<p>The US News rankings, I think all will agree, have limited value. I looked at the Forbes data at length, however, and conclude that it basically has NO value. Jazzymom is correct that the presence of outliers like Samford and SMU (comparing their objective data with other highly ranked schools) ruins the measure. I agree that the use of Ratemyprofs has got to be a mistake, for which someone at Forbes will probably be fired, eventually.</p>
<p>USNews doesn't tell the whole story, but it does tell some compelling ones: class size, selectivity (which over the long run does indicate the overall grapevine opinion, worldwide, re which schools are "best"), SAT measure of cohort--probably the most objective measure of student strength, peer assessment, which is probably a decent measure of professor strength, financial resources (shows what government and corps think of the school) and alumni giving, which shows what students think about their experience there.</p>
<p>I'm afraid the argument here is over. Let's move on.</p>
<p>If you can continue, with a straight face, to defend Rate My Professor as a reliable source of information for how students at a university feel about their professors, there's no point in further discussion. </p>
<p>ANYONE can log onto RMP and say anything about a professor at ANY college. There's no way to ascertain that the students who log in have legitmate complaints about quality of teaching or if they just got a bad grade or want to mess around. There's no way to ascertain that it's actually students who are logging in. It's not valid information to use in a ranking system. </p>
<p>I put more trust into the validity of numbers reported to USNWR for their ranking system because the numbers have to be reported elsewhere as well, such as to the federal govt and to other research/ranking bodies, such as the University of Arizona Center for Measuring University Performance. This center ranks the top research universities in America using NINE different criteria to gauge academic excellence, many of them similar to the ones used by USNWR in its attempt to achieve the same overall goal. (Rate my Professors isn't one of them.) </p>
<p>Here's a link: <a href="http://mup.asu.edu/research2007.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://mup.asu.edu/research2007.pdf</a></p>
<p>SMU is ranked so high because it is an incredibly well-connected school that is essentially the official college of the Texas elite. I'm sure their high ranking had a lot to do with their abilities at connections and job placement.</p>
<p>Did they seriously use Who's Who in America as a ranking determinant? Maybe they forgot Tucker Carlson's article in their own paper a number of years ago... The</a> Hall of Lame - Forbes.com</p>
<p>Its ironic that people on this thread point to the ranking of SMU and Samford as proof that the Forbes list has no value, when fans of other schools point to the ranking of Wash U. by U.S. News as evidence that its rankings are flawed. </p>
<p>One other point, concerning the quality of the learning experience, the criteria used by U.S. News such as financial and faculty resources are used for this element. However, in the real world financial and faculty resources aren't necessarily reflected in a quality learning experience on campus. Much of these resources at a research university such as Wash U. go to the quality of research on a campus, not necessarily relevant to the undergraduate learning experience. In the past year Time had a cover story on how it could be argued that many of the small liberal arts colleges have a better learning experience than at the larger universities that some consider more prestigious. They pointed out that the emphasis at these schools is on teaching rather than research. While U.S. News may consider having high paid professors on staff who were hired for their research ability rather than their teaching abilities to be indicative of a quality learning experience Time did not. Sure Rate My Professor isn't 100 percent reliable as to the learning experience on campus, but it does provide some indication of what students are experiencing - The same can be said for U.S. News notwithstanding the views of Time Magazine. I wouldn't totally ignore the ratings because of their dubious connection between financial and faculty resources and the quality of the learning experience on campus. I also wouldn't totally dismiss the Forbes list.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that either list is is perfect (hopefully no one is basing any decisions on these lists), but I think the forbes list of LAC shows how the forbes list comes through in some very important areas.
