Forbes 2017 Rankings

This list is the opinion of one as is the magazine that generates it. Thought the Washington Post did a much better job this year compiling a list from multiple ranking sources.

Thanks for sharing @Chembiodad. I found the WP list, metrics, and background very interesting. Clearly, most of the standard cream still rose to the top. This goes directly to my personal sense of the best use of such lists – Guidance only. The critical value does not lie in the numerical difference between #1 and #10. Assuming, in the first instance, that one is targeting the “best” schools in the country, the value lies in starting somewhere, i.e., with an approximation of the best national universities and liberal arts colleges in the country. In the end, however, it always comes down to classic criteria, including size, location, and majors. It narrows further when accounting for recruited athletes, artists, musicians, and other specialists. Thank you for sharing!

@Engineer80 (remember my point about usernames?) - Where did I say the reputations of Stevens and Princeton stemmed from only their local demographics? But I’m sorry, a comparison between Stevens and Princeton is stretching it in terms of Stevens’ reputation. Stevens may be an overall good school with successful alumni (which is still influenced by the high salaries of STEM jobs), but Princeton is in a league of its own. Princeton is regarded as being of the Ivy League’s big three with Harvard and Yale, and the country’s top five, joining the dominance of Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and MIT. Stevens, despite its strengths, does not have that elite reputation, let alone the elite of the elite reputation that Princeton has. Per the Princeton Review, Stevens is still primarily composed of NJ residents (38% of students are out of state, as opposed to the 82% out-of-state students at Princeton), which is not necessarily a bad thing, but does demonstrate that Stevens is not as wide-reaching as you imply. Plus, although Stevens does have 29 foreign countries represented at the school, Princeton has 99. While a degree alone will not equal automatic employment, Princeton’s name carries true weight, whereas Stevens graduates are mainly sought after by the the industry and government for STEM jobs because they are STEM majors. And to top it off, Princeton’s alumni and other associated people have their own Wikipedia entry, while Stevens’ do not. Again, I do not mean to malign Stevens; pretty much every institution, except for Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and MIT, will likely look inferior to Princeton by comparison. But when you compare Stevens and Princeton and imply that they are near equals, or at least comparable, a more scrutinizing comparison will be made.

The only “comparison” I made between TCNJ and Stevens was saying that TCNJ was better regarded and has a better reputation than Stevens, not that it actually was better, which was intended to analyze why TCNJ ranks higher than Stevens on the Forbes list, despite Stevens generating higher salaries. For all the global and national influence you say Stevens has, it is not spoken along the same lines as peers MIT and CalTech are. Few schools are, but the point stands that Stevens does not enjoy the influence that the schools regarded as the elite have. TCNJ may primarily have local reputation and influence, but it is a high reputation and influence in the area. It is regarded as one of the best regional universities, one of the best among its peers. As a STEM school in the northeast, Stevens has to contend with the juggernaut that is MIT, and it is not regarded as the best among its peers, research universities. You could argue that Stevens is in a tougher category than TCNJ and I’d agree. But that doesn’t change the fact that TCNJ is considered better at what it sets out to do than what Stevens sets out to do. Hence why TCNJ is better regarded and has a better reputation. And like I always say, we can’t all be STEM majors. Just because you’re not in positions of influence in industry, academia, government, and military doesn’t mean you can’t be successful and leave an impact.

I don’t believe calling TCNJ “a decent choice for an in-state student who plans his/her career in the local area” is giving it enough credit because while it isn’t an elite public school or a big public school with wide reach, it is still among the best public schools in the state. It satisfies the niche of in-state students wanting an affordable education, the niche of in-state students who want an affordable education with a solid in-state reputation, and the niche of in-state students who may find a school like Rutgers too large and overwhelming. Out-of-state students will likely ignore it and it doesn’t have an elite reputation, but it’s probably the best choice for anyone seeking a small and affordable school - we have to be able to afford our education after all if we want to receive it. And you can find a career in any area regardless of where you go to school, even if less doors might be opened, as long you have the drive - just look at Eureka College. Again, the “comparison” to Stevens was only intended to figure out why TCNJ ranked higher than Stevens, and I never compared TCNJ to Princeton, other than noting that Princeton, Rutgers, and TCNJ are consistently ranked as the state’s top three. US News would agree that TCNJ isn’t comparable to Stevens and Princeton, hence why TCNJ is ranked as a regional, while Stevens and Princeton are ranked as nationals - although TCNJ’s high ranking in its own category leads to it being mentioned in discussion with the national, even if its set-up if different. But like I said from the start, comparing Stevens to Princeton isn’t an ideal comparison either because while they might both be classified as national universities, Stevens isn’t of the elite reputation that Princeton is, and a comparison between the two is going to end in Princeton’s favor. Stevens is good, but Princeton is Princeton. Also, I don’t see how calling TCNJ “pedestrian” translates to TCNJ being “primarily a New Jersey institution and known primarily in the local demographic” because when used as an adjective, “pedestrian” means “dull”, which is a derogatory remark when talking about a place. Being primarily in one area and known in one area doesn’t mean the place is necessarily dull, it just doesn’t appeal to everyone. Virtually all colleges don’t appeal to everyone.

