<p>driver, thanks for the explanation. Some of their decisions still seem inexplicable to me, but at least I know that there was some method to their madness. My undergraduate university (NOT a top 40 or top 35) is in the book. It certainly has a conservative campus tone in terms of the political leanings of the students, but I can't imagine how it can be seen as adhering impressively "to the unfashionable concept of liberal education", unless things have really, really changed. It's a party school pure and simple!</p>
<p>I have to admit that I have never seen this book in a bookstore although I have read Thomas Sowells guide online.
Its interesting that Sowell describes Reed as a place where radical fads prevail when Reed has neither minority studies or womens studies course offerings. Something that may fall under a * fad* in Sowells point of view.
I also don't see what is so radical about teaching a bunch of dead white guys but on the other hand, it is fairly radical to have a core curriculum and stick to it and requiring students for generations to take the same freshman level class and read the same books ;)</p>
<p>Thomas Sowell's guide? I wasn't aware he had put one out.
If you're referring to "Choosing the Right College," Sowell has a blurb on the cover, but isn't the editor or otherwise a contributor. The review of Reed is actually highly complimentary, with no mention of radical fads that I could see. Quite the contrary.</p>
<p>no Sowell has a whole book on line
12 chapters
<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/alumni/sowell-choosing/toc.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.leaderu.com/alumni/sowell-choosing/toc.html</a></p>
<p>from Sowells column for townhall.com on Choosing the Right College</p>
<p>*The latest edition of Choosing the Right College quotes a Harvard student: "You can get away without learning a scrap of European or U.S. history." It also quotes a Harvard professor who says that the core curriculum there "is absolutely onerous in its gobbling up of students' time in courses that often enough are weak fare." And for four years of this, you are paying over a hundred grand in tuition!</p>
<p>Choosing the Right College is not just about muck-raking. It also tells you about colleges and universities that may not have big names, but which offer a finer education than some other places that are household words. For example, it calls Claremont McKenna College in Southern California "an excellent stomping ground for any student serious about his education." Of Rhodes College in Tennessee, it says: "Of the 110 institutions reported on in this guide, Rhodes is among the most distinctive and distinguished."</p>
<p>Institutions with strong educational traditions that are under siege from more ideologically faddish elements on campus are also covered -- the University of Chicago, Davidson and Birmingham-Southern, for example. So are places like Reed College, where the radical fads prevail, as "politicization" has become "entrenched," and where the college is described as "a farm team for graduate schools."*</p>
<p>Re: guide books in general is it my imagination or do they often not update? It seems as if many school reviews are simply reprinted and only the stats ( # of applicants,etc) are changed year to year.</p>
<p>That's pretty funny, EK. I think Dr. Sowell was having a senior moment when he wrote that column, because he's clearly confusing Reed with another school--although the phrase "a farm team for graduate schools" is used in a complimentary reference to the high number of Reed graduates who go on to receive higher degrees. The opening paragraph from "Choosing the Right College" on Reed:
[quote]
With a relatively demanding curriculum and a number of rigorous courses, Reed College is neither for the academically lazy nor the intellectually timid. At its heart lies a core freshman course in Western civilization, which along with a senior thesis, bookends an intensely challenging journey into higher learning.
[/quote]
And it only gets better after that.
[quote]
By current standards, Reed has managed to preserve scholarly rigor. The departments of economics and history, frequently victims of politicization at other schools, include few classes that could be considered academically suspect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have noticed oldman that guides from year to year are using the same quotes from students and I wonder if they ever come out and see what has changed. Some are worse than others, I suspect some are using impressions from 10 or more years ago.
Look for Reed to possibly be profiled in the latest USNEWS guide- they came out and interviewed several students last spring apparently
I wonder if they will change their tier from second to first? I don't think anything has changed about submitting their info though ;)</p>
<p>I will have to look for that Driver- like I said I haven't seen it in a bookstore & I although admittedly very liberal have found Sowells guide to be useful anyway. If you know what perspective it is written from it can give some very helpful information.