example: barnard at #8- USNWR looks only at Barnards resources, even though barnard students benefit from the resources of columbia, resulting in their low ranking of 30. Forbes attempts to look at things like student satisfaction and success of graduates (barnard has some very successful grads) to try to get a more personal feel for a school.</p>
<p>One other thought for detractors of Forbes who put credence in the U.S. News list. If the Forbes list is worthless and the criteria used a "joke", there should be no correlation between the U.S. News list and the Forbes list. With all the schools that are rated there, it would be a statistical impossibility for them to rate most schools approximately the same if the criteria used by Forbes had no reliability. Yet look at how Forbes top ten schools are ranked by U.S. News. The lists are very similar and not particularly controversial. How would you explain this if the Forbes list is worthless? Sure there are a few exceptions, like Wash U., the further you go down the list, but how could the methodology used by Forbes be a "joke" if it in most cases it simply confirms the U.S. News rankings? Statistically speaking, if the U.S. News rankings have any validity they provide support for the criteria used by Forbes.</p>
<p>Rollins and kmatimber: </p>
<p>Here's an idea. Go argue the validity of this ranking system to people on the MIT forum or better yet, on the LAC forums for Grinnell, Macalester or Middlebury. If you can win the people on those forums over to your point of view, I will open my mind to the possibility that Forbes' choice of methodology isn't complete hogwash. And unsubstantiated hogwash at that, since not a shred of data is offered to back up the rankings as presented.</p>
<p>Jazzymom- Looks like your punting. If the methodology is hogwash, there should be no correlation between the rankings of U.S. News and Forbes. Name-calling Forbes really isn't much of an explanation.</p>
<p>@jazzymom: I'm not saying the forbes list is a valid list, im just saying its not 100% invalid either, same w/ the USNWR list. Bottom line is that lists (no matter how exciting they are ;-P) can't be used to evaluate schools. You have to come up with your own criteria and create a list of your own based on that.
I applaud forbes for trying to take a less numbers based approach to college rankings- regardless of their ultimate success. Hopefully they will continue this list and refine their methodology along the way.</p>
<p>How can there be any explanation of any of the results since they don't provide any real data to back up their findings?</p>
<p>Rollins et.al, the USNWR rankings are certainly far from flawless; we can all acknowledge, as I said before, that all ratings systems are limited. The USNWR categories are superior though to Forbes in many ways. The fact that small colleges have anecdotally been reported to have better experiences than large research universities doesn't negate the value of categories between those universitites (apples to apples) such as financial resource and faculty ratings. The peer assessment is serious. In fact, really all the categories for USNWR are more serious than RatemyProf or who's who.</p>
<p>Certainly you are free to rely on Forbes more if you wish, but I think this unwise. Good luck.</p>
<p>These ranking arguments are endless and annoying. Let's look at things another way. There are 3500 or so four year colleges in the U.S. In the USNWR rankings, Wash U is ranked 12th. In the Forbes rankings, 31st. In either case, Wash U is in the top 1%. By any reasonable measure, Wash U is a very, very good university. Is there really any more that needs to be said?</p>
<p>
[quote]
There are 3500 or so four year colleges in the U.S. In the USNWR rankings, Wash U is ranked 12th. In the Forbes rankings, 31st. In either case, Wash U is in the top 1%
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There is WAY too much competition among the colleges to be satisfied with top 1%.</p>
<p>I love the LAC list. So random.</p>
<p>ya.....middlebury is 28th...
there is something wrong when there is such a huge discrepancy between the two lists....</p>
<p>People seriously need to stop relying on rankings, and go to the college that they actually LIKE, and feel comfortable at. That being said, if I had to pick between a ranking I would pick the USNWR, not because it's appreciably more accurate (because lists are never accurate) but because it's more popular, and thus it's looked at with more weight from employers, which is ultimately what matters: money, right? Seriously, it's very convenient to have a nice, preformed list to choose from but you're ultimately doing yourself a disservice to rely on them to pick a college. I dunno about the rest of you, but I would much rather spend 4 years in a college that I liked than a highly ranked one that I hated. You can't get back those 4 years of your life.</p>
<p>Jazzy mom needs to ****.</p>
<p>
[quote]
People seriously need to stop relying on rankings, and go to the college that they actually LIKE, and feel comfortable at. That being said, if I had to pick between a ranking I would pick the USNWR, not because it's appreciably more accurate (because lists are never accurate) but because it's more popular, and thus it's looked at with more weight from employers, which is ultimately what matters: money, right? Seriously, it's very convenient to have a nice, preformed list to choose from but you're ultimately doing yourself a disservice to rely on them to pick a college. I dunno about the rest of you, but I would much rather spend 4 years in a college that I liked than a highly ranked one that I hated. You can't get back those 4 years of your life.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not about the money, it's about getting the job you want. The FACT is that more prestigious colleges DO open up more opportunities for you.</p>
<p>Oh, and LOL at parents who get upset because their kid's school isn't getting the rankings it "deserves." Sorry you can't brag as much to your friends anymore.</p>