Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

WireTap

A Completely Different College Ranking Guide

By The Editors, Washington Monthly. Posted September 4, 2006.


Contrary to the U.S. News & World Report list, these colleges not only teach young people well, but their faculties and students alike are working to create a better world.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by The Editors

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

A year ago, we decided we'd had enough of laying into U.S. News & World Report for shortcomings in its college guide. If we were so smart, maybe we should produce a college guide of our own. So we did. (We're that smart.) We've produced a second guide this year -- our rankings for national universities and liberal arts colleges -- and it's fair to ask: Is our guide better than that of U.S. News?

Well, it's certainly different. U.S. News aims to provide readers with a yardstick by which to judge the "best" schools, ranked according to academic excellence. Now, we happen to think U.S. News and similar guides do a lousy job of actually measuring academic excellence (see "Is Our Students Learning?"). But the aim of such guides is a perfectly worthy one. Higher education is a huge investment, and parents and students have a right to know whether their hard-earned tuition dollars will be well spent.

But isn't it just as important for taxpayers to know whether their money -- in the form of billions of dollars in research grants and student aid -- is being put to good use? After all, when colleges are doing what they should, they benefit all of us. They undertake vital research that drives our economy. They help Americans who are poor to become Americans who will prosper. And they shape the thoughts and ethics of the young Americans who will soon be leading the country. It's worth knowing, then, which individual colleges and universities fit the bill.

And so, to put The Washington Monthly College Rankings together, we started with a different assumption about what constitutes the "best" schools. We asked ourselves: What are reasonable indicators of how much a school is benefiting the country? We came up with three: how well it performs as an engine of social mobility (ideally helping the poor to get rich rather than the very rich to get very, very rich), how well it does in fostering scientific and humanistic research, and how well it promotes an ethic of service to country. We then devised a way to measure and quantify these criteria (See "A Note on Methodology"). Finally, we placed the schools into rankings. Rankings, we admit, are never perfect, but they're also indispensable.

By devising a set of criteria different from those of other college guides, we arrived at sharply different results. Top schools sank, and medium schools rose. For instance, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, 48th on the U.S News list, takes third place on our list, while Princeton, first on the U.S. News list, takes 43rd on ours. In short, Pennsylvania State, measured on our terms -- by the yardstick of fostering research, national service and social mobility -- does a lot more for the country than Princeton.

Don't get us wrong. We're not saying Princeton isn't a superb school. It employs many of the nation's finest minds, and its philosophy department is widely considered the best in the country. Its eating clubs, or whatever they're called, are surely unmatched. Princeton may be a great destination for your tuition dollars, all 31,450 of them, not including room or board. But what if it's a lousy destination for your tax dollars? Each year, Princeton receives millions of dollars in federal research grants. Does it deserve them? What has Princeton done for us lately? This is the only guide that tries to tell you. That, and a bit more.

The Findings

This year, once again, top-tier schools on the U.S. News chart fare much worse on our list. State schools are, by our measure, the primary heroes of higher education in the United States today. There are also a few villains to make it interesting. Here are some highlights from this year:

The U.S. News top 10 rarely cracks our top 10.

Of the top 10 national universities in the 2006 rankings of U.S. News, only two, Stanford and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, make it onto our top 10. Harvard, first with Princeton on the U.S. News list, occupies only 28th place on our list, mainly because it's weak on national service. MIT takes first place, while four state schools take spots two through five: the University of California, Berkeley; Pennsylvania State, University Park; University of California, Los Angeles; and Texas A&M University.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from WireTap! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I always knew Cal was better than the Ivies
Posted by: terihu on Sep 4, 2006 1:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go Bears!

Support public education, it's the foundation of the American Dream.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

realistic
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 11, 2006 2:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now that we have a realistic guide to what are the best colleges it would be nice to have free tuition through BS degree for all that want to attend and can't afford to. Tuition debt indicates an undemocratic society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: realistic Posted by: conquerormarr
Liberty Universtiy and Bob Jones are the only ones that matter
Posted by: mat38 on Sep 11, 2006 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you ain't practiceing to become the next Ken Starr, Tom Delay, Karl Rove, or George Whacko Bush then you are wasting your time and money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My personal experience confirms the tone of the results.
Posted by: Sojourner on Sep 11, 2006 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the 1950s, when scholarship money was much more adequate per/student than now, I was able to attend private undergraduate and graduate schools that were ranked consistently in the top 10, then and since.

