line of business for US News and World Report. Each year, they come out with a new ranking, "America's 50 Best Hospitals!" and sell the magazines as well as the seals to the hospitals they rank. It's not for the purposes of actually assessing the quality of the organization so much as it is to provide a source of revenue.

[sagegrouse]

I'm far removed from the age range for college, but when I look at this list, if I could go to any of the top 6, I'd pick Stanford. It's not clear to me why it's not number 1. When you factor in weather, location, and proximity and relationships to Silicon Valley, I can't imagine turning them down for any of the 5 above them. Not that I ever had to worry about that. Their campus is as beautiful as any campus I've ever seen, and it's way nicer in January and February than any in the Top 10 except maybe Duke.

78 percent of those accepted at Stanford actually enroll. It is slightly below Harvard (81 percent) and even with -- wait for it -- Brigham Young.

Duke was at 48 percent. Doing higher math, if one-half the class is "early admission" and, therefore, have an acceptance rate of 100 percent, then the acceptance rate for the other one-half of the class is about 24 percent. Differences here can also reflect gaming on the part of the admitting schools, as discussed above.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I have a love/hate relationship with these rankings. I love to see Duke listed so high, but I hate so much about these lists. What accounts for the variability in rankings by the same institution from year to year? For example, Duke was ranked 5th in 2006, then down to 10th in 2012, and up to 8th in 2013 (Source (http://theairspace.net/commentary/u-s-news-best-college-rankings-1983-2013/)). What accounts for this? Well, U.S. News knows that it needs to shake things up every year, so they adjust their methodology to ensure that some new top 10 schools appear on the list. Otherwise, it wouldn't be "news."

Another fun thing US News does, at least for its hospital rankings and I assume its college and high school rankings, is sell its seal or rating stickers for marketing purposes. In fact, this is an entire line of business for US News and World Report. Each year, they come out with a new ranking, "America's 50 Best Hospitals!" and sell the magazines as well as the seals to the hospitals they rank. It's not for the purposes of actually assessing the quality of the organization so much as it is to provide a source of revenue.

You are correct - rankings that don't change don't sell rankings. There are a lot of ways to game the system, and some schools invest heavily in it - I believe Northeastern has spent a lot of time and money trying to ascend the rankings. In general I think the groupings are somewhat meaningful, but the specifics aren't - going from 14 to 12 means nothing, but in general, #2 is a lot more competitive than #202. There is no way to calculate this, but I always thought that the true basis of a ranking is putting two schools head to head and seeing which has more students that turned down acceptance at the other, i.e. there are a lot more students at Yale that turned down Duke than vice versa. Educated consumers don't place a lot of value in these rankings, but many people do - in particular, a lot of schools are making big pushes to attract foreign students and this is an easy way for them to judge the merits of schools they are not familiar with.

The thing I find most ironic is that US News and World Report the magazine has been dead (at least the print version) for several years, yet this ranking business is keeping the company alive.

[blu62]

But first in the hearts of our Blue Devils. Tied with penn:

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

Duke also has the highest cost, weighted for locality of any of those listed.

[budwom]

Recently the latest College Factual rankings came out, which they say assess the four year quality of undergraduate programs.
Duke was #4 on this list behind Yale, Harvard and Penn.

[Steven43]

78 percent of those accepted at Stanford actually enroll. It is slightly below Harvard (81 percent) and even with -- wait for it -- Brigham Young.

Duke was at 48 percent. Doing higher math, if one-half the class is "early admission" and, therefore, have an acceptance rate of 100 percent, then the acceptance rate for the other one-half of the class is about 24 percent. Differences here can also reflect gaming on the part of the admitting schools, as discussed above.

You're saying the enrollment rate for non-early admission Duke acceptees is only 24%? Interesting, as I would have expected it to be higher than that.

[ipatent]

Those of us who are honest will remember that the graffiti bridge, juvenile pranks, alcohol-laden parties and watching your step when entering the bathroom on Saturday and Sunday morning were integral parts of the Duke experience in the late 70s and early 80s. Not many 18 year olds, no matter the test scores, are fully ready to take advantage of the resources of a top 20 type school on those lists. Despite that, there's something to be said for the social environment at a school where at any given moment someone could voice an idea or opinion that wouldn't have occurred to you. I liked having friends who were smarter than I was.