On a side note since the Washington Post was mentioned, I like how one of their articles included the Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education’s Top 25 ranking in its entirety. And I have to be biased towards that ranking because Columbia is #3 and the highest of the Ivy League. Well, I’m sure I’ll be changing my tune when I’m unable to afford and / or fail out of the place.

@Engineer80 (remember my point about usernames?) - Where did I say the reputations of Stevens and Princeton stemmed from only their local demographics?”

Please see below:

"reply by ExpertOnMistakes · August 3 · College Search & Selection

Princeton, Stevens, and TCNJ are all simply geared towards demographics and a lot of their reputation stems from how they compare to their peers in that demographic."

@Engineer80 That’s right, I said “demographics”. Not “local demographics”. Just “demographics”. Plus, I said it as a plural, with the implication that those schools (or at least TCNJ when compared to the other two) were aimed that different demographics - as a small public school, TCNJ is of course primarily aimed at one demographic, in-state students looking for an affordable education and / or wanting to stay close to home. And since all three schools are in the same state, the local demographic for them is pretty much the same. But the bottom line is I never said “local demographics” in the post you quoted, I was referring to demographics in general, and again, that was with the implication that those demographics weren’t the same. Schools are typically geared towards certain demographics and those demographics aren’t necessarily local. Princeton’s primary demographic is elite students in general, Steven’s primary demographic is STEM students, and TCNJ’s primary demographic is in-state students in NJ. How they compare to other schools also aimed towards those demographics (e.g. Harvard for Princeton’s demographic, MIT for Stevens’ demographic, and Rutgers for TCNJ’s demographic) plays a key factor in their reputation, which was the point I was making. In other words, a school may rank higher than another school it’s quite different from because the former school is considered to be better in its demographic than the latter school is in its own demographic.

There are some massive posts above that are frankly dealing with pretty insignificant minutiae. Believe it or not, NJ is just one State and not one with the best selection of undergraduate institutions. I think it is generally, if not unanimously, agreed that Princeton is one of the best schools in the country. Considering, specialties aside, that neither TCNJ, Stevens or Rutgers are in this category, we can safely assume that Princeton is the best in NJ. Stevens is a specialty school, known for its excellence in Engineering and Computer Science. TCNJ is a relatively local school known, almost exclusively within the State, for business and accounting programs. This is not to discount the standard state school fare provided by TCNJ, e.g., lower tuition for in-state, proximity, and local area post-graduate job prospects. However, as a school specializing in high-tech fields, Stevens has a more national reputation and a much broader applicant reach and student demographic. So it would seem that each of these schools has its niche, its reputation, and its potential appeal to those seeking undergraduate education. Parsing language and terms in reaching this conclusion is kind of boring…On the other hand, the ranking systems, our reliance on them, and their relative worth, remains interesting…

