<p>I know each institution has their own methodology for ranking, but the one by Washington Monthly is just outright strange</p>
<p>According to Washington Monthly:</p>
<p>Texas A&M > ALL</p>
<p>U of Arizona and U of Florida > Harvard </p>
<p>South Carolina State > every Ivy except for Cornell and Stanford as well</p>
<p>Alabama A&M > U of Chicago</p>
<p>Everything mentioned above > Yale</p>
<p>It makes more sense if you read their mission. They focus on colleges enabling social mobility. Read for more:</p>
<p>[A</a> Note on Methodology - the Editors](<a href=“http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0709.methodology.html]A”>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2007/0709.methodology.html)
[“The</a> Washington Monthly’s Annual College Guide” by the Editors](<a href=“http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.collegeguide.html]"The”>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.collegeguide.html)
[“Is</a> Our Students Learning?” by Kevin Carey](<a href=“http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.carey.html]"Is”>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0609.carey.html)</p>
<p>And for that reason
Any Community College >> All</p>
<p>What’s hilarious is that Texas A&M is so ridiculously above every other school; it’s not even like the borderline #1.</p>
<p>^^ They also factor in what they call “service” to the country and research.</p>
<p>
Why is that ridiculous? I don’t consider Texas A&M anywhere near the top 10, but I don’t criticize a ranking that does. How do you justify that statement?</p>
<p>I also like how the predicted graduation rates for some schools is over 100%. Apparently Caltech is supposed to graduate 104% of students.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s a silly ranking at all. I think it measures some important things. Not to say it’s the be-all and end-all of college rankings, but I think it’s at least as worthy of consideration as the US News rankings. The US News rankings are, at bottom, all about “prestige”—how schools are perceived by their peers, and by the best-qualified applicants. Fine, that tells you something. But it’s pretty narrow.</p>
<p>The Washington Monthly ranking attempts to measure what a school actually contributes to society. That’s measured several ways. One is social mobility: does a school actually take people from less-advantaged backgrounds and open up new opportunities to them—or is it just privileging the already-privileged? Another is research, i.e., contributions to the production of new knowledge that might actually help the world move forward. This is a factor that’s widely underappreciated on CC. It’s one thing to take what’s known and cram it into the heads of college-age kids; that kind of transmission of extant knowledge has some positive social benefits. But better, and more exciting to many in academia, is the production of NEW knowledge, which may help the world in myriad and often unexpected ways; and the transmission not only of that new knowledge (along with the old), but also transmission of the skills of discovery, and the thirst for discovery, to a new generation of learners. And third is service: what does the college or university directly give back to the community, which given its position as a bastion of resources and privilege is not a trivial question.</p>
<p>I would never choose a school solely on the basis of the Washington Monthly rankings. But in my view it’s a valuable and necessary corrective to the “me-first” orientation of the US News rankings, which basically assume that the privileged are entitled to privilege, the broader public be damned.</p>
<p>^^^ Well said.</p>