<p>So on another ranking note, Princeton Review (no connection with Princeton University) believes that MIT is the toughest school into which to gain admission (followed by Princeton, Harvard, Brown and Yale). </p>
<p>Harvard students are the happiest with their library system.</p>
<p>Yale students are the happiest with their school newspaper.</p>
<p>Princeton students are the happiest with their financial aid offerings. </p>
<p>Bowdoin College students have the best food, U. of Wisconsin students have the best beer and UT Austin students have the best parties. </p>
<p>We seem to live in an era of relentless list making and ranking. With the exception of the ranking for difficult admissions which the authors claim to be based on the school's admission rate, SAT entrance exams and high school applicants' class rankings, all the results are compiled from survey responses.</p>
<p>This PR stuff is next to worthless, allegedly based on "about 300" responses, on average, from 361 colleges, where respondents are totally clueless about the merits of other institutions. There are ZERO comparative rankings involved in most cases, and the "formula" utilized in those few cases where the narrow view of a small group of anonymous internet respondents is not the only basis for the "ranking" is predictably opaque.</p>
<p>Two years ago, BYU, reportedly, had the "greatest library" while Yale wasn't even in the top 20. Presumably the students (or the tiny fraction responding) had different standards at these schools. BYU students might have found the library "great" for hookups, while Yalies downgraded their library for not being open 24-7. </p>
<p>Because the samples are so miniscule, and a local "campaign" to influence the result in this category or that can have such a disproportionate impact, the numbers jump around wildly from year to year.</p>
<p>PR?? They don't really care. As long as they get the predictable spate of news stories about the "best party school" to help launch their guidebook, and preening from here and there such as that typically displayed by the previous poster, they can laugh all the way to the bank.</p>
<p>Byerly, you really are on a tear here. Within the last day youve labeled me both pathetic and now preening. Its a good thing I dont take offense easily but I find it amusing that these ad hominem slurs come from someone who relentlessly accuses others of doing the same. </p>
<p>I happen to agree that little stock should be put into rankings such as these and Im surprised that you didnt see the irony in the article I cited above. This is yet another example of our rankings-obsessed culture--obsessed even to the point of attempting to determine which school has the best beer!</p>
<p>Smile, Byerly (you too rapport!). The world is full of irony and humor.</p>
<p>Well, Ptongrad2000, if you believe that "little stock should be put into tankings such as these," then why bother posting a link that inevitably and predictably boosts Princeton?</p>
<p>... and you cardinal(s) have always had maximum hypocrisy, apparently, since you boasted of stanford's #1 happiness ranking (in 2005) just two months ago, zeph.</p>
<p>Congrats Byerly, that was your 13th post in the Princeton forums today (and I doubt its the last one), versus 3 for Harvard. You sure spend a lot of time here.</p>
<p>also #2 in best college library, #3 in most politically active, and #5 in school runs like butter. more importantly, it's one of just <em>222</em> colleges to be named a "best northeastern college" by PR this year.</p>
<p>Midatlmom, it seems you have an odd view about the purposes for which this site was created. I doubt that the individual "forums" were intended to be restricted turf for uncritical cheerleaders. </p>
<p>My interest is in discussing the ins and out of college admissions without limitation to developments at any single institution. </p>
<p>You, on the otherhand, see your role as a team cheerleader. Thats OK mom ... you gotta right; but so do others.</p>
<p>You honestly searched back two months of my posts to look for that?</p>
<p>I don't care about the ranking. We're #2 for undergrad experience and I'm not touting that, scottie. My point was that Stanford students are very happy; it's part of the campus culture. </p>
<p>But to fight fire with fire, if even Yale thinks you are arrogant...</p>
<p>We prefer to be called the "trees" if you have to resort to the plural. Or my favorite, "Stanfordians." But "cardinal" works for the most part.</p>
<h2>As for scottie's top-five citations, I am certainly very glad that Princeton students think highly of themselves, but I don't really think that means anything. But then again, what does Princeton have to compare themselves with, losing cross-admits to HYSM...</h2>
<p>As a side note, I agree with Byerly. All of the other major boosters/trolls/whatever are seen on the other forums--crimsonbulldog, scottie, Byerly; posterX seems to have opened a new offensive at the Stanford board. Byerly, to his credit, doesn't denigrate schools directly, like posterX seems to do. The implicit tactic is at least sophisticated.</p>
<p>Well folks, it appears that you'll have to submit to visual irritation as well (assuming you watch). These rankings are apparently going to be the subject of a one hour television special on CSTV.</p>