@BrooklynRye I agree wholeheartedly. My own massive posts are only intended as replies to comments directed at me and I don’t know why this has to turn into a discussion over just TCNJ and Stevens, and anything else insignificant for that matter. I don’t think anyone is trying to argue NJ doesn’t have the best selection of undergraduate institutions in the state (at least reputation wise), certainly not myself. The rankings and statistics demonstrate how big the divide is between Princeton and the rest of the schools in the state. Princeton isn’t just the only NJ school to be in the top 100 of the Forbes’ ranking, it’s in the top three. The rest don’t appear until you go past the 150 mark. And Princeton isn’t just the only school to be primarily comprised of out-of-state students, it is vastly comprised of out-of-state students. Like I said earlier, 82% of the students at Princeton are outside of the state - no other NJ college has more than 40% out-of-state students. As many have noted, Princeton is in the absolute upper echelon of schools in the country, typically rounding out the top five alongside Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and MIT. No other school in NJ is considered “elite” - there are schools that are considered “good” (or at least above average), but TCNJ, Stevens, and Rutgers - consistently ranked as the state’s top four alongside the big kahuna - do not enjoy an elite reputation and are aimed towards different specialties / demographics than Princeton’s target of elite students in general. Hence the big divide between Princeton and the rest of the schools in the state.

What Stevens and TCNJ are aimed at, I again agree with you on this; Stevens specializes in STEM, TCNJ specializes in local / in-state students. The fact that Stevens is classified as a “National University” by US News, whereas TCNJ is classified as a “Regional University” makes it clear which one is at least supposed to have more national reputation, applicant reach, and student demographic. However, the point I’ve been making all along is TCNJ is considered to be better in its specialty than Stevens is in its specialty, which is why TCNJ has a higher reputation and ranking - and like I always say, that doesn’t mean TCNJ actually is better. TCNJ is considered to be among the best institutions that provide the advantages you cite of a state school - lower tuition for in-state, proximity, and local area post-graduate job prospects. That’s what brought it to #3 in its Regional University category last year in US News (although where it will rank this year is TBD) and that’s why it beats out a number of nationals, including those in its state, in the Forbes ranking. There’s no denying that Stevens is in a tougher category as a STEM specialty school, especially when it has to contend with other schools in different states, but the point stands that it’s not considered to be the best in providing excellence in Engineering and Computer Science. In the east, that’s MIT’s bag, and arguably in the rest of the country, although Caltech students and alumni might argue that. Regardless, when you talk “more national reputation and a much broader applicant reach and student demographic” for a school specializing in high-tech fields, Stevens gets beat reputation wise when put up against MIT and Caltech. As I mentioned before and also mentioned in this post, Stevens is still primarily comprised of in-state students.

But at the end of the day, we’ve reached the same conclusion that TCNJ and Stevens are just simply different schools targeted at students who are simply different. I’m not going to argue that. I could be wrong, but there seems to be an argument over whether TCNJ or Stevens is better, and to that, I’ll just reiterate the conclusion we both reached. However, I do believe that TCNJ is considered to be better in its category than Stevens is in its own - once again, that doesn’t mean TCNJ is overall better, but this does play a factor in their reputations and how they are ranked. Ranking systems, our reliance on them, and their overall worth I also find to be an interesting subject - and that’s what prompts discussions over whether or not one school is better than another and if those schools are even comparable in the first place. The rankings prompt these discussions; we use them to back up our arguments if we agree and discredit them if we don’t. What I find intriguing is that a school like TCNJ is ranked higher than Stevens, even though for all intents and purposes, Stevens probably is better. For me, that seems to be the result of the other conclusion I’ve come to; TCNJ is ranked higher because how it compares to its peers, because while Stevens has to face tougher peers, TCNJ’s peer standing is still higher. Which prompts questions of how impactful peer standing is on rankings and if it should be a factor at all. And it also prompts the question of whether or not schools like TCNJ and Stevens should be directly compared to each other, like Forbes does, or be separated, like US News does. I also find the divide in reputation between Princeton and the rest of the schools in the state intriguing because there’s no denying that the divide in rankings and out-of-state students is quite prominent. The other states that have the remaining schools in the top five - Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut - don’t have the same reputation divide.

that’s amusing , where did Stevens business school place on the Bloomberg rankings? that makes me laugh, apparently most don’t agree with you.

As a NJ resident, I’m just amazed that the highest word/post thread in the history of CC primarily focuses on TCNJ and Steven’s. Where are all of the Rowan supporter?

As ROI becomes THE overriding factor in more and more rankings, the rankings themselves become pointless. Cost of Living in the region, graduate school admissions, Med School, and a host of other reasons favor coastal research institutions in CA and the Northeast.

The world is changing must faster than the rankings, and looking at the average 5-year salaries of the past is a very weak predictor of what students can expect 10 years from now. Rankings are amusing, but mostly a pointless way to sell magazines.

