<p>Very funny mom of three. :) But seriously, aren't you interested in what different groups of people have to say or what they think about your children's colleges? I am, because someday those same people may be on a hiring committee. I wouldn't let anyone - conservative, liberal, moderate - sway me against sending my kid to a school I thought was right for them, but I sure do want to know up front what other people might think of a school on my daughter's list.</p>
<p>I also recognize that I, and I suspect MOST people, have a tendency to only want to hear opinions that support my opinions. Differing opinions make me doubt my opinion and are uncomfortable. Even factual information that goes against my opinion can be hard to swallow. But, boy, show me someone who AGREES with me and they absolutely MUST be right.</p>
<p>Momof3, that is truly funny, because I bought a copy of that book back when my (rising college junior) daughter was about 10 years old. Too much nihilism, for me. I prefer the ISI Guide's approach, which suggests ways to work within the system of America's most famous colleges and universities, instead of rejecting them out of hand.</p>
<p>Yes indeedy! I do wish to have a clear picture, and the more the Pixels, as it were, the merrier. If one does know the "slant" should there be a slant, one can take that into account. I personally try to fit the school to the kid, and not all of the three kids have the same degree of conservatism/liberalism. Best to get the right fit, however you can!</p>
<p>I'm going to have to find my copy. It's around here somewhere. Now THAT was a dogmatic college guide. The only safe places to send your kids were St.Johns, Chicago, and Grove City! They relegated ALL of the other top schools in the U.S. to their "Academic Gulag." 1991...My God, I was still a natural blonde back then.</p>
<p>any book that mentions Thomas Sowell and Bill Bennett on the COVER in bold letters cant' be hiding an agenda whatsoever. Heck, just the opposite, they want to encourage an agenda and (I guessing) are proud to be associated with "Choosing...."</p>
<p>I "call out" ISI on their College Guide, not because they don't offer a legitimate point of view, but because they masquerade as a independent publisher when, in fact, they are a partisan political lobby group.</p>
<p>I would be equally harsh if an organization like moveon.org or even The Nation magazine published a college guide.</p>
<p>I am simply pointing out the true nature of ISI's political lobbying business when I point people to their websites to see their agenda:</p>
<p>It's the same as me knowing who runs Fox News Network when I sit down for my nightly fix. Even when I agree with a particular viewpoint, it's important to understand the agenda, if any, behind it.</p>
<p>Judging from the response here, some supporters of ISI are little touchy when the partisan political ties of the Guide to Right College publisher are pointed out.</p>
<p>Judging from the response here, some supporters of ISI are little touchy when the partisan political ties of the Guide to Right College publisher are pointed out.>></p>
<p>I'm guessing you don't own a copy? Because they clearly list the websites you mention in the back of the book under "Additional services from ISI" </p>
<p>But I do agree with you. It is important to consider the source of all information, including "mainstream" guidebooks and ask yourself "What else are they trying to sell me?" I think the FISKE Guide is the only one I can think of that isn't also touting other products, services and/or biased points of view.</p>
<p>As I said, I don't have a problem with the ISI guide. I quickly noticed who it was published by (it's hard to miss being right there on the cover and all) and looked up their website. I have not found as much detailed information about core curriculums in ANY other guide, so it is useful as a data point from that alone. As with all guides and secondary sources, it's important to do your own due diligence and follow up with primary sources (i.e., the school's own information).</p>
<p>But, as for touchiness, it might be that some were reacting to biased terms like "right wing conservatives" and the subtle suggestion that anyone who holds conservative views is somehow of lesser intelligence and can't figure out how to read the ISI web page. How about just saying the publisher is "a conservative think tank" or "conservative organization" and letting people draw their own conclusions as to whether they want to read the book? Could you also point me in the direction of where you found out that the information about the quotes in the book coming from attendees at an ISI conference --- I'm planning to do my own "college guidebook review" on my website and would like to verify that.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>driver:So, my question, CD1, is have you actually read or seen a copy of the book or not?</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>I have in fact read selected college reviews from the book and as I said in my original post found some of the comments interesting. I'm a fairly knowledgeable individual but it says something that I was unaware of who ISI is. Its likely that the average user of the review would also not be aware. Listing websites in the back of a book is meaningless to users who go to a library or bookstore to read some reviews of selected colleges that they or their child is considering for college. I just want to organizations with an agenda to be more open about who they are if they are offering reviews meant to influence choices we make for college selection. I think that is only appropriate and there is no need to be so defensive about being out in the open. Again if you want to influence, be open and debate; dont hide behind acronyms.</p>
