<p>They might as well have ordered this schools by picking them randomly out of a hat.</p>
<p>
[quote]
They might as well have ordered this schools by picking them randomly out of a hat.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why would you say that? </p>
<p>Everyone knows that Princeton is the 43rd best school in the US.</p>
<p>hahahahaha</p>
<p>And I meant to say "these schools" not "this schools".</p>
<p>ya why isnt temple ranked on the usnr? they are better than alot of schools on it.</p>
<p>I won't lie, the first question I asked myself was not "Where is Temple?" when I looked at that list.</p>
<p>"Everyone knows that Princeton is the 43rd best school in the US."</p>
<p>WM's point is that it actually is, for many people. That's probably why they made that reference to the "great eating clubs." Most people do not apply to Princeton, nor do they want to. Compared to the rest of the Ivy League, Princeton's applications have been stagnant. In the revealed preference survey, Princeton has lost ground to Harvard and Yale. In attracting NMSC-sponsored Merit Scholars, Intel Finalists and other students with high SAT scores, Princeton has also slipped relative to HY. Between 1999 and 2006, when Princeton was supposedly the "#1 school" in US News and World Report, applications only increased by 17%, while applications at other Ivies such as Yale went up by nearly 60%.</p>
<p>I think he was just being facetious.</p>
<p>This ranking is complete crap. That magazine has idiotic editors and writers. On their website you can find an article titled "is our students learning?"</p>
<p>"is our students learning?"</p>
<p>I believe that would be a reference to a quote from a campaign speech
[quote]
Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?
- George W. Bush
from a campaign speech, Florence, S.C., Jan. 11th, 2000
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please, WM is one of the most respected magazines out there. Certainly it is on a higher level than US News and World Report, which is a third-tier, corporate driven rag whose sole purpose is to make money.</p>
<p>Oh great, now I actually need to follow Bush's every word to understand all their allusions. Great work WM for forcing us to listen to more Bushisms while staring at your site hurting our eyes.</p>
<p>Actually it's the social work part. It's entirely ultraliberal to grade based on amount of social work done, as honestly when I become a college I'll be doing some social work, but not a lot. I'm paying a new car every year to learn, not work for free. It seems like an idiotic way to grade.</p>
<p>Just b/c you all are bitter that Penn State kicks the ass out of your ivies doesn't mean you have to attack the title of the article.</p>
<p>this ranking is worse than all the tier 2 students trying to defend it.</p>
<p>Hey man don't get angsty just b/c my school is # 3 in the country.</p>
<p>k sorrrry.</p>
<p>hey don't worry about it, its cool. I know I was being an ass, the ranking is pretty sweet tho.</p>
<p>"Just b/c you all are bitter that Penn State kicks the ass out of your ivies doesn't mean you have to attack the title of the article."</p>
<p>Personally, I'm quite all right with the title. It's more the content I'm worried about. </p>
<p>Penn 3rd? Maybe for ROTC, but academics---only in your delusional dreams.</p>
<p>"I would add however, that there are a number of criteria that most people generally consider important for a "Best" college though people differ about the weights. The problem with US News is that it has become successful precisely by using variables that a lot of people agree on, a few that are more controversial, and then playing with weights so that you get variable results from year to year. Yet they have successfully appropriated the claim to the most widely recognized "Best" rankings thus shifting -- sometimes in unpredictable ways -- which schools are thought of as best."
-Not quite old</p>
<p>I would argue instead that USNWR played around with the statistics and different variables until it the rankings generally reflected people's "commonsense" ideas of reputation, and THEN play around with it a little each year to adjust.</p>
<p>For example, the "alumni giving rate" (5%) favours schools that either attract students from wealthy families or are fairly business oriented. Graduation rate performance and retention (25%) also favour schools that attract financially stable students. Peer assessment (25%) favours schools that have a good academic reputation or famous professors, often regardless of their teaching quality. However, these factors will generally coincide with a lot of schools we generally think of as "top schools."</p>
<p>So are Washington Monthly's rankings really that crazy? A little - IMO, especially measuring 2/3 of the service rating in terms of Peace Corps and ROTC - but not really more crazy than USNWR.</p>
<p>Just less of what we expect from the rankings. And when we get what we don't expect, it's disarming.</p>
<p>No, the Washington rankings are not based on how good a school is academically, or how succesful its grads are, at all, thats why its a useless ranking for students on this forum who are looking for the top academics</p>
<p>US News, THES, WSJ, Newsweek, etc. all provide methodology which are geared towards academics and strength of the students academically, which is why they are useful rankings</p>