About Rankings

[kidpebble]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I found this on the pre-allopathic site-- it makes good sense and can be applied to the same for public health schools. check it out:

There was a great essay written by the AAMC president criticizing the USNews rankings system:

Quote:
Just what is wrong with the rankings? The fundamental problem is that they are based on a set of metrics that fail to directly measure the quality of education. In the U.S. News rankings, "reputation" is the most heavily weighted metric. While a variety of factors help determine a school's reputation (such as the number of alumni and the size and location of its home city), many are in no way measures of educational quality.

Other metrics used in the rankings, such as the amount of National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants awarded and faculty-to-student ratios, seem impressive at first glance, but can be misleading to an applicant. For example, while high levels of NIH funding may signal an institution's commitment to building strong research programs (and may also reflect research opportunities available to students), a strong research orientation could have the unintended consequence of limiting faculty time in the classroom.

Lastly, the U.S. News rankings list only 50 of the 125 accredited U.S. medical schools. Does this mean unranked schools do not provide a high-quality education? To the contrary; it has been my experience that a superb medical education can be found in some of the less well-known, yet very student-focused schools that might not even appear on the U.S. News list.
http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/may07/word.htm

 

[teshi1]

It certainly makes a lot of sense.

 

[tt13]

i only agree to some extent.

if i'm not mistaken, the us news report's ranking formula is something like 25% based on surveys taken by the deans of the various disciplinary schools (essentially 'peer' surveys), another 25% from graduation and retention rates.

i'm not sure what the other 50% is, but the first 50% seems like a good way to measure the quaility of a school. in theory, the quality of a school should correlate with how it is perceived by other schools within its discipline. to touch on the 'student-focused' issue, it would make sense that schools that serve their students well would have a high rentention rate.

but of course, the rankings shouldn't be the sole defining factor, since rankings don't reflect the 'fit' for each individual.

 

[briy61]

I can't speak to the legitimacy of the rankings of Allopathic or Osteopathic schools, but for Public Health, one must keep in mind that US News and World Report is ranking the Schools of Public Health, NOT MPH programs.

That is to say, many colleges/universities offer quality MPH degrees, but do not have a dedicated School of Public Health. This is why I think it's less important for a program to be accredited by the ASPH than the CEPH.

If USNWR were to rank all MPH programs, you would probably see a very different (and a much larger) list.

 

[tt13]

briy61, i think you're completely right about how the rankings would change if it were to take into consideration PROGRAMS of public health rather than SCHOOLS of public health.

my question is: where would these "programs" fit in? i hear about how there are so many other great programs, but i don't think i'm aware of what these other great programs are...

this is an honest question. i've already done all my applications, and i'm not going to lie, my school selection process started with the USNews Ranking, simply because i had no clue what programs are reputable. my concentration is health management, so reputation is quite important.

 

[para]

I can't speak to the legitimacy of the rankings of Allopathic or Osteopathic schools, but for Public Health, one must keep in mind that US News and World Report is ranking the Schools of Public Health, NOT MPH programs.

That is to say, many colleges/universities offer quality MPH degrees, but do not have a dedicated School of Public Health. This is why I think it's less important for a program to be accredited by the ASPH than the CEPH.

If USNWR were to rank all MPH programs, you would probably see a very different (and a much larger) list.

do u or anyone know how good GW or NYMC is ? and yes thanx for the highlight!