This year's Forbes' America's Top Colleges

<p>yeah…forbes’s rankings are wayy off…i don’t trust any source except us news rankings, i believe they’re the most credible. how in the world is johns hopkins all the way down there?? How in the world is Swarthmore so high up??? What is the basis for their rankings???</p>

<p>…AND HOW IS HARVARD AT NUMBER 6…WHAT…Not to be stereotypical, but Harvard is generally regarded as the epitome of success and intellect and brilliance…why ranked below so many other schools??</p>

<p>But, but , but, how is harvard not number 1? What are all these ‘liberal arts colleges’? These rankings are crap, just… because, like how could MIT be out of the top ten, I mean, duh, right? Clearly crap rankings. I know which colleges are better than others, and my thinking is obviously clear to everyone else because it’s so absurdly obvious… right? I mean, come on, how could cornell and dartmouth be ranked like that? No way, I can’t accept that nonsense because, come on, obviously they’re better than that… obviously. Obviously!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Maybe you should read the methodology next time.</p>

<p>Some standout “over ranked” Research Universities according to traditional metrics/wisdom (aka. US News):</p>

<ol>
<li>Notre Dame (Forbes Research U Ranking: 8, US News Ranking: 19)</li>
<li>Boston College (Forbes Research U Ranking: 14, US News Ranking: 31)</li>
<li>Tufts (Forbes Research U Ranking: 15, US News Ranking: 29)</li>
<li>William & Mary (Forbes Research U Ranking: 21, US News Ranking: 33)</li>
</ol>

<p>I don’t understand Forbes’–or anyone’s–high regard for West Point. I see virtually no great men of letters, no great scientists graduating from that institution.</p>

<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Military_Academy_alumni[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Military_Academy_alumni&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Actually, if you separate out the research universities, the Forbes ranking corresponds pretty closely with US News. Here’s the Forbes order of research universities, followed by US News rankings. Schools that come out 10 or more places different in the two rankings appear in bold. Clearly Notre Dame. BC, Tufts, and William & Mary come out higher in Forbes. Cornell, Johns Hopkins, WUSTL, and USC come out worse in Forbes. Most of the others are pretty close in both rankings. (Because US News awards ties, I represented the tie as a range from the low to the high end of places occupied by the tied schools, e.g., the 5-way tie for #5 is represented as a range from 5-9).</p>

<ol>
<li> Princeton (1)</li>
<li> Stanford (5-9)</li>
<li> Chicago (5-9)</li>
<li> Yale (3)</li>
<li> Harvard (1)</li>
<li> Columbia (4)</li>
<li> MIT (5-9)
8. Notre Dame (19)</li>
<li> Penn (5-9)</li>
<li>Caltech (5-9)</li>
<li>Brown (15-16)</li>
<li>Northwestern (12)</li>
<li>Duke (10)
14. Boston College (31)
15. Tufts (29)</li>
<li>Vanderbilt (17-18)</li>
<li>Dartmouth (11)</li>
<li>UVA (25-27)</li>
<li>Rice (17-18)</li>
<li>Georgetown (22)
21. William & Mary (33)</li>
<li>UCLA (25-27)</li>
<li>Emory (20)</li>
<li>UNC-Chapel Hill (29)</li>
<li>UC Berkeley (21)
26. Cornell (15-16)</li>
<li>Wake Forest (25-27)</li>
<li>Brandeis (31)</li>
<li>Michigan (28)
30. Johns Hopkins (13)</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon (23-24)
32. WUSTL (13)
.
.
.
39. USC (23-24)</li>
</ol>

<p>I think most of the squawking on this thread is from fans of research universities who object to any ranking that would say LACs can be as good as the best research universities. That, and people who think it’s intuitively obvious that Harvard is the gold standard, so that any ranking in which Harvard doesn’t come out #1 is obviously wrong. That said, I still think the Forbes methodology is silly. But then, so is US News.</p>

<p>@kwu, the United States Military Academy is the number one leadership generating institution in the world. Many accomplished members of the military brass graduated from the Academy, along with the Air Force Academy and Naval Academy. Just because these great leaders aren’t portrayed in civilian life doesn’t mean they’re not there. Ever realize that?</p>

<p>I don’t think the people at the Ivies care about rankings and I don’t think people interested in applying to the Ivies care about rankings. Any ranking that doesn’t rank Harvard in the top five (on any scale) simply loses its credibility. After that, the publication can do pretty much what it pleases and only the strivers care. Indeed, Brown is ranked 15 or so at USNWR, but is in the top five of selectivity.</p>

