<p>I stumbled across these rankings...how does everyone feel about them?</p>
<p>Vassar appears to be misspelled on the list as "Vasser." I also find it hard to fathom Davidson and Grinnell being ranked as low as they are below a number of schools that would not seem to have their academic standing or their intangibles.</p>
<p>I think it's ridiculous to lump together liberal arts colleges with universities.</p>
<p>It's obvious somebody sitting at home knows how to make a webpage and got bored.</p>
<p>Any company whose slogan is "where do you want to stand on the totem pole" lacks credibility in my book.</p>
<p>Edit: They'll review my transfer application for only $800! I take back all the bad things I said about them! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>just look at us news it's the most credible in terms of academic and financial aspects...though i do think us news underates preference opinions hence the low ranking of brown but its actual high preference among students</p>
<p>Haverford also looks to be misspelled (Harverford). I'd be very dubious about anyone who put together such an ambitious listing and couldn't even spell the names right!</p>
<p>makes absolutely no sense. but besides that...</p>
<p>it's also inaccurate to judge how many graduates attend prof/grad schools b/c then publics will definetly have the advantage =D
percentage is btter =D</p>
<p>UCI ahead of UCSD by 12 places, and UCR ahead of Univ of Washington (and UCSC which is not on the list)?</p>
<p>Rice and Tufts are so underrated. Makes me mad. Hell, the whole ranking is messed up.</p>
<p>They put LACs with unis? And they misspelled names? Wth? And it practically mirrors US News? D:</p>
<p>"just look at us news it's the most credible in terms of academic and financial aspects"</p>
<p>They're not so much credible as well-known. (US News makes up data--guessing at what it'd be--when it can't find it.)</p>
<p>Hampshire and Wheaton are ranked in the top 100.</p>
<p>Bard, Boston University, and Northeastern are not. </p>
<p>Thats...interesting. A safety and a safe-match are ranked, but not my reach-match and two matches.</p>
<p>Rankings are biased and almost always innaccurate.</p>
<p>they seem good to me.</p>
<p>bogus bogus</p>
<p>god that list blows</p>
<p>"Rankings are biased and almost always innaccurate."</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>rankings are almost always not accurate. True
but in order for you to compete, you need to rank. Once you have a ranking system (not 100% accurate but most accurate) then it's good that colleges compete base on rankings. That's one of the reasons why US schools are so good compare to other countries. </p>
<p>That list is stupid.</p>
<p>well other countries have rankings too</p>
<p>just look at NYU and USC.
the rankings are worthless.</p>