[Steven43]

Duke also has the highest cost, weighted for locality of any of those listed.

How did you determine numbers for 'weighted for locality'?

[CrazyNotCrazie]

78 percent of those accepted at Stanford actually enroll. It is slightly below Harvard (81 percent) and even with -- wait for it -- Brigham Young.

Duke was at 48 percent. Doing higher math, if one-half the class is "early admission" and, therefore, have an acceptance rate of 100 percent, then the acceptance rate for the other one-half of the class is about 24 percent. Differences here can also reflect gaming on the part of the admitting schools, as discussed above.

The number of applicants under early decision and regular are different so the numbers don't quite work out - it is a much smaller pool for early decision. See the attached link for class of 2019 (couldn't find anything easily for 2020). It looks like 35% of students accepted regular decision enrolled. 18 students accepted early decision didn't enroll - I assume this was due to insufficient financial aid. I assume students who delay enrollment for a gap year are counted as enrolled.

http://admissions.duke.edu/images/uploads/process/DukeClass2019Profile.pdf

[ChillinDuke]

I have attended both Duke and Vanderbilt. Duke for undergrad, Vandy for grad but with a heavy concentration of Vandy undergrads. I can tell you firsthand that the caliber of mind was vastly superior at Duke. Vastly.

In fact, I have never since experienced, to this day, the type of in depth, thought-provoking, well-reasoned, intellectual conversations as I did when I was at Duke.

Except for when I'm spending time with my Duke friends.

The rankings are all fine and good. But I don't need them to tell me what I experienced firsthand.

- Chillin

[jaytoc]

I too was at Vanderbilt following Duke, and also was exposed to many undergrads at the time. Like Chillin', I was struck by what I deemed a significant intellectual gulf between Duke and Vandy students. On the other hand, that was forty plus years ago. I believe today that there is little if any distinction in selectivity at the two schools (during a campus visit with one of my children two years ago, we were struck by the average scores, grades, and acceptance ratios of the most recent incoming class), and even noticed a few weeks ago from some internet clickbait story that Vanderbilt is even more highly thought of than Duke in some circles. Obviously not by USNWR and most of us. I conclude that Vanderbilt's great leap forward occurred more recently than Duke's, and that both schools are near the top. Nice to have two such educational credentials, to be sure, although at my age it really doesn't matter all that much.

[ipatent]

Interesting to see how the rankings have evolved since the early '80s, which must have been when U.S. News started them.
Link (http://web.archive.org/web/20070905010206/chronicle.com/stats/usnews/index.php?category=Universities&orgs=&sort=1983)
Duke's rise as an elite school was during the late '60s and the '70s when Terry Sanford was the president, and its position has been pretty consistent since the rankings began. Nan Keohane presided over a huge expansion of the physical facilities, helped in large part by the positive press and the rankings.

I think the rankings are useful in general terms, but as a previous post pointed out, magazines wouldn't sell if they didn't change things up from year to year. It seems they do this by changing the weighting of statistics like average SATs, admission rates, percent admitted who enroll, retention rates, etc. that don't change very much from year to year. The trend data may be more informative than any given year for that reason, but there are still problems with taking them as an article of faith if you are evaluating the best place for your child. The service academies typically don't appear in the rankings. There are differences between schools that are hard to capture using statistics, such as comparing a technical school like Cal Tech or MIT to liberal arts schools, and elite private schools like Princeton and Brown that don't have law, business and medical schools to similar top private schools like Duke or Penn that are much more complete at the graduate and post graduate level. The U.S. News rankings also don't place much emphasis on research. If they did it would hurt undergrad dominated institutions like Dartmouth or Princeton and significantly boost some of the flagship state universities like Michigan and Wisconsin.

[ChillinDuke]

I too was at Vanderbilt following Duke, and also was exposed to many undergrads at the time. Like Chillin', I was struck by what I deemed a significant intellectual gulf between Duke and Vandy students. On the other hand, that was forty plus years ago. I believe today that there is little if any distinction in selectivity at the two schools (during a campus visit with one of my children two years ago, we were struck by the average scores, grades, and acceptance ratios of the most recent incoming class), and even noticed a few weeks ago from some internet clickbait story that Vanderbilt is even more highly thought of than Duke in some circles. Obviously not by USNWR and most of us. I conclude that Vanderbilt's great leap forward occurred more recently than Duke's, and that both schools are near the top. Nice to have two such educational credentials, to be sure, although at my age it really doesn't matter all that much.

