Breaking news: National Research Council says Ohio State has the #1 graduate program in Agricultural and Resource Economics...sort of

According to the 1:00 PM ET release of the NRC Data-Based Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States here are the top 10 graduate programs in Agricultural and Resource Economics using a regression based method for assigning program characteristic weights:

1. OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS
2. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY
3. CLEMSON UNIVERSITY
4. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS
5. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK
6. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA-TWIN CITIES
7. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON - Agricultural and Applied Economics
8. PURDUE UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS
9. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
10. VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY

Here are the top 10 programs using an alternative survey based weighting scheme

1. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY
2. OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
3. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS
4. UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGE PARK
5. CORNELL UNIVERSITY
6. KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY
7. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
8. UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON - Agricultural and Applied Economics
9. UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND
10. OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY MAIN CAMPUS

I prefer the regression based rankings.

Some details on the methods:

For each program, two illustrations of rankings for overall program quality are given, based on two different methods of discerning what faculty in each field believe is important in a high-quality doctoral program.

The S (or survey-based) rankings are based on a survey that asked faculty to rate the importance of the 20 different program characteristics in determining the quality of a program. Based on their answers, each characteristic was assigned a weight; these weights varied by field. The weights were then applied to the data for each program in the field, resulting in a range of rankings for each program.

The R (or regression-based) rankings are based on an indirect way of determining the importance faculty attach to various characteristics. First, groups of randomly selected faculty were asked to rate the quality of a sample of representative programs in their field. Based on the sample program ratings, weights were assigned to each of the 20 characteristics using statistical techniques; again, these weights varied by field. These weights were applied to the data about each program, resulting in a second range of rankings.