We Americans love our rankings. Most fuel efficient or fastest car. Biggest house. Largest burritos.
For those of us who went into school thinking "Hey, I think architecture is neato" (which was probably the extent of our diligence into understanding what we were getting into) I wonder which is the representative population of students researching which particular school was "best" and not just "affordable" or "cheap" or had a proper "male to female" or "proximity to bar" ratio. I mean, if any of us had proper role models (ie. parents in the business) we surely wouldn't have gone and done something so tremendously stupid as to follow their footsteps, now would we? No, we would have gone into something respectable such as banking or lawyering or buying and selling lawyers or perhaps smuggling illegal substances in vans (which probably has better health insurance). Regardless, we decided to become "architects" which means a tremendous amount of schooling, then some interning and of course all the tests and requisite licensureship and continuing education which or course turns every practitioner into a well rounded and intelligent architect (can you hear my chortling?).
I have concerns that the overall goal of a "good school" is that an architecture school's primary goal is to first "prepare students for professional practice" (as described by DesignIntelligence). Sure, it sounds great, but what the hell does it really mean? Are the schools creating problem solvers with good communication skills, ethics and morals, passion for design or simply computer skills? Are these things exclusive?
Like most ratings most of the data can mean whatever you want it to, and while I may agree with Foster's sentiment that school is one of the most formative places for young architects I would speculate that "you get out what you put in", rather then "you get out what is shoved in your face". If the student's are not interested, no amount of fantastic guest lecturers or 7 axis robotic arms will entrall them.
However if the competition to get in to the institution is a little higher, you may find that your student population feels they have more to lose via a little complacency and therefore raise the bar of the program. Which isn't a bad thing at all.
Like all school rankings the best advice is to go out and visit the programs. Look for a well rounded curriculum (if you have no idea in which to specialize yet, who at 18 years old did?), in a comfortable environment with good opportunity for travel and exposure. Look at past lecture series, see if any professors have published or built anything you have heard of and liked. Talk to former and present students (remember the grass is always greener) and be aware that even though your undergraduate work begins at one school, your graduate work can always move you someplace else.
As for rankings, I look at portfolios and interviews more then simply what school a student went to. I also know that higher tuition costs usually equate to higher pay needs, however the student's exposure to lectures, educators and programs may make them worth it. There is no silver bullet. If we were all the same the whole country would look like, well, South of Charlotte NC, and no one wants that.
