<p>My opinion:
1. Revealed preference ranking
2. Laissez-faire
3. US News</p>
<p>Worst: Recently published London Times rank of colleges. I would consider it as a mere joke.</p>
<ol>
<li>Your own personal rating.</li>
</ol>
<p>Worst: Everything else.</p>
<ol>
<li>US News</li>
<li>Revealed Preference</li>
<li>Kipplinger's</li>
<li>Laissez-Faire (used to be great...now it's outdated)</li>
</ol>
<p>Worst: Princeton Review's, all of the non-american rankings i've seen.</p>
<p>US NEWS is by far the most logical college ranking system, i don't like the current system, i like the older system they had, when the publics were ranked higher.</p>
<ol>
<li>Reavealed Preference Ranking</li>
<li>NRC academic rankings</li>
<li>Laissez-Faire </li>
</ol>
<p>Worst: Close call between Princeton Review and London Times ranking. I guess London Times is the worst.</p>
<ol>
<li>Revealed preference ranking BY FAR. It's the most logical choice to me.</li>
<li>US News</li>
</ol>
<p>What is the Laissez Faire ranking? Does anybody have a link to it? </p>
<p>WORST RANKING: Princeton Review. The editors are on crack.</p>
<ol>
<li>Revealed Preference Ranking</li>
</ol>
<p>Everything else doesnt make sense. Revealed preference measures which colleges the top students choose over others. Seems the most legitimate to me.</p>
<p>Revealed Preference Ranking is the worst, IMO. How does this rank the quality of the colleges? It doesn't. It all depends on what the marketing of the college is and what other people say about it (namely the US World News). If Harvard was just the exact same college but no one praised it like they do now, but Illinois State Community College was the exact same college only heaped with praise what would happen? Everyone would flock to Illinois State Community College and not to Harvard. The only thing these potential matriculants base their decision on is what other people tell them about the university. </p>
<p>This ranking just magnifies the error in all of the rankings. If someone says the US News ranking isn't very good, then the Revealed Preference Ranking can't be any better because I'm betting the majority of potential matriculants use the US News Rankings to evaluate their colleges (not necessarily number for number, but qualitatively speaking). If they didn't, then who's to say that Harvard IS better than Illinois State Community College? So it's basically a foregone conclusion that most people use some kind of ranking to gauge the quality of universities, then from there it's just identifying the most popular ranking which of course is the US News.</p>
<p>I gave up trusting rankings. imo, you really have to visit colleges yourself to compare.</p>
<p>You self</p>
<p>Everything else garbage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Laissez-Faire Ranking used to be posted on the soc.college.admissions news group in the late 90's by someone who went by he name 'Newengland.' It was updated yearly and underwent three incarnations. The author was critical of USNews and was trying to improve on rankings of select schools principally by focusing on rating the student body by various indicators. He stopped posting 5 years ago. His final edition is linked at <a href="http://collegeadmissions.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/laissez-faire-1999-2000.txt%5B/url%5D">http://collegeadmissions.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/laissez-faire-1999-2000.txt</a></p>
<p>As stated in his introduction:</p>
<p>The Laissez-Faire Ranking identifies quality with selectivity. It takes
the historical and etymological view that a college is a "chosen company"
and attempts to rank colleges by the membership they attract. It lets the
best applicants point to the best colleges. Bright kids pay attention to
selectivity when they look at colleges because they want to go where their
peers are going. With their matriculