Mods, if this is not the proper forum for this, please move.
The Wall Street Journal rankings have just come out. I like these rankings much better than US News & World Report which basically ranks schools on how much money they spend and on what high school guidance counselors and other administrators of schools rank other schools. A completely useless ranking in my opinion as student outcomes do not enter into the picture anywhere.
URI is ranked 159 overall in WSJ. It's overall score is 69.5. It is much stronger in two of the three student outcomes portion of the scores (70%) than it is in diversity (10%). Learning Environment makes up the other 20%.
Here are the scores:
159
University of Rhode Island
Public
RI
69.5
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI
Scores and Ranks
Rank/Score
________________________________________
Overall Rank
159
Overall Score
69.5
Student Outcomes
Score/Timeframe
________________________________________
Salary Impact vs. Similar Colleges
80
Graduation Rate vs. Similar Colleges
56
Years to Pay Off Net Price
2 years, 1 month
Survey Results
Score
________________________________________
Learning Opportunities
67
Preparation for Career
71
Learning Facilities
78
Recommendation Score
70
Diversity
Score
________________________________________
Diversity
42
Cost and Returns
Amount
________________________________________
Average Net Price
$19,925
Value Added to Graduate Salary
$37,398
In summary, they score 80 in what I think is the most important category for many people and that is salary impact versus similar colleges. This is 15% higher than its overall score of 69.5. The usual suspects bring Rhode Island's ranking down. Diversity which is 10% of the score came in at 42 or 40% less than its overall score. The other negative is the graduation rate compared to similar colleges which comes in at 56 or 20% less than its overall score. That is 20% of the overall ranking.
I think Rhode Island does very well in the categories that I think are more important.
Here is how the ranking is calculated
Salary Impact 80*.33 = 26.4
Years to payoff net price no score provided just 2 years and 1 month which I think would be good - see below backed into this, comes out to 79 which is very good
Graduation rate vs. similar colleges 56*.2 = 11.2
Student Outcomes subtotal
Learning Opportunities 67*.05= 3.35
Preparation for career 71*.05= 3.55
Learning Facilities 78*.05 = 3.9
Recommendation Score 70*.05 = 3.5
Learning Environment subtotal 14.3
Diversity 42*.1 = 4.2
Total without years to payoff net price 56.1
Years to payoff net price 13.4 (79*.17 = 13.4)
Total Score 69.5
There you have it. Very good on two of the three student outcomes total, but not very good on the graduation rate. Solid for the learning opportunities and dreadful on Diversity if that is important to you.
A long post I get it but I find these rankings fascinating and in my profession I know that not many people have any idea of what goes into the rankings especially the US News and World Report rankings where it is all based on image and how much money a school spends.
Wall Street Journal College Rankings
Wall Street Journal College Rankings
Last edited by 4Diffs 7 months ago, edited 1 time in total.
1 x
Re: Wall Street Journal College Rankings
In case anybody is interested here are the rankings of the other Rhode Island Schools.
Brown 67 score of 77.2
Bryant 111 score of 74.1
PC 135 Score of 72.2
URI 159 Score of 69.5
No other Rhode Island schools made the listing of the top 400 colleges in the country.
Brown 67 score of 77.2
Bryant 111 score of 74.1
PC 135 Score of 72.2
URI 159 Score of 69.5
No other Rhode Island schools made the listing of the top 400 colleges in the country.
0 x
Re: Wall Street Journal College Rankings
And for full transparency here is the methodology used.
The WSJ/College Pulse 2024 Best Colleges in the U.S. ranking was developed and executed in collaboration with our research partners College Pulse and Statista. The ranking scores colleges based on the following components. The weight each component is given in the ranking is indicated as a percentage. Throughout, we use the latest data available for analysis.
Student outcomes (70%):
Salary impact versus similar colleges (33%): This measures the extent to which a college boosts its graduates’ salaries beyond what they would be expected to earn regardless of which college they attended. We used statistical modeling to estimate what we would expect the median earnings of a college’s graduates to be on the basis of their demographic profile, taking into account the factors that best predict salary performance. We then scored the college on its performance against that estimate. These scores were then combined with scores for raw graduate salaries to factor in absolute performance alongside performance relative to our estimates. Our analysis for this metric used research on this topic by the Brookings Institution policy-research think tank as a guide.
Years to pay off net price (17%): This measure combines two figures—the average net price of attending the college, and the value added to graduates’ median salary attributable to attending the college. The value added to graduates’ median salary by a college was estimated on the basis of the difference between the median earnings of the school’s graduates and the median earnings of high-school graduates in the state where the college is located. We then took the average annual net price of attending the college—including costs like tuition and fees, room and board, and books and supplies, taking into account any grants and scholarships, for students who received federal financial aid—and multiplied it by four to reflect an estimated cost of a four-year program. We then divided this overall net-price figure by the value added to a graduate’s salary, to provide an estimate of how quickly an education at the college pays for itself through the salary boost it provides. Our analysis for this metric used research on this topic by the Third Way policy-research think tank as a guide.
Graduation rate versus similar colleges (20%): This is a measure of a college’s performance in ensuring that its students graduate, beyond what would have been expected of the students regardless of which college they attended. We used statistical modeling to estimate what we would expect a college’s graduation rate to be on the basis of the demographic profile of its students, taking into account the factors that best predict graduation rates. We then scored the college on its performance against that estimate. These scores were then combined with scores for raw graduation rates to factor in absolute performance alongside performance relative to our estimates.
Learning environment (20%):
Learning opportunities (5%): The quality and frequency of learning opportunities at the college, based on our student survey. This includes questions about interactions with faculty, feedback and the overall quality of teaching.
Preparation for career (5%): The quality and frequency of opportunities for students to prepare for their future careers, based on our student survey. This includes questions about networking opportunities, career advice and support, and applied learning.
Learning facilities (5%): Student satisfaction with the college’s learning-related facilities, based on our student survey. This includes questions about library facilities, internet reliability, and classrooms and teaching facilities.
Recommendation score (5%): The extent to which students would recommend their college, based on our student survey. This includes questions about whether students would recommend the college to a friend, whether students would choose the same college again if they could start over, and satisfaction with the value for money their college provides.
Diversity (10%):
Opportunities to interact with students from different backgrounds (5%): Student satisfaction with, and frequency of, opportunities to interact with people from different backgrounds, based on our student survey.
Ethnic diversity (1.5%): The probability that, were you to choose two students or two members of faculty at random, they would be of a different ethnicity from one another.
Inclusion of students with lower family earnings (1.5%): The proportion of students receiving Pell Grants; the higher the percentage, the higher the score.
Inclusion of students with disabilities (1%): The proportion of students who are disabled; the higher the percentage, the higher the score.
International diversity (1%): The proportion of students who come from outside the U.S. This is an indicator of the college’s ability to attract talent from across the world and offer a multicultural campus where students from different backgrounds can learn from one another. The higher the percentage, the higher the score.
We also display the following figures to provide context. These are the components of “Years to pay off net price” as explained above:
Average net price: The average annual overall cost of attending the college, including tuition and fees, room and board, and books and supplies, taking into account any grants and scholarships, for students who received federal financial aid.
Value added to graduate salary: The value added to graduates’ median salary attributable to attending the college. Estimated on the basis of the difference between the median earnings of the school’s graduates and the median earnings of high-school graduates in the state where the college is located.
Sources and definitions
To inform this ranking, we commissioned one of the largest-ever independent surveys of verified college students and recent alumni in the U.S. College Pulse conducted a survey of 60,953 students and alumni online, between January and May 2023. Further information on how College Pulse collects data is available on its methodology page.
Graduate salaries from 2019 and 2020 are taken from the U.S. Education Department’s College Scorecard. We looked at median salaries 10 years after enrollment for those who received federal financial aid.
Graduation rates from 2021 are taken from the U.S. Education Department’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (Ipeds), measuring the proportion of first-time, full-time students studying for four-year bachelor’s degrees who graduate within six years.
High-school graduates’ salaries by state are taken from the 2021 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which uses data from 2017 to 2021. We looked at the median salary among people whose highest educational qualification is graduating high school or the equivalent and who are age 25 to 34.
Average net price for the 2020-21 academic year is taken from the College Scorecard.
Demographics from 2021 relating to diversity are taken from Ipeds and the College Scorecard.
Ethnic diversity is measured using the Gini-Simpson Index.
“Private” in the above table means “Private, not for profit.” We don’t include for-profit colleges in our ranking.
All scores that aren’t formatted in years and months or in dollars are on a scale of 0 to 100.
In the event of an exact tie for overall score, the average of the colleges’ scores across the Student Experience, Salary Impact and Social Mobility rankings is used as a tiebreaker to decide rank order.
Eligibility
All U.S. colleges are eligible to be part of our ranking if they meet the following criteria:
Title IV eligible, i.e., is an accredited university that’s eligible for federal financial aid.
Awards four-year bachelor’s degrees.
Located in the 50 states or Washington, D.C.
Has more than 900 students.
Isn’t insolvent.
Isn’t for profit.
We receive at least 50 valid responses from verified students or recent alumni to the student survey.
The government data for the factors used to compile our ranking is collected and publicly reported.
U.S. service academies aren’t included in the ranking, as government data used in compiling our scores isn’t collected and publicly reported for them.
If you have any questions or feedback, get in touch with us at collegerankings@wsj.com
The WSJ/College Pulse 2024 Best Colleges in the U.S. ranking was developed and executed in collaboration with our research partners College Pulse and Statista. The ranking scores colleges based on the following components. The weight each component is given in the ranking is indicated as a percentage. Throughout, we use the latest data available for analysis.
Student outcomes (70%):
Salary impact versus similar colleges (33%): This measures the extent to which a college boosts its graduates’ salaries beyond what they would be expected to earn regardless of which college they attended. We used statistical modeling to estimate what we would expect the median earnings of a college’s graduates to be on the basis of their demographic profile, taking into account the factors that best predict salary performance. We then scored the college on its performance against that estimate. These scores were then combined with scores for raw graduate salaries to factor in absolute performance alongside performance relative to our estimates. Our analysis for this metric used research on this topic by the Brookings Institution policy-research think tank as a guide.
Years to pay off net price (17%): This measure combines two figures—the average net price of attending the college, and the value added to graduates’ median salary attributable to attending the college. The value added to graduates’ median salary by a college was estimated on the basis of the difference between the median earnings of the school’s graduates and the median earnings of high-school graduates in the state where the college is located. We then took the average annual net price of attending the college—including costs like tuition and fees, room and board, and books and supplies, taking into account any grants and scholarships, for students who received federal financial aid—and multiplied it by four to reflect an estimated cost of a four-year program. We then divided this overall net-price figure by the value added to a graduate’s salary, to provide an estimate of how quickly an education at the college pays for itself through the salary boost it provides. Our analysis for this metric used research on this topic by the Third Way policy-research think tank as a guide.
Graduation rate versus similar colleges (20%): This is a measure of a college’s performance in ensuring that its students graduate, beyond what would have been expected of the students regardless of which college they attended. We used statistical modeling to estimate what we would expect a college’s graduation rate to be on the basis of the demographic profile of its students, taking into account the factors that best predict graduation rates. We then scored the college on its performance against that estimate. These scores were then combined with scores for raw graduation rates to factor in absolute performance alongside performance relative to our estimates.
Learning environment (20%):
Learning opportunities (5%): The quality and frequency of learning opportunities at the college, based on our student survey. This includes questions about interactions with faculty, feedback and the overall quality of teaching.
Preparation for career (5%): The quality and frequency of opportunities for students to prepare for their future careers, based on our student survey. This includes questions about networking opportunities, career advice and support, and applied learning.
Learning facilities (5%): Student satisfaction with the college’s learning-related facilities, based on our student survey. This includes questions about library facilities, internet reliability, and classrooms and teaching facilities.
Recommendation score (5%): The extent to which students would recommend their college, based on our student survey. This includes questions about whether students would recommend the college to a friend, whether students would choose the same college again if they could start over, and satisfaction with the value for money their college provides.
Diversity (10%):
Opportunities to interact with students from different backgrounds (5%): Student satisfaction with, and frequency of, opportunities to interact with people from different backgrounds, based on our student survey.
Ethnic diversity (1.5%): The probability that, were you to choose two students or two members of faculty at random, they would be of a different ethnicity from one another.
Inclusion of students with lower family earnings (1.5%): The proportion of students receiving Pell Grants; the higher the percentage, the higher the score.
Inclusion of students with disabilities (1%): The proportion of students who are disabled; the higher the percentage, the higher the score.
International diversity (1%): The proportion of students who come from outside the U.S. This is an indicator of the college’s ability to attract talent from across the world and offer a multicultural campus where students from different backgrounds can learn from one another. The higher the percentage, the higher the score.
We also display the following figures to provide context. These are the components of “Years to pay off net price” as explained above:
Average net price: The average annual overall cost of attending the college, including tuition and fees, room and board, and books and supplies, taking into account any grants and scholarships, for students who received federal financial aid.
Value added to graduate salary: The value added to graduates’ median salary attributable to attending the college. Estimated on the basis of the difference between the median earnings of the school’s graduates and the median earnings of high-school graduates in the state where the college is located.
Sources and definitions
To inform this ranking, we commissioned one of the largest-ever independent surveys of verified college students and recent alumni in the U.S. College Pulse conducted a survey of 60,953 students and alumni online, between January and May 2023. Further information on how College Pulse collects data is available on its methodology page.
Graduate salaries from 2019 and 2020 are taken from the U.S. Education Department’s College Scorecard. We looked at median salaries 10 years after enrollment for those who received federal financial aid.
Graduation rates from 2021 are taken from the U.S. Education Department’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (Ipeds), measuring the proportion of first-time, full-time students studying for four-year bachelor’s degrees who graduate within six years.
High-school graduates’ salaries by state are taken from the 2021 U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which uses data from 2017 to 2021. We looked at the median salary among people whose highest educational qualification is graduating high school or the equivalent and who are age 25 to 34.
Average net price for the 2020-21 academic year is taken from the College Scorecard.
Demographics from 2021 relating to diversity are taken from Ipeds and the College Scorecard.
Ethnic diversity is measured using the Gini-Simpson Index.
“Private” in the above table means “Private, not for profit.” We don’t include for-profit colleges in our ranking.
All scores that aren’t formatted in years and months or in dollars are on a scale of 0 to 100.
In the event of an exact tie for overall score, the average of the colleges’ scores across the Student Experience, Salary Impact and Social Mobility rankings is used as a tiebreaker to decide rank order.
Eligibility
All U.S. colleges are eligible to be part of our ranking if they meet the following criteria:
Title IV eligible, i.e., is an accredited university that’s eligible for federal financial aid.
Awards four-year bachelor’s degrees.
Located in the 50 states or Washington, D.C.
Has more than 900 students.
Isn’t insolvent.
Isn’t for profit.
We receive at least 50 valid responses from verified students or recent alumni to the student survey.
The government data for the factors used to compile our ranking is collected and publicly reported.
U.S. service academies aren’t included in the ranking, as government data used in compiling our scores isn’t collected and publicly reported for them.
If you have any questions or feedback, get in touch with us at collegerankings@wsj.com
0 x
Re: Wall Street Journal College Rankings
Here is the US News & World Report Methodology - yes 20% of the rankings is expert opinion, completely arbitrary and self serving as well, deans and presidents of other colleges ranking other schools that they are familiar with (Such as they have a good US News score so they must be good). But somehow this listing has become the holy bible of college rankings. Take a look at this methodology. When I tell and show clients what these rankings are based on, many are shocked as what is included and what is not.
Outcomes (40%)
Forty percent of a school's rank is comprised of seven different outcome measures related to schools' success at enrolling, retaining and graduating students from diverse backgrounds with manageable debt.
Graduation and Retention
• Graduation rates (17.6%) is a four-year rolling average of the proportion of each entering class (fall 2012-2015) earning a bachelor's degree in six years or less.
• First-year retention rates (4.4%) is a four-year rolling average of the proportions of first-year entering students (fall 2017-fall 2020) who returned the following fall.
Graduation rate performance (8%) compares each college's six-year graduation rates with what we predicted for their fall 2014 and fall 2015 entering classes, based on each school's characteristics. The more a school's actual graduation rate exceeded its predicted graduation rate, the more it exceeded expectations – and scored higher on this indicator. The predicted rates were modeled from its students' socioeconomic backgrounds – namely those awarded Pell Grants and who were first in their families to attend college, as well as admissions data, school financial resources, and National Universities' math and science orientations.
