Talk:U.S. News & World Report

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

This page definitely needs more expansion. I marked it as a magazine stub. --Koblentz 12:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Roy University doesn't seem real to me.

Are there international editions of U.S. News & World Report in different languages? =) Jumping cheese ^Contact 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main overview should include the company's mission. I would like to insert "Its mission is to help people make the best decisions." after the first sentence and link to this page: https://www.usnews.com/about-us to ensure the public knows where to find that information on the company website. Katemodonnell (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

The USN&WR Magazine Archive web page claims there were 3 predecessor titles that started in 1926.

United States Daily, 1926-1933.
United States News, 1933-1948
World Report, 1946-1948
U.S. News & World Report, 1948-1984

Source -> https://www.ebscohost.com/archives/magazine-archives/us-news-and-world-report-magazine-archive--OctaviaGraystone (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

The new editor is Brian Kelly not Brian Duffy. Source -> http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/staff.htm

Media Bias

I'm curious to know where US News and World Report Falls on the media bias contiuum.

71.208.200.101 19:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It tends to be conservative. EIFY (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get this into the article somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.98.78 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely liberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

This material is unsourced. It needs references and citations before being restored back to the article. -Classicfilms 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critics claim that annual fluctuations in rankings are driven by the magazine's desire to generate news and increase circulation, and not by real changes in the quality of a given institution. Moreover, twenty-five percent of each institution's ranking is based on a peer assessment survey completed by college presidents and administrators. While U.S. News asserts that this "allows the top academics we contact to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching", it is unclear what basis college presidents and administrators have for making these assessments for more than a handful of institutions. Regardless of the basis for these administrators' assessments, this process reflects what colleges and administrators think of institutions. However, the U.S. News survey does not measure employer satisfaction with newly minted college graduates.

Because the U.S. News rankings measure an institution's educational practices and curricular offerings indirectly at best, alternative survey instruments have been developed to identify institutions that routinely provide enriching educational and social experiences and environments for their students. An example of such a survey is the National Survey of Student Engagement. This survey currently is used at a relatively small number of colleges, however, and many of those that use it do not make their results public.

A few institutions, most notably Reed College, have refused to cooperate with U.S. News's data-gathering efforts because of concerns about the ways that such ratings schemes lead institutions to distort their priorities and resource allocations in order to boost their rankings.^[1] U.S. News has come under fire for its rankings of graduate programs as well. Almost all of the deans from American Bar Association-accredited law schools signed a letter sent by the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) decrying the ranking methodology. Detractors of U.S. News say their rankings rely too much on "subjective" factors. Regardless, U.S. News continues to rank law schools down to the 4th tier, despite only ranking the top 50 schools in other professions, such as medical schools or MBA programs.

Supporters of the U.S. News college rankings argue that they condense a wide variety of useful information for prospective students and their families. One by-product of the rankings' increased profile has been the development of standardized definitions of many of the quality indicators that U.S. News and other guidebooks publish. The most notable of these is the Common Data Set, a data template devised by several guidebook publishers to standardize their annual collecting of data from college and university institutional researchers.

In addition to the newsstand issue, the rankings are elaborated in America's Best Colleges, a college guide published by U.S. News in print and online. The commercial success of the U.S. News rankings has spawned similar efforts at other publications, including Newsweek, the Atlantic Monthly and the Times Higher Education Supplement. Although an explanation of methodology accompanies the rankings, U.S. News has not revealed the formula it uses for determining them. Much of the raw data used in the rankings is provided by institutional researchers at colleges and universities.

The magazine also ranks hospitals annually in various specialties.

