<p>^ Why would the ranking have an impact in how many magazines they sell? The rankings are free on their website and subsequent data is usually posted on this site.</p>
<p>The rankings are not free on their website. You can view the top 10 or so schools for free, but you need a subscription after that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because chaos would ensue, and profits would be lost, if the rankings did not correlate with what the general public believes (even if out of ignorance) are the best schools.</p>
<p>I honestly believe that if USNWR just changed the title of the rankings from “Best Colleges” to “Most Selective Colleges” or “Most Prestigious Colleges”, people would not be so critical of them. Of course, those titles are not nearly as sensational, therefore they would not provide the cash cow income that USNWR is looking for.</p>
<p>^ You can see the full list on their website for free:
[National</a> University Rankings | Top National Universities | US News Best Colleges](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/spp+50]National”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/spp+50)</p>
<p>It’s just for specific programs that they only list the top 10.</p>
<p>A few opiniated comments"</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes they could be, but the current version hardly is. As it stands the survey is imprecise and subject the usual cronyism and despicable gamesmanship on the “expert” side. The GC PA is just a joke, as the survey polls the weakest link in the entire application process and culls it from an entirely suspect list of responders. </p>
<p>The PA could be a valuable tool if the responders were forced to lose their anonymous status, had to sign the survey and make it public, AND if the survey actually included some useful question as opposed to the moronic version about “distinguished programs!”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If it were entirely true, one could say … about time! The UC campuses currently receive quite a boost as USNews accepts their “estimated” class percentage that translates into a fictititious percentage of students ranked in the top 10 percent. Only schools such as Columbia are gaming that class rank more. All the UC might have to do is be a tad more creative with its SAT/ACT scores than it currently is. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, do check it to … see how ridiculous that measure of graduation expectation is. The current version of the USNews already was subject to a silly situation in which it HELPED a school to submit lower SAT scores as they would gain more from a generous “bonus” on the graduation rate. In so many words, Middlebury was better off with a 1280 SAT than with a 1360 SAT. Schools such as Harvey Mudd (which might be the most selective LAC) was once ranked dead last in that “wonderful” category. </p>
<p>What does it lead to? Giving kudos to academic wastelands such as UTEP? Will the “best” colleges borrow a page from Far West Texas by admitting close to 100 percent of all applicants, sticking to around 1300 out of 2400 on the SAT, making a basic knowledge of English optional, and then beating the expected 20-30 percent graduation rate by a few percentages? Yep, that works!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That original list had no basis in data; it was composed solely from that ill-conceived Peer Assessment – yes, that one they finally realized is close to worthless. It was similar to People Magazine polling the sexiest man alive.</p>
<p>^^And yet, at first blush, it certainly passes the conventional wisdom test. In other words, you might be able to corral all sorts of arguments against this or that college’s inclusion in the top 20 but in the end, that’s all it would be - one rhetorical flourish among many.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Conventional wisdom easily turns into the type of opinion of Joe SixPack who “evaluates” colleges based on the current news. Here’s what it might look today:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh wait, a football “ranking” must be ridiculous and irrelevant. But is it really more irrelevant than a ranking that confuses undergraduate education with its senior graduate school and propels schools such as Cal above their reasonable 20+ level? </p>
<p>It’s all a matter of conventional wisdom when nobody really scratches the surface of that “wisdom” too deep.</p>
<p>Hey, Xiggi, I think we need the “Sexiest Colleges Alive”!</p>
<p>Side note: for college football rankings, the criteria is 100% peer assessment (AP voters, college “coaches” - or assistants who fill out the polls for the coaches)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Corollary#1: If it makes you LOL it can’t be conventional wisdom. It amounts to the same thing as scratching one’s head.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Umm, because it was 1983 and Al Gore had not yet invented the Internet! :D</p>
<p>Despite the methodology changes, the list of the top 10 liberal arts colleges appears pretty stable compared to previous years (although I’m sure the ordering within the list will change).</p>
<p>These are the top 10 LACs (in alpha order):
Amherst College (MA)
Bowdoin College (ME)
Carleton College (MN)
Claremont McKenna College (CA)
Davidson College (NC)
Haverford College ¶
Middlebury College (VT)
Pomona College (CA)
Swarthmore College ¶
Wellesley College (MA)
Williams College (MA)</p>
<p>[2014</a> Best Colleges Preview: Top 10 National Liberal Arts Colleges - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/06/2014-best-colleges-preview-top-10-national-liberal-arts-colleges?s_cid=related-links:TOP]2014”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2013/09/06/2014-best-colleges-preview-top-10-national-liberal-arts-colleges?s_cid=related-links:TOP)</p>
<p>In previous years the rankings were LEAKED in advance a few days to a week ahead of time. No such luck this year? </p>
<p>Prestige bugs never seem to get it. They are what they are. Students and parents would be much better served using these rankings to simply measure general categories of reach, match and safety…</p>
<p>and nothing more. Whatever you do, DONT apply to too many reach schools…every year these kids come back empty handed and in panic mode in April when they have NO COLLEGE ACCEPTANCE LETTERS because they over shot their value. </p>
<p>My recommendation is always 3 reach, 4-5 match, 3 safety schools. DONT SNEER AT SAFETY SCHOOLS (safety to YOU, re: your stats). I know many students who ADORE their safety schools, because it was an excellent FIT and because they got a boatload of money. </p>
<p>THINK!</p>
<p>It’s a mistake to compare the college rankings with football rankings. Football rankings are, by the end of the season, based in large part, on performance. College rankings are more like pre-season football rankings, based on perception rather than performance. Now, often, that perception is reinforced by positive performance. But remember, in just the same way that Alabama is able to attract the top recruits, Harvard is able to attract the top students. It’s self-fulfilling. Of course, Oregon rarely breaks the top twenty in recruiting, but has finished in the top five each of the last three years. Those are the types of schools I would search for . . . of course, fit is good too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Along the same lines, the national and regional rankings (aka Bragging Rights Rankings) should not imply that the colleges on those lists are the “Best Colleges”. They are not the “best colleges” for everyone… I could argue Harvard is not a first choice school for someone interested in engineering, just like Georgia tech is not a first choice school for someone interested in philosophy.</p>
<p>The bottom line here is that the national and regional rankings are very misleading, if not entirely broken.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps the point of posting a football ranking that was based on the (rather dubious) perception of “experts” in the pre-season plus one week of “performance” to the SIMILARLY based 1983 original USNEWS was to show … how silly and misleading both were. </p>
<p>Let’s remember that last year the same “expected” and “perceived” ranking placed USC at the pinnacle plus your usual Ponziesque Southeastern darlings that hardly ever pan out. </p>
<p>This year is hardly different, except for the dividends yielded for such victories as Clemson over Georgia. Place them high enough and it will take several losses to make them come down, and make it hard to be replaced by teams that REALLY perform well on the gridiron. </p>
<p>That is what happens when you poll experts that are biased and love the power of cronyism. No difference between the football rankers and the academic whores who respond to the PA surveys.</p>