<p>I think you should contact ISI and ask them where they get their quotes from unnamed students. They could choose to outline their methodology as Princeton Review does in explaining their survey mechanism.</p>
<p>Since ISI does not identify their methodology and since they are a political PR organization with on-going ties to group of students that is decidedly not a representative sample, they leave themselves open to charges of biased journalism. </p>
<p>IMO, the onus to demonstrate credibility fall on the shoulders of any publisher who uses quotes from unnamed sources.</p>
<p>Anxious, it's a forum for a serious exchange of views. I have zero tolerance for patent nonsense. Sorry. You and Interestedad are free to rebut.</p>
<p>Yes, but that would be views (even serious views) not platitudes. Moreover, the phrase you are straying from that is a stale and suffocating injunction; It aims to alter behavior rather than suggest ideas. Driver, no matter what you think of her ideas, offers ideas and critiques of others ideas (I always look for her posts). She does not suggest someone is straying in their behavior, which is more akin to a moral sanction: it is this, it seems to me, which is inappropriate to an exchange of ideas.</p>
<p>Say what you will of the RIGHT College it is no more than a college guide, not a threat to democracy or an antidote to what ails a liberal education. It offers an actual critique, something I find refreshing when compared to PRs party school rankings.</p>
<p>Getting back on topic a little bit, I hope: I haven't purchased the "Right College" book, not because I have any objection to its purpose and slant, but because it has such a limited selection of schools. Of my S' "big list" of 20 schools that he's looking into right now, only 4 are profiled. Of his "maybe add to the list" schools, only 2 are profiled. I don't quite understand how the publishers chose "America's Top Schools" as they claim in the title. They include the Ivy and Little Ivy Schools, as well as the schools widely regarded as the top LAC's -- but their other choices leave me baffled. For example:</p>
<p>Hampden-Sydney but not Randolph-Macon, Roanoke or Lynchburg? </p>
<p>LSU, Auburn and the Universities of Florida and Georgia, but not the Universities of Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi or Kentucky?</p>
<p>Arizona but not Arizona State? </p>
<p>BYU but not Utah or Utah State? </p>
<p>I guess I just don't get their selection criteria. It clearly can't be just schools that fit within their viewpoint, or some of these schools would never make it.</p>
<p>When my children were looking at colleges we found PR the most useful even though the student quotes are sometimes repetitive and possibly unrepresentative of the more general picture (I find the Yale Daily News book worse in that respect). The statistical summaries (SAT scores, accceptance percentages, yields, and so on) are presented very clear, and the thumbnail descriptions of the schools are well organized, highly readable, and informative if taken with a grain of salt; I have always assumed that the various lists in the front of the book aren't meant to be taken as gospel, just as general guides to school atmosphere (and sometimes rather tongue in cheek guides). </p>
<p>I have found Fiske rather ponderous and sometimes inccurate about small details; I also think it is not as well designed as PR. </p>
<p>We did not discover Choosing the Right College until after the college search was over and I was browsing the local Barnes and Noble after the fact. Given its supposedly conservative slant and my belief that I am a traditional liberal, I was surprised how useful, sane, and informative it seemed. I looked up each of the schopls my chidlren had applied to and the ones they ended up attending and found the information very much to the point, well written, informative, and with a lot to offer readers of any political persuasion. I thought the book was a reminder that there are lots of smart people of integrity and good will in the world and not all of them have the same political beliefs. If I were looking at schools again I think Choosing the Right College would be the one I'd trust most (though I'd still use PR as an entertaining supplement).</p>
<p>Iderochi,
That's a fair point, although we didn't have that situation. Among the schools my daughter applied to, only F&M wasn't in "Choosing."</p>
<p>According to the intro, the editors picked for review the most selective 40 universities and most selective 35 LACs, using USNews numbers. Many of these, as you note, clearly don't with fit with their point of view. Beyond these 75 schools, they added 50 more "to add regional, institutional, and curricular breadth." These, the editor notes, were selected for having "adhered impressively to the unfashionable concept of liberal education in which we believe." ["liberal" being used in the classical, rather than political sense, obviously.] He then notes that other "solid institutions" simply couldn't be added on account of space. (I took a quick look at their comments on Hampden-Sydney, and they fit the ISI criteria to a tee.)</p>
<p>I also came across this gem in the intro:
[quote]
And be forewarned: The New York Times, with its usual perceptiveness, has called this guide "biased." We'll go further: it is absolutely prejudiced. That is, it advances a preconceived judgement or opinion--not with regard to any particular school, but about the purposes of education and the responsibilities of educators.