Perfunctory, opaque, and lacking the rigor of "normal science," but amusing: 2015 PR ratings ranking

<p>Apologies to Herr Thomas Kuhn, who might have felt a chill when I re-purposed his term for a mere social science experiment. Needless to say, these results do not reflect a widely-accepted paradigm.</p>

<p>Disclaimer -- The ratings are Princeton Review's, not mine. I'm aware of the faults of this so-called ranking--the ratings are not transparent, the students surveyed do not represent the entire studentries of schools, a savvy person can submit false surveys and submit many surveys, the selectivity ratings are particularly dubious, etc. -- so you don't need to repeat them. If you can think of a fault that you think I haven't thought of, please mention it. I like to learn new things.</p>

<p>/396: Princeton Review Academic + Selectivity + Quality of Life + Financial Aid ratings (each /99)</p>

<ol>
<li>Olin: 395</li>
<li>Claremont McKenna 394</li>
<li>Middlebury: 393</li>
<li>Bowdoin: 392
Dartmouth: 392</li>
<li>Scripps: 391
Pomona: 391</li>
<li>Yale: 390</li>
<li>Rice: 389
Haverford: 389
Reed: 389</li>
<li>Vanderbilt: 388</li>
<li>Macalester; 387
Stanford: 387
Washington University in St. Louis: 387</li>
<li>Wellesley: 386</li>
<li>Chicago: 385
Smith: 385
Wesleyan: 385</li>
<li>Pitzer: 383
Swarthmore: 383</li>
<li>Mt. Holyoke: 382
Princeton: 382</li>
<li>Bryn Mawr: 380
Cornell: 380
Harvey Mudd: 380</li>
<li>Columbia: 379</li>
<li>Grinnell; 378</li>
<li>Brown: 377
Gettysburg: 377
Vassar: 377</li>
<li>Babson: 376</li>
<li>Kenyon: 374</li>
<li>Occidental: 373</li>
<li>Penn: 371</li>
<li>Caltech: 370</li>
<li>Bucknell: 368</li>
<li>Rhodes: 367</li>
<li>Williams: 364</li>
<li>Centre: 363
Davidson: 363
MIT: 363</li>
<li>Holy Cross: 362</li>
<li>Amherst: 361</li>
<li>Bard: 360</li>
<li>Kalamazoo: 358</li>
<li>Georgetown: 356</li>
<li>Webb Institute: 355</li>
<li>Cooper Union: 351</li>
<li>Harvard: 349</li>
<li>Duke: 347</li>
<li>Oberlin: 345</li>
<li>Sewanee: 342</li>
<li>Northwestern: 336</li>
</ol>