The ranking of universities and colleges at the national global level is a well-known doubtful practice. Imperfect approaches generate inaccurate results of these institutions. Nowadays, prestigious（有威望的） law and medical schools have started to walk away from this "evaluation".
There are two obvious methodological problems with all of this. One is that the numerical rankings suffer from false precision. Is there really a difference between No.10 and No.11 in the undergraduate （本科生） school rankings? Johns Hopkins University famously had a plan called"10 by 20"with the goal of getting to No.10 by 2020. Hopkins is a great undergraduate institution—whether it's No.10 or No.11 is meaningless, but it did indeed make it into the top 10 ahead of schedule, which no doubt delighted its trustees and students.
The other methodological problem is that rankings reward those schools that promote measurements by admitting students who have had the advantages of better pre-college education and test preparation coaching, and whose wealth will make them likely future donors. Equally worthy applicants without such resources will fail to enter the schools.
The good news is that in recent months, a reckoning（清算） has begun. Last September, Columbia University chose not to participate in the undergraduate rankings after an enterprising professor discovered that the school was fudging its own numbers. If Columbia's data were corrected, it would drop from No. 2 to No. 18. Two months later, law schools began pushing back. Yale and Harvard Law Schools announced that they would refuse to provide data to U. S. News, and several outstanding law schools followed suit.
This resistance to rankings has now begun in the world of science. This is a great sign. In announcing its decision, the dean of Washington University's medical school said, "…it is time to stop participating in a system that does not serve our students or their future patients."