@stones3 That more or less ties into my point about Stevens specializing in STEM; it’s not for students looking for non-STEM majors (e.g. business). If your interest is in STEM, Stevens is the right choice, whereas TCNJ is better suited for business (supported by the Bloomberg rankings, although like all rankings, people will beg to differ) and other majors in general.

I do suspect most people would agree with TCNJ being overall better (better reputation and higher ranked), but it’s always important to recognize that TCNJ and Stevens are quite different and a straight comparison between the two is difficult, if not outright pointless. My recurring argument on this matter is that TCNJ’s higher ranking stems from it being better regarded among its comparable schools than Stevens is, because as redundant as this sounds, TCNJ and Stevens are aimed at different student interests and needs.

@EyeVeee Well, that’s what happens when old wounds get reopened, people can’t let things go, and I’m allowed to run loose with a keyboard, lol. For what it’s worth, I think Rowan is a good option here myself.

Anyways, ROI definitely ought to be the overriding factor. Even more so, and I’m totally stating the obvious, the main factor ought to be avoiding debt. I really want to believe - and in theory, this should be true - that it doesn’t matter where you attend and graduate from. We all want a job that pays well, and the top ranked schools are supposed to provide this, but the better course of action is to get a degree debt free, regardless of where it’s from, than risk bankrupting ourselves at a top university, just for the possibility of making more in the future. Once we have a degree, we already have an edge, no matter what the name on the top of degree is.

And let’s face it, the Northeast and CA schools have the advantage by simple location and timing. The Ivy League schools had the advantage of simply being the first schools in the country. They received the staff first, they received the famous graduates first and they received the reputation for excellence first. People came to them because they’re obviously weren’t any other options and they maintain their dominance to this date.

I read an intriguing article where the author was attending St. Bonaventure University, which isn’t even listed on the Forbes ranking, but was succeeding. However, she decided to transfer to NYU, despite being offered little financial aid, and now suspects she’ll be in debt for the rest of her life. She now regrets transferring and believes she could have got what she already has if she stayed at St. Bonaventure. Bottom line, these rankings are mostly bragging rights; there’s no way to guarantee a graduate will obtain a certain salary just because he went to a certain school, especially not in the future. If he obtained a certain salary, it’s because he wanted to and / or he had the connections / luck to do so.

But I’m really not one to talk seeing that after graduating debt free, I’m returning as an undergraduate to put myself in lifelong debt, all because I hate having attended a college with a poor reputation.

Considering the ridiculous metrics and almost total lack of value in the now-defunct Bloomberg rankings, I wouldn’t worry too much if I were Stevens, and would be loathe to toot my horn too much if I were TCNJ…unless of course there isn’t much else to toot about…

But returning to the main topic of this thread, I think rankings carry out-sized importance because we tend to view them from a status perspective, rather than as a guideline toward better schools. I do not think that #10 is necessarily superior to #15 (random numbers, don’t know the schools). I also believe that specialties, e.g., fine arts, STEM, and the study of chili peppers, may enhance the value of schools otherwise not appearing on the top of classic lists. In the end, we can draw some reassurance that a school is ranked well, but I think that targeting our children’s specific needs and the resulting satisfaction that is more likely to result from this approach, almost always leads to a better result regardless of ranking.

@Expert - The Stevens business school is not a traditional business school in that it is geared towards the analytics, financial engineering, and quantitative finance side of the business world. Most of the business school graduates are analysts and “quants”, which is a specialized area that traditional, non-mathematical/non-science business students cannot break into as a result of not having a strong calculus, stochastic calculus, probability and statistics, and computer science/software background. Stevens excels in these areas, and many students have been recruited by the big Wall Street investment banks and hedge funds, who increasingly are putting more and more resources into quantitative finance, modeling and prediction, and stochastic hedging in financial markets.

The only comparable programs of this kind in New Jersey are Rutgers (financial mathematics concentration in the math and computer science departments) and Princeton (financial engineering). I doubt that College of New Jersey is competitive in this area, especially as you point out most of their students are non-STEM (math, physics, computer science) oriented.

Comparing TCNJ business students to Stevens (or RPI, MIT, or any other technologically-based business school) is nebulous. The curricula and students are very different between them. The type of student interested in a traditional business program as offered by TCNJ isn’t likely going to be interested in the one at Stevens or vice-versa.

