Is Forbes's college rankings correct????

[arijos0222]

<p>Forbes released a new college ranking
America's</a> Best Colleges List - Forbes</p>

<p>Is this right? If it is then this will change my view immensely. NYU at 200? while Sewanee- University of the South is 57? </p>

<p>I want to be prepared academically at the highest level. Not have a sub 200 ranked school's education just because it has the name "NYU". (example).</p>

[arijos0222]

<p>On another board I saw a UNC-Sewanee transfer question </p>

<p>Many people said the UNC is a better school and one parent even went as far as “If my child wanted to transfer to Sewanee from UNC, I would not pay for it”</p>

<p>Is this just naiveness? </p>

<p>Forbes bases their rankings on education rather than reputation. </p>

<p>Also what about the name of the universities? Who would accept a Williams College applicant over a Harvard applicant? Or a Haverford applicant over a Yale, Cornell, Dartmouth, Brown and UPenn applicant?</p>

[happy1]

<p>1) I don’t think rankings should dictate where you go to college. Look for fit, environment, academics, overall reputation and admission standards. Visit schools, visit the classes, talk to the students and professors, do you own research. Create ranking on factors that matter to you. Don’t worry so much about matrices that are created by others. 2) These rankings seem, in my opinion, somewhat off from the overall reputations of the school. This list looks to favor the smaller schools for some reason. I don’t have a problem with Williams as the top school per say, but I don’t think that it is reasonable to rank Centre College in KY (no offense to anyone from there, I’m sure it is a fine school) above schools like Cornell, Penn, Columbia, Tufts.</p>

[Erin_s_Dad]

<p>Here is the general methodology used by Forbes:

Our annual ranking of the 650 best undergraduate institutions focuses on the things that matter the most to students: quality of teaching, great career prospects, graduation rates and low levels of debt.
…
The rankings are based on five general categories: Post Graduate success (30%), which evaluates alumni pay and prominence, Student Satisfaction (27.5%), which includes professor evaluations and freshman to sophomore year retention rates, Debt (17.5%), which penalizes schools for high student debt loads and default rates, Four Year Graduation Rate (17.5%) and Competitive Awards (7.5%), which rewards schools whose students win prestigious scholarships and fellowships like the Rhodes, the Marshall and the Fulbright.

</p>

[beyphy]

<p>no ranking is "correct."every ranking uses different criteria. the de facto college ranking is USNWR which ranks NYU in the 30s. somethinng to keep in mind.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

Also what about the name of the universities? Who would accept a Williams College applicant over a Harvard applicant? Or a Haverford applicant over a Yale, Cornell, Dartmouth, Brown and UPenn applicant?

</p>

<p>I think you’re incredibly naive about how the real world works. People in the real world don’t “tier” in the fine way you are doing. Plenty of people would consider all the schools that you listed above as markers that the applicant is likely smart, and how he carries himself in the interview would make the difference, not the school.</p>

[ArKhAiK]

<p>Rankings are a load of crap.
USNews is the least craptastic.
Forbes is the most.</p>

<p>NYU is an excellent school (even if Forbes doesn’t think so).</p>

[tk21769]

<p>One factor that would hurt NYU in the Forbes ranking is its relatively high levels of student debt at graduation. That problem has nothing directly to do with academic quality.</p>

[annasdad]

<p>

Rankings are a load of c**p.

</p>

<p>Amen, bro. Couldn’t say it better myself. However, with slightly greater erudition:</p>

<p>

Make no mistake: the publication of college rankings is a business enterprise that capitalizes on anxiety about college admissions. Ranking lists do not provide very useful information for making decisions about where you should apply. Their main flaw is obvious but worth stating: rankings employ a one-size-fits-all approach to a highly personal decision. The particular characteristics that go into the ranking calculations often have very little to do with what will be important to your educational experience. … Rankings promote the notion that the college you attend signifies your place in the world. “I will be seen as ‘better’ if I attend a more highly-ranked school.” **Rankings encourage students (and parents) to internalize the myth that where you go to college defines your value and determines your future success in life. **</p>

<p>This country has hundreds of outstanding undergraduate programs, each offering more opportunities than any student could possibly pursue over four years. The truth is this: it is the student who makes something out of those opportunities, and not the school that makes something out of the student.

