<p>The gay affair seems to be omitted, though.</p>
<p>Anyway, it’s kind of pathetic that so many people get so obsessed with these rankings that you have so many people making them up. The real one doesn’t seem much more credible than the fake ones. But then again, I think that’s a result of trying to “rank” colleges and universities.</p>
<p>Every year someone posts a fake “leaked US News ranking” on CC with the same cover story, i.e. “my dad works for the distribution company blah blah blah”.</p>
<p>the OP said he got it from his dad who wrote stuff down. This supposedly explains the inconsistency of saying things such as “Dartmouth University” as opposed to “Dartmouth College.”</p>
<p>If someone is writing something down, especially a list like this, they would be copying it. No person can remember the exact number and ordering of USWNR. If you can, you would probably be able to memorize the names too. Thus, the dad would have “copied” incorrectly. Which I doubt anyone has a problem doing (seriously, it’s copying something). And even if he had such a good memory, then he would know the other universities past 25.</p>
<p>probably since forbes released theirs in august, USNWR thought it’d be better to release theirs in september, after most people forgot about forbes.</p>
<p>^^ Instead, my guess is that USNWR is delaying its annual college ranking as its international edition partner “QS” releases its ranking around mid-Sep last year.</p>
<p>BTW, the latest (2010) ** QS ranking ** of the top universities in the United States is shown below. It differs somewhat from the national USN&WR list. </p>
<p>[list=number]
[<em>] Harvard
[</em>] Yale
[<em>] MIT
[</em>] Chicago
[<em>] Caltech
[</em>] Princeton
[<em>] Columbia
[</em>] Penn
[<em>] Stanford
[</em>] Duke
[<em>] Michigan
[</em>] Cornell
[<em>] Johns Hopkins
[</em>] Northwestern
[<em>] UC Berkeley
[</em>] Carnegie Mellon
[<em>] UCLA
[</em>] Brown
[<em>] NYU
[</em>] Univ of Wisconsin-Madison
[<em>] Univ of Washington
[</em>] Univ of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
[<em>] Univ of Illinois, Urbana
[</em>] Boston U
[<em>] UCSD
[</em>] Univ of Texas, Austin
[<em>] WUSTL
[</em>] Dartmouth College
[<em>] Univ of Minnesota
[</em>] Penn State
[<em>] Univ of Maryland, College Park
[</em>] Georgia Tech
[<em>] Emory
[</em>] UC Davis
[<em>] USC
[</em>] Rice
[<em>] UC Santa Barbara
[</em>] Univ of Pittsburgh
[<em>] Ohio State
[</em>] Univ of Rochester
[<em>] Case Western-Reserve
[</em>] Univ of Virginia
[<em>] Vanderbilt
[</em>] UC Irvine
[<em>] Georgetown
[</em>] Tufts
[<em>] Univ of Arizona
[</em>] Univ of Colorado, Boulder
[<em>] Univ of Iowa
[</em>] Univ of Florida
[<em>] SUNY Stony Brook
[</em>] Texas A&M
[<em>] Michigan State
[</em>] Rutgers
[li] Notre Dame [/li][/list]</p>
<p>i just meant that they might have an easier time delaying their rankings to not coincide with the blowback from all the people ****ed off at the forbes rankings. However, seeing that forbes rankings have come out in august for many years now, this either means they changed for a different reasons, or that forbes rankings are getting more important. i’d conjecture the former though</p>
<p>additionally, The quarterly survey rankings have already been established as a joke ranking:</p>
<p>Haha, Morse should not be too worried about the outcome of the PA. It works just as he intended. One could hope that Morse spends this extra time to evaluate the impact of allowing schools such as Middlebury (and a public school not to be named for fear of retaliation on this shores) to report partial and misleading statistics that obfuscate a large number of admitted students, or others (think Morningside Heights) to report numbers that are remarkably whimsical. </p>
<p>Fwiw, I am not sure why anyone believes the delays are due to something as trivial as Forbes or as irrelevant as the QS rankings. You might be better served by looking at the recent changes in the reporting rules for the CDS and other government surveys. Those changes seemed to have created severe delays. </p>
<p>Have you checked the updates on Peterson’s or CollegeData? They all seem to have problems updating the data on a consistent basis.</p>
<p>^ Fair enough, but he should also look at the “financial resources” rank. That methodology includes research at grad-only professional schools and greatly favors universities with medical schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting, xiggi. That is probably the reason. What changes were made to CDS reporting rules? They should just get rid of the CDS analysis and go to 100% peer assessment like they did in simpler times. ;)</p>
<p>I have heard that argument before, but I am not sure which schools benefit from this the most? Is this a case where Cal suffers in comparison with a school that has a large medical school? </p>
<p>Could you give a few examples to help me see the … light? </p>
<p>Regarding the rules, one of them included a reorganization of the racial determinations. Take at look at the CDS of Cal and Stanford and you will see how schools reported the numbers differently. Look at the “more than one race” classifications. </p>
<p>It just seem that this year many CDS have been disclosed much later than usual, and some are still missing to this date. Of course, we can only see the public disclosures, and nothing says that a school that has not posted its latest CDS did not forward all pertinent information to Morse and his staff.</p>
<p>Sure. I don’t have a current copy of the USNWR rankings, but compare Cal and UCLA’s financial resources rank. Berkeley’s is much lower than UCLA’s. The only difference between these two I can think of that would account for the difference is UCLA has medical school research expenditures included. UCLA has a smaller endowment and more students.</p>
<p>Another difference was Johns Hopkins which includes medical school spending and APL research money. JHU has a high financial resources rank. MIT doesn’t have a medical school and has a lower financial resources ranking.</p>
<p>Mmmmm… But a medical school does make a university seem more prestigious. </p>
<p>(I don’t blame USNWR for penalizing universities without medical schools given that med schools are pretty much the most prestigious graduate area.)</p>