1, strange ranking result
Let's first take a look at the top ten universities in the United States in 20 19 as judged by USNews, and their rankings among universities in the world:
/iknow-pic.cdn.bcebos.com/6D81800a19D8bc3E2bf8352E8Fba61EA9D34565 "target =" _ blank "title =" "class =" ikqb _ /iknow-pic . cdn . BCE Bos . com/6d 8 1800 a 19d 8 BC 3 e 2 BF 8352 e 8 f 8 ba 6 1 ea9d 34565？ x-BCE-process = image % 2f resize % 2Cm _ lfit % 2Cw _ 600% 2Ch _ 800% 2c limit _ 1% 2f quality % 2Cq _ 85% 2f format % 2Cf _ auto " esrc = "/ 6d 8 1800 a 19d 8 BC 3 e 2 BF 8352 E8 F8 ba 6 1 ea9 d 34565 "/>
As can be seen from this table, the difference is still very big.
The ranking of undergraduate education and postgraduate education in this authoritative magazine is very different. According to the common sense of ordinary people, the same university and the same group of professors should not lead to such a big difference between the undergraduate level and the graduate level.
In fact, this is not a university problem, but a ranking method itself.
2. The university ranks The Secret Behind.
Generally speaking, this ranking is quite reliable. But you will still find some puzzling places in it.
For example, the rankings of Princeton, Yale and the University of Chicago seem to be overestimated, while Stanford may be underestimated. Harvard seems to be ranked first, but it has hardly ever been. Of course, professors and alumni associations of Princeton and other universities say that we attach more importance to undergraduate education, and we are better than Harvard.
But is this really the case? In order to explain these problems, we need to analyze the ranking method of American news first.
Although some indicators of the ranking standard of 20 19 have changed greatly compared with 20 18.
But judging from the basis of ranking, it seems reasonable. It considers not only the level of professors and teaching, but also the cultivation of students, as well as the situation of students and the recognition of their reputation by the outside world.
But if you look at the measurement method carefully, you will find many problems and many unreasonable places.
3. Controversial evaluation criteria.
First of all, we found that the graduation rate accounted for a large proportion, and the two items together actually accounted for 30% of the ranking.
There is a "graduation rate implementation" in it. What does this mean? Let me make an analogy and everyone will understand. If the expected graduation rate of freshmen in a university is 95% and the actual graduation rate is 96%, then this index will be increased, and if it is only 94%, it will be reduced, which is actually calculated repeatedly with the graduation rate itself.
In the ranking, the graduation rate accounts for such a high proportion. I had hoped that the university would train students well and let them all graduate. However, because different universities hold different scales of scores, universities that give students water take advantage.
For example, most students in Harvard and Yale can get A's, and the graduation rate is very high. For example, some students in Stanford dropped out of school to start a company, and the graduation rate suffered. The California Institute of Technology, which is strict with its students, suffered a big loss.
Second, some indicators are meaningful in history, but they are out of date today.
For example, in today's American universities, the proportion of professors with doctoral degrees is basically100%; In addition, the proportion of students in the top 10% high schools is close to that of the top 20 universities 100%. Such an indicator is not comparable to the gap at all, but it is meaningless.
Third, the design of this ranking is obviously beneficial to small private universities, but not to public universities with a large number of students.
For example, the proportion of small classes accounts for 6%, and the proportion of large classes (inverted scores) accounts for 2%. In any public university in the United States, it is difficult to attend classes in small classes because there are too many students. In most private universities, there are not many students, so it is difficult to find 20 students to attend classes at the same time. Naturally, many classes are small.
The quality of course teaching mainly depends on professors, and it is obviously biased to measure the teaching level of universities with class size as an indicator. Due to this natural difference between private universities and public universities, this ranking method makes the top 19 universities all private universities, and Berkeley, the best public university, can only rank 20th.
Fourth, perhaps the most controversial issue lies in the specific calculation method of each score.
Although most indicators are quantified by percentage at first glance, in fact, only percentage is used to exclude the rankings of schools in this project, and then the final score is calculated according to the rankings.
For example, "the proportion of alumni participating in the donation", assuming that the proportion of University A is 75% and that of University B is 74%, it is reasonable to say that the scores of the two schools in this project should be very close, but this is not the case. Because the final score is calculated according to the ranking, if the difference is 1%, the ranking may be dozens, and the final score is far from each other. Similarly, indicators such as graduation rate are not absolute percentages, but rankings.
Fifth, another controversial method of calculating scores is professor's salary.
First of all, it does not calculate the average salary of all university professors, but only the salary of college professors with undergraduates.
Because there are no undergraduates in medical schools in American universities, their professors are well paid, but they are not included in the average salary, so the best universities in medical schools, such as Harvard, Stanford, Johns Hopkins and Washington University, suffer from this score (the salary of medical professors is generally higher).