Social mobility measures how well schools graduated students who received federal Pell Grants – typically from households earning less than $50,000 annually. U.S. News published a distinct social mobility ranking for all ranked schools. The social mobility ranking was computed by aggregating the two ranking factors assessing graduation rates of Pell-awarded students.
• Pell graduation rates (2.5%) incorporate six-year bachelor's degree-seeking graduation rates of Pell Grant students from the fall 2015 and 2014 entering classes, adjusted to give much more credit to schools with larger Pell student proportions.
• Pell graduation performance (2.5%) compares each school's six-year bachelor's degree-seeking graduation rate among Pell recipients with its six-year graduation rates among non-Pell recipients, then adjusts to give significantly more credit to schools who enrolled larger Pell student proportions. The higher a school's Pell graduation rate relative to its non-Pell graduation rate up to the rates being equal, the better it scores. This, too, is computed as a two-year rolling average from the fall 2015 and fall 2014 entering classes.
Graduate indebtedness is a prime concern of students who must weigh the benefits of their college degree with the affordability of attending college itself. Both factors incorporated federal loans and co-signed loans to eventual graduates, and excluded students who transferred in, money borrowed at other institutions, parent loans and students who did not graduate with a bachelor's degree.
• Graduate indebtedness average (3%) assesses each school's average accumulated federal loan debt among its 2020 and 2021 bachelor's degree graduating classes of borrowers by comparing their amounts to those among ranked schools in their U.S. News ranking category.
• Graduate indebtedness proportion (2%) is the percentage of graduates from the 2020 and 2021 bachelor's degree graduating classes who borrowed federal loans. This ranking factor credits schools for meeting the full financial need without loans of their undergraduates (who would not be included in the graduate indebtedness total cohort) by comparing the proportions who borrowed to other schools in their U.S. News ranking category.
Faculty Resources (20%)
Research shows the greater access students have to quality instructors, the more engaged they will be in class and the more they will learn and be satisfied with their instructors. U.S. News uses five factors comprising 20% of a school's overall rank from the 2021-2022 academic year to assess a school's commitment to instruction.
• Class size (8%) has schools scoring better with greater proportions of smaller classes for fall 2021. The current methodology reverts to using only the most recent year of data, following last year's edition that introduced a two-year average to downweight the influence of fall 2020 data when distance learning was temporarily much more prevalent.
• Faculty salaries (7%) assesses the average salaries, excluding benefits, for full-time instructional professors, associate professors and assistant professors for 2021-2022, using definitions from the American Association of University Professors. Salary data was adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living using the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis regional price parities indexes, published in December 2021. Average salary values are computed only for the 2021-2022 academic year, and not as a two-year average like in the previous edition.
• Faculty with terminal degree (3%) is the proportion of full-time equivalent instructional faculty with doctorate or highest degree in their field or specialty during the 2021-2022 academic year. Assessing part-time faculty in addition to full-time faculty – in which part-time faculty were weighted as one-third of full-time faculty in equivalency – is a change from previous editions when only full-time faculty were assessed. This was done to be more comprehensive, because in recent years there has been a large increase in part-time faculty instructors.
• Student-faculty ratio (1%) is the ratio of undergraduate students to instructional faculty.
• Proportion of faculty who are full-time (1%) compares the counts of full-time faculty to part-time faculty who are teaching courses.
Expert Opinion (20%)
Academic reputation matters because it factors things that cannot easily be captured elsewhere. For example, an institution known for having innovative approaches to teaching may perform especially well on this indicator, whereas a school struggling to keep its accreditation will likely perform poorly.
Each year, top academics – presidents, provosts and deans of admissions – rate the academic quality of peer institutions with which they are familiar on a scale of 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). We take a two-year weighted average of the ratings. The 2022-2023 Best Colleges rankings factor in scores from both 2022 and 2021.
The very small proportion of schools that received fewer than 10 cumulative ratings (exclusively regional institutions in the 2022-2023 edition) receive assigned values equaling the lowest average score among schools that received at least 10 ratings.
U.S. News collected the most recent data by administering peer assessment surveys to schools in spring and summer 2022. Of the 4,838 academics who were sent questionnaires on the overall rankings in 2022, 34.1% responded – unchanged from 2021. The peer assessment response rate for the National Universities category was 43.6% and the National Liberal Arts category was 49.7%.
Schools interested in a breakdown of their peer assessment ratings by respondent type and region can access this information, along with 29 million other data points, with a subscription to U.S. News' Academic Insights. This web-based platform facilitates a deep dive for studying and benchmarking the rankings and is designed for colleges and universities only.
Financial Resources (10%)
Generous per-student spending indicates a college can offer a variety of programs and services. U.S. News measures financial resources by using the average spending per student on instruction, research, student services and related educational expenditures in the 2020 and 2021 fiscal years. Expenditures were compared with fall 2019 and fall 2020 full-time and part-time undergraduate and graduate enrollment, respectively. The continued two-year average of scores hedges against instability toward schools' budgets that may have been introduced in the 2020 fiscal year by reaction to the coronavirus pandemic.
Student Excellence (7%)
Selective admissions enables talented, hard-working students to share a learning environment with their academic peers and enables instructors to design rigorous classes. Two indicators of student excellence comprised 7% of the ranking.
Standardized tests (5%): U.S. News factors average test scores for all enrollees who took the mathematics and evidence-based reading and writing portions of the SAT and the composite ACT. Both SATs and ACTs were converted to their 0-100 test-taker percentile distributions and weighted based on the proportions of new entrants submitting each exam. For example, if a school had two-thirds of its test-takers submitting ACT scores and one-third submitting SAT scores, its ACT scores would weigh twice as heavily as its SAT scores toward this ranking factor.
