Those Magazine Rankings: Let's Beg Them To Stop.
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
During the college choice process, students and their families need to research and evaluate colleges in order to find colleges where the student can maximize his or her chances for success. It is important for students and parents to understand their own needs and wants, understand the unique characteristics of some colleges, and make a list of colleges that would be good matches for the student. The emphasis should be on encouraging the student and family to consider the when researching colleges. If done well, the students will learn something about themselves and about the many educational options that are available. Counselors can tell when a student is using the college rankings in U.S.News & World Report. I hear comments such as: My parents only want me to look at tier 1 colleges; uncle said, `don't go there, that's a tier 2 college'; and is the top-ranked liberal arts college in the country? In the search for good information, many students turn to the rankings without fully understanding them. Good college help students find a good fit between the student and the college. Resources that rank colleges encourage students to look more at the label and not the fit. While many college admissions professionals strongly believe that students should not use the college rankings that appear in national magazines and books, the rankings continue to influence decisions and affect the college admissions scene (McDonough, Antonio, Walpole, & Perez, 1997). These rankings misrepresent the colleges (Hoover, 1996) and steer students toward making decisions for the wrong reasons, such as choosing a college solely because of its ranking and not the match for the student (McGuire, 1995). Many prominent educational leaders such as Gerhard Casper, the President of Stanford University, have criticized the rankings and their role in the college choice process (McKinley, 1996; Ray, 1997). Around the same time as these initial criticisms, school counselors received a letter from the Editor, Special Projects of U.S.News & World Report stating that the magazine had made an in its rankings which impacted the ranking of American University (M. Elfin, personal communication, October, 31, 1996). This error highlighted one of the many problems with the rankings. The problems with the rankings continued when in March 1997, The Best Graduate Schools misranked 44 law schools (Fallows, 1997). Fundamental Flaws In my view, the following are fundamental flaws in the magazine's rankings: * They attempt to quantify the unquantifiable (e.g., subjective phenomena). * They confuse selectivity with quality (i.e., low acceptance rates, high yield, and high SAT scores increase a college's ranking). To quote from Colleges that Change Lives (Pope, 1996): A Canadian once observed that the American practice of judging colleges by the academic records of the high school seniors they pick is like judging the quality of hospitals by the condition of the patients they admit. What happens during the stay is what counts (p. 2). * They use a formula that is arbitrary, subjective, and changes year-to-year (e.g., U.S.News & World Report admits (Wildavsky, 1999, p. 1] that it was a change in the rankings methodology that helped move Caltech to the number one spot this year). * They mix and, as a result, obscure helpful statistics (e.g., a statistic such as retention rate is important, but gets lost in the formula). * They use artificially aggregated variables (e.g., resources is a combination of student /faculty ratio, percent of professors with terminal degrees, percent of full-time faculty, average faculty salary, and average class size) and arbitrarily weighted variables (e.g., alumni giving is used as a proxy for alumni satisfaction and is 5% of the total score in the formula). * They assume that students will view the rankings critically and objectively when they may not have the emotional or intellectual maturity to do so. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,023 | 0,009 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle