<p>^a bit better, yes, but NOT significantly better. Like I said, this ranking should be taken as a bigger picture (without the numbers) because it includes many types of schools with different focuses. Now, I never said I agreed with the whole ranking. However, I do think that this list is somewhat accurate, based on the type of thing Forbes was aiming for. It’s not like the whole USNWR top 20 national u’s got dumped down to the 300’s.</p>
<p>Garbage in, garbage out. The indicators upon which the Forces ranking is constructed are total horse manure, as has been amply demonstrated. That some consensus high quality schools ended up highly ranked by those metrics is a fortuitous coincidence, not a justification of the ranking. RateMyProfessor.com? Payscale.com? Who’s Who? Puh-leeze.</p>
<p>@ bclintonk: I could not have said it better myself. The methodology is pure drivel. It boggles the mind that some people are still debating the rankings rather than examining the basis for the rankings. We should be more sophisticated consumers than that.</p>
<p>"Translation: “I’m losing this argument, so somebody please gag my opposition.”</p>
<p>What this thread shows is how much some people’s self-image is tied to their college’s USNews ranking. Mess with that ranking and you mess with their lives. If you live by the ranking you can die by the ranking"</p>
<p>How about you don’t put words in my mouth next time? </p>
<p>More like… soccersam posted this ludicrous list and has been intentionally egging people on since this thread started. Losing the argument?? Have you even read the posts by all of the critics of this list? Even if Forbes’ result was an exact replica of USNews ranking, it would still be a terrible list. Why? Because the methods they used to achieve the result are unbelievably flawed. Please revisit (if you’ve even looked at them to begin with) the previous posts on why the methods used for this list are clearly flawed. </p>
<p>The problem with this list is not in the top 10 or even top 25… the problem is where other very strong universities/colleges are listed among mediocre and sometimes even poor schools because of the flawed methods. Pointing out some fallacies(begging the question) that have been used by the anti-Forbes posters and then using those to justify this list is a fallacy in itself… red herring anyone? The argument against this ranking was won near the beginning of this thread, and the valid reasons behind it’s defeat have been abundantly demonstrated time and time again.</p>
<p>“the problem is where other very strong universities/colleges are listed among mediocre and sometimes even poor schools” </p>
<p>AT9, which schools are “very strong” is the “conclusion” of the ranking…the very thing the ranking is attempting to establish. The premises are the criteria and how each school scores on those critera.</p>
<p>Any effort to rank “quality” based on quantitative measurements is going to be flawed…like ranking the beauty of actresses based on their bust measurements or their movies’ gross revenues. Or ranking which car is “best” (not fastest) based on how quickly it can go a quarter mile. OF COURSE the Forbes study is flawed, but so is the US News ranking (you think Yeshiva is better than Purdue?). Somewhere along the way the USNews study has become dogma to many people, and anyone who dares to doubt its truth is committing heresy.</p>
<p>Schmaltz, there are something like 100 posts of conversation largely centered around why, specifically, this list is flawed. In fact, I wrote about how the sources they use are the main flaws, not their intended metric.</p>
<p>You also ignored my post where I pointed out the logical flaws in your own argument.</p>
<p>So here’s my question-- who is the person who is ignoring obvious truths to confirm their own beliefs?</p>
<p>^Yeshiva is 50 and Purdue is 66. They are well within range of eachother. Purdue is ranked around other strong public flagship universities. It’s not perfect, but the two schools aren’t grossly misrated when you think about it.</p>
<p>I don’t know the best way to rank colleges. However, when you consider stength of academic departments, the students, the faculty, and the opportunities available to students, it baffles the mind why Forbes puts schools like Centre and Whitman are top 25 and schools like Penn and Dartmouth are around 80 with the likes of Berea and Ripon.</p>
<p>Schmaltz, as modestmelody said, there are tons of posts about what is wrong with the ranking criteria (the premises as you would refer to them). I don’t want you to misunderstand me, I’m not a USNews ranking proponent/fan. I think that it also has serious flaws, but it just happens to be one of the least flawed rankings I’ve seen, comparatively speaking. So while USNews has some flaws, it looks almost perfect in terms of it’s ranking criteria compared to the ranking criteria used by Forbes. I suggest you read up on the Forbes criteria from the website (if you haven’t already) and then read some of the posts regarding the premises behind this ranking specifically. Then get back to me on whether or not you still think this is a quality ranking. Forbes used many unreliable sources and weighted other factors far heavier than they should have been. I’m not going to rewrite all of them, because they’ve been clearly demonstrated throughout the course of this thread. </p>
<p>And regarding the conclusion of the rankings… if an institution is consistently ranked highly by a variety of sources with different criteria, then that is not begging the question. If a school has a reputation as a top school (or wherever it may sit), it’s usually for a pretty good reason. In one of my previous posts, I listed a number of reasons why the U of Minnesota should be ranked much higher than it is (in the mid-500’s). I listed four separate sources where it has been ranked relatively well and in the same general range, and how its Forbes ranking is an example of the inconsistencies and flaws within it’s own system.</p>
<p>EDIT: I don’t know anything about Yeshiva, so I’m not going to pretend like I do haha.</p>
<p>If Forbes was trying to rank colleges by a specific quality, then that’s fine. They should have titled their list by whatever quality that may be (whether it’s teaching, value, etc.). But they used the word “best,” which is almost impossible to define anyway. And another one of the big issues here is that the ranking criteria they used does nothing to help determine which college is the “best” in the general meaning of the word.</p>
<p>^ If another source actually uses criteria that would be a good measure of what colleges are the “best,” then they should be able to use it. The criteria that Forbes used (ratemyprofessor, who’s who, payscale, etc), is a terrible indicator of which schools are the “best.”</p>
<p>I like how the BC students are all for Forbes, but the Centre students aren’t here in droves talking about how great their school is. Maybe thats why Centre is truly the 15th best school in the country and BC is a lowly 16.</p>
<p>And AT9, the word “best” is completely based on opinion. i think the best ice cream is vanilla, you think it’s chocolate. why should either of use be given the right to use the word?</p>
<p>The reason most lists use the word “best” is because it is implied that the rankings are the "
best based on the criteria we have chosen."</p>
<p>just because you personally disagree with the criteria used is irrelevant.</p>
<p>edit to Venkat-I love how all the non-BC students are on here attacking forbes? ya i can say it too. maybe that’s why brown and dartmouth and cornell are very lowly ranked.</p>
<p>soccer, do you agree with the sources Forbes used to get their results?</p>
<p>I agree with their criteria (strong teaching, good jobs out of undergrad, size, etc.) but I don’t agree with where they got their numbers. Rate My Professor and Payscare are heavily flawed. US News uses proxies too to measure strength of students and faculty, but their sources are a lot more reliable and arguably better proxies.</p>