<p>Four universities were removed from Forbes America's Best Colleges List for fudging data. I am curious if a magic wand was also used to create the data submitted by the same universities to U.S. News & World Report.</p>
<p>Why</a> Forbes Removed 4 Schools From Its America's Best Colleges Rankings - Forbes</p>
<p>How is the data submitted by various universities verified? Does the data go through an audit process or is it based on an honesty system?</p>
<p>Not to defend anything they did at all, but I thought it was interesting that they were reporting SAT scores of accepted students rather than enrolled students. </p>
<p>I would think for kids applying to schools the “accepted” scores would be of more interest. Of course if the number asked for in terms of ranking is for enrolled students that is what should be provided.</p>
<p>In some cases, these colleges may have lied to the federal government, in addition to lying to the magazines.</p>
<p>I wonder if some of them decided to come clean after the feds started making them officially submit data, and they couldn’t continue the same lies.</p>
<p>This is rich. The Forbes ranking is at the bottom of all rankings in terms of relevance and integrity. The CRAP methodology developed by Vedder is a testament to the scientist’s distorted view of what education should be. </p>
<p>But rather than attacking the rankings, let’s look at the real impact of the fudging of the numbers. If this moron masquerading as a reporter had done his homework, he might have uncovered that the changes in the upgraded scores had ZERO impact on the USNews rankings. After Morse reran the numbers, the rankings did not change, and this because the changes only impacted a trivial component of the entire ranking algorithm. </p>
<p>Reporting false numbers is inexcusable and despicable. Schools should learn from the drastic (and too hasty) reactions from the BOT at CMC. Everyone deserves full transparency and the schools should strive to increase the accountability. The question here should be about the lack of responses by other schools to join in a campaign to ensure drastic changes in the reporting and accountability by school officials. </p>
<p>As Lee Stetson, the grand-daddy of the fudgers, once said, no schools could survive an audit of its admission numbers, and surely not Penn. Nothing has changed since Lee departed in mysterious fashion.</p>
<p>
I don’t think so–the fudged numbers misstate the level of academic accomplishment of students actually at the school, which is something that matters to a lot of students.</p>
<p>Taking schools off the list for coming forth about their dishonesty probably encourages other institutions which forge their admissions data (cough, U Miami, cough) to remain secretive about it. And like Xiggi said, there are very few schools that correctly report their incoming students’ information.</p>
<p>If they reported both, that info could be helpful to families, however it might make schools look less attractive if you used test scores to make your decisions.
Since ACT scores are used more often by some families/ schools, are those being noted as well?</p>
<p>I just hope that colleges aren’t also lying about the heights of their basketball players (smirk).</p>
<p>In publicity materials, colleges often mix up numbers for accepted students vs. numbers for enrolled students, depending upon which set of numbers is better. There are some safety schools that brag about their accepted student numbers, but their enrolled student numbers are much less impressive.</p>
<p>The falsifying of data has obviously not detrimentally impacted CMC’s admission rate this year and neither will the Forbes ratings.</p>
<p>Xiggi, why would the relevance and integrity of the Forbes ranking be any more questionable
than those of US News? Methodologies are spurious everywhere. What exactly do you mean by “relevance”?</p>
<p>I get the sense that there’s always such an uproar over the release of the Forbes ranking because it seems to be more “fluid” and changeable than US News. In other words, those invested in certain colleges and whose sense of worth comes from rankings like to see their schools return to the same spots year after year, as some sort of validation. A lot of “defending of one’s position”. </p>
<p>Kudos to Forbes for upsetting the apple cart a little bit! And for standing their ground regarding colleges that fudge numbers.</p>
<p>I am also continually left scratching my head about the difference between “accepted” and “enrolled” students.</p>
<p>Which one is more important to take into consideration when whittling down a list?</p>
<p>On a recent tour, we were wow’ed by SAT medians of 730 across the board. However, turning the page over to enrolled students, the medians we</p>
<p>(sorry, previous post sent prematurely) the medians were 700 across the board. Much more doable.</p>
<p>Enrolled tells you if this is a pool of students you want to spend the next four year with (especially if your numbers are higher). Accepted tells you what the college aspires to for their student body and maybe something about your chances of getting in. They are just two different numbers – as long as colleges are clear on which is which, there is no issue. Applicants who aren’t clear on the meaning of those two things and why they might be different (and what it means to them)… well, they aren’t really paying attention.</p>
<p>Yes, I get it that they are two different sets of numbers, and yes, we are paying attention. If we weren’t I don’t suppose I wouldhave pointed it out.</p>
<p>The reason for my having noticed is that S’s list shows a huge dropoff at the upper percentile end of enrolled students, while the lower end gradations are much more gradual. This drastic of a difference is not reflected in the accepted students stats.</p>
<p>I doubt the schools care because no one takes the Forbes ranking seriously in the first place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rather than rehash what I and others have said about the rankings composed by Vedder, et al, I would suggest to do two things:</p>
<ol>
<li>Check the methodology described below</li>
</ol>
<p>[Ranking</a> America’s Top Colleges 2013 - Forbes](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2013/07/24/ranking-americas-top-colleges-2013/]Ranking”>Ranking America's Top Colleges 2013)</p>
<ol>
<li>Use the search function for plenty of discussions about the relevance of the “graded” elements. </li>
</ol>
<p>PS I have been a huge critic of the Forbes rankings from the day Forbes teamed up with Vedder, and this despite that my “favorite” schools did fare extremely well in this different ranking. It so happens that one can see his or her alma mater shine in a ranking and still find it grossly irrelevant and borderline ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the end they are ALL just opinion…And obviously opinions abound…</p>
<p>
Thanks for enlightening me Xiggi. </p>
<p>
RateMyProfessor is an important and reliable source of student satisfaction according to Forbes.</p>
<p>Kiplinger pulled Claremont last year from its " value" rankings.
The story was more widespread 1&1/2 yrs ago when it broke.
It is curious why they risked so much, for so little.</p>
<p>[Fraud</a> on campus - Chicago Tribune](<a href=“Fraud on campus”>Fraud on campus)</p>
<p>Xiggi, isnt Claremont where you attended undergrad?
( I have been on CC so long, I remember when xiggi was a student, it’s been almost ten years since he was a freshman!)</p>
<p>;)</p>