If the primary benefit of attending a good college is education from professors, then yes, there is something perverse in the rankings. But I'm not sure that's how college actually works.
At the undergrad level, a particular class at one college is likely pretty similar to a class at another college. And aside from a few exceptional students, you're likely to be able to find whatever classes you're looking for at any college you care to attend. There are more competent people who can teach, and want to teach, intro to Shakespeare, or second-semester thermodynamics, or whatever, than there are teaching positions available.
Most of the benefit you get from choosing college A over college B comes from your interactions with your peers. Some of this is just people working together on class projects, but a lot of it is the pervasive culture of a place. At some schools, people will hang out and talk about political theory. At others, there's a culture of making art. Some places care more about sports. And at some schools there's a culture of building things. Actually, at most schools, all of these things happen to some extent, but you're more likely to encounter them at some places than at others.
And if that's the benefit of college, then it absolutely makes sense to say that the best colleges are the ones with the best students.
That's true, but also the problem. Which university should, then, these best students hang out at? I think we all agree they should be at the one that is the best at teaching them, or which has a style of teaching that works well for them. But we wouldn't know that because most of the ratings can't (or rather won't) discern this. Why is school A the best? It has the best students. Why do they have the best students? Because school A is the best school. So it's not bad for figuring out where the school you belong at is, but a complete non-metric for the school itself - they can't tell how they rate at actual education or if they're a good choice teaching wise (or if all the students would be better off congregating elsewhere - they'd still have each other as well as potentially better teachers).
Comments
If the primary benefit of attending a good college is education from professors, then yes, there is something perverse in the rankings. But I'm not sure that's how college actually works.
At the undergrad level, a particular class at one college is likely pretty similar to a class at another college. And aside from a few exceptional students, you're likely to be able to find whatever classes you're looking for at any college you care to attend. There are more competent people who can teach, and want to teach, intro to Shakespeare, or second-semester thermodynamics, or whatever, than there are teaching positions available.
Most of the benefit you get from choosing college A over college B comes from your interactions with your peers. Some of this is just people working together on class projects, but a lot of it is the pervasive culture of a place. At some schools, people will hang out and talk about political theory. At others, there's a culture of making art. Some places care more about sports. And at some schools there's a culture of building things. Actually, at most schools, all of these things happen to some extent, but you're more likely to encounter them at some places than at others.
And if that's the benefit of college, then it absolutely makes sense to say that the best colleges are the ones with the best students.
That's true, but also the problem. Which university should, then, these best students hang out at? I think we all agree they should be at the one that is the best at teaching them, or which has a style of teaching that works well for them. But we wouldn't know that because most of the ratings can't (or rather won't) discern this. Why is school A the best? It has the best students. Why do they have the best students? Because school A is the best school. So it's not bad for figuring out where the school you belong at is, but a complete non-metric for the school itself - they can't tell how they rate at actual education or if they're a good choice teaching wise (or if all the students would be better off congregating elsewhere - they'd still have each other as well as potentially better teachers).