At the same time, those universities with schools such as Conservatory of Music and School of Journalism also suffer a lot, because the salaries of professors in those colleges are low and they recruit undergraduates, so they are included in the calculation of average salary.
On the contrary, those universities with top business schools are more cost-effective, because business school professors have high salaries and business schools have undergraduates. Moreover, in universities with business schools, the salary of economics professors will increase accordingly. Many people don't understand why the University of Pennsylvania ranks so high, because it seems that there are not many characteristics in other majors except business schools, but a good business school can increase the average salary of professors by many points.
Secondly, it overthinks the price levels in various regions. The original intention of considering the price level is of course good, but it makes the salary of professors seem high in areas with low price level. Although the salary of American university professors will be affected by the local living index, there is little difference in salary level between universities of the same grade.
4. Why can't Harvard rank first?
Now it is easy to understand why Princeton always ranks first, while the more famous Harvard and Stanford are behind.
It should be said that Princeton is a great university, but it can rank first, largely because it is much cheaper to eat less in this ranking system:
(1) graduation rate
This is the factor that affects the highest ranking weight. Although it is true that Princeton gives outsiders the impression that it is more difficult to get an A than Harvard, the graduation rate is higher than Harvard, which is 90% in four years and 86% in Harvard, far higher than Stanford's 75%. Princeton has established a great advantage in this respect.
(2) Alumni donation
Princeton has done a very good job in this project. Although the total amount of donations is far less than that of Harvard and Stanford, the proportion of donations is high, and the ranking only depends on the proportion, not the total amount, so it is cheap. This also explains why Princeton University attaches great importance to alumni relations and the proportion of alumni donations at the admissions briefing, because its ranking is largely due to this.
(3) Professors and teaching standards
At this point, Princeton scored high. This is not to say that its courses are really better than Harvard or Stanford, but because the school is small (only 5,000 undergraduates), the proportion of small classes is naturally high, and because it is located in the suburbs, the price level is low, which also takes advantage of the salary of professors. As for Harvard and Stanford, there are many masters, but this does not count when ranking.
(4) Admission rate
Among all the factors evaluated, an obvious advantage of Harvard and Stanford over Princeton lies in the difficulty of admission, but because the admission rate only accounts for 1.3% of the ranking, this advantage of Harvard and Stanford has little effect.
In this way, we will find that Princeton can really beat Harvard and lead Stanford in this evaluation system.
Of course, if a student is admitted to Harvard (or Stanford) and Princeton at the same time, the vast majority choose the former rather than the latter, which shows that most students also understand that ranking first is not really the first.
5. The secret of improving ranking: spend more money.
Any known evaluation system can be manipulated artificially, so can the evaluation system of American news.
If a university wants to improve its ranking in a short time, it can usually make efforts in three aspects:
(1) Recruit students with good grades.
Doing so can make "SAT and high school scores" rank high. In the past, Duke, Columbia and Washington University all did this. They quickly improved the ranking of freshmen by recruiting more Asian students.
But in the long run, there is a side effect, that is, Asian alumni don't donate money, and many people don't even pay the annual alumni membership fee of about 100 yuan. Therefore, for the same achievement, American private universities must give priority to students from other ethnic groups because they can get more donations.
(2) increase the salary of professors.
This method is immediate. But the salary increase can't be targeted at only a few people. If you want to raise your salary, you have to make a big adjustment, which is very expensive.
The quickest way for universities to get money is to donate. During Daniels' tenure as president, Johns Hopkins' ranking rose a lot, largely because he was good at absorbing donations and set up many professors (all with high salaries).
(3) Spend more money on students.
Increase the per capita education funds for undergraduates, but it also costs money.
In addition, there is a more direct way to improve the graduation rate of students. This practice is effective in the short term. However, if the level of students in the school is not improved, it will be bad for the reputation of the school in the long run. After all, these prestigious schools can't sell diplomas for ranking.
Therefore, the graduation rate of famous schools has been very stable in the past ten years. As for Stanford, a university that encourages students to start businesses, it is also difficult to improve the graduation rate.
6. This is "American characteristic"
Generally speaking, you will find that the ways to improve your ranking are all related to spending money, and most of this money depends on donations. You may have understood why Asians who don't like donations, although they have good grades, are discriminated against when they are admitted. Universities need not only money for development, but also money for ranking optimization.
As for U.S.News' ranking of universities around the world, we can't use it, because we have to compare universities around the world, such as those with American characteristics, the proportion of alumni donations, the average salary of professors, or the proportion of small classes, so we can only look at more objective factors such as academic reputation and research results. Relatively speaking, this list reflects the standards of universities more accurately.
For students who choose a school, if they understand that ranking is only the suitability of a university in an evaluation system, they may not need to care so much about ranking. After all, finding a suitable university is more affordable than finding a top university.