Of course sometimes it just serves to give me an about face if I find I am heading in the "right" direction LOL</p>
<p>ISI's Choosing The Right College tops the list.It's right on.Anyone serious about a great,traditional,arduous liberal arts education sans pc,bs,grade inflation,or garbage courses can see why this guide lauds Hampden-Sydney more and more with each new edition.So many of the top schools are cookie cutter clones of each other.HSC holds onto its rich traditions and attracts great young men from great families.</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>
<br>
<p>But Interesteddad, you clearly said in your original post about the ISI book that the students quoted were attendees at a conference:</p>
<br> [QUOTE=""]
<blockquote> <p>For example, when they use student quotes, they don't tell you that the students being quoted were attending conferences by ISI's sister organization that funds and provides editorial content for right-wing campus newspapers.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Obviously you must have found that information somewhere. I'm just curious what your source was.</p>
<p>Carolyn:</p>
<p>Where are they getting the quotes?</p>
<p>In many cases, they pull them from the school's newspaper, but these cases are always cited.</p>
<p>They don't have a survey mechanism, so we know these are not a large sampling of student opinion.</p>
<p>Yet, we know from Hillary Thompson's article describing her experience with ISI that they maintain close contact with the editors of the ISI funded conservative newspapers at various colleges:</p>
<p>"When my despair was almost complete, along came a group offering salvation. I was taken to lunch by two representatives of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI), the Wilmington, Del-based conservative group that funds Common Sense, Swarthmore's now nearly defunct conservative newspaper. They told me I was right, that the hegemony of liberal ideology is destroying the free exchange of ideas on college campuses. Then they offered to help me "fight back." Along with a few other conservative students on campus, I inherited the bloated budget for Common Sense. I received invitations to all-expenses-paid conferences around the country. My mailbox was constantly stuffed with free conservative hardcover books, magazines, and journals."</p>
<p>ISI is writing checks to conservative groups on campus. ISI is taking conservative students to lunch. ISI is flying conservative students to their conferences. ISI is sending conservative students materials for publication in student newspapers. ISI is not surveying a cross-section of students, either by internet or in person. Where do you think they are getting their unsourced quotes? Don't you think it's somewhat telling that their quotes invariably address ISI's hot-button issues?</p>
<p>Do you think that this un-named student quote from their blurb on Swarthmore, "People here are soldier-hating, fascist liberals... is representative of what 100 random Swatties would say as the first thing popping into their mind if ISI sent a representative to sample opinion on the steps of the dining hall? It's kind of an odd thing to say.</p>
<p>Is it accurate reporting to use this quote to portray allegedly extreme resistance to the Swarthmore College Republicans' efforts to organize a Veteran's Day rally and then fail to report that not only did the event take place on the main lawn in front of Parrish Hall, but was well-attended with many student speakers at the open-mike and coverage of the event in student publications?</p>
<p>Or would accurate reporting of an event organized by the Swarthmore Republicans, in support of military action, well-attended, and covered by the school papers undermine ISI's agenda? Would accurate reporting be problematic because it would show that varied political viewpoints are openly expressed on campus?</p>
<p>In my opinion, ISI uses its contacts with conservative student groups to cull quotes that support their agenda-driven college guide and uses them in a decidedly unfair and unbalanced way. Feel free to disprove my opinion if you can.</p>
<p>InterestedDad, I guess I was confused by your definitive statement in your original post --- now I understand that you were only stating your opinion. </p>
<p>You may be - and probably are - right in speculating how ISI gets its student quotes, but the way you worded it originally (i.e. <<"For example, when they use student quotes, they don't tell you that the students being quoted were attending conferences by ISI's sister organization that funds and provides editorial content for right-wing campus newspapers.">>) you made it sound like this was fact based on actual evidence you had obtained somewhere. </p>
<p>I am not seeking to disprove your opinion, merely wanted to know the source of the information you seemed to be pointing to as fact. I wanted to be able to direct my readers to that source if I do discuss the book on my website. Unfortunately, the examples you sited do not prove what you said in the actual quote about the book using quotes from conference attendees: those examples only prove that the ISI has ties with conservative groups on campus, something that is clearly evident from their website. But, thanks for clarifying that your statement was based on your opinion and speculation, not any actual proof from an outside source.</p>
<p>Carolyn:</p>
<p>That's the problem. We can't identify the source of ISI's quotes because they don't publish their methodology. This becomes more problematic when we realize that, unlike other guidebook publishers, ISI is a partisan political group funding partisan political activities on campuses and investing considerable dollars into a specific political agenda.</p>
<p>This raises a legitimate question: Is their guidebook journalism? Or is it political rhetoric? Similar questions, IMO, to those I ask when I watch a Michael Moore film.</p>
<p>I see your point, Interesteddad, and agree with you. I think the Michael Moore comparison is a good one. As I said, I was confused by your original statement because it sounded like you did have evidence proving where their quotes came from. Thanks for clarifying that you're just speculating.</p>
<p>I have not consulted any guidebook when researching colleges for my Ss. I am curious as to the methodology used in the guides in selecting quotes from students and faculty. I have the feeling that none are based on random surveys and many may be more illustrative of the point a writer wants to make than representative of the student body's majority perspective. In a way, a guidebook that is forthright about the author(s)' biases is better than one that pretends to be neutral.</p>
<p>For what it's worth, I found a great deal to like in the ISIS entry on Brown. Whether a student (and parents) will be attracted or repulsed by classes on Narratives of Power and similar other classes is a matter of taste. I have heard it said that the lack of a core curriculum at Brown can lead to very imaginative and/or highly focused individual curricula, or it can be a disaster for students without a strong sense of direction. The write-up bears out both perspectives.