A friend of mine who got his undergraduate mathematics degree from Stevens and his PhD from NYU is a head analyst for a 20 billion dollar hedge fund. Another Stevens gentleman I know used to be Goldman Sachs’ Chief Technology Officer (CTO) with “only” a bachelor’s in EE.

I’m not a big fan of college rankings of any kind, to my mind the proof of the pudding is really what the graduate does with his or her education after going into the “real world”. I have worked with strong and week colleagues from a wide range of schools. I once worked with a (then) newly minted electrical engineer from MIT who could recite all of the digital signal processing theory for example, chapter and verse, yet when he was tasked with designing a simple digital filter for a communications system he could not do it effectively. He could not apply that theory to solving a practical problem. I also worked with a graduate of a community college (who was a technician at the time), who designed that digital filter in a few days and it functioned perfectly from the start (he later finished his education at NJIT getting his BSEE). I also know two unemployed Harvard and Princeton graduates, so again, just because one graduates from a “big name” school doesn’t mean he or she will automatically be a success.

I attended Stevens, Rutgers, and MIT for graduate work. I can tell you that MIT doesn’t best Stevens in terms of the quality of coursework and thoroughness of the curriculum. Many of the professors there told me that they know of the broadbased, highly in-depth nature of the undergraduate curriculum at Stevens and they found Stevens undergraduates to be well prepared for the rigor of MIT’s graduate programs. In fact, I know of at least four MIT professors who are alumni of Stevens including one of their most senior EE professors.

Finally, with respect to rankings, you have to take them with more than a grain of salt. US News and World Report is not in the business of providing educational advise, they are in the business of selling magazines. Their rankings for example are largely based upon opinion surveys of college administrators and faculty, so the “name recognition” and popularity of the institution influences them heavily. The subdivision of their rankings into categories such as “national universities”, “regional universities”, et al further increases the difficulty of gleaning any meaningful information from them.

A “national university” by their definition is one that offers a full range of undergraduate and graduate programs, including research doctoral programs and professional schools, whereas “regional universities” are limited to master’s degrees and most have little or no research. Claiming that TCNJ is “higher ranked” because it appears near the top of a smaller, less competitive group as opposed to Stevens which is ranked within a much larger group consisting of the “big names” is specious. In my experience, the impact and accomplishments of the graduates of research universities (such as Stevens and others in USNWR’s “National Universities” list) tend to overshadow most of the “regional universities” including TCNJ and that is really the bottom line.

Silly arguments over “my school is better” are just that. As I say, there are effective and ineffective people from all schools.

You’ll notice the Forbes list correlates quite nicely with high cost of living areas, which in turn means higher salaries. Since most graduates tend to stay within their region of the US, the list will tend to favor the east and west coast schools where COL is much higher.

@NJ1962 Your post is directed at the wrong individual here - I was not the one who brought up Stevens’ business school and unfavorably compared it to TCNJ. I did not focus on Stevens’ business school in my post. I flat-out said Stevens was right choice for STEM students. If the business school is geared towards the analytics, financial engineering, and quantitative finance side of the business world, with graduates who are analysts and "quants, that ties back into my point about Stevens being a better fit for STEM students (since that’s a STEM field being described), while TCNJ is better suited for those non-mathematical/non-science business students; it takes more a generalist approach. Stevens excelling in the areas of providing a strong calculus, stochastic calculus, probability and statistics, and computer science/software background is not something I was arguing against, nor was I claiming many students were not being recruited by the big Wall Street investment banks and hedge funds - if anything, I was pointing this out because I’ve been repeatedly saying that Stevens is for STEM students, so when they get STEM-related jobs by these employers, that reinforces my argument that Stevens is for STEM. It’s just important to recognize that a big reason they get these jobs is because of their STEM backgrounds, not just because of the school that provided the STEM background.

There’s no denying TCNJ is competitive in this area and I never said it was. The implication of my post was TCNJ’s strength wasn’t in STEM, so it’s naturally not going to be competitive in an area that’s STEM-based. Especially when it’s also a small school with a different course selection than Rutgers, which as a flagship, has the biggest selection of them all, and Princeton, which I’ve said is aimed at elite students in general.