</p>

<p>– Yale Dean of Admissions Jeffrey Brenzel (emphasis added)</p>

<p>[Looking</a> Beyond the College Rankings | Yale College Admissions](<a href=“http://admissions.yale.edu/looking-beyond-college-rankings]Looking”>http://admissions.yale.edu/looking-beyond-college-rankings)</p>

[jym626]

<p>This is my personal favorite ranking system. Please be sure to keep refreshing it to get the idea [College</a> Ranking Service, A Peerless Evaluation of Colleges, rankyourcollege.com](<a href=“http://www.rankyourcollege.com/ddmethod.html]College”>College Ranking Service, A Peerless Evaluation of Colleges, rankyourcollege.com)</p>

[wayneandgarth]

<p>The Student Satisfaction component for Forbes is almost entirely based on professor rankings out of ratemyprofessor.com. That is how stupid the Forbes ranking is. A joke.</p>

[jetsfan289]

<p>Anyone can see forbes is really pro lac.</p>

[zephyr15]

<p>With all rankings – you have to look at the criteria, and their weightings . and see whether you agree.</p>

[LilyEmery]

<p>Each system puts emphasis on different aspects of schools. Rankings are quite silly if you think about it.</p>

[noobcake]

<p>

@ArKhAiK

Rankings are a load of crap.
USNews is the least craptastic.
Forbes is the most.</p>

<p>NYU is an excellent school (even if Forbes doesn’t think so).

</p>

<p>This. Forbes = Complete Garbage</p>

[lookingforward]

<p>The whole notion of ranking is flawed. These media things create a frenzy, sell magazines, line someone’s pockets. I tell my kids to try to figure out “Who’s driving the Mercedes?” Sorry, but I feel similarly about “Colleges that Change Lives.” Nice way to garner attention for a set of once overlooked schools, by no means the full list of great places. None of this is truly scientific. No matter how they try to explain and justify. The best schools are the best for you- that’s the depts, profs, peers, other opps and environment that empower you.</p>

[tk21769]

<p>

This country has hundreds of outstanding undergraduate programs, each offering more opportunities than any student could possibly pursue over four years.

</p>

<p>The USA has thousands of undergraduate programs. So how do you identify the “outstanding” ones (let alone the very good but not famous ones) without resorting to aids like college rankings, especially if you are a first generation student, an immigrant, or otherwise not very familiar with American colleges … and assuming you are a good student shopping beyond your local market?</p>

<p>How for example do you identify schools with a high concentration of “peers … that empower you” without considering factors like admission selectivity? How do you identify schools with professors and environments that empower you, without looking at measurable criteria like class sizes, faculty resources, and financial resources? These are the kinds of factors considered in the US News rankings.</p>

[annasdad]

<p>

The USA has thousands of undergraduate programs. So how do you identify the “outstanding” ones (let alone the very good but not famous ones) without resorting to aids like college rankings

</p>

<p>Apparently the director of admissions at Yale (which seems to do fairly well in most rankings, no?) considers it possible.</p>

<p>Perhaps he is just savvy enough to realize that rankings are useless because they have absolutely nothing to do with being outstanding or good, but rather that are based on prestige and on factors that have been shown by decades of research to have little or no bearing on the quality of the education available.</p>

<p>To quote further from Mr. Brenzel:</p>

<p>

The formulas used to rank schools are based on factors that may be irrelevant to individual students. A composite score reflecting alumni giving rates, student-to-teacher ratios, median SAT scores, and assorted other data tells little about how the resources at a particular school fit the unique needs and interests of a particular student. The clarity that ranking systems seem to offer is a false one

</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>There’s nothing wrong with the data in the ranking systems (as long as you know what the data is based off). What’s “wrong” is the silly CC practice of slicing the tiers so thinly. The rankings ARE good for identifying bands. They just aren’t bands where #8 is distinguishable from #13, or whatever.</p>

[tk21769]

<p>

Apparently the director of admissions at Yale (which seems to do fairly well in most rankings, no?) considers it possible.

</p>

<p>I suspect the Yale DOA is not a first gen or an immigrant, but that if he is, by now he has spent years in the higher education business. And if he does have a mental Roladex of hundreds of “outstanding” undergraduate programs, I bet it includes just about all the ones on the high side of the US News “Peer Assessment” ratings. After all, if it’s possible for him to rationally identify “outstanding” programs, and if people like him are worth quoting, then why is that Peer Assessment process (which interviews about 1000 people like him) “crap”? Especially when it produces results similar to the other, numbers-driven 75% of the ranking. People are not so very different from each other that many of us cannot agree on a few criteria worth tracking.</p>

<p>

The formulas used to rank schools are based on factors that may be irrelevant to individual students.

</p>

<p>They may be to some, but apparently they aren’t to many others. Otherwise they would not continue to be so popular after about 3 decades.</p>

<p>I agree with Pizzagirl.</p>