<p>"Colleges r keep changing in these days.........there are gonna be some colleges which are going up very fast and there are some colleges which are going down....................."</p>
<p>Sorry, but colleges just don't fluctuate like that. It takes years for the results of colleges investing 00's of millions of dollars in themselves to come to fruition.</p>
<p>"I find it hilarious that you think that any ranking, let alone this one, represents an indisputable truth, Omniscient. US News is flawed. BW is (obviously) flawed. To think that either represents an objective truth is naivete at its best. Don't worry sweetie-pie, one day you will grow up and realize that defending one ranking over another is pointless."</p>
<p>Amen. While it's nice to debate the relative merits of different rnakings methodologies, each ultimately weighs different things different -- and are just another perspective. No ranking system represents an actual, absolute TRUTH as that doesn't exist. To think it does is naive.</p>
<p>ugh...do I really have to do this???here is how they rank... just sit back and enjoy.</p>
<p>US News Ranking:</p>
<p>U.S. News surveyed deans and senior faculty at undergraduate business programs accredited by the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. Deans and faculty were surveyed in spring 2005. Participants were asked to rate the quality of all programs they are familiar with on a scale of 1 (marginal) to 5 (distinguished). The rankings are based solely on this survey; 45 percent of those surveyed responded. We also asked for nominations of the best programs in specialty areas. Schools offering any courses in a specialty are eligible to be ranked in that specialty.</p>
<p>Business Week:</p>
<p>To identify the best undergraduate business programs, BusinessWeek used five unique measures, including a survey of more than 100,000 business majors at top schools and a poll of undergraduate recruiters. To better understand career outcomes, we also looked at starting salaries for graduates and how many each school sent to top MBA programs. Finally, an academic-quality score--a combination of five measures including SAT scores and faculty-student ratios--identified schools with the smartest, hardest-working, and best-served students. </p>
<p>The ranking is based on the "index number," which represents the sum of all five measures. We also calculated letter grades on teaching quality, facilities and services, and job placement based on the student survey. The top 20% in each category among all 61 top programs that we ranked earned A+s. The next 25% got As, the next 35% got Bs, and the bottom 20% got Cs.</p>
<p>Thanks. You've proven both employ different methodologies. We knew that. Now explain how one is supposed to represent the so-called TRUTH considering perception itself, no matter how hard we try to objectify it with quantitative measures, is inherently subjective.</p>
<p>It's possible to say that "I think BW represents a more accurate way of listing b-schools based on the following..."</p>
<p>However, it's base to say that BW is the absolute be-all and end-all TRUTH.</p>
<p>surveying deans is very very very biased....also, only 45% respond....if you have taken a college level statistics course you will realize that that is not a good survey at all...you know what, I don't feel like arguing this anymore, I know I'm right...I don't have to explain myself to a bunch of teenagers.</p>
<p>Funny, if you'd taken a college level stats course you'd know that Statistics never claims to isolate the truth, but merely prove relationships and correlation. Simply because we disagree with your assessment doesn't mean we're "teenagers."</p>
<p>"Funny, if you'd taken a college level stats course you'd know that Statistics never claims to isolate the truth, but merely prove relationships and correlation."</p>
<p>Haha stop it...are you upset that USC wasn't ranked higher? That some other schools you thought didn't deserve to be ranked higher were?</p>
<p>I never said Business Week had a perfect ranking...all I said was that it was much better than the US News one. It might be tough for you to swallow, but eventually you will get through this and move on. Keep your chin up.</p>
<p>Those who live by rankings die by rankings.</p>
<p>In other words...if the value you place on your college is heavily based on what those charlatans at US News say, you can't all of a sudden cry "foul!" when the charlatans at Business Week rank your beloved alma mater lower than Brigham Young (snicker). (And look up the exact definition of "charlatan.")</p>
<p>When will you guys comprehend that something with as many variables, complexities, and subtleties as colleges (even business schools IN colleges) is not the right sort of thing to rank with any sort of precision, clarity, or objectivity. It's like taking the Maxim Hot 100 list and debating the relative merits of Jessica Simpson and Jessica Alba. Yeah, both are way better than Rosie O'Donnell, but trying to nit-pick their relative positions based on bra size and hair color is pointless. Yeah, a 5% profit on an investment might be clearly better than a 4% profit, but the same sort of quantitative clarity cannot be expected when looking at colleges.</p>
<p>Omni: First of all, whether or not I agree with your statements you should stop the personal jabs and unnecessary sarcasm. For the reader it only makes yourself look bad. </p>
<p>Tourguide: Alexandre had a point when he listed the overranked/underranked schools. I have many times taken the side AGAINST Stern but even I cannot deny the fact that Stern > Emory for business. It is not about Us News bias at all but rather common sense + statistical evidence such as recruiting/salaries/reputation. </p>
<p>Now of course some people here are Us News die-hard fans and I feel that is a bit unfortunate. We should all be open to new methodologies and ideas but also be open to criticize them too. I guess my position is that Us New's methodology is not perfect either but the actual ranking makes more sense than Businessweek's.</p>
<p>"I guess my position is that Us New's methodology is not perfect either but the actual ranking makes more sense than Businessweek's."</p>
<p>Ok...I repeat the same questions to you, because you are hiding the fact that you are truly upset with the business week rankings....</p>
<p>Are you upset that your school wasn't ranked higher? That some other schools you thought didn't deserve to be ranked higher were?</p>
<p>"also, only 45% respond....if you have taken a college level statistics course you will realize that that is not a good survey at all...you know what, I don't feel like arguing this anymore, I know I'm right...I don't have to explain myself to a bunch of teenagers."</p>
<p>Well, I'm not a teenager and I have taken several college level statistics courses and I'm not sure I follow your logic. Having a sample size equivelent to 45% of the population is not a bad thing. There are many flaws in the USNWR methods, but the sample size is not one of them.</p>
<p>Anyone agree that JMU should be ranked 35? Im pretty sure they were ranked like 3/4 tier on another ranking system.</p>
<p>"Are you upset that your school wasn't ranked higher? That some other schools you thought didn't deserve to be ranked higher were?"</p>
<p>No, that is not the reason I am upset. I am actually not upset at all. My main problem is schools like Emory being ranked higher than schools like Stern. I don't like Berkeley much either (East coast bias :)) but I can agree with Alex and others that it is underrated while Tepper's analysis was quite a few years outdated.</p>
<p>We also have to understand that Businessweek is a BUSINESS. It's first ranking cannot be close to Us New's ranking otherwise there would be no use for it. It has to do something a bit controversial for its first ranking and provoke discussions like this to get recognition and break into the "rankings" game.</p>
<p>"It has to do something a bit controversial for its first ranking and provoke discussions like this to get recognition and break into the "rankings" game."</p>
<p>Well actually I agree with you there. Good point.</p>