Although Duke's upgrade from eighth to seventh in U.S. News and World Report's annual ranking of universities last month was met with student fanfare, there are questions as to the significance of a one-spot rise in terms of quality.
Before this year’s rankings were published, the magazine announced a change in its evaluation methodology: factors reflecting the talent of a university’s student body coming into college were emphasized less, while factors measuring students’ success during and after college were given more weight.
Such changes to criteria are made to work towards a more accurate and comprehensive ranking, said Robert Morse, the director of data research for U.S. News who has worked with the rankings for more than 20 years.
But others, including Adrian Bejan, J. A. Jones professor of mechanical engineering, who has applied physical laws to the ranking system, suggested that U.S News coordinates the changes to shift the rankings and consequently increase revenue and interest.
“The magazine, from year to year, changes the formula a little bit in order to trigger these insignificant changes in the interest of the gullible,” Bejan said.
Morse, however, denied those claims.
“We never made the methodology changes because we wanted to shake up the rankings,” Morse said. “It was always because we thought it would produce better rankings.”
The ranking system has undergone a number of changes since its debut in 1983—evolving from a reputation-based survey of university presidents to the current 16-part system, Morse noted.
“We’re helping students and parents, providing comparative information to help them make choices,” he said.
The rankings have grown increasingly popular as a tool for prospective students. This year’s rankings attracted a record number of readers—the webpage garnered 2.6 million unique visitors and 18.9 million page views in the first day alone, Morse said. What was once a relatively minor annual feature has become the magazine’s most popular offering.
Bejan, however, said that the college rankings were created as a marketing ploy to sell magazines. In 2007, Bejan published a paper in the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics applying a concept called constructal theory to the rankings. In it, he posits that there is a set societal hierarchy of universities—the best students enroll in the best colleges and allow them to maintain their prestige, just as water flows to the largest channels of a river basin.
“You can only change the rankings by changing the formula,” he said. “The message of it is that the rankings are not changing. If that message was to really penetrate the public, the public would lose interest.”
The changes to the formula notwithstanding, the upgrade from eighth place to seventh—and similar fluctuations Duke has experienced in the past—do not reflect a change in the quality of the University, said Steve Nowicki, dean and vice provost for undergraduate education.
“Frankly, the top 10 is kind of arbitrary—the top 15, maybe,” Nowicki said. “The rankings are numerically so close if you look at the numbers that go in.”
Duke has placed as high as third and as low as tenth over the past 20 years, which can most likely be attributed to shifts in methodology and “data anomalies,” Morse said.
“There isn’t that much of a difference between five and one, even if people think there is,” he added.
Although rankings are worth considering for a prospective student, they should not be the driving factor, Morse said. He noted that factors such as cost, specific program offerings and the school’s atmosphere should also be weighed.
“The biggest issue of the rankings is, can you sum up complex institutions that are way more than the ranking variables that can be measured?” Morse said.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.