Today because of special programs for senior citizens, I am back in school at my local California State University, the original teacher's college system, not the University of California system. As my interest is liberal arts, I have been astounded to find myself getting as good, if not better, an education now than when I went to private schools.

For one thing, a public university professor knows how to teach. They are not as concerned to publish and climb that academic ladder as in the private system. For another thing, departments are as determined to maintain faculty standards as at any private university. And because we crank out PhDs these days by the tons, the pickings are sweet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Down On The Plantation
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 11, 2006 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Down in the south, the SEC schools still continue to post an abysmal record of actually educating their scholar-athletes and many that do graduate have puff degrees like sports management and communications (not journalism or PR- communications). What they are doing is wasting the one shot many of these kids have at a degree and chunking them on the street when their eligibility is used up or their GPA drops below NCAA guidelines.

When ABC/ESPN/CBS/Fox Sports show those promos for the schools during Basketball & Football games they should have to post their 4 & 5 year graduation rates for their NCAA sports- by program. Otherwise, don't average in the Lacrosse, Tennis and softball teams with the Football & Basketball players. A regular public showing of how few of these kids actually graduate with a degree at many of these schools might wake up a few parents about signing off on their kids one shot at higher ed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you
Posted by: bjerko on Sep 11, 2006 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for posting this article!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cal Berkeley deserves more credit than it gets.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Sep 11, 2006 5:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:
"Sorry, red-staters. By our yardstick, University of California, Berkeley is about the best thing for America we can find."

Absolutely. And it has been for more than 30 years.

When I attended, it was the educational Deal of the Century: $80 tuition for California residents with quality that was the equal of any of the Ivy League schools in most majors, and far superior in the sciences. Even during the chaos surrounding the Vietnam protests, with the campus being tear-gassed by the military (really!), Cal Berkeley still maintained its educational excellence while accomidating the political committment of its students. By the time I received my MA, tuition had risen to $380 under Reagan – STILL an incredible deal! Even though my major was in fine arts, I still was required to take a grueling liberal arts cirriculum, which has served me spectacularly in adult life – far better than the watered-down lib. arts that creative majors from other schools got away with. I have nothing but good things to say about Cal Berkeley, and would teach art there in an instant...if I only could have stayed long enough to get an M-F-A. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cal Berkeley deserves more credit than it gets.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Sep 11, 2006 5:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:
"Sorry, red-staters. By our yardstick, University of California, Berkeley is about the best thing for America we can find."

Absolutely. And it has been for more than 30 years.

When I attended, it was the educational Deal of the Century: $80 tuition for California residents with quality that was the equal of any of the Ivy League schools in most majors, and far superior in the sciences. Even during the chaos surrounding the Vietnam protests, with the campus being tear-gassed by the military (really!), Cal Berkeley still maintained its educational excellence while accomidating the political committment of its students. By the time I received my MA, tuition had risen to $380 under Reagan – STILL an incredible deal! Even though my major was in fine arts, I still was required to take a grueling liberal arts cirriculum, which has served me spectacularly in adult life – far better than the watered-down lib. arts that creative majors from other schools got away with. I have nothing but good things to say about Cal Berkeley, and would teach art there in an instant...if I only could have stayed long enough to get an M-F-A. . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Nice article, but lacking in vision
Posted by: laoma on Sep 12, 2006 10:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All in all the thrust and intent of the article is excellent. I have been saying these points and about these types of schools for decades to friends, family and students. However, I object to the objects and agents of the conclusion.

"They'd enroll more low-income students and try to make sure they graduated. They'd encourage their students to join the military or the Peace Corps. And they'd produce more scientists and engineers. In short, our country would grow more democratic, equitable, and prosperous. "

Since we are talking about ideals, why would we want our children to join the military? Why would we want to continue to encourage the concept of 'military' in a blossoming democracy? Questioning the logic even further, why do we need more 'scientists and engineers', when, in general, they are the most socially and intellectually conservative of disciplines. Why wouldn't we want more critical thinkers, philosophers, poets, historians, social scientists, and musicians, when 'traditional scientists and engineers' haven't fulfilled expectations.

An equitable democracy is radical politics. Let's not forget the images of that quest for such a democracy on the fields of Kent State, and the avenues of Berkley and Madison.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nice article, but lacking in vision Posted by: allUneedislove
ROTC??
Posted by: allUneedislove on Sep 12, 2006 1:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So the authors like Texas A & M because they have lots of ROTC involvement? Sounds like a place to be avoided.

It is not a good thing to be cultivating military participation. Either you're part of the problem or part of the solution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]