<p>
[quote]
USNWR must manipulate the factor weightings in an arbitrary way to get to the list wanted.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>NMD. regardless of the weights used by USNews, it does have the merit to use criteria that are "reasonable" -some more than others, but in general acceptable. </p>
<p>This ranking uses criteria that range from utter garbage to complete irrelevance because of extreme small data points. In the end, Forbes poked its eye by associating itself with the outfit behind this. </p>
<p>Forbes should publish it every year on April 1st and offer a well deserved comical relief to the thousands of students who just received the news from colleges. An April Fool's joke is the most charitable qualifier I can find for this "ranking."</p>
<p>The value of the usnews rankings is not in the rankings
themselves, but in the data provided to paying customers.
Most of that data is available from numerous other sources,
but just having it in one place is worth the $15 or so. The
data provided by Forbes has little or no value, at least for
me. Oh, I might pay 50 cents for it but that's about it.</p>
<p>I would not agree with your "utter garbage to complete irrelevance" argument, but heck, we all can have different opinions.</p>
<p>To explain a bit, though, while one criteria, rhodes et al winners, is tricky because of randomness/noise in the data, averaging over time can remove some of the noise. RMP is totally subjective of course, and many think it has no bearing on reality. But if posters at different colleges are reacting similarly subjectively, then comparisons among colleges are still valid. In other words, what is being measured in RMP is less important than the differences among what is being measured. (a bit like intelligence. There is much disagreement about what "IQ" measures, but there is far less disagreement that a higher number is better than a lower number!)</p>
<p>NMD, of course we can have different opinions ... that is the beauty of a forum.</p>
<p>Regarding the Rhodes and Fulbright inclusion in the rankings, I think that it was a deliberate attempt to windowdressing the exercise by using a ... prestigious name. For all we know, Vedder et al could have used the Nobel Prize for Peace with a similar impact. Further while the Rhodes is a clear indicator of academic achievement, the same cannot be said about the Fulbright --despite its prestige. </p>
<p>As far as the RMP, asking your daughter about it may help frame the discussion. Ask her if she uses it and what she thinks about the contributors in general, and how the "scores" reflect the reality of the academics at her school. </p>
<p>Fwiw, I happen to think that the methodology of this report is deeply flawed, but if others think that the criteria used are important, that's fine by me. :)</p>
<p>I suspect that using RMP has the effect of compressing the ratings. Students at top colleges have high expectations for professors and set a very high bar for rating them... I know my daughter has knocked a professor because, "I didn't think the course readings flowed as seemlessly as they could have..."</p>
<p>In general, RMP does an OK job at grading the professors relative to others at her school, but there's nothng to suggest her school's rating standards are consistent across many types of schools.</p>
<p>You guys, this is just out there to provide a sample of what rankings would look like if done from an alternative point of view. The sources aren't perfect, but then again, they aren't claiming to be. Things like student happiness can't be measured scientifically, so finding a completely perfect scientific source would be impossible.</p>
<p>Some people are far too easily offended...by rankings of all things!</p>
<p>Ah, a point on which we can disagree. Rhodes, Marshall, Truman etc. measure performance at top levels. Fullbright, although it emphasizes more diverse backgrounds and does not have the strict academic achievement gating factor, also recognizes achievement, albeit of a different nature. </p>
<p>These things count, and definitely matter on a resume later in life, AND, they measure student achievement, an output, unlike Nobel Prizes, which relate to faculty.</p>
<p>In the May 19 issue, Forbes looks at a new way to evaluate colleges by assessing the quality of results- success of graduates, their assessment of the college experience, etc...
The biggest surprises are with the LACs. Middlebury drops to 28 versus 5 in USNews, Reed climbs to 12 from 54, Barnard to 8 from 30.
Here is the link: How</a> to Choose a College - Forbes.com</p>
<p>Will this become a yearly event, and give USNews some competition?</p>
<p>A thread about this was already started by the way, but anyway, these rankings will not give U.S. News a run for their money or be published annually probably. U.S. News's methodology, whether you like it or not, is built on a pretty strong statistical foundation. What Forbes has put out is simply hodge podge. Their sources are laughable and the statistics just aren't there.</p>
<p>Wake forest over UCLA??? Brown over Stanford and Caltech???? Samford over Berkeley and UCLA?????????? Boston college over University of Michigan????????</p>
<p>This is the most east coast biased anti public school ranking I've ever read. The only public school that's ranked around where it should be is University of Viriginia, which is <em>gasp</em> on the east coast!! All of the others are remarkably underrated. I'm sure every sane person on these boards would put schools like UC Berkeley, UCLA, and Michigan in the same tier as Virginia, if not in a higher one.</p>
<p>Even though US news has the same problem (under-rates public schools, has a bias for the east coast) Forbes takes it over the top. I honestly cannot see anybody taking these rankings seriously, unless they go to wake forest and want an ego boost.</p>
<p>thats a big joke- alabama is in no way shape or form better than lehigh, USC etc- not better programs, facilities, students, professors, advising, courses, ability to train you for life- nothing is better at alabama than those schools
sorry for hating on alabama but im mostly hating on forbes</p>
<p>Oh right, I forgot about USC. Another drastically under-rated west coast school (how on earth could Boston university be ranked above it???? Oh of course!!!!!! BU is on the EAST COAST!!)</p>
<p>The list is totally bogus. A more accurate title would have been "How to Choose a college if you want an expensive education on the east coast"</p>
<p>So bogus, how is it possible that Auburn is better than UCSD, or that Kansas State is better than RPI and Rutgers, or Fordham being better than USC, Boston College better than MIT, UPenn, Cornell, Hopkins, Tufts, Georgetown, Berkeley, WashU, and Samford over Vanderbilt...USNWR is far from perfect but these rankings are just atrocious.</p>
<p>Whatever, hopefully these rankings will ring true for some people, casting doubt on USNews. Please, please, stop with these bogus rankings (both magazines).</p>