Many test centers closed in 2020 out of concern for public health, while supply and demand for taking the SAT and ACT plummeted, especially among applicants from low-income backgrounds. For fair comparisons, the following methodology changes were adopted this edition:
• By default, we assessed schools on their fall 2021 SAT/ACT scores if and only if they were reported on at least half their new entrants.
• For schools not meeting the first condition, we assessed them on their fall 2020 SAT/ACT scores (scaled to fall 2020 percentile distributions) if and only if they were reported on at least half their fall 2020 new entrants. These entering students' testing period predated the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in the majority of institutions being included in the first two bullets.
• For schools reporting SAT/ACT on less than 50% of both their fall 2021 and fall 2020 entering classes – including test-blind schools – we did not assess them on standardized tests at all. Instead, for those schools we increased the weights of two other ranking factors that have historically correlated with standardized testing: high school class standing and average graduation rate.
For this edition, we also discontinued our prior practice of discounting schools for reporting SAT/ACT scores on too few new entrants. Schools were either assessed on their test scores or they were not. However, we continued our practice of discounting school's percentile scores by 15% if they failed to confirm that their reported scores included all students who submitted scores from these categories: athletes, international students, minority students, legacies, those admitted by special arrangement and those who started in the summer term.
At the time of this publication, U.S. News will not commit to its approach for next edition's rankings.
High school class standing (2%) is the proportion of enrolled fall 2021 first-year students at National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges who graduated in the top 10% of their high school classes, and for Regional Universities and Regional Colleges, the proportion who graduated in the top quarter of their high school classes. A higher proportion of students from either the top 10% or top 25% of their high school class scores better than lower proportions in the rankings because students who earned high grades in high school can be well-suited to handle challenging college coursework. Colleges reporting high school class standing based on less than 20% of their entering classes were scored on the previous year's high school class standing data if it was reported on at least 20% of new entrants. Otherwise, values based on less than 20% reporting were discounted. Values based on less than 10% are not used in the rankings at all, in which case the schools get an assigned value for ranking purposes.
Alumni Giving (3%)
This is the average percentage of living alumni with bachelor's degrees who gave to their school during 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. Giving measures student satisfaction and post-graduate engagement.
Outcomes (40%)
Forty percent of a school's rank is comprised of seven different outcome measures related to schools' success at enrolling, retaining and graduating students from diverse backgrounds with manageable debt.
Graduation and Retention
• Graduation rates (17.6%) is a four-year rolling average of the proportion of each entering class (fall 2012-2015) earning a bachelor's degree in six years or less.
• First-year retention rates (4.4%) is a four-year rolling average of the proportions of first-year entering students (fall 2017-fall 2020) who returned the following fall.
Graduation rate performance (8%) compares each college's six-year graduation rates with what we predicted for their fall 2014 and fall 2015 entering classes, based on each school's characteristics. The more a school's actual graduation rate exceeded its predicted graduation rate, the more it exceeded expectations – and scored higher on this indicator. The predicted rates were modeled from its students' socioeconomic backgrounds – namely those awarded Pell Grants and who were first in their families to attend college, as well as admissions data, school financial resources, and National Universities' math and science orientations.
Social mobility measures how well schools graduated students who received federal Pell Grants – typically from households earning less than $50,000 annually. U.S. News published a distinct social mobility ranking for all ranked schools. The social mobility ranking was computed by aggregating the two ranking factors assessing graduation rates of Pell-awarded students.
• Pell graduation rates (2.5%) incorporate six-year bachelor's degree-seeking graduation rates of Pell Grant students from the fall 2015 and 2014 entering classes, adjusted to give much more credit to schools with larger Pell student proportions.
• Pell graduation performance (2.5%) compares each school's six-year bachelor's degree-seeking graduation rate among Pell recipients with its six-year graduation rates among non-Pell recipients, then adjusts to give significantly more credit to schools who enrolled larger Pell student proportions. The higher a school's Pell graduation rate relative to its non-Pell graduation rate up to the rates being equal, the better it scores. This, too, is computed as a two-year rolling average from the fall 2015 and fall 2014 entering classes.
Graduate indebtedness is a prime concern of students who must weigh the benefits of their college degree with the affordability of attending college itself. Both factors incorporated federal loans and co-signed loans to eventual graduates, and excluded students who transferred in, money borrowed at other institutions, parent loans and students who did not graduate with a bachelor's degree.
• Graduate indebtedness average (3%) assesses each school's average accumulated federal loan debt among its 2020 and 2021 bachelor's degree graduating classes of borrowers by comparing their amounts to those among ranked schools in their U.S. News ranking category.
• Graduate indebtedness proportion (2%) is the percentage of graduates from the 2020 and 2021 bachelor's degree graduating classes who borrowed federal loans. This ranking factor credits schools for meeting the full financial need without loans of their undergraduates (who would not be included in the graduate indebtedness total cohort) by comparing the proportions who borrowed to other schools in their U.S. News ranking category.
Faculty Resources (20%)
Research shows the greater access students have to quality instructors, the more engaged they will be in class and the more they will learn and be satisfied with their instructors. U.S. News uses five factors comprising 20% of a school's overall rank from the 2021-2022 academic year to assess a school's commitment to instruction.
• Class size (8%) has schools scoring better with greater proportions of smaller classes for fall 2021. The current methodology reverts to using only the most recent year of data, following last year's edition that introduced a two-year average to downweight the influence of fall 2020 data when distance learning was temporarily much more prevalent.