References

^ http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/shunning-college-rankings

College rankings

It seems like a disproportional amount of the page is devoted to the college rankings. Actually, only the intro section is not about college rankings. I suggest that the college ranking sections to be edited down or expand on the history and current status of U.S. News. Jumping cheese 19:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seeing as there is already in article devoted to college rankings, this section is far to long and should be dramatically reduced or even removed.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed some material - if I removed something that you think should be there, go ahead and restore. -Classicfilms 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the table of rankings but it was restored by another editor - so perhaps that should stay. If it does, the formatting needs fixing.-Classicfilms 19:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd cut the whole ratings thing down to one short paragraph, since it is not proportional to all the magazine is and does, which should be on this page. If the rankings are really that notable, put them in their own article and {{main}} over to it. --J Clear 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea - the magazine is known for its rankings, and the criticism is current news (which makes it notable) so mention of both subsections should appear as short paragraphs - and both have {{main}} links already . As for the table, maybe it should be moved to another page for tables related to rankings. -Classicfilms 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the college ranking system is the only thing us world and nes report is known for, because it's such an awful magazine. Not to say that the rankings arent awful too, because they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.23.253 (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly & Internet Publication

First, I dropped the UPI reference entirely, as it has been two months since the announcement and the website still features plenty of news on it - there is no evidence of a complete shift to consumer guides. Second, I clicked on the subscription link and they're still selling print subscriptions, albeit for no more than a year at the most. That tells me they're going ahead with the some print schedule - they're not all internet yet. Recent comments by the editor are silent on the entire topic.

Secondly, the Times reference cites anonymous sources, so you can't say "the magazine announced" any more.

If anyone disagrees, please discuss here before changing the article. Thanks.

--KNHaw ^(talk) 17:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mideast Conflict

Information on the publication's views on the Mideast conflict would be rather useful. ADM (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals

WP probably should not reprint the list itself, although this is a borderline copyright issue.Borock (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you are correct, it is a copyright issue, even if it's "borderline". Second, even if USNWR doesn't complain, this might be due to its being grateful for the "advertising" i.e. the "endorsement of inclusion": why is it the function of WP to include this list in this way? Third, the Wikipedia article's presentation currently has no encyclopedic contextualization of the merits of the USNWR ranking based on any cited independent WP:RS, so the list at an intellectual level stands only as an "advert without analysis". Given the state of things at USNWR, the sources within the reference list indicate that it's actually RTI International - unfortunately a research organization which has numerous other arms that have commercial ties to many of the types of teaching hospital systems it endorses - that does the work that USNWR then puts to print. There's a little guesswork as to whether the list gets proper, accountable editorial review at any level, and whether any of the "rules and statistical trimming procedures" USNWR/RTI use for the process have been assessed for relevancy or merit (in the citation, USNWR says the rules are "complex"... perhaps a euphemism for "arbitrary and unsubstantiated"...?) or, indeed, how to apply the list practically. In fact, the non-independent citations from the USNWR indicate an opinion that the list is relevant for the complex / elderly patient with recurrent problems and imply it isn't relevant for routine healthcare (but I don't see that information in the Wikipedia article, and I'd have thought it's that that should be there, rather than the list itself without a relevancy / applicability assessment...). Also, it's no surprise that given the "specific" methodology of the USNWR list there is almost complete discordance from the line up in "Improving America's Hospitals: The Joint Commission's Annual Report on Quality and Safety, 2012." This point has been dutifully reported by Robert Lowes Sept 20, 2012 "Joint Commission's Top-Hospital List Still Missing Big Names" available at [www.medscape.com/viewarticle/771280]. Robert Lowes's article points out that the discrepancy between these lists is due to methodology. The JC process claims to be based on meaningful parameters of quality. The Wikipedia article's treatment of the USNWR list is at present grossly incomplete and unencyclopedic, a oversimplified "endorsement of inclusion". To restate that, the current content is "duplication of the raw source data rather than actionable encyclopedic information" and as such it amounts to a subtle (not so subtle) advertorial. I will cull the list (but I will leave the reference to the USNWR web material, because that's much more complete and readers can adjudicate it for themselves) in the next week or two unless a viable counter-argument emerges as to including the list as currently presented. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the list itself due to the concerns I previously laid out (above), kept the reference links thereto, amplified the background methodological conceptualization that underpins the list as explained by the USNWR citation, and further amplified that USNWR statement by adding a citation to Robert Lowes's Sept 20, 2012 article in Medscape Medical News. The section could be further improved by further independent WP:RS, as per guidelines. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the print edition totally D.O.A.?

