<p>DH is a grad. I agree it’s a great school. Couldn’t talk D into applying,though.</p>
<p>The article is about the U.S. Military Academy in West Point.</p>
<p>From article: “Our college rankings are based on five criteria: graduation rate (how good a college is at helping its students finish on time); the number of national and global awards won by students and faculty; students’ satisfaction with their instructors; average debt upon graduation; and postgraduate vocational success as measured by a recent graduate’s average salary and alumni achievement.”</p>
<p>Average debt upon graduation = 0 (financial that is!)</p>
<p>vocational sucess = guaranteed job for 5 years…</p>
<p>And the college certainly helps students finish on time! (The ones that don’t get weeded out, that is…)</p>
<p>…And since this is military, most students are obligated to show “satisfaction” toward instructors who are probably also commanding officers! ;)</p>
<p>just looked at the rankings, I hope that Clemson isn’t ranked in the 400s/500s as it is right now on Forbes! haha</p>
<p>One of S’s closest friends graduated from there near the top of his class last year. Smart, incredibly focused kid (the two are yin and yang–both smart, but opposites otherwise.) We’re expecting him to be on the Joint Chiefs of Staff eventually. :)</p>
<p>
no, they are not obligated. instructors most of whom are in the military are not their commanding officers.</p>
<p>^ Good Point.</p>
<p>Public Display of Respect is an obligation. Respect may not be equivalent to “satisfaction”.</p>
<p>Average debt upon graduation:
Doesn’t that tilt in favor of families that can foot the bill and colleges that offer little in the way of finaid?</p>
<p>Sure West Point grads don’t graduate with financial debt and are guaranteed a job - but this isn’t the reason why they won. If it were, then the Air Force Academy, the Naval Academy and the Coast Guard Academy would be ranked #1-4.</p>
<p>Those factors are only part of the equation. The other parts are success of graduates - many West Point grads do have stellar Army careers but they also excel in the business world after they leave the service. West Point also has a lot of scholarship winners for prestigious graduate scholarship, i.e. Rhodes, Marshall, Truman and Gates.</p>
<p>I was thinking more about the list of colleges. Those at the top seem to have really generous finaid packages.</p>
<p>^
right - the colleges that have “no loan, 100% fin aid” policies definitely get a boost.<br>
I guess since they have the endowment to afford it, that makes them better.</p>
<p>^This is what bothers me about the list and this particular criterion. It is assumed that well endowed colleges provide a better education; there is no evidence to support this assumption.
I am by no means suggesting that Princeton (2) or Harvard (4) do not provide an excellent education. But that much better than Chicago (21) Brown (72!?)? Personally, I would put Chicago on the same level as Princeton and Harvard (and several others) in terms of educational excellence, and I know that there are many who prefer Chicago to Harvard.</p>
<p>A better deal (i.e. a less expensive option) is not the same thing as “better.”</p>
<p>Well, Forbes is a business magazine. They are factoring in the dollar cost of the education to the student. It is just one factor though - there are many others.</p>
<p>The publishers at Forbes are also smart enough to know that college “rankings” sell magazines! Despite all the critics of the USNews rankings, that particular edition of the magazine certainly boosts their annual sales number. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This type of ranking provides the absolute proof that anyone can come up with a list of criteria and massage the data until the desired output is reached. Last year’s version compiled by “scientist” and economist Richard Vedder and his CRAP Center were not worth the paper it could be printed on. It is extremely doubtful that this year is any better. Centre and Whitman better colleges than Rice or Emory? </p>
<p>Why a magazine such as Forbes has decided to stake what is left of its waning reputation on such piece of garbage is a question that begs for an answer. Does the mere need to compete with U.S. News in the lucrative college ranking business justifies trusting anybody’s pseudo science? Washington Monthly tried it before with similar ridiculous results! </p>
<p>Forbes could have retained the service of 3 or 4 monkeys, armed them with playing darts, placed them in front of a map of the US educational landscape, and rewarded them with ripe bananas for every “scientific” selection resulting from a clean dart hit. The producers would have had a lot more fun and the result would have been less of a silly joke for the Forbes readership.</p>
<p>These rankings are all silly IMO, and influenced by criteria that have little to do with the experience and education of any individual student.</p>
<p>This was last year’s thread on this:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/502762-center-college-affordability-productivity-updated-official-forbes-c.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/502762-center-college-affordability-productivity-updated-official-forbes-c.html</a></p>
<p>The “methodology”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>and why I wrote then:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This year is probably even worse.</p>