• Faculty salaries (7%) assesses the average salaries, excluding benefits, for full-time instructional professors, associate professors and assistant professors for 2021-2022, using definitions from the American Association of University Professors. Salary data was adjusted for regional differences in the cost of living using the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis regional price parities indexes, published in December 2021. Average salary values are computed only for the 2021-2022 academic year, and not as a two-year average like in the previous edition.
• Faculty with terminal degree (3%) is the proportion of full-time equivalent instructional faculty with doctorate or highest degree in their field or specialty during the 2021-2022 academic year. Assessing part-time faculty in addition to full-time faculty – in which part-time faculty were weighted as one-third of full-time faculty in equivalency – is a change from previous editions when only full-time faculty were assessed. This was done to be more comprehensive, because in recent years there has been a large increase in part-time faculty instructors.
• Student-faculty ratio (1%) is the ratio of undergraduate students to instructional faculty.
• Proportion of faculty who are full-time (1%) compares the counts of full-time faculty to part-time faculty who are teaching courses.
Expert Opinion (20%)
Academic reputation matters because it factors things that cannot easily be captured elsewhere. For example, an institution known for having innovative approaches to teaching may perform especially well on this indicator, whereas a school struggling to keep its accreditation will likely perform poorly.
Each year, top academics – presidents, provosts and deans of admissions – rate the academic quality of peer institutions with which they are familiar on a scale of 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). We take a two-year weighted average of the ratings. The 2022-2023 Best Colleges rankings factor in scores from both 2022 and 2021.
The very small proportion of schools that received fewer than 10 cumulative ratings (exclusively regional institutions in the 2022-2023 edition) receive assigned values equaling the lowest average score among schools that received at least 10 ratings.
U.S. News collected the most recent data by administering peer assessment surveys to schools in spring and summer 2022. Of the 4,838 academics who were sent questionnaires on the overall rankings in 2022, 34.1% responded – unchanged from 2021. The peer assessment response rate for the National Universities category was 43.6% and the National Liberal Arts category was 49.7%.
Schools interested in a breakdown of their peer assessment ratings by respondent type and region can access this information, along with 29 million other data points, with a subscription to U.S. News' Academic Insights. This web-based platform facilitates a deep dive for studying and benchmarking the rankings and is designed for colleges and universities only.
Financial Resources (10%)
Generous per-student spending indicates a college can offer a variety of programs and services. U.S. News measures financial resources by using the average spending per student on instruction, research, student services and related educational expenditures in the 2020 and 2021 fiscal years. Expenditures were compared with fall 2019 and fall 2020 full-time and part-time undergraduate and graduate enrollment, respectively. The continued two-year average of scores hedges against instability toward schools' budgets that may have been introduced in the 2020 fiscal year by reaction to the coronavirus pandemic.
Student Excellence (7%)
Selective admissions enables talented, hard-working students to share a learning environment with their academic peers and enables instructors to design rigorous classes. Two indicators of student excellence comprised 7% of the ranking.
Standardized tests (5%): U.S. News factors average test scores for all enrollees who took the mathematics and evidence-based reading and writing portions of the SAT and the composite ACT. Both SATs and ACTs were converted to their 0-100 test-taker percentile distributions and weighted based on the proportions of new entrants submitting each exam. For example, if a school had two-thirds of its test-takers submitting ACT scores and one-third submitting SAT scores, its ACT scores would weigh twice as heavily as its SAT scores toward this ranking factor.
Many test centers closed in 2020 out of concern for public health, while supply and demand for taking the SAT and ACT plummeted, especially among applicants from low-income backgrounds. For fair comparisons, the following methodology changes were adopted this edition:
• By default, we assessed schools on their fall 2021 SAT/ACT scores if and only if they were reported on at least half their new entrants.
• For schools not meeting the first condition, we assessed them on their fall 2020 SAT/ACT scores (scaled to fall 2020 percentile distributions) if and only if they were reported on at least half their fall 2020 new entrants. These entering students' testing period predated the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in the majority of institutions being included in the first two bullets.
• For schools reporting SAT/ACT on less than 50% of both their fall 2021 and fall 2020 entering classes – including test-blind schools – we did not assess them on standardized tests at all. Instead, for those schools we increased the weights of two other ranking factors that have historically correlated with standardized testing: high school class standing and average graduation rate.
For this edition, we also discontinued our prior practice of discounting schools for reporting SAT/ACT scores on too few new entrants. Schools were either assessed on their test scores or they were not. However, we continued our practice of discounting school's percentile scores by 15% if they failed to confirm that their reported scores included all students who submitted scores from these categories: athletes, international students, minority students, legacies, those admitted by special arrangement and those who started in the summer term.
At the time of this publication, U.S. News will not commit to its approach for next edition's rankings.
High school class standing (2%) is the proportion of enrolled fall 2021 first-year students at National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges who graduated in the top 10% of their high school classes, and for Regional Universities and Regional Colleges, the proportion who graduated in the top quarter of their high school classes. A higher proportion of students from either the top 10% or top 25% of their high school class scores better than lower proportions in the rankings because students who earned high grades in high school can be well-suited to handle challenging college coursework. Colleges reporting high school class standing based on less than 20% of their entering classes were scored on the previous year's high school class standing data if it was reported on at least 20% of new entrants. Otherwise, values based on less than 20% reporting were discounted. Values based on less than 10% are not used in the rankings at all, in which case the schools get an assigned value for ranking purposes.
Alumni Giving (3%)
This is the average percentage of living alumni with bachelor's degrees who gave to their school during 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. Giving measures student satisfaction and post-graduate engagement.