<p>Harvard is simply not an undergraduate-centered university. People get mixed up in Harvard’s renown and reputation and forget that rankings are based on undergraduate statistics and reputation has nothing to do with that. A school like Harvard’s reputation comes from its graduate schools. An overwhelming number of presidents and leaders of the US have graduated from Harvard Law and Harvard Business and that’s what contributes to a lot of Harvard’s reputation and name.</p>

<p>Now here’s the rank order of the top 16 LACs in the Forbes ranking, with each school’s US News ranking again in parentheses following the school name. I omit the service academies because I think it’s nonsense to include them in these rankings. Again, a fairly close correspondence, with only a few outliers. Middlebury ranks #5 in US News but are much lower in Forbes. After #16, the correspondence breaks down pretty badly., but the top of the list is fairly close.</p>

<ol>
<li> Williams (1)</li>
<li> Pomona (4)</li>
<li> Swarthmore (3)</li>
<li> Amherst (2)</li>
<li> Bowdoin (6-8)</li>
<li> Washington & Lee (12-13)</li>
<li> Wellesley (6-8)</li>
<li> Vassar (14)</li>
<li> Wesleyan (12-13)</li>
<li>Claremont McKenna (9*)
11. Colby (21-23)</li>
<li>Haverford (10)</li>
<li>Harvey Mudd (18)
14. Colorado College (27-28)</li>
<li>Davidson (11)</li>
<li>Carleton (6-8)</li>
</ol>

<p>Suixxi, your post captures my train of thought exactly.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This piece of text as a standalone post would be regarded as a 100% ■■■■■ post, but the sad part is, I have a feeling the poster was being serious…</p>

<p>Grinnell is ranked way down (#63), even after Centre, Wabash and Union.</p>

<p>

[/quote]
I think most of the squawking on this thread is from fans of research universities who object to any ranking that would say LACs can be as good as the best research universities.

[quote]
</p>

<p>Exactly. People really have to evolve out of this mindset that top LACs are somehow blatantly inferior than the ivies/T15. </p>

<p>@Suxxi, Phenomenal post.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>My mind just exploded. It’s ranked 6. Not 60, not 600. 6. That’s in the top .92% of the 650 colleges ranked.</p>

<p>I cried the night I realized that it’s meaningful work and a strong work ethic that brings happiness and success later in life, not trying to get approving glances from people when you wear your college sweatshirt or finding satisfaction that your college is better than so many others (even the one ranked right below it! I mean, its ranked AFTER for a reason, right?-- and obviously the ones directly before and after do matter, despite these schools’ accomplished history, if there is a problem with Harvard at 6). </p>

<p>Ambitious19, your post says so much about this forum and about so many other aspects of life where rankings try, but fail to really matter. It’s hard to move past it, that’s for certain-- why wouldn’t we want an objective measure?-- but when you (or us, or this entire forum) move past it, you’ll find not perplexity or sadness, but liberation.</p>

<p>This discussion is silly. If you read the methodology, some of the key criteria are either highly subjective or unrelated to educational “quality” which is a term mentioned repeatedly on this thread. Really who cares about these dumb lists especially this one.</p>

<p>My rankings:</p>

<ol>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Calpoly</li>
<li>MIT
4+. Bunch of underwater basketweavers who don’t know calculus.</li>
</ol>

<p>If your name doesn’t have “tech” in it then get under water and start weaving baskets son. Don’t call us, we’ll call you.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>There’s definitely some mediocrity in there. I mean Lon Hiuruchi isn’t exactly one of the alumni you want to brag about, and there’s a lot of incestuous achievement (all the famous military officer graduates whose achievements were… Becoming a higher ranked officer). </p>

<p>That said, 70 Rhodes scholars and 7 astronauts is hard to argue with and the school has probably ranks as “most studied” if you tallied up alumni who are in public school history books.</p>

<p>As has been said by earlier posters, when 17.5% of the ranking is based on student evals in “ratemyprofessor.com” and 10% on number of alumni listings in “Who’s Who”, the rankings can be dismissed.</p>

<p>Can someone explain to me how there can be that much of a discrepancy between the rankings of US News and Forbes for USC? I mean, it’s a bit ridiculous. I might be a bit biased as a USC student, but it seems a bit low at 95…</p>

<p>Sean…haven’t you gotten the memo? It should be obvious that University of Florida at Gainesville is a higher-quality institution than USC.</p>

<p>I kid…</p>