Again, I flat out said TCNJ and Stevens (and for that matter, RPI, MIT, or any other technologically-based business school) are quite different and a straight comparison between the two is difficult, if not impossible. Even if they both offer business, we’ve both established the focus of their business schools, like the schools themselves, are different. “The type of student interested in a traditional business program as offered by TCNJ isn’t likely going to be interested in the one at Stevens or vice-versa” - that’s the exact point I was making. My focus was on the schools in general as opposed to the business end, but if the schools are different overall, then it’s safe to say their focus-based schools are different as well.

It’s great that Stevens majors are getting great jobs in business. I never argued that people are incapable of getting jobs because of where they attended, or even if they only have an undergraduate degree. The degree you have is bound to help you in the field you pursue, regardless of the school’s name attached to it, for an obvious reason - the degree demonstrates knowledge in that field, whether it be business in general or the STEM aspects of business. Besides, an undergraduate degree just gives you a competitive edge in general, and you’re not bound by it as long as you have the all-more valuable work experience. My dad graduated from Colgate with a dual major in History and Political Science, but his primary field is public relations and he also teaches a graduate course on business at NYU, despite not having a graduate degree.

The notion that what the graduate does with his or her education after going into the “real world” is what’s most important is what I’ve been arguing from the start, a case I’ve been making for past year here. I even made that case in the post you’re responding to (“there’s no way to guarantee a graduate will obtain a certain salary just because he went to a certain school”). It’s always been about the individual, not simply attending the big name schools like Harvard, Princeton, and MIT. Myself, I went to a community college and Monmouth, which sure isn’t a big name school - it’s not even on the Forbes ranking. Nevertheless, when there was a full-time opening at my job, I was the one who was offered it, over my two part-time peers, graduates of Rutgers and American University, not big name schools per se, but definitely better regarded than Monmouth. I’m not trying to sound egotistical here either; I’m providing a real-life example of my own, as I was the first one to receive the promotion, despite attending a school that even I think lowly of. The big name schools do tend to offer more connections and the potential for more peers a student with connect with, but aside from the aid that connections, luck, and timing offers, it’s the student’s drive that is the key factor in success. Ronald Reagan went to Eureka and he did pretty good for himself.

As far as your experience goes, well, that’s subjective, as with any college student who attended a certain school / schools. For you, MIT didn’t best Stevens in terms of the quality of coursework and thoroughness of the curriculum, but that’s not to say others might have a different experience - and let’s not also overlook the fact that unless I’m reading your post wrong, you attended Stevens for undergraduate and MIT for graduate, which are also quite different experiences with different requirements. And it’s safe to say you were more prepared for the demands of college study at that time. It’s great that the professors there told me that they know of the broadbased, highly in-depth nature of the undergraduate curriculum at Stevens and they found Stevens undergraduates to be well prepared for the rigor of MIT’s graduate programs; I never said they wouldn’t be. It’s also great that at least four MIT professors are alumni of Stevens, including one of their most senior EE professors. That’s their field, so it makes sense that’s where they would teach. I know a former president of Stevens attended NJIT as an undergraduate and MIT for graduate school. Still, MIT does enjoy a higher reputation than Stevens, which can be dismissed as not being concrete evidence of anything, but it is a fact that MIT is better known, which was my point. If I’m able to afford Columbia, I’ll have my own experience on how the elite schools really compare education-wise.

And I’ve never said rankings are to be taken as evidence of anything when it comes to the benefits of school, except for maybe reputation and bragging rights. You can find issues with the methodologies of all the major rankings - the “name recognition” and popularity of the institution influencing US News and World Report heavily, Forbes only focusing on outcomes and overlooking factors, and the Princeton Review relying only on student input. There’s no denying they all want to sell copies of what they’re putting out. I don’t know if the subdivision in the US News ranking is necessarily a bad thing, however, because as many people have pointed out, a lot of schools really aren’t comparable, yet Forbes compares them anyways. By dividing them into subdivisions, people are able to gleam how schools compare to their peers, and eliminates comparisons between schools that they consider to not be comparable.