0 x
Re: Wall Street Journal College Rankings
Last one I promise for now.
Other NE flagship Schools
UMass Amherst 190 67.6
UNH 171 68.9
Maine not ranked
UVM 261 61.6
Uconn 46 79.2
Uconn based on these ratings is clear #1. URI would be #2 at 159 and 69.5. Much different outcomes than if you look at the US News & World report ratings and not just because I like the outcome better, I think the WSJ uses a much better methodology to rank the schools.
Other NE flagship Schools
UMass Amherst 190 67.6
UNH 171 68.9
Maine not ranked
UVM 261 61.6
Uconn 46 79.2
Uconn based on these ratings is clear #1. URI would be #2 at 159 and 69.5. Much different outcomes than if you look at the US News & World report ratings and not just because I like the outcome better, I think the WSJ uses a much better methodology to rank the schools.
0 x
Re: Wall Street Journal College Rankings
4Diffs, thanks for the effort and for sharing. There’s a lot of info here to take in and chew on but I will give it a shot.
Last edited by Jdrums#3 7 months ago, edited 1 time in total.
0 x
Re: Wall Street Journal College Rankings
I hope you are right that WSJ methodology is better, but any rating system that has Iona higher ranked than Brown has to be suspect.4Diffs wrote: ↑7 months ago Last one I promise for now.
Other NE flagship Schools
UMass Amherst 190 67.6
UNH 171 68.9
Maine not ranked
UVM 261 61.6
Uconn 46 79.2
Uconn based on these ratings is clear #1. URI would be #2 at 159 and 69.5. Much different outcomes than if you look at the US News & World report ratings and not just because I like the outcome better, I think the WSJ uses a much better methodology to rank the schools.
0 x
Re: Wall Street Journal College Rankings
I am sure you spent much time looking for that one school that you totally disagree with. That is fine, instead of celebrating URI being 159 in a national ranking you quibble with this methodology and not US News & World Report. Interesting. I will never understand that type of thinking (hey this makes my school look good, this methodology must suck) but to each their own.Obadiah wrote: ↑7 months agoI hope you are right that WSJ methodology is better, but any rating system that has Iona higher ranked than Brown has to be suspect.4Diffs wrote: ↑7 months ago Last one I promise for now.
Other NE flagship Schools
UMass Amherst 190 67.6
UNH 171 68.9
Maine not ranked
UVM 261 61.6
Uconn 46 79.2
Uconn based on these ratings is clear #1. URI would be #2 at 159 and 69.5. Much different outcomes than if you look at the US News & World report ratings and not just because I like the outcome better, I think the WSJ uses a much better methodology to rank the schools.
I posted both methodologies, why don't you tell us what you disagree with instead of pulling out one example. I told you my issues with the US News & World Report methodologies. Tell us why it is better than the WSJ methodology. This is not new, anytime URI is ranked more on outcomes than resources, it scores much higher. Now if somebody can convince me that just spending more money leads to a better education I am all ears. But I live in Rhode Island a state that is in the top ten in public education spending (K-12) and scores much lower than that. I just checked, it is is ranked #40 in the country for the quality of its Public Education.
0 x
Re: Wall Street Journal College Rankings
Sorry, but you completely misunderstand my comment, especially since I'm not a big fan of college ranking systems at all. Yes, I'm glad URI is #2 among NE publics based on the the WSJ rankings, but I am proud of URI no matter the ranking.4Diffs wrote: ↑7 months agoI am sure you spent much time looking for that one school that you totally disagree with. That is fine, instead of celebrating URI being 159 in a national ranking you quibble with this methodology and not US News & World Report. Interesting. I will never understand that type of thinking (hey this makes my school look good, this methodology must suck) but to each their own.Obadiah wrote: ↑7 months agoI hope you are right that WSJ methodology is better, but any rating system that has Iona higher ranked than Brown has to be suspect.4Diffs wrote: ↑7 months ago Last one I promise for now.
Other NE flagship Schools
UMass Amherst 190 67.6
UNH 171 68.9
Maine not ranked
UVM 261 61.6
Uconn 46 79.2
Uconn based on these ratings is clear #1. URI would be #2 at 159 and 69.5. Much different outcomes than if you look at the US News & World report ratings and not just because I like the outcome better, I think the WSJ uses a much better methodology to rank the schools.
I posted both methodologies, why don't you tell us what you disagree with instead of pulling out one example. I told you my issues with the US News & World Report methodologies. Tell us why it is better than the WSJ methodology. This is not new, anytime URI is ranked more on outcomes than resources, it scores much higher. Now if somebody can convince me that just spending more money leads to a better education I am all ears. But I live in Rhode Island a state that is in the top ten in public education spending (K-12) and scores much lower than that. I just checked, it is is ranked #40 in the country for the quality of its Public Education.
0 x
-
RhowdyRam02
- Frank Keaney
- Posts: 10355
- Joined: 11 years ago
- x 6622
Re: Wall Street Journal College Rankings
Is #159 out of at least 400 schools really that good? Is it materially better that the #182 US News has us?4Diffs wrote: ↑7 months agoI am sure you spent much time looking for that one school that you totally disagree with. That is fine, instead of celebrating URI being 159 in a national ranking you quibble with this methodology and not US News & World Report. Interesting. I will never understand that type of thinking (hey this makes my school look good, this methodology must suck) but to each their own.Obadiah wrote: ↑7 months agoI hope you are right that WSJ methodology is better, but any rating system that has Iona higher ranked than Brown has to be suspect.4Diffs wrote: ↑7 months ago Last one I promise for now.