I also liked the attention paid to both curriculum AND social/political climate. A school can have a very traditional curriculum but a politically liberal student body. By all accounts Reed has a rather traditional-sounding curriculum but culturally, it is definitely not a hotbed of conservative values.</p>
<p>. By all accounts Reed has a rather traditional-sounding curriculum but culturally, it is definitely not a hotbed of conservative values.</p>
<p>Yes I think Princeton Review has listed Reed in thier schools with dorms like palaces as well as where students never stop studying but also with schools where gays are accepted, where pot is common and students ignore God on a regular basis.
I would dispute the lack of sports however- even though they don't have a football team, many are attracted to the Pacific Northwest for the recreational opportunities. They have their own ski lodge that is open year round on Mt Hood, and the opportunities in the area to kayak, rock climb or just hike are numberable
( I think the attribute mentioning Birkenstocks is little outdated as well- chaco and keen sandles are much more durable in the wet Portland climate.)
But just another reason why you should use a range of sources to get a list of schools to look at- </p>
<p>Rank List Category
#3 Best Overall Academic Experience For Undergraduates Academics
#8 Class Discussions Encouraged Academics
#2 Professors Bring Material to Life Academics
#12 Professors Make Themselves Accessible Academics
#3 Their Students Never Stop Studying Academics
#7 Gay Community Accepted Demographics
#1 Students Ignore God on a Regular Basis Demographics
#8 Intercollegiate Sports Unpopular Or Nonexistent Extracurriculars
#16 Nobody Plays Intramural Sports Extracurriculars
#19 Reefer Madness Parties
#13 Most Politically Active Politics
#9 Students most Nostalgic For Bill Clinton Politics
#6 Birkenstock-Wearing, Tree-Hugging, Clove-Smoking Vegetarians School Type
#10 Dodge Ball Targets School Type</p>
<p>I am curious as to the methodology used in the guides in selecting quotes from students and faculty. I have the feeling that none are based on random surveys and many may be more illustrative of the point a writer wants to make than representative of the student body's majority perspective>></p>
<p>I agree with you on this Marite. I mentioned the Kaplan's Unbiased Guide in earlier. If you read their so-called methodology in the opening, here's what it says: </p>
<p>"We turned to a wide assortment of "insiders" for information. We surveyed current students, recent graduates, and college officials in order to find out about each college from the inside. We sent a lengthy open-ended survey to students, the school administration and to the administration to collect institutional data. The in-depth narrative answers we received, particularly from the student surveys (no leading multiple-choce questions here!), allowed us to see what daily life is really like for undergraduates at each school. We also conducted a scientific survey of high school guidance counselors around the country....We then used the information from all of these surveys - as well as info we gathered from various media outlets - to write the candid college profiles."</p>
<p>Yet, I have proof that many of the "quotes from students" (and in some school profiles ALL of the "quotes") came not from all of these great sounding surveys but from reviews written on <a href="http://www.epinions.com%5B/url%5D">www.epinions.com</a> and <a href="http://www.studentsreview.com%5B/url%5D">www.studentsreview.com</a>. I suppose those could be considered "media outlets" but I believe they should have at least identified the "media outlets" used in the book, just as Interesteddad makes the case that the ISI should identify where their information comes from.</p>
<p>Worse, in several cases in the Kaplan Unbiased guide that I found, the quotes lifted from these websites were not from students at all, but from alumni. Yet, in the book those exact quotes were identified repeatedly as coming from students by the words "says one student" or "says a student." In one case, the quotes used came from a review written in 1999 by a student who had graduated over TEN years ago! Shouldn't they have said "says one alumni" and not portrayed these as quotes from CURRENT students?</p>
<p>I haven't been able to spot anything as blantant in other guides, but just this one example has made me very suspicious. There's also the issue of editorial bias, as you and ID have pointed out. As an editor myself, I know that it's often tempting to use a quote that's more exciting or controversial, over one that is dull because it makes for better copy. Yet, sometimes the dull quote is closer to the truth.</p>
