<p>" 'Rating Americas Colleges' is something unprecedented: the first comprehensive attempt to identify the ten most exceptional colleges in the U.S., and the ten most troubled institutions (or train-wrecks), ranked not by their perceived prestige, the money they spend, or the numbers their PR flacks massagebut by a clear and consistent calculus of educational quality and intellectual freedom ..."</p>
<p>Another rankings list. Amherst and Duke train wrecks?</p>
<p>Like all other rankings, the list depends on the biases of the ranker. This ranker is clearly conservative, educationally and politically. If you’re looking for schools that require strict adherence to the kind of curricular requirements that were common when I was in college half a century ago, or if assertive gay people and wacked-out liberal faculty members make you uncomfortable, this list may be helpful. </p>
<p>From the point of view espoused by this website, yes, Amherst, Wesleyan, Macalester and Bryn Mawr are probably very troubled institutions–offering "a vast array of questionable courses like “The Biology of Sex” (the textbook is a sex manual), “Key Issues in Black Feminism,” and “Queer Literature and Studies” and catering to a “powerful “transgender” lobby” [!!!] are probably signs of dire portent if you don’t think discussions of sex, black feminism and queer literature should be allowed to take place, or that ‘transgender’ is a real word. I’m sure Baylor, Christendom College, Pepperdine, Sewanee and West Point would indeed provide a more agreeable education for the children of the type of people who’d bother with this list.</p>
<p>But yes, Duke’s ranking is at first glance a mystery. But let’s take a closer look at its entry:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apparently paying undue attention to trifling details like the social inequalities created by race, gender and class is a very bad thing. Also, notice how the ethnicity of the lying hussy is explicitly stated despite its complete irrelevance. Further down in the text, adopting a “draconian sexual misconduct policy” is also cited as a contributing factor to Duke’s moral decay. A-ha.</p>
<p>It is very hard for me to consider this list seriously–or indeed at all–but some people might find it useful. However, it is definitely not universal.</p>
<p>CollegeGuide.org furthers the mission of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (ISI) mission to uphold the integrity of the liberal arts as taught in our colleges…</p>
<p>What is ISI?
The Intercollegiate Studies Institute is a 501c(3) non-profit, educational organization whose mission is to instill in successive generations of students a better understanding of and appreciation for the values and institutions that sustain a free and virtuous society. …</p>
<p>Founded in 1953, ISI works “to educate for liberty,” to nurture in future leaders an allegiance to America’s founding principles – limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, the rule of law, the free market economy, and moral norms.</p>
<p>What unfortunately gets lost here amid the anti-gay agenda of the ranker is a very valid criticism that apply to many colleges: the lack of rigor in some majors. I was stunned to read that you can major in English at some colleges without ever studying Shakespeare. No wonder the STEM crowd scoffs at people who major in this kind of fluff; I would too, and I’ve been a vigorous defender of broad-based liberal arts education and humanities majors for more years than most CC posters have had pulses. </p>
<p>I agree with the obvious bias. I also think liberals have gone too far. At my D rigorous private liberal HS, they learn obscure religions but not Renaissance. Considered too euro centric. I had to force my kid take AP euro. The only way to learn anything about that crucial period at their HS.</p>
<p>Agreed. This is hilarious. I’m so sure that you’ll get a much better education at Christendom College than Amherst College. Trust me, they could have a class in Videogames and Lollipops at Amherst and it would kick Christendom College’s Deepest Philosophers in History class behind by a mile. Sometimes it’s not the content, it’s the method.</p>
<p>Completely useless ranking. I am surprised Chicago and Princeton made the cut. I guess the ranking had to throw in a couple of heavyweights in order to establish some sort of legitimacy. I am surprised Georgetown and Notre Dame did not make the cut…then again, the source is as anti-liberal as it is anti-catholic. What a shameless ranking!</p>
<p>I agree with the rankings being silly, but I bought the book (forgot its name) and found it a helpful resource. Its reviews are well-written and do give another viewpoint worth considering along with all the other viewpoints worth considering.</p>
<p>its cleverly written and occasionly suprising. I love the remarks about Princeton (okay so can we all LISTEN to Prof Krugman now?) Odd mixing of clever insights with a fairly radical agenda (exactly what students will find at some of the offerings being dissed, ironically enough).</p>
<p>"No wonder the STEM crowd scoffs at people who major in this kind of fluff; "</p>
<p>lots of schools have require an intro to brit lit (including shakespeare) as a requirement for majoring in english. Bard (ironic, eh?) happens not to, and I presume a few other LACs dont. Id be willing to be that at those schools the majority of English majors either take intro to brit lit anyway, or take a course on shakespeare, or have read shakespear in HS. I would hope the wiser heads among the STEM crowd are quantitive enough to at least ask HOW MANY english majors havent read shakespeare, before making a judgement based on a qualitative criteria.</p>
<p>Id love to see a REAL list of train wreck schools - IE schools where the most kids dropped out during freshman year, had mental breakdowns, that sort of thing.</p>