<p>
[quote]
A mistake involving Haverford College casts new doubts about the popular, but often criticized, rankings of colleges and universities by media.</p>
<p>Forbes' annual list is out, and Haverford plummeted from No. 7 to No. 27 - for no obvious reason.</p>
<p>Eyebrows might also be raised over the volatility of two other stable Philadelphia-area schools - the University of Pennsylvania, now No. 17, way up from 52 a year ago, and Swarthmore, now No. 10, up from 16.</p>
<p>Princeton is back on top after finishing No. 2 to Williams last year.</p>
<p>Other schools in the region making the Top 100: Lafayette 49, Bryn Mawr 52, Villanova 83, and Franklin and Marshall 94.</p>
<p>In Haverford's case, Forbes relied on a federal database for thousands of schools that contained an error about the Main Line college's graduation rate, executive editor Michael Noer has confirmed.</p>
<p>Haverford correctly reported the rate as 88 percent, but it wound up listed as 55 percent, a dramatic difference.
<p>It shouldn’t be difficult for Forbes to apply its methodology with the proper numbers and state the appropriate ranking in its disclaimer (presented below). Nevertheless, most fans of Haverford are probably not too anxious about this issue. They know the distinctive quality of the school and don’t depend on such rankings to prove it.</p>
<p>Forbes says, “*Due to a data reporting error in the U.S. Department of Education’s database, this ranking used an incorrect graduation rate for Haverford College (the incorrect number remains in the governments database). Correcting this error would significantly improve Haverford’s ranking.”</p>
<p>Oh, I realize that. I just love how cavalier Forbes is when <em>they’ve</em> made a mistake. They just blame the “government’s database,” as if they have no fact-checkers on the payroll there!</p>
<p>I have never considered Forbes’ college rankings to have any credibility at all. It is a much less rigorous system with fewer factors, and seems just a way to boost circulation of its declining print magazine. It will disappear in a few years if we all ignore it. Given the fact that Haverford is a top ten National Liberal Arts College in the USNWR rankings, I don’t give this news any value whatsoever. I have never heard of a single student who made a decision to apply or attend based on Forbes–more likely, a USNWR ranking would trump whatever Forbes had said.</p>
<p>The concept of the Forbes rankings is compelling, however, in that this system acknowledges parity of the top LAC’s with top universities (the fact that Williams, Amherst and Swat are in the top ten, with Williams above all ivies except Princeton is refreshing). USNWR, by segregating LAC’s to a secondary list, does a disservice- most people don’t even turn the page after reviewing the national university rankings (hence no body has even heard of LACs in the USNWR top ten- treating them as second class).</p>
<p>^ I too support Forbes emphasis on graduate results and the integration with the LACs, but the year to year volatility does a disservice to its legitimacy. Not to mention the fact that some Ivies are ranked ridiculously low.</p>
<p>Face it: all ranking systems are flawed. Haverford offers as strong an undergraduate education as its peers (and that includes sLACs and “Ivies”).</p>
<p>With respect to Dad2’s comment that USNWR does a disservice to parents and students investigating colleges by segregating universities and LACs, I disagree. Liberal Arts Colleges are fundamentally different institutions from large comprehensive universities, and most of the students I have known see the difference and will focus on one or the other in their applications. Comparing Haverford, Swarthmore, Williams, Wesleyan and Amherst glosses over the fundamental differences in resources and endowment (on the university side) and student-faculty interaction, opportunities to participate in varsity sports, student government and many other key elements (on the LAC side). I also think the USNWR practice of breaking out “national” versus “regional” universities is wise because they usually tend to attract different pools of applicants. That being said, I still have objections to the overall precision and meaningfulness of any college ranking system.</p>