<p>I worry that Kaplan is not the only guidebook that chooses quotes in less than scientific or unbiased ways. I believe that ID and you are right on target pointing out potentially skewed views given by some of these guidebooks.</p>
<p>I think the preceding discussion points up why it's useful to use several guides; even with the presumed bias, repetition, and tendency for quotes to sound canned, you can pick up general themes about schools. The ones that sound interesting can be researched from additional sources (including the school's own Web site, which can often be quite revealing).</p>
<p>I know it must seem to some of you that I'm overly-hard on Interesteddad. I'm really not mean, but when confronted with such spectacular, gratuitous disingenuousness, I can't help myself....in the immortal words of Billy Jack, I....just....go....berserk [cut to: spinning back kicks, karate chops, and various martial arts sound effects]. I can't stand it. Nor do I understand it.</p>
<p>Take the most recent example: ID reduces ISI's 9 pages of largely complimentary commentary about Swarthmore to a single sound bite from an "embittered" student: a bunch of soldier haters. He then continues relating information about the same incident (a rally on Veteran's Day in support of the military), stating that the event was "well attended," and therefore evidence of Swarthmore's tolerance of opposing points of view. I don't think 50 students at a post-9/11 Veterans Day rally is all that well attended, but leaving that aside, he neglects to cite the event organizer's statement that
[quote]
he felt that the atmosphere on campus has tended to silence those with pro-war views, he said that he hoped that this rally would "provide a comfortable forum for students who do support the country and do support its current actions to come up and say that."
[/quote]
He also neglects to note that the "soldier haters" remark was followed by another student's opinion that "there's definitely some tension from some of the more radical elements on campus, who feel that it's a place for liberalism...but most Swatties are open to new, different ideas." So who has the agenda here? ISI or ID? I found the ISI treatment of Swarthmore (where my grandparents and husband attended, and where I was married) to be quite fair. ID seems to see any criticism of his daughter's school as cause to cry "foul." </p>
<p>ID also likes to cite a certain Hillary Thompson, who matriculated at Swarthmore way back in 1994, (four years prior to the first ISI college guide's publication), as a decisive anti-ISI witness. Of course, he neglects to point out that poor Hillary also has a rather negative take on the political climate at Swarthmore:
[quote]
Due to what I now know was staggering ignorance, I was not aware of Swarthmore's reputation for liberalism when I applied for early admission in 1994. I was also unaware that my own views would be labeled by many as conservative. I was quickly educated in both facts, and that education was harsh.
[/quote]
Now, if "Choosing the Right College" had used that quote from Hillary Thompson, ID would be crying foul. SO...what does it indicate when he omits that quote, in using her story to make his anti-ISI point? Think about it.</p>
<p>In an earlier post, I objected to three specific points raised by ID with regard to the guidebook "Choosing the Right College." He's now admitted that one of his points was purely speculative. The others were patently false, and I'm not surprised that he has ignored them. There is a great deal of thoughtful commentary here on CC, and much to be learned, as long as we clearly delineate what is opinion, and what is fact.</p>
<p>I don't have any particular beef with ISI's treatment of Swarthmore. It's no better or worse than their treatment of any other "elite" college. My beef with ISI's guidebook is across the board. Having read a couple dozen of their campus reviews, they are as predictable as a TV sitcoms: the same theme over and over and over. Description of the school, trash the lack of core curriculum, trash a few English department course titles, bemoan the fact that a course on China counts as a distribution requirement, complain about the poor put-upon conservatives on campus, yadda, yadda, yadda.</p>
<p>In fact, it is reading multiple "reviews" in the ISI Guide that really drives home the pervasiveness of their political agenda.</p>
<p>Now that's opinion. Good for you. We disagree, but you're on the road to recovery.</p>