Jordan, I have mixed emotions about your thread. My first reaction is to love it, not because of the substance but because it is so off the wall that you have Barney talking to himself. He is finally experiencing the reaction that he has brought to so many others over the years.
Turning to the substance of your statement, it would be easy to dismiss it as a naive statement by a young man. If we are to act as critics, and really that is all we are doing here, then we cannot blindly accept the views of anyone. Thus your suggestion that the rankings essentially decide what is good and bad in gca is so far from accurate that it reduces the credibility of anything else you might say on any gca related topic. If you need examples any of the experienced members of this board will be happy to provide them. Critical analysis supported by well reasoned arguments and relevant facts will allow you to stand your own ground in discussing architecture or any other topic. But blind reliance on the opinions of anonymous others will not. If you want to engage serious (and sometimes self important) students of any discipline you have to meet them on their own terms. Please don't take this as a lecture from an "old guy" trying to discourage you. Instead view it as an attempt to help you achieve your potential by someone who is impressed by your interest and your willingness to particpate in what can be an intimidating group. You will only improve your analytical abilities if we hold you to the same standards as everyone else, regardless of age or maturity level (and the two are often incongruent). That's what I intend to do.
By the way, I agree that most architects would prefer that their courses be well liked and therefore highly ranked, both for reasons of ego and because they are likely to benefit financially. The question is, what will they do to achieve this goal? The true artist will design the best course he can and hope it is well received. Altering his vision to anticipate and blunt criticism will not be part of his modus operandi. This is the point that Barney was making (I think).
I don't believe there is any evidence that Tom Doak has compromised his standards to achieve ratings. I think Barney is way off base. Tom's remarks were more likely a reflection of his experience in both running and reacting to magazine ratings and were an attempt to explain movements within the system.