My experience with Vanderbilt was ~5 years ago.

- Chillin

[mgtr]

I'm far removed from the age range for college, but when I look at this list, if I could go to any of the top 6, I'd pick Stanford. It's not clear to me why it's not number 1. When you factor in weather, location, and proximity and relationships to Silicon Valley, I can't imagine turning them down for any of the 5 above them. Not that I ever had to worry about that. Their campus is as beautiful as any campus I've ever seen, and it's way nicer in January and February than any in the Top 10 except maybe Duke.

As a Stanford alum, I agree with the plus factors. In addition, I liked the fact that the school was far away from my Midwestern home (this would not apply to everyone, of course), and that the campus was isolated from the town (this could be a minus for many). At the time of my decision, (many, many years ago). I knew that Stanford was considered a good school, but had no idea about rankings. Here is a good laugh: When I graduated, I turned down an offer to attend Stanford Business School, because I wanted to get a PhD in economics (Stanford would not accept their own, fearing inbreeding), and would have to go elsewhere for that. How many zillionaires are there today with an MBA from Stanford? I am happy with my choice, but I am certainly not a zillionaire!

[hurleyfor3]

Recently the latest College Factual rankings came out, which they say assess the four year quality of undergraduate programs.
Duke was #4 on this list behind Yale, Harvard and Penn.

Stick it, Princeton!

Although one sister did go to Penn, and being tied with her is annoying enough.

[ipatent]

I was told in a sociology of education course in the '80s that Harvard stood alone among U.S. universities because it had the financial resources to support a separate teaching faculty that wasn't distracted by research duties and publication pressure. That not even Yale, its closest rival, was close to being equal in that regard. That's what I was told, not sure if it was correct.

The dominance of the top schools is self-perpetuating to some extent because successful alumni contribute to the endowment and their achievements affirm the school's reputation. Stanford was well-situated to catch up with Harvard because it was the only elite private school west of the Mississippi (with all due respect to Rice and Washington U.) and the success of Silicon Valley, which no doubt developed at least in part because Stanford was there. Duke is probably on the short list of the other top schools that could close the gap with Harvard in the decades to come because of its regional dominance, its full complement of ranked professional schools and its proximity to RTP (which never quite became a Silicon Valley) and the other Triangle schools. Yale will always be near the top, but it is probably forever coupled with Harvard in the minds of the public as the second name to come to mind. Princeton, Dartmouth and Brown have top quality student bodies, but not the professional schools (aside from Dartmouth's business school) and research facilities. Penn and Columbia are hemmed in by big cities. Cornell has room to expand, but something fundamental would have to change for the top students in the New York area to regularly pick it over Harvard or Yale like a California kid might Stanford. I don't think Duke is at the point yet where a majority of Southern kids would go there over Harvard or Yale if given a choice, but it probably already outdraws some of the other Ivy schools from students in its region.

[johnb]

I went looking, but I couldn't find a magazine article from the last decade that declared that the winner take all mentality would persist, and that only a handful of major private research universities would come out on top. The author focused on Harvard, Yale, Stanford, of course, and probably Princeton and Penn. but I don't remember. I think Cornell was included, partly because of its medical school in NYC, which is even more likely with Cornell's new NYC tech campus, which is going to look fairly awesome. He then included Columbia and NYU because they were also in New York and poised to be really rich(I'm assuming the journalist lived in New York and that he assumes NYC isn't melted by a terrorist attack). With all of that (and maybe Chicago thrown in as well), Duke would be the representative of the rest of the country. I don't recall why we were included, but--working backward--I probably thought his/her reasoning completely reasonable until I decided he was a snob (and I wanted to distance myself from my own temptation toward snobbery).

That isn't to say that other universities wouldn't have students, but their faculty would be expected to do less research. Vanderbilt would--to his reasoning--be on the outside of this paradigm. Despite solid research and a reputation as a strong school that recruits a lot of excellent students, it's a very regional university.

