US News Rankings - UAlbany is up big

[Michigan_Dane]

I found this great Washington Post article that tracked rankings since 2010. So how has the SUNY Centers done over 3 years?

• Stony Brook has improved 17 points (82)
  
• UAlbany improved 15 points (128)
  
• Buffalo has improved 11 points (109)
  
• Binghamton has dropped 11 points (97)
  

 

Year to year doesn't tell you much so I really like this trend analysis. Generally the SUNY Centers are doing better. Not sure what's going on at Binghamton but at this rate they could fall out of the top 100 next year. Binghamton was once far ahead of the other SUNY Centers... not so anymore.

 

UAlbany still has a lot of improvement to go so I'm not crowing but 15 point improvement in 3 years is nothing to blow off.

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/us-news-college-rankings-the-big-gainers-and-big-decliners-over-three-years/2013/09/10/fb11a472-199c-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html

[madDOG]

At least we're moving in the right direction. I wonder how much the Nano College played into that? Either way, Dr. Jones needs to continue to work on it. We should be in the Top 100.

[purplenorange]

The Nanocollege most likely played no role in the rankings. The methodology was changed to put more weight on 'outcomes', so peer assessment counted for less, % graduating counted for more, class rank counted for less, and a few other tweaks to the method. Since the nanocollege had all of 140 undergraduates, and they haven't been there long enough to affect graduation rates, they had little to no effect. Also, in spite of the potentate, his 140 undegraduates do NOT have MIT or Stanford level grades. RPI, maybe (and RPI checks in at #41 - not top 20).

 

If the college had STAYED part of UAlbany, grew its undergraduate program to, say, 500 students with stellar competitiveness and 95% four-year graduating rates, it would have helped UAlbany.

 

Getting 'up there' is great, but I think increasingly these rankings are counting for less and less. Now that Stony Brook has shot past Binghamton, I think you're going to hear a LOT from Vestal about how rankings don't matter

[madDOG]

The Nanocollege most likely played no role in the rankings. The methodology was changed to put more weight on 'outcomes', so peer assessment counted for less, % graduating counted for more, class rank counted for less, and a few other tweaks to the method. Since the nanocollege had all of 140 undergraduates, and they haven't been there long enough to affect graduation rates, they had little to no effect. Also, in spite of the potentate, his 140 undegraduates do NOT have MIT or Stanford level grades. RPI, maybe (and RPI checks in at #41 - not top 20).

 

If the college had STAYED part of UAlbany, grew its undergraduate program to, say, 500 students with stellar competitiveness and 95% four-year graduating rates, it would have helped UAlbany.

 

Getting 'up there' is great, but I think increasingly these rankings are counting for less and less. Now that Stony Brook has shot past Binghamton, I think you're going to hear a LOT from Vestal about how rankings don't matter

 

I always figured peer assessments hurt us, so I'm glad to hear that they took some emphasis away from it.

 

Agreed that these rankings are pretty much BS, but unfortunately too many kids (and their parents) use it as a basis for selecting schools.

 

lol @ last comment re: Bing.