<p>I like these rankings. They make me happy.</p>
<p>But I must say that I strongly take issue with the fifteen schools they selected to use as the schools-into-which-students-feed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So for medicine, our schools were Columbia; Harvard; Johns Hopkins; the University of California, San Francisco; and Yale, while our MBA programs were Chicago; Dartmouth's Tuck School; Harvard; MIT's Sloan School; and Penn's Wharton School. In law, we looked at Chicago; Columbia; Harvard; Michigan; and Yale.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For medicine, the inclusion of Yale is absurd, and the inclusion of UCSF will bias that list in favor of schools (i.e. Berkeley) that include lots of CA graduates. (It does seem, however, that Berkeley needs the help.) UCSF is a highly selective school but it includes a strong state-resident bias which would render any ranking based off of it less useful. Many, many schools would have made better choices than these two; Mayo, Penn, Northwestern, and Duke come to mind.</p>
<p>MBA is beyond my expertise, but suffice to say I'm a little surprised that Tuck is included over Kellogg.</p>
<p>While they confess that they don't have the data for the Stanford MBA (but otherwise would have included it), to leave off the Stanford JD is again ridiculous. And why Michigan over NYU or Berkeley, both of which are much more selective? (While we're naming schools that are more selective than Michigan by admissions percentage, why not include the University of Toledo, George Mason, and the University of Hawaii?)</p>