<p>I like comparing the Washington Monthly rankings to other rankings. They focus more on outputs than inputs, in comparison to other ranking schemes.</p>
<p>For example, Stanford predicted grad rate is 95% and their actual grad rate is 95%–which puts them #142 in the ranking for that category. #1 in that category is Southern Carolina State University which has a predicted grad rate of 22% and an actual grad rate of 45%. Anyway I look at it, you still have a less 1 out of 2 chance of graduating from SCSU.</p>
<p>Interesting what a low % of Pell grant students there are at many universities…</p>
<p>What the figures are saying is that some colleges take in students who are academically disadvantaged and still give them a chance to thrive (in the opinion of the Washington Monthly editors) while other colleges only admit safe bets, and don’t really add value to the students. One can disagree with that assumption, but that is the intended meaning of the figures.</p>
<p>Like any rankings it’s important to use the data to determine what’s important to the individual student for selection. Some people are quite concerned with, for example, the number of people who join the peace corps or the number of students in ROTC, but others don’t care. Some care quite a bit about how many profs are Nobel Laureates but others aren’t particularly interested - especially if they won’t have those profs anyway. </p>
<p>this Washington Monthly ranking list is just the latest adaptation of USNEWS haters. It is nothing for than a scream for attention. It is funny though, in that the anti-military schools that won’t allow ROTC on campus take a hit. Texas A&M > Harvard!</p>