I think it's a similar argument to the Power 5 conferences playing semi-professional football and basketball, relegating everyone else dc'ing their programs or playing at a level a notch up from high school sports. It's also an argument for us trying to stay comfortably among the elite universities. Donors like to give to winners.

I may have botched the magazine's argument, but, while such a program might be efficient, I don't think it would work. For one thing, lots of good stuff is done at places that aren't Yale, and there is also huge local financial incentive to maintain a research university, regardless of whether it generates research. It also strikes me as too close to dystopian science fiction, with a handful of overlords. While I find fascism as appealing as the next guy, I prefer the messiness of our current system

[sagegrouse]

You're saying the enrollment rate for non-early admission Duke acceptees is only 24%? Interesting, as I would have expected it to be higher than that.

Duke accepts about one-half of its freshen as "early acceptance." The remainder are not as committed to Duke and have lots of other options.

[BandAlum83]

Americans love these rankings, and they play a big role in recruitment and fund raising. It feels good to get a good ranking, and--especially when my "team" gets well regarded--rankings mean something. I just don't know what, exactly.

I can tell you that administrators care more about these rankings than we do, and they definitely tweak admissions decisions to game the system, which is understandable but sad. Why should US News decide admissions policy for dozens of universities? We can try to remain above the fray, but that's just a dumb decision.

While I do worry that the tail wags the dog, and it seems more accurate to put schools into clusters rather than a list, but Duke has been the beneficiary of these rankings. Being consistently and publicly ranked in the top 10 has transformed the school into a nationally elite place. Obviously, we still have to back it up via a million different activities, but the activities alone are quiet compared to the supposedly definitive rankings. I also wonder whether we gain a bit by being southern. These lists are dominated by the northeastern schools, and it probably makes sense to include done geographic diversity. The gods made us the southern reps in the elite club, which allows us to ride the wave, but it could have easily been Vandy, Tulane, or Emory. Not sure historically why we bumped up, and they remain excellent but regional universities...

Isn't Emory #20 on the national listing?

[BandAlum83]

Those of us who are honest will remember that the graffiti bridge, juvenile pranks, alcohol-laden parties and watching your step when entering the bathroom on Saturday and Sunday morning were integral parts of the Duke experience in the late 70s and early 80s. Not many 18 year olds, no matter the test scores, are fully ready to take advantage of the resources of a top 20 type school on those lists. Despite that, there's something to be said for the social environment at a school where at any given moment someone could voice an idea or opinion that wouldn't have occurred to you. I liked having friends who were smarter than I was.

Well said, and sporks to you.

Problem was, how many smart enough to go to Duke actually knew or believed their friends were smarter than they?

[ipatent]

Well said, and sporks to you.

Problem was, how many smart enough to go to Duke actually knew or believed their friends were smarter than they?

Of course, you don't think about that when you're among friends, but the better the school the more humorous the incongruities when you compare some of your friends back then to what they became in later life!

[77devil]

These lists are dominated by the northeastern schools, and it probably makes sense to include done geographic diversity. The gods made us the southern reps in the elite club, which allows us to ride the wave, but it could have easily been Vandy, Tulane, or Emory. Not sure historically why we bumped up, and they remain excellent but regional universities...

I'm not sure when Duke emerged as the best in the south but it was a long before the U.S News rankings. In the late 60's when my sister applied, Duke was in the mid teens nationally in the Peterson's Guide. My matriculating class had students from all 50 states. I doubt Vandy, Tulane, or Emory did, so Duke, unlike the others, had already emerged from it's roots as a selective regional school.

I think Duke had a geographic advantage over the others to the large pools of mid Atlantic and north east applicants, greater ties to Washington D.C., and the Medical Center which had national stature way back in the day.

[ipatent]

I'm not sure when Duke emerged as the best in the south but it was a long before the U.S News rankings. In the late 60's when my sister applied, Duke was in the mid teens nationally in the Peterson's Guide. My matriculating class had students from all 50 states. I doubt Vandy, Tulane, or Emory did, so Duke, unlike the others, had already emerged from it's roots as a selective regional school.

