<p>Menza, the polls/rankings I refer to are for the most part time tested and (with the exception of Prowl'r) the product of idependent research staffs. To my knowledge H does not appear with a #1 undergraduate ranking in any of them (since you can argue that US News considers more). So exactly what rankingS was she referring to (certainly not the most commonly accepted)?</p>
<p>There are many reasons the NBER study has been neglected (discussed all to often here and elsewhere).</p>
<p>The NBER study isn't neglected... it's just not a for-profit study like all the ones you mention. They aren't trying to sell magazines, so they don't publicize it. But the NBER study is very highly regarded and is well known among those who are the most interested in these things.</p>
<p>And having researchers at universities doesn't make the National Bureau of Economic Research not "independent". What it makes it is better qualified to conduct a real study, as the other studies were done by people who don't do any actual research for a living.</p>
<p>Yale, We can agree to disagree. But I submit that the study has been neglected by those who are in the best position to consider its value (High School GCs and high school students). I challenge you to demonstate otherwise.
Given your logic, you would think that GCs would disgard the for-profit studies. But the reverse is true. Their web sites are loaded with lists of recommendations, which do not include, on any scale that I am aware of, NBER or the book.<br>
A lack of bias is critical to those companies in the business of evaluating colleges. They cannot afford to run the risk of being perceived otherwise.
Anyway, the proof is in the pudding. You cannot argue with where people at that level choose to get their information. That does not mean that they are correct, but it is certainly a strong indicator. It is also a strong indicator when at that level they choose to ignore a report.<br>
But forget my view, talk to GCs.</p>
<p>Most high school GC's have probably not heard of the National Bureau of Economic Research... the U.S. News and other for-profit studies are marketed to guidance counselors because they make $$$ by marketing it to them. The NBER has nothing to gain by marketing their studies, and so ignores guidance counselors completely. The NBER study wasn't done to gain guidance "marketshare" like the others, it was done to find truths in admissions.</p>
<p>Eventually, the NBER paper may become outdated, as it was just one research paper and as not-for-profit work it has no contingency plan to be updated later.</p>
<p>.
[quote]
The NBER study wasn't done to gain guidance "marketshare" like the others, it was done to find the truth
[/quote]
And to skewer USNew, whose results are absurd and were misleading many people.</p>
<p>GCs haven't heard of it? (your starting to sound like menza - just shooting from the hip). THAT'S THEIR JOB! (so some how you know but they don't).</p>
<p>Do you think the GCs at the elite preps have heard of it? I would think so. Those are some pretty bright people with mega resources. Take a look at their web sites. See what their telling their students and parents to read.</p>
<p>I was referring to average public high schools, where GCs are not particularly competent. That is where U.S. News is popular, not at the nice private schools. But even at the privates, U.S. News and the others market themselves greatly to these guidance counselors to make more $$$.</p>
<p>The NBER study is new, and a one-time deal. Don't expect any but the most sophisticated of college counselors to use it.</p>
<p>Oh, and another thing is that the NBER study is way too long for a high school student to read. It isn't as simple-minded (rankings a page or two long) as the for-profit "studies". No guidance counselor, even at a top private school, could expect high school students to read it (without getting credit). I doubt that hardly anyone here has actually read it. It's over most people's heads, and way too detailed for those for which that is not the case.</p>
<p>Yale, You just don't get it. No one, not even the elite GCs, is talking about the report. It is being ignored and for good reason. Check thier web sites please. Rather than shooting from the hip with your weak explanations, prove me wrong.
To say that the report is to long to read is pretty weak. So people here can find ways to summarize it, but the GCs with more resources cannot? Weak!
Regards,</p>
<p>I think this chat has reached an end, please don'd be offended if I no longer respond.</p>
<p>
[quote]
please don'd be offended if I no longer respond.
[/quote]
Like he cares...</p>
<p>NYgirl you may want to read:</p>
<p>I have read it. </p>
<p>Rather thin stuff. </p>
<p>Except for the entertaining quotes from Harvard Professor Harvey Mansfield, the same story could have been written about any of 1,000 colleges. </p>
<p>Except it wouldn't have seemed as vital and significant (or worthy of a book-hustling exerpt in the Atlantic) if it was captioned "The Trouble With Holy Cross" , or "The Trouble With MacAlaster".</p>
<p>
[quote]
Except it wouldn't have seemed as vital and significant if it was captioned "The Trouble With Holy Cross"
[/quote]
That's exactly the point. Ok, maybe it's an exagerration. But if it's rings true about Harvard, Yale etc., I find that a lot more disturbing than Holy Cross. People say that H can have it's pick. If so, it doesn't say much for the people doing the picking if that's the type of student body they select. Obviously, not everyone is that bad, but it sounds pretty prevalent, probbaly at H, Y, P and lots of the top schools. And Maybe people should stop slamming Tom Wolfe. Basically, he's reporting the same thing, and I trust him a lot to distill the reality into a "truthful" novel.</p>