Other NE flagship Schools
UMass Amherst 190 67.6
UNH 171 68.9
Maine not ranked
UVM 261 61.6
Uconn 46 79.2
Uconn based on these ratings is clear #1. URI would be #2 at 159 and 69.5. Much different outcomes than if you look at the US News & World report ratings and not just because I like the outcome better, I think the WSJ uses a much better methodology to rank the schools.
I posted both methodologies, why don't you tell us what you disagree with instead of pulling out one example. I told you my issues with the US News & World Report methodologies. Tell us why it is better than the WSJ methodology. This is not new, anytime URI is ranked more on outcomes than resources, it scores much higher. Now if somebody can convince me that just spending more money leads to a better education I am all ears. But I live in Rhode Island a state that is in the top ten in public education spending (K-12) and scores much lower than that. I just checked, it is is ranked #40 in the country for the quality of its Public Education.
0 x
Take down the Robert Carothers banner and fix the concession stand lines
-
NYGFan_Section208
- Frank Keaney
- Posts: 12309
- Joined: 8 years ago
- Location: West K
- x 6681
Re: Wall Street Journal College Rankings
No and no?RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑7 months agoIs #159 out of at least 400 schools really that good? Is it materially better that the #182 US News has us?4Diffs wrote: ↑7 months agoI am sure you spent much time looking for that one school that you totally disagree with. That is fine, instead of celebrating URI being 159 in a national ranking you quibble with this methodology and not US News & World Report. Interesting. I will never understand that type of thinking (hey this makes my school look good, this methodology must suck) but to each their own.
I posted both methodologies, why don't you tell us what you disagree with instead of pulling out one example. I told you my issues with the US News & World Report methodologies. Tell us why it is better than the WSJ methodology. This is not new, anytime URI is ranked more on outcomes than resources, it scores much higher. Now if somebody can convince me that just spending more money leads to a better education I am all ears. But I live in Rhode Island a state that is in the top ten in public education spending (K-12) and scores much lower than that. I just checked, it is is ranked #40 in the country for the quality of its Public Education.
1 x
Re: Wall Street Journal College Rankings
No and no here tooNYGFan_Section208 wrote: ↑7 months agoNo and no?RhowdyRam02 wrote: ↑7 months agoIs #159 out of at least 400 schools really that good? Is it materially better that the #182 US News has us?4Diffs wrote: ↑7 months ago
I am sure you spent much time looking for that one school that you totally disagree with. That is fine, instead of celebrating URI being 159 in a national ranking you quibble with this methodology and not US News & World Report. Interesting. I will never understand that type of thinking (hey this makes my school look good, this methodology must suck) but to each their own.
I posted both methodologies, why don't you tell us what you disagree with instead of pulling out one example. I told you my issues with the US News & World Report methodologies. Tell us why it is better than the WSJ methodology. This is not new, anytime URI is ranked more on outcomes than resources, it scores much higher. Now if somebody can convince me that just spending more money leads to a better education I am all ears. But I live in Rhode Island a state that is in the top ten in public education spending (K-12) and scores much lower than that. I just checked, it is is ranked #40 in the country for the quality of its Public Education.
0 x
Re: Wall Street Journal College Rankings
This ranking groups us in with schools such as Bryant and PC, where the US news one has them broken into categories such as regional or national universities. This ranking is much better for us than being 182 in National Universities in US News, as that is just us compared to our cohort. And in US News we are ranked behind UConn UMass, UVM and UNH. In US News, PC is #1 in Regional Universities North and Brown is #13 in National Universities.
2 x
Re: Wall Street Journal College Rankings
Correct. No comparison as to being 159 compared to every school in the country than being 182 in national universities. The WSJ journal rankings are much, much better for URI than US News & World Report rankings.RIFan wrote: ↑7 months ago This ranking groups us in with schools such as Bryant and PC, where the US news one has them broken into categories such as regional or national universities. This ranking is much better for us than being 182 in National Universities in US News, as that is just us compared to our cohort. And in US News we are ranked behind UConn UMass, UVM and UNH. In US News, PC is #1 in Regional Universities North and Brown is #13 in National Universities.
The US News and World Rankings have just come out and they have URI ranked 151 in National Universities and #81 as best values in national universities. This is better than last year by 31 spots so that is good but nowhere near as highly ranked as the WSJ which puts URI at 159 overall compared to every school in the country.
URI was the second ranked flagship behind only UConn in the WSJ rankings. In US News & World Report they are fifth and a distant fifth at that, only ahead of Umaine. I stand by my disdain of these rankings as mentioned above. Go WSJ.
UNH is 115 and 58
UVM is 133 and 103
Maine is not ranked
UMass is 122 and 67
UConn is 58 and 155
Yes on a value basis URI comes in third not fifth, but I will push the WSJ rankings as I think it is a much more objective ranking system as it based on measurable outcomes in large part, as opposed to academic reputation and how much money you spend.
1 x
Re: Wall Street Journal College Rankings
I may have mentioned this here before but I have a colleague who worked at a university that was not ranked very high when these started to come out and he was in meetings where they discussed how to improve their rankings. The first thing they did was raise their price. That move alone moved them up substantially, then they continued to make changes that helped move them up. This university is now considered one of the best in the country and when I went to school it was many people’s safety school. If you didn’t know…perception is reality. That is what the US News one relies on. The WSJ one is data driven.
US News found out they could make more money ranking stuff than actually reporting news as I believe this is pretty much all they do now. Just ranking stuff because people always search for “the best” or “what rank is x?”
US News found out they could make more money ranking stuff than actually reporting news as I believe this is pretty much all they do now. Just ranking stuff because people always search for “the best” or “what rank is x?”
0 x