I think Duke had a geographic advantage over the others to the large pools of mid Atlantic and north east applicants, greater ties to Washington D.C., and the Medical Center which had national stature way back in the day.

Emory was late to the game, it became a serious player in terms of resources after it received a large bequest of Coca-Cola stock in the early 80s. Duke was already firmly established at that point.

There are lots of ways to evaluate universities, and U.S. News pretty much focused on the competitiveness of the undergraduate student body after the inaugural issue in 1983. The research factories like Wisconsin, Michigan and Berkeley dropped in the rankings after the first edition, and were displaced by the second tier of select private schools after the Yales and Harvards. One needs to look deeper than the ratings for important decisions. If a company is looking to hire 22 year olds with high SATs and high school GPAs, it is better to interview at Brown than at Wisconsin. If it is planning a business incubator and wants access to thousands of Ph.D.s who do cutting edge research, Madison would make more sense. Or it could do both near Palo Alto or Cambridge, which is why Harvard and Stanford are close to the top irrespective of the weighting of important criteria.

[swood1000]

According to The Daily Tar Heel (http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2016/09/opinion-methodology-of-comparing-universities-is-bad), the methodology used in comparing universities involves "grandiose displays of privatization and suppression of free expression." They say that such comparisons require the university to compete on the compared criteria, which "preempts the community’s ability to produce norms and values to guide the university. ...Community discourse and the democratic process itself are subservient to the norms of other universities."

They also say that the U.S. News & World Report college rankings "results in the universities investing in schemes to increase ratings as opposed to projects that benefit current students." A little attention to the norms of other universities might do them some good. They should be thankful that SACS has allowed them to be ranked at all. (UNC-CH is #30 in National Universities.)

[BLPOG]

Those of us who are honest will remember that the graffiti bridge, juvenile pranks, alcohol-laden parties and watching your step when entering the bathroom on Saturday and Sunday morning were integral parts of the Duke experience in the late 70s and early 80s.

'70s and '80s? Sure, the Feds used highway-grant-threats to raise the drinking age, and Nan banned kegs, and everyone got scared of photographic evidence, but all those features were still part of the Duke experience when I was around.

Of course, who's to say how things have changed recently? I hear everybody's getting air conditioning these days.

[blUDAYvil]

according to the inaugural WSJ/Times Higher Ed. ranking. Stanford's #1 and we're ranked between Harvard and Princeton.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-top-u-s-colleges-1475030404

[Phoenix22]

I do enjoy this yearly rankings and look for them each year. However, with the slight movement from year to year and small differences between each ranking I feel it is more useful to put the universities into groups:

Group 1: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford
Group 2: Duke, Colombia, Chicago, Penn, MIT
Group 3: Northwestern, Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth, Hopkins

or you could go 1-10, 11-20, etc...

but really we all know that Duke is #1!

I really like the Duke - Stanford - Northwestern trimvirate.

Note: I believe Duke's highest ranking was #3 my freshman year!

[BD80]

Those of us who are honest will remember that the graffiti bridge, juvenile pranks, alcohol-laden parties and watching your step when entering the bathroom on Saturday and Sunday morning were integral parts of the Duke experience in the late 70s and early 80s. Not many 18 year olds, no matter the test scores, are fully ready to take advantage of the resources of a top 20 type school on those lists. Despite that, there's something to be said for the social environment at a school where at any given moment someone could voice an idea or opinion that wouldn't have occurred to you. I liked having friends who were smarter than I was.

Honesty has little to do with my inability to remember some details of my Duke experience in the late '70s. My Duke experience in the late '70s is my primary suspect.

[duke79]

I do enjoy this yearly rankings and look for them each year. However, with the slight movement from year to year and small differences between each ranking I feel it is more useful to put the universities into groups:

Group 1: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford
Group 2: Duke, Colombia, Chicago, Penn, MIT
Group 3: Northwestern, Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth, Hopkins

or you could go 1-10, 11-20, etc...

but really we all know that Duke is #1!

I really like the Duke - Stanford - Northwestern trimvirate.

Note: I believe Duke's highest ranking was #3 my freshman year!