This entry seems to suggest that the magazine still exists in print form aside from its special education, hospital. etc. reports. My understanding is that it's solely a website nowadays. Isn't this correct? [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:1000:4E2:9227:E4FF:FEF0:BBDE (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italicization

Is there a reason that the name of the magazine is not italicized? Here is what the opening looks like as of today:

U.S. News & World Report is an American media company that publishes consumer advice, rankings and analysis. Founded as a news weekly magazine in 1933, U.S. News transitioned to primarily web-based publishing in 2010. U.S. News is best known today for its influential Best Colleges and Best Hospitals rankings, but it has expanded its content and product offerings in education, health, money, careers, travel, and cars.

Thanks KConWiki (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - Looking at this again, it seems that when the phrase "U.S. News & World Report" is used as the name of a periodical it is italicized, but when it is used as a business name it is not. KConWiki (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on U.S. News & World Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-sacks/americas-best-college-sca_b_45064.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split college rankings to U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking

@TDJankins: I noticed your reverts on U.S. News & World Report, and mistakenly even sent you a Thank you for the first one. However, the categories are not more accurate as you say. If it is still an online magazine – and it isn't only categorized as such, but also looks like one – then it has not been disestablished, and is not defunct. It also isn't a "University and college ranking".
Secondly, the rankings content has been split apart to U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking, where material from multiple pages could be combined into a more comprehensive article on that particular ranking. Even though it may be an important publication for U.S. News & World Report, it was given WP:UNDUE weight before, completely dominating the whole article on a magazine with a history going back to 1933. A short summary on the college rankings, combined with a link to the more specific article is not just good enough, but clearly preferable. I hope you can see why I'm restoring my edits. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the college rankings are what US News is known for and are the biggest part of its current business. As such, there is no undue weight. You're free to add stuff to other pages specifically dedicated to the rankings, but the existence of those pages does not qualify the removal of the college rankings content from this page. Further, I noticed you invented a category: US News & World Report. A company is not a category. Do you work for US News?--TDJankins (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TDJankins: LOL, this is really funny. Look at my track record, please. I'm neither a fan of that company's rankings, nor of its crappy reporting. Actually, I'm not even particularly interested in American media. Geographically, I could be the company's Central Europe correspondent, except that it probably doesn't have a representation here.
Your revert is not justified, part of it is moderately disruptive, while part of your reasoning is at odds with relevant guidelines and good practice, see for a primer WP:Splitting. But while I usually do care about many things here, I don't care enough about this crappy article to go into an edit-war with you. Earlier or later someone else will raise similar questions and might be more interested in arguing with you. Bye, PanchoS (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Actually, the very same issue has been raised by Jumping cheese before, see #College rankings. Also pinging the other participants there, Astuishin, Classicfilms and Classicfilms. Discuss the issue with them – I'm out here. --PanchoS (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the ping - my comments were made quite some time ago, so I had to really review the current edits to bring myself to date. I stand by the comments I made above which is somewhat in the middle of either side. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on U.S. News & World Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090312045445/http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com:80/cars-trucks/Best-Cars-for-the-Money/ to http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/Best-Cars-for-the-Money/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on U.S. News & World Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on U.S. News & World Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best High Schools

Has anyone found any criticism of the Best High Schools rankings?

I have personally visited TJHS for Sci/Tech (historically ranked 1 by USN&WR a few times) and talked to one of the tenured teachers there - he'd been there since the school was opened and run (for the first few years) by the asst Supe of Ed for Fairfax County. In fact, my son and I got locked in since we were there well past the end of the Open House listening and asking questions.

Pretty eye opening... he mentioned something about selling my son and I a bridge if we believed the USN&WR fodder. I was curious as to any credible refuting of it's rankings. Wamnet (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/shunning-college-rankings

[1]