If it hasn't yet been done--I thought it might be interesting, even illuminating, to think about the Time’s star system in relation to another (in)famous ranking system—perhaps the "no.1" ranking phenomenon—the U.S. News and World Report’s annual ranking of the “Best Universities in America”. You are wondering what important similarity exists between these two systems, apart from their being rankings? Mainly the social-cultural logic behind them. One thing that both rankings share in common is the perception amongst cognoscenti of their lack of consistency, accuracy, coherence, and efficacy. But is that really what we expect from them, as they exist for us today? The NY Times stars largely match a system of expectations in the public that are not necessarily rational or systematic, as I agree they should be. But the criteria of the NYTimes stars is not so alien to us as to be unrecognizable either. Indeed, they respond to our need for orderly information and status. They reflect, and frequently follow, a set of expectations of what "extraordinary dining" should be. These expectations may be a prejudice, for instance, for French cuisine (or, now, Japanese), or a certain type (note I do not necessarily say "quality") of service. And this is not to say that these expectations are necessarily the wrong ones either. Quality often follows perceptions, or conforms itself to expectations. We only loose because the reverse is less often true and quality sometimes goes unacknowledged. We should perhaps use the Times' star system as a mirror of our society's cultural aspirations in food rather than a connoisseur's evaluation of the restaurants themselves.