Yea, all of these rankings are highly subjective and, frankly, mostly designed to sell newspapers or magazine. But I agree that your concept of "group rankings" probably makes more sense than the individual numbered rankings. I mean, is Princeton really better than Yale? Or is Harvard better than Stanford? Or vice versa. You should probably create groupings of at least 5 to 10 schools and rank them that way.

I realize this would be very controversial but I would put the top ranking group (for universities) as H-Y-P, Stanford and Duke (with Duke the last of the five and, yea, I'm biased!), with the three top Ivy schools representing the Northeast, Stanford the West, and Duke the Southeast. I know people at Penn, Columbia, Northwestern, Dartmouth, etc. would howl in protest at this ranking but I think you can make a strong case that Duke when it comes to academics (at least as good, probably), name recognition (probably better); athletic prowess (no comparison); size of endowment (more or less in the same ballpark); quality of campus (at least as good); dominance in region (no real competition), etc. would edge out these other schools (IMHO) to be included in the top 5.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I do enjoy this yearly rankings and look for them each year. However, with the slight movement from year to year and small differences between each ranking I feel it is more useful to put the universities into groups:

Group 1: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford
Group 2: Duke, Colombia, Chicago, Penn, MIT
Group 3: Northwestern, Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth, Hopkins

or you could go 1-10, 11-20, etc...

but really we all know that Duke is #1!

I really like the Duke - Stanford - Northwestern trimvirate.

Note: I believe Duke's highest ranking was #3 my freshman year!

Which tier is Kansas?

Oops, wrong thread...

[ipatent]

Yea, all of these rankings are highly subjective and, frankly, mostly designed to sell newspapers or magazine. But I agree that your concept of "group rankings" probably makes more sense than the individual numbered rankings. I mean, is Princeton really better than Yale? Or is Harvard better than Stanford? Or vice versa. You should probably create groupings of at least 5 to 10 schools and rank them that way.

Let's face it, the rankings probably attract more attention as a point of pride to alums and a badge of belonging than as a resource for selecting a school.

The verbal SAT was a good analogue for an IQ test for a long time, with about a 0.9 correlation, but there are Supreme Court decisions that strongly discourage the direct use of intelligence tests in hiring. On top of that there is a virtual media blackout on disclosing those of political candidates, etc. As a consequence of that public policy decision, we're left with the cache of the alma mater. If candidate X went to Princeton, he has an automatic aura of competence and cleverness. The one who went to State U. has to prove himself. That's not really fair, especially for a student who went to a less prestigious school for economic reasons but had test scores that would be above average anywhere. It is one reason that the fascination with the rankings persists. Then again if political candidates had their verbal SAT score superimposed on their foreheads like the first down line in a football game (Comedy Central could have a great time with this concept), we'd probably neglect to notice more important things.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Which tier is Kansas?

Oops, wrong thread...

According to Phoenix22, probably Tier 74th....

:D

Tiers are the best

[Bluedog]

I do enjoy this yearly rankings and look for them each year. However, with the slight movement from year to year and small differences between each ranking I feel it is more useful to put the universities into groups:

Group 1: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford
Group 2: Duke, Colombia, Chicago, Penn, MIT
Group 3: Northwestern, Cornell, Brown, Dartmouth, Hopkins

or you could go 1-10, 11-20, etc...

but really we all know that Duke is #1!

I really like the Duke - Stanford - Northwestern trimvirate.

Note: I believe Duke's highest ranking was #3 my freshman year!

I personally think Colombia should be just above Venezuela. Just giving you a hard time. ;)

But I agree with viewing universities as tiers/groups. The general consensus is MIT belongs in that tier, which is why people throw out "HYPSM." CalTech also belongs somewhere up there, but it's a slightly different type of school.

[Phoenix22]

I personally think Colombia should be just above Venezuela. Just giving you a hard time. ;)

But I agree with viewing universities as tiers/groups. The general consensus is MIT belongs in that tier, which is why people throw out "HYPSM." CalTech also belongs somewhere up there, but it's a slightly different type of school.

Ha! Nice catch. My girlfriend is from Colombia, so I guess she has the "proper" spelling of her country burned into my mind at this point.

Also. we must admit that including sports as a major part of the quality of these institutions is a bit strange, but I tend to view the sports programs as the University's best marketing tool. Certainly Coach K and national championships have helped Duke immensely in this arena.

