Jump to content

OT: SLU #116 in W$J rankings


bonwich

Recommended Posts

Hey, beats talking about basketball these days.

Other notables:

WashU 11, Georgetown 29, Illinois 48, BC 63, Davidson 77, Creighton 134, Marquette 159, Dayton 182, Fordham 197, Zags 215, Xavier 229, DePaul 270, Saint Joe's 292, Methdale 315, SPUMAC 325, SIUE "501-600," UMSL "601-800," Missouri State ">800"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very surprised at MO State.  Not that I have any connections there or have forgiven them for what they did to RM, etc.

But agree w West Coast... we needed a bricks and mortar President in Fr Biondi but now we need the reputation and rankings of the school to rise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One positive is that this isn't as fragmented as the US News rankings, which splits out schools in a number of different ways. So some of the ones ahead of us in the WSJ rankings might be under the regional rankings in US News rankings, which would put us a little better off.

Still, yeah, I want us to do better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:

I'm shocked at how low some schools rank.  Xavier 229?  DePaul 270?  I certainly want SLU to improve in the rankings, but I would be far more embarrassed to be a graduate of either of those schools.

Curious as to what this is based on....

UMSL ahead of MO State? Carbondale ahead of MIZ...??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know the parameters they used, but this is the WSJ.  It comes with a solid reputation.  I would say that it's journalistic integrity is viewed as above the U.S. News and World Report.  I also know that the USN&WR ranking criteria has been widely criticized over the past decade.  I would trust a WSJ ranking over a USN&WR ranking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if this is behind the paywall or not, but here's the home page for the survey: 

http://www.wsj.com/graphics/college-rankings-2016/

And here's the short form of the methodology.

The overall methodology explores four key areas:

Resources

Does the college have the capacity to effectively deliver teaching?  The Resource area represents 30 per cent of the overall ranking.  Within this we look at:

Finance per student (11%)
Faculty per student (11%)
Research papers per faculty (8%)
Engagement

Does the college effectively engage with its students? Most of the data in this area is gathered through the THE US Student Survey. The Engagement area represents 20 per cent of the overall ranking.  Within this we look at:

Student engagement (7%)
Student recommendation (6%)
Interaction with teachers and students (4%)
Number of accredited programmes (3%)
Outcomes

Does the college generate good and appropriate outputs? Does it add value to the students who attend? The Outcomes area represents 40 per cent of the overall ranking.  Within this we look at:

Graduation rate (11%)
Value added to graduate salary (12%)
Value added to the loan repayment rate (7%)
Academic reputation (10%)

 

Environment

Is the college providing a learning environment for all students? Does it make efforts to attract a diverse student body and faculty?  The Environment area represents 10 per cent of the overall ranking. Within this we look at:

Proportion of international students (2%)
Student diversity (3%) 
Student inclusion (2%)
Staff diversity (3%)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This ranking shouldn't be compared directly with U.S. News & World Report, since that ranking does not include liberal arts schools (Williams, Amherst, etc.) and WSJ does. 

 

116 in WSJ is likely in line with or ahead of where SLU would fall if the list of schools ranked were the same as in the U.S. News & World Report ranking. That said, all of these rankings are fairly arbitrarily weighted and shouldn't be used as a true measure of the quality of a school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bonwich said:

I don't know if this is behind the paywall or not, but here's the home page for the survey: 

http://www.wsj.com/graphics/college-rankings-2016/

And here's the short form of the methodology.

The overall methodology explores four key areas:

Resources

Does the college have the capacity to effectively deliver teaching?  The Resource area represents 30 per cent of the overall ranking.  Within this we look at:

Finance per student (11%)
Faculty per student (11%)
Research papers per faculty (8%)
Engagement

Does the college effectively engage with its students? Most of the data in this area is gathered through the THE US Student Survey. The Engagement area represents 20 per cent of the overall ranking.  Within this we look at:

Student engagement (7%)
Student recommendation (6%)
Interaction with teachers and students (4%)
Number of accredited programmes (3%)
Outcomes

Does the college generate good and appropriate outputs? Does it add value to the students who attend? The Outcomes area represents 40 per cent of the overall ranking.  Within this we look at:

Graduation rate (11%)
Value added to graduate salary (12%)
Value added to the loan repayment rate (7%)
Academic reputation (10%)

 

Environment

Is the college providing a learning environment for all students? Does it make efforts to attract a diverse student body and faculty?  The Environment area represents 10 per cent of the overall ranking. Within this we look at:

Proportion of international students (2%)
Student diversity (3%) 
Student inclusion (2%)
Staff diversity (3%)

 

-I'll bite since the thread is OT, but isn't the exercise intended to some degree to assess or assign academic reputation? if the number of accredited programs is in the formula doesn't that bias toward big (state) schools? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In US News, us 96, SPUMAC 111. Seems like we used to be much closer and at least 10 places higher each. WashU is also now at 19, which means it's dropped. The up and comer is Maryville, which is 164 in the national universities ranking. (And Davidson is #9 in liberal arts colleges, which I think is pretty cool for a school that also has a D-1 competitive basketball team.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cowboy said:

-I'll bite since the thread is OT, but isn't the exercise intended to some degree to assess or assign academic reputation? if the number of accredited programs is in the formula doesn't that bias toward big (state) schools? 

Your logic is good, but since none of the top 20 schools is a big (state) school, there must be more than meets the eye in the stated criteria. 

Edit: And even though I employed it, I believe the "OT" designation is formally waived for this year. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bonwich said:

Your logic is good, but since none of the top 20 schools is a big (state) school, there must be more than meets the eye in the stated criteria. 

-I guess I should have looked at the rankings and not just been focused on where SLU was slotted 

-the number of programs is a small factor in the engagement section but still in the mix albeit in a minor way

-I did look at the first part of the list and notice UNC at #30, interesting......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...