The Forbes College Rankings 2018 are out!
Nobody should pick a college based on ranking alone.
But many on this site will enjoy reading the rankings just for fun:
https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/list/
It looks like the methodology is unchanged and so, for the most part, is the set of top schools.
There does seem to be a bit more up/down shuffling than you usually get in the USNWR rankings
(although I haven’t compared them carefully across many schools over several years).
My guess is that this would result from the heavy weight Forbes assigns to alumni salaries. Very high-paying early career opportunities are emerging that did not exist just a few years ago; more alumni at some schools may be seizing those opportunities than alumni at other schools. In contrast, the heavily-weighted US News Peer Assessment scores may be more resistant to annual change.
In spite of frequent push back on CC as to the value, quality, and results produced by the Ivies, they occupy 6 of the top 10 spots with the remaining 3 filled by “NYT dubbed Ivy Extended” Stanford, MIT and Duke along with Caltech.
Forbes outcome based focus strongly suggests that while lots of great options exist the cache of the Ivies (and their direct peers) remains high in the “real” world. While trying to recalibrate kids goals away from these schools may make us feel better on CC it does them a disservice in the long run for those who are competitive candidates. I am referencing the “why would you waste your time on a lottery, the deck is stacked against you, why bother if your not legacy, ORM, athlete” crowd.
Rankings of course are flawed but they do both reinforce and represent existing perceptions and in the case of Forbes the inputs are indicative of post degree value.
This list is absurd, Northeastern is ranked at 223 ranked behind Gustavus Adoplus College ( that’s a real place?) , Hillsdale, Illinois Wesleyan etc.
Maybe the writer has a grudge, lol, but 223? C’mon man!
Interesting that the four major Midwestern universities get lumped together at #18, #20, #21 & #22. (Chicago, Northwestern, Notre Dame & Michigan.)
Understandable if pay is a significant component of the rating & ranking process.
@RightCoaster Forbes uses the 4 year graduation metric weighted at 12.5% of the total. Despite the ability to complete most majors in 4 years with 2 coops most students still take the 5 year option. The 4 year graduation rate is about 25% which certainly sinks then in this ranking.
@Nocreativity1 : Agree that “While trying to recalibrate kids goals away from these schools may make some feel better on CC, it does competitive candidates a disservice in the long run…” based on outcome results in the real world.
Ranking is understandable.
What I don’t understand is the Cost and Average Financial Aid? It’s Just Wrong to list only out-of-state costs!
74 University of Texas, Austin Texas $51,786 Public $11,021
108 Texas A&M University, College Station Texas $53,848 Public $9,272
It is a national ranking so using out-of-state costs seems reasonable from that perspective.
A ranking that includes cost would work better if state universities were ranked twice, once with in state costs and once with out of state costs.
Cost doesn’t seem to be a criterion in the Forbes ranking.
Debt is, but but not the sticker price or average net price
(except indirectly, insofar as they might influence debt).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/cartercoudriet/2018/08/20/top-colleges-2018-the-methodology/#f2ac08230986
@Publisher of those Midwestern Schools, Michigan is the only Public one also. Michigan also had a 27 in the current world rankings…
So my question is what does this all really mean? I don’t think I am yanking my kid out of school because his Michigan rankings suck. Am I not giving my child a good enough education?? Did I fail him as a parent?
I just think it’s sorta silly. You can sorta always predict the top 20. Besides schools bragging rights I don’t really understand them. You are never really going to see a lot of movement between schools
Any school in the top 60 of this Forbes list is outstanding, in my opinion.
My point in post #4 was simply that if earnings are factored into the ratings & rankings, then Midwestern universities would fall behind schools on either coast as wages tend to be much lower in the center of the US than on either coast, and it would be more common for a student graduating from a Midwestern school to work in the Midwest.
What it all really means is that the US is loaded with outstanding colleges & universities.
^^But the schools ranked 61 through 75 are not outstanding?
Honestly, these rankings are all absurd as a basis for deciding how good any individual college will be for any particular student.
It is tough to satisfy all! In fact, this ranking is fairly close to the public perception of the top 50 schools. Can the number go up and down within it? Yes, plus or minus 5 is possible? Does it matter? In my opinion, the prospective students and their parents are fairly intelligent to draw up their own criteria and decide once the admission results are out. I think, the Forbes ranking is as good any other ranking for the top 50 schools.
Top 20 in both Forbes and USNW (and WSJ) is very consistent. ± 3 within top 20 is about the norm so there is less meaning in terms of the uber elite as well. Consistently you see 8 Ivies, Stanford , MIT, Duke, U Chicago and Caltech. After that you either see top LAC (Williams, Amherst Swathmore) or some combo of Vanderbilt, Rice, NWestern, JHU, Gtown, ND, Cal.
The consistentcy amongst that top 13 however is almost unanimous and speaks to the after market value of attending those schools. Below that lots of great schools but seemingly more room for debate and movement.
The consistency of the top 20/values of Ivies/new Ivies might have more to do with the family wealth/connection of the many students attending these schools than anything else. And thank goodness for the upward mobility of the lucky few first generation students and some low-middle class kids who got in.
It doesn’t really matter which rankings they are - US News or Forbes - or what they are for - universities or hotels. But if you are not bright enough - Harvard/Oxford - or rich enough - Hyatt or The Ritz - you will not be able to attend/stay. So while rankings matter to parents who have clever kids/people who have lots of money/and some employers all that rankings do is make the not so clever kids/not such rich people feel inadequate. However, the employers who only want to employ Ivy graduates are just limiting themselves to a narrow talent pool. And then this can be said to the rich people who only stay at The Ritz - they are missing out on meeting the locals/the joys of camping/places where big expensive hotels aren’t.
Of course going to college can’t be compared to choosing to stay at The Ritz or camping - but if you are clever enough why not go for what the rankings say are the best - but it does not take away from the colleges that are not - according to the rankings - the best. All of us who have had fantastic times camping won’t be adverse to two night of luxury!
My advice, don’t rely on rankings at all. Ranking schools is like comparing a Mini Cooper and a Suburban and calling one “better.” The whole logic is flawed. Shop around and find an affordable school that you like based on your interests and ambitions.
I’ll take the counter point. Rankings do matter. On another CC thread that I’ve been following, posters, employer types, are discussing Stevens, UCB, Stanford, Rutgers, Alabama, etc. and which resumes they would more likely to look at first and/or hire.