For people who buy it off the news stand in print, as I have months ago ,
the 2011 edition on page 74 actually indicates under "Library &
Information Studies":

"The Top Schools"
"Our ranking is based on a **2008** survey of deans, program
directors, and senior faculty members at 50 schools with accredited
master's programs.

"The institutions below received the most nominations from survey
respondents at peer institutions for their excellence in a given

at the bottom of the page it reads "Methodology" in fine print

"Methodology: The library and information studies program rankings are
based solely on the results of a peer assessment survey.  Respondents
were asked to rate the academic quality of programs on a scale of 1
(marginal) to 5 (outstanding). Scores for each school were totaled and
divided by the number of respondents who rated that school.  The
response rate was 56 percent. Surveys were conducted by Synovate in
the Fall of 2008.  Note: Lists of schools consist of those master's
programs accredited by the American Library Association.  The survey
was sent to the dean of the program, the program director, and a
senior faculty member in each of these programs."

from the 2011 Edition of America's Best Graduate Schools  ISBN 9781931469364
The data here indicates it was actually gathered in Fall of 2008 , not
2009 as you suggest below.  There should be a better way to determine
"best" than a survey by peer assessment.

cheers & Happy St Patrick's Day all,
 Karen Weaver
Karen Weaver, MLS, Electronic Resources Statistician, Duquesne
University, Gumberg Library, Pittsburgh PA email: [log in to unmask] /
Gmail: [log in to unmask]

On 3/17/11, Gretchen Whitney <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Greetings,
>     I bring this to your attention because these two msgs are making the
> rounds of Web4Libs and other discussion lists tonite.
>     The first is at
> which is a tiny version of the full URL at
> The original msg represented here seemed to be unaware of t he fact that
> this data appears to be posted/gathered in 2009 - three years ago. But it
> is being posted as current (2011).
>    The second is at
> which is a tiny version of the full URL at
>    The original posting seems to be based on three-year old data, which
> appears to be current, except for the little date of data collection of
> 2008.
>    While this indeed old data, I bring this to your attention because it is
> appearing in my mailbox tonite as if it were current information.
>    And I've not seen anything in ALISE or ASIST literature to dispute the
> US News claims. Or to provide any other rankings according to more
> reliable criteria however stated.
>    --gw
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> Gretchen Whitney, PhD, Retired
> School of Information Sciences
> University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN 37996 USA           [log in to unmask]
> jESSE:
> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 14:02:27 -0400
> From: Robert Balliot <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask], Publib <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: [Web4lib] Library Science rankings
> I have heard the phrase "When you are number 2, you try harder" :
> With University of Rhode Island ranking last at 44, the phrase "No place to
> go but up" comes to mind.
> I would like to see the survey upon which they base these results.  But,
> given that there is really no consequence for a failure to be competitive,
> the results of the survey would be merely academic.
> Sigh,
> R. Balliot
> _______________________________________________
> Web4lib mailing list
> [log in to unmask]