« New Board of Regents Conflict of Interest Document | Main | Latest from President Bruininks on Furloughs »

Rankings (Academic) are for losers...

Despite considerable evidence to the contrary our provost again cited the extraordinary progress being made at the U in ascending the greasy pole. He did this at the most recent Board of Regents meeting on March 12. I've got a post up on the other site that includes his boast:


Board of Regents Meeting - March 12, 2010

"...we also see substantial progress and momentum...

Absolutely and relative to our peer institutions as well.

We can always see that in the best measure, the best ranking which I think is the Shanghai ranking, and one can always quibble with methodology, but we think it's the best ranking that's there and it still has the university somewhere between seven or eighth or ninth best public research university in the US and in the top twenty public research universities in the world." E. Thomas Sullivan

See my link above for further deconstruction. Shangai's best? Why might that be, Tom? Because of all the rankings available, it is the only one that makes us look good? This is what is called selective presentation, Tom. You should know better. You presented data at the September Board of Regents meeting that does not support the Shanghai ranking. Recall: Accountable to U 2009 University Plan, Performance, and Accountability Report? In many important aspects we rank 10/10 or 10/11 in comparison with our self-selected peer group.

And of course the place where most folks thinking about going to college/university - and their parents - look is:

USNews Best National Universities
2009 Rankings

1. Berkeley 21

2. UCLA 24

3. Michigan 27

4. Illinois 39

5. Madison 39

6. UDub 42

7. Penn State 47

8. Florida 47

9. Texas 47

10. tOSU 53

11. Minnesota 61

The academic ranking game is for losers, Tom.

It must be embarrassing to make your argument when you know full well that almost all other rankings, including data you presented earlier in the year, differ markedly from the Shanghai ratings.

My piece on the Periodic Table explains why this is so and why the Shanghai rankings are so off base.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)