Forbes gives USNWR list a D

Parents Forum
21

<p>
[quote]
The top 10 schools are legitimate.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, batting .400 is a pretty legitimate statistic. Too bad that it also means four out of ten.</p>

<p>Name CCAP Rank USNWR RANK
Williams College 1 1
Amherst College 2 2
Wellesley College 3 4
Swarthmore College 4 3
Haverford College 5 10
Washington and Lee University 6 15
United States Military Academy 7 22
Barnard College 8 30
Whitman College 9 37
Wabash College 10 52</p>

22

<p>To me, the basic problem with relying on Who's Who is that the listings in that book indicate nothing about a school's <em>present</em> quality: people generally don't get listed until they're 20 or 30 years or even more out of college. What does that have to do with how good a school is now?</p>

23

<p>The problem with Who's Who is their bogus methodology in choosing whom to include in the book. Beyond a few truly famous people that they throw in on their own, it's a vanity deal. Heck, they've sent ME literature recruiting me to submit a bio of myself so that they can include it -- and no doubt they will then turn around and try to sell me a copy of the book. And I am by no means famous or prominent. I threw their junk mail in the trash.</p>

<p>So by including a bogus list like Who's Who as a key part of their method, Forbes has rendered their own ranking bogus too. Maybe I should have had myself listed after all - to move my old colleges up in the Forbes rankings.</p>

24

<p>It is not worse nor better than the others. At least it tries to include the effects of attending a college.</p>

25

<p>^^I disagree. It's worse. I don't see how including totally bogus effects of attending college such as getting listed in Who's Who is of any value.</p>

26

<p>Sounds like Forbes was not using the best image to illustrate their point. Colleges That Change Lives author Lauren Pope made a similar criticism of the usnr mentality and he used the image of assessing a hospital by how healthy the patients are coming in vs how sick they are coming in THEN seeing how those members are afterwards.</p>

<p>So following his metaphor, one will not be able to assess a hospital that deals only with a bunch of very healthy water-walking people coming in as much as a hospital that deals with people with some 'defects' and illnesses. </p>

<p>Absolutely, a good meal is a function of the quality of the ingredients and the cook / process.</p>

<p>Rate my professor.com not a good measure either for output.</p>

27

<p>I agree with #22.</p>

28

<p>Coureur raises a good point. Who's Who is based on a voluntary response survey, and voluntary response surveys are notorious for producing junk data. Here's my FAQ on such surveys: </p>

<p>One professor of statistics, who is a co-author of a highly regarded AP statistics textbook, has tried to popularize the phrase that "voluntary response data are worthless" to go along with the phrase "correlation does not imply causation." Other statistics teachers are gradually picking up this phrase.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Math</a> Forum Discussions</p>

29

<p>Token,
before we jump the gun on worthless data, can you or someone who has detailed knowledge about the Who's Who's selection process explain how it works. I talked to a McDonald burger flipper the other day and he has not received any mail from Who's Who yet, but unlike #23 who throwed the mail into trash can, this guy actully plans to list himself if invited.</p>

30

<p>The publisher somehow generates a mailing list of people to whom it sends invitations. Those people decide whether or not to reply to the invitation by filling out biographical data. I've read that some EXTREMELY famous and rich people don't like to be listed in Who's Who, the better to maintain personal security and avoid harassment.</p>

31

<p>^^Token, the keyword is "somehow".</p>

32

<p>The most reliable methodology is simply find the percentage of millionaires' kids who attend a school, and the number of millionaires among the alumni. Occasionally, there will be an outlyer or two, but on the whole, it works pretty well, at least as far as prestige is concerned.</p>

33

<p>Larry</a> Bodine's LawMarketing Blog: Who's Who? Who Cares! </p>

<p>Quantized</a> Thoughts: Who's Who </p>

<p>Re:</a> biography in Marquis Who's Who </p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_Who's_Who"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_Who's_Who&lt;/a> </p>

<p>A very easy Google search turned up these links.</p>

34

<p>Mini,
Here is one of your outliers: President Thomas Jefferson was in debt when he died. What you said is probably true in a capitalist society like US where accomplishment is usaully accompanied by money no matter what you do. However, I think that the millinaire methodology favors the priviate sector over academia and public sector.</p>

35

<p>Prestige favors the private sector simply because the product costs more. It carries more panache. You've probably read the wine studies, where the $90 bottle "tastes better" than the $8 bottle, even when they switch the labels. </p>

<p>Jefferson was by no means an outlyer. He managed his lifestyle effectively through the use of "leverage". (It was called slavery back then.) He just happened to die when he lacked cash. The sale of his assets more than paid off his debts (and, as I remember, with quite a bit left over.)</p>

36

<p>Thanks, Token, for the links. You are always good at these things. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia:</p>

<p>"Marquis Who's Who states that selection of individuals for listing in its publications "is based on reference value. Individuals become eligible for listing by virtue of their positions and/or noteworthy achievements that have proved to be of significant value to society. An individual's desire to be listed is not sufficient reason for inclusion. Similarly, wealth or social position are not criteria. Purchase of the book is never a factor in the selection of biographees".[4]</p>

<p>Tucker Carlson, in an article entitled "The Hall of Lame" that appeared in Forbes Magazine in 1999, wrote that the selection process is neither rigorous nor meaningful, and self nominators and thousands of people not particularly notable are included, such as bowling coaches, teachers and landscape architects. Carlson also writes that Marquis makes money selling addresses to direct mail marketers.[9]</p>

<p>Marquis calls its selection criteria "stringent" and says that biographical data on candidates for listing are reviewed by its editors to confirm that its requirements are met. Once selected, a biographical draft is sent to biographees for prepublication checking. In cases where notable individuals decline to submit biographical data, Marquis compiles information itself.[4]"</p>

<p>I think that a bowling coach winning an international champinship, teachers like the one died in the Spaceshuttle Challenger, and landscape architects who designed famous landmarks are all legitimate entries into Who's Who.</p>

37

<p>Is it the case that the princeton review's <em>summary data</em> (academic rating, quality of life, for example) are examples of voluntary response data? I do not mean the anecdotal quotes.</p>

<p>Can someone who knows its methodology comment on its validity?</p>

38

<p>The Princeton Review annual surveys suffer from precisely the same methodological flaw. They are not taken seriously by any statistician as a basis for comparing colleges. Similarly, the unknown response rate to Marquis Who's Who invitations to be listed makes it impossible for Who's Who placement to be a valid basis for comparing colleges.</p>

39

<p>FYI, the CCAP rankings of national universities as published by Forbes.com is inaccurate as to CCAP's actual ranking of SMU. Forbes.com lists SMU as 13 when, in fact, it's ranked by CCAP as 43. Take a look at CCAP's own list at the bottom of its own home page:The Center for College Affordability and Productivity. As you will see, the top 20 schools now begin with Harvard and end with Brandeis. BTW, I confirmed the accuracy of the CCAP-published list by email with CCAP.</p>

40

<p>Thanks for pointing out that the Forbes editors apparently made some mistakes.</p>