@NJ1962 (continued) I know what the definitions of “national university” and “regional university” are well. First of all though, I’m not simply “claiming” TCNJ is higher ranked, it is a fact that TCNJ is higher ranked than Stevens on the Forbes ranking, which doesn’t have the subdivisions. And in regards to the subdivisions, I’ve been flat-out saying from the start that TCNJ is in a smaller and less competitive group than Stevens, which has to contend with big names, and TCNJ has a higher reputation / ranking mainly because it’s better regarded to its peers than Stevens is. I have repeatedly said that does not mean TCNJ is better and this can be discounted by pointing out Stevens is in a tougher category, but TCNJ still enjoys the higher reputation for a debatable reason. The impact and accomplishments of the graduates of research universities tend to overshadow most of the “regional universities” simply because more people attend the former, giving them a higher probability of having graduates with impact and accomplishments. The big name schools have tend to have the graduates with the biggest impact and accomplishments for a similar reason; more high-achieving students attend them. The national universities have the more alumni impact and accomplishments through virtue of having more alumni, the big name national universities have the most alumni impact and accomplishments through virtue of having more high-achieving alumni. That’s the bottom line.

I have never engaged in silly “my school is better” arguments. I have advocated against doing so from the beginning of this thread. I didn’t even attend TCNJ or Stevens. This a remark better directed at the individuals who have tried to argue that their school is indeed better than another school. I have repeatedly made the case that there are effective and ineffective people from all schools, and I believe Ronald Regan is the best example of that. And for me, that’s something I would argue, and I really can’t argue “my school is better” in the first place because I attended a lowly-ranked school that I honestly feel has no objective benefits (high cost for an education that’s not well regarded). Even if I do graduate from Columbia, I still won’t engage in “my school is better” arguments because that just makes me look insecure and makes my school look bad.

Also, to address other posts:

As I said before, people will beg to differ with rankings (like Bloomberg) and find issues with their methodology. Stevens doesn’t have to worry too much because TCNJ is a completely different school trying to attract different students. TCNJ can toot its horn in its appeal of standard business students, but it’s still not going to appeal to Steven’s students, nor does it want to. I’m sorry I keep posting these lengthy comments about Stevens and TCNJ, but people keep arguing this topic with me, all because I made a comparison to demonstrate how “reputation” seems to play a factor into the Forbes ranking.

Now yes, the rankings certainly are viewed from a status / reputation perspective. They reinforce the dominance of the schools that are supposed to be the best. This is perhaps most evident in this year’s Forbes ranking, where the most consistent top five schools in the nation (Harvard, Stanford, Yale, Princeton, and MIT) just so happen to round out the top five. Does that mean the schools actually are better for a student? Of course not, we all ought to know that every student has different interests and needs and subjective factors that can’t be gauged from the rankings play a key role in addressing those factors. What addresses your specialties can’t be overlooked and is truly more important than the simple rankings - a student with a specialty in STEM is obviously going to be better off at Stevens than TCNJ (sorry, it’s what’s being discussed at the moment) even though TCNJ ranks higher on the Forbes list. Price, location, and overall comfort can’t be truly gauged from a list of rankings. A big reason I attended Monmouth (besides doing zero research on suitable schools) and my parents supporting me going there was simply because it was the closest school to me. Probably not the best example because I was left unsatisfied, but still. And it goes without saying that just because graduates of a certain school make a certain salary on average, that doesn’t mean a graduate will make the salary.

Let’s face it, location and timing will always play a big, if not the biggest factor in why the east and west coast schools do so well, continuing the east and west coast’s dominance in high cost of living and highest salaries. Granted, the elite schools are supposed to be primarily comprised of out-of-state students, but they can still be living on the east or west coast state and attend one of the dominant east/west coast schools in another state. Or even more likely, they remain in the state of the east/west coast school after they graduate, with the potential of higher-paying jobs closer by.

I give credit for Forbes bringing the military academies into the discussion, so at least they get some exposures. Other than that, it’s a typical powder puff ranking designed to get people to click or subscribe, as someone noted above.

Don’t worry. No one uses or trusts the Forbes list. Other than Harvard and Princeton, there is generally no other university as complete and well rounded as Columbia. No one would put most of the colleges that are ahead of Columbia on this list ahead academically. Columbia does poorly on this ranking because it is pricier than every other school. Columbia ranks fourth in US News because it looses points to HYP for alumni donations and participation and endowment. Columbia never does poorly for academics.

