<p>Here are the Washington Monthly's 2009 national university college rankings. They rate schools based on their contribution to the public good in three broad categories: </p>
<p>Social Mobility (recruiting and graduating low-income students),
Research (producing cutting-edge scholarship and PhDs),<br>
Service (encouraging students to give something back to their country). </p>
<p>Washington</a> Monthly</p>
<p>Kei</p>
<p>haha this is a joke. how are these accurate? the top three were UCs. </p>
<p>LOL this is funny. i’d love to hear how they measure serivce?</p>
<p>lololol this made my day. a&M and uscarolina</p>
<p>Ohio State in the top 20! I’m happy lol.</p>
<p>^^you can now claim that ohio state was ranked better than yale and princeton =O</p>
<p>“Service (encouraging students to give something back to their country).”</p>
<p>this is cool as long as the country isn’t Iran and the “something” isn’t nuclear weapons technology.</p>
<p>I wonder when somebody will do a ranking based on the amount the students actually learn and improve from the time they enter to the time they graduate. In other words, take a hard comprehensive test on the first day of school and the same test just before graduation day, and see which schools have the biggest rise in scores.</p>
<p>“Accurate ranking” = oxymoron</p>
<p>I think this is a very interesting and useful ranking, since it focuses on criteria different from those used by other lists. Amazingly, how much good a school does might matter to some people. What I find interesting is how different the national university list is from USNWR’s list, but how similar the LAC list is!</p>