U.S. News & World Report just released its 2007 rankings of the best schools. The report is not without controversy: critics say some schools pour too much time, money and energy into getting a high ranking. Many schools are also boycotting the rankings and won’t divulge their information to the magazine.
Where do you stand? Was grad school ranking important to you when you were selecting a school? Or do you think schools’ focus is better spent improving other areas of their programs?
The rankings are scewed in favor of those who contribute a lot towards the University, in comparison to those who are ranked poorly, usually contribute a little.
I think rankings are still an important tool for giving a general overview of which schools have a strong program in your field. For example, when I was selecting a graduate program I was changing to a new field of study, so rankings were helpful in guiding me toward specific programs to start researching.
That said, I feel rankings are best used in that manner -- as a general guide -- and should not substitute for detailed research and/or visits to each school. Ultimately, a decision should be based on factors like curriculum, environment, and opportunities, not just rankings.
With or without ranking, programs come with reputations. Students looking into programs will want to know how their educational background will be viewed. If someone goes to a school that has no reputation or worse, a bad reputation, that can have repercussions on their career in the future. Those of us who invest the time researching which programs to apply to need to have information resources. Schools need to be responsible for documenting their status and be accountable for their reputation. It is their responsiblity to the incoming students.