@ricck1 not really. Stanford is the most complete and well-rounded school out there, followed by Harvard. Also Yale and Penn are just as well-rounded/strong on the whole as Columbia and are placed ahead on quite a few rankings. That of course doesn’t mean they are better but they are definitely on the same level roughly.
Also USNews rankings change, not too long ago, Columbia was ranked towards the bottom of the top 10, but still that doesn’t mean anything. HYPSM is considered the top 5 regardless of what USNews says in a given year, and places like Columbia or Penn are definitely top 10 but not really top 5. Public perception doesn’t change every year according to the rankings.

My understanding (and naturally, I’m biased) is that Columbia is the most complete and well-rounded in regards to academics. Of course, academics is just one aspect of a school, and schools like Harvard and Stanford are the most complete and well-rounded overall when it comes to all the aspects, hence why they traditionally rank higher. Stating the obvious, but what hurts Columbia on these rankings is its price. For most, the price is worth it to have an elite-caliber education, but others aren’t going to shell out an extra 10K for an elite-caliber education they’re able to get at a lower price. And even if Columbia’s education is superior to its peers (which it very well might be, justifying its price), those accepted to other elite schools are still unlikely to pay the additional tens of thousands for it when they’re already getting an elite education at a lower cost.

What I find notable is the Business Insider ranking of the Ivy League schools, which put Columbia at #1 in academics. However, Columbia ranked sixth overall, mainly because it scored dead last in affordability and student life. Taking the #2 spot in academics was Harvard, which just so happened to be #1 in affordability (and, unsurprisingly was first overall). This ties right in with the notion that Harvard is the most complete and well-rounded of the Ivy League. But it also ties in with the notion that Columbia never does poorly for academics and that colleges ranked ahead of Columbia on the Forbes list wouldn’t be ranked ahead of Columbia academically.

So I feel there’s truth in both assertions stated - the Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT quintet are the most well-rounded schools as a whole, while Columbia’s greatest strength is its academics, which is arguably the most well-rounded. On Forbes, Columbia is ranked below schools outside of that quintet, but likely beats them academically, and its academics rival, if are not better, than that quintet. Again, however, academics are just one aspect of a school, and it’s other aspects (chiefly cost) that prevents Columbia from overtaking that quintet. I’d argue Yale is even above Columbia (since it’s in the big three of the Ivy League), while Penn and Columbia are definitely on the same level when all factors are taken into consideration. Can’t say exactly what holds Penn back, since I know less about it, but I guess it just doesn’t have quite the same reputation of that quintet. And no other schools do. Likewise, I don’t mean to argue that overall, Columbia isn’t well-rounded, because it certainly is - it’s just not as well rounded as the HYPSM quintet is, which again, no other schools are.

It’s easy to dismiss and dismantle rankings like Forbes and US News, although I don’t see them mainly attempts to gain more clicks and subscribers, because these sources have other outputs to achieve this. I see them more as bragging rights for the schools and their alumni, giving the schools another reason to attract applicants and the alumni another factor that might help them in employment. They can also help advertise and make schools outside of the elite and top tiers more attractive, since the elite doesn’t need advertising in the first place. The name alone is enough to do it.

On the surface, the rankings often reflect the reputations of the schools that we know all too well. We know HYPSM are all going to take up the top spots and one of them is going to be #1. The details are where the public reputations and the rankings differ, such as Columbia tying with Stanford and outranking MIT in last year’s US News ranking. That’s definitely not going to change the public perception of these schools - the public still sees Stanford and MIT as top 5, while Columbia is top 10 - but at least the rankings and the public can both agree that Columbia, Stanford, and MIT are elite caliber. Change in public perception, if it even happens at all, is typically gradual, but positive changes in rankings can work towards changing the public perception. Although considering what most people seem to think of rankings here, that probably won’t happen.

Regardless, I’m definitely more worried about what Columbia is going to do to my finances and being able to handle the courses - while working full-time - than the school ranking in the top 10/20 instead of the top 5.

Columbia has very generous financial aid. The price can’t be the thing that hurts it as I don’t think that USNews uses net price (which Columbia should do well on), or total sticker price (which it would not), for its main ranking, only for the “Best Value” ranking, which is separate.

Columbia makes the 2018 Top 10 for best value:

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2017-09-05/2018-best-colleges-preview-top-10-best-value-schools

Forbes does use price but it uses net price, I believe.