<p>I may be hallucinating, but I seem to recall a recent thread that discussed this, but I just can't find it. In any event, I see that Jay Mathews, the education columnist for the Post revered by many (including me) and reviled by just as many (including Xiggi) is planning on a review of the guides and is looking for feedback from his readers. The story is at <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071900447.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/19/AR2005071900447.html</a> if you're interested.</p>
<p>Fiske Guide was great for me.....I abandoned all the others and used this one. However......you may be just as well using the internet these days. So much is available for free......request the info from the school directly and remember that you can see the course offerings on their websites also.</p>
<p>we use the three biggies: PR, Yale and Fiske. Didn't find Kaplan or CB's of much value.</p>
<p>The Fiske is pretty close to truth in advertising when they talk about the schools. The problem is that Fiske only covers 300 schools (The Ivies, elites, top publics, etc). So if you are off the beaten path, you may not find a write up about your school</p>
<p>Sybie has made a valid point.....not much help to find undiscovered gems....that next most popular school.</p>
<p>I found Fiske to be the best for describing the personality of the school, and USNews (online) the best for getting good statistical information.</p>
<p>Fiske for me, too; and for what he doesn't cover as well, Pope's "Colleges That Changed Lives."</p>
<p>Not often mentioned is Choosing The Right College. A conservative bias (very) they do not attempt to mask...discounting that more in depth than most re: academics and advising.</p>
<p>Who is that by?</p>
<p>"The Fiske Guide to Colleges" is a very good college guide to use.</p>
<p>We liked Princeton Review's "The Best 3xx Colleges"...the number seems to edge up every year. A downside is that they do not update their entries for all colleges every year...I'd guess maybe a half to a third. However, I found its balance of objective and subjective data to be very useful. At least it gave some indication of issues that might or might not be a problem for you, something to check out when you visited, e.g., how much of "party school" a given college was, issues about being remote or student life being centered off-campus, etc.</p>
<p>I like it well enough that I still buy a copy every year when it comes out even though it's not directly relevant to me or my D any more...it's proven to be a good reference book at hand when friends ask questions, which they often do.</p>
<p>Like Fiske, it may be of little use if your college isn't on the beaten track. Otoh, colleges such as Alfred, Bard, Coe, Drew, Elon, Fairfield, Guilford, Hendrix, Ithaca, Juniata, Kalamazoo, etc. all make its list and I think that at least as far as <em>admissions</em> goes, the schools not on this list aren't nearly as problematic as those that are. Which still isn't very helpful if you're looking for a "good fit" that happens to be a college like Pacific Lutheran.</p>
<p>I just went to <a href="http://www.pr.com%5B/url%5D">www.pr.com</a> it was free and up to date generally. This forum is a great tool as well.</p>
<p>fiske is the best</p>
<p>please give me advice at my post "chances at uc schools"</p>
<p>Wabash, It is by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute...a conservative group that promotes a "core" curriculum of liberal arts.</p>
<p>Fiske and one that doesn't get a lot of CC coverage: Barron's Best Buys in College Education</p>
<p>TheDad: PR can be very negative and they use student quotes that are not representative of the school. Dd did not want to apply to Rice after reading the following in PR's book: "The more moneyed students are called "pretentious" and "self-important," and reportedly "students that are not rich, white, or straight are tolerated only superficially." Can you blame her for not wanting to apply??? That quote has been on PR and in the book for at least 4 years (Since I first read it 4 years ago), and it is not representative of reality. (They took one comment that one student made - totally unscientific and unsupported). There are two orgs for gay students, and the residential system fosters relationships between very different kids. She is at Rice now, and loves it, and has met great people. IN further nastiness PR says, "At a "school notoriously composed of geeks, dorks, and nerds," Rice is home to students who are generally "very future-oriented, looking for internships, summer jobs, and study abroad programs," to the extent that, "if it won't look good on a resume, most students aren't interested." That also is baloney, or all the residence hall musicals, plays, and tons of other stuff etc. would never happen.<br>
More nastiness: "the environment for women leaves a bit to be desired at times," partially due to the "politically apathetic" environment that tolerates some ongoing male-centric practices." Apart from referring to women's touch football as "powderpuff" football - a holdover from a long time ago, there are no male-centric practices. I would agree that the campus is a little Politically apathetic; not a lot of lobbying or demonstrating, but there were plenty of political signs on campus for the last presidential election. Honestly, after reading the info about Rice, one would wonder why ANY student would want to apply. The write-ups about some obscure little colleges in PR review sound like "Shangri-la", and some wonderful colleges sound awful in their reviews! Thank goodness my daughter actually visited Rice and found out for herself. I think Fiske is much more balanced and objective. Yes, PR has some good info, but they can end up portraying wonderful schools in a bad light by using a few student comments that are not representative of the school as a whole.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>Quote: "I think Fiske is much more balanced and objective. Yes, PR has some good info, but they can end up portraying wonderful schools in a bad light by using a few student comments that are not representative of the school as a whole."</p>
<p>We found this to be very true as well.</p>
<p>I would use the guides as a convenient way to synthesize the general stats, but would not use any of the comments as a substitute for more research. You have to wonder how some schools manage to fill a campus with 20,000 kids every year based on how negative some of the reports are.</p>
<p>I have a particular dislike for Kaplan's Unbiased Guide: it is NOT up to date and when many of the student quotes in the book sounded familiar, I did some research and discovered that the "quotes" were lifted directly off internet sites such as eopinions.com and studentsreview.com. Yet, they portray these "quotes" as if they actually have interviewed current students. Many of the "quotes" they have lifted were written several years ago and some were actually written by alumni who graduated 5, 10, and even, in one case I found, 15 years ago! Discovering that they portrayed the "quotes" in their book as if they had actually talked to students, while they were just lifting them from other sources, made me distrust the entire guide, and indeed, I have found it to be the one most prone to inaccurate stereotypes instead of factual information and updated research. I have checked current versions and they are still using the same tired "quotes" from internet sites and making it sound like they actually talked to real people on campus --- it really turns my stomach.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the best guide is Fiske. Updated in decent intervals, I like the three-prong rating system, and the information is relatively unbiased and generally very accurate.</p>