[Bluedog]

Ha! Nice catch. My girlfriend is from Colombia, so I guess she has the "proper" spelling of her country burned into my mind at this point.

Also. we must admit that including sports as a major part of the quality of these institutions is a bit strange, but I tend to view the sports programs as the University's best marketing tool. Certainly Coach K and national championships have helped Duke immensely in this arena.

Most people go the other way -- I recall a Duke Chronicle article around 2006 that talked about the McDonald's manager being from Columbia. :)

Sports are a good marketing tool certainly, but doesn't necessarily help the selectivity and academic prestige of an institution. Otherwise, Alabama would be viewed a bit differently...And UChicago for that matter. Sports may help fundraising efforts though, but some may argue that the money that gets funneled to athletics may have otherwise gone to academic pursuits. Harvard and the rest of the Ivy League is certainly not strapped for cash despite having not high profile sports. Having said all that, I personally appreciate athletics and Duke basketball was factor when applying for me personally (and Coach K HAS helped Duke as an institution no doubt), but I would have survived at Penn too...

[swood1000]

According to the Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education (http://www.wsj.com/graphics/college-rankings-2016/) Duke is #7.

6726

[duke79]

According to the Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education (http://www.wsj.com/graphics/college-rankings-2016/) Duke is #7.

6726

Princeton is BELOW Duke ?? Hmmmmm.

[rasputin]

Princeton is BELOW Duke ?? Hmmmmm.

Princeton is NOT a clown college!

[ipatent]

How do they define "engagement" and "environment"?

[ipatent]

18th in the world in this one...

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2017/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank_label/sort_order/asc/cols/rank_only

[-jk]

18th in the world in this one...

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2017/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank_label/sort_order/asc/cols/rank_only

Papa'd be proud (https://today.duke.edu/2010/02/donnybrook.html) - "world class" was his goal!

-jk

[westwall]

. (The young lad was happy to stay home and attend the U. of Denver.)

Can't blame him. The skiing is certainly better in the Colorado Rockies than at Massanutten VA.

[sagegrouse]

I'm far removed from the age range for college, but when I look at this list, if I could go to any of the top 6, I'd pick Stanford. It's not clear to me why it's not number 1. When you factor in weather, location, and proximity and relationships to Silicon Valley, I can't imagine turning them down for any of the 5 above them. Not that I ever had to worry about that. Their campus is as beautiful as any campus I've ever seen, and it's way nicer in January and February than any in the Top 10 except maybe Duke.

Let me comment on the weather. I have two grandsons living just north of Palo Alto. One plays baseball year-around. I swear it is warmer at games in January than it is in July. I know it really isn't, but it is sure breezy down by San Francisco Bay at 6 or 7 on a summer evening!

Average January temperature range in Palo Alto is 58 degrees high and 39 degrees low. The comparables for Durham are 49 high and 28 low. Advantage: Stanford.

[HK Dukie]

"Notable alumni include Melinda Gates, co-founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; NBA player Carlos Boozer; and former U.S. Congressman and three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul."

The USNWR couldn't have found a more famous graduate than Boozer? He was great, but perhaps Grant Hill, Adam Silver, Tim Cook, Judy Woodruff, Ken Jeong (because why not?), Richard Nixon (oops), Sonny Jurgensen, Ricardo Lagos (president Chile), and my personal favorite Christian Laettner (who is not more famous from Duke than him?)

[ipatent]

"Notable alumni include Melinda Gates, co-founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; NBA player Carlos Boozer; and former U.S. Congressman and three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul."

The USNWR couldn't have found a more famous graduate than Boozer? He was great, but perhaps Grant Hill, Adam Silver, Tim Cook, Judy Woodruff, Ken Jeong (because why not?), Richard Nixon (oops), Sonny Jurgensen, Ricardo Lagos (president Chile), and my personal favorite Christian Laettner (who is not more famous from Duke than him?)

Nixon, Liddy Dole, Judy Woodruff, Charlie Rose........

[sagegrouse]

Nixon, Liddy Dole, Judy Woodruff, Charlie Rose....

Gen. Martin Dempsey, most recent Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[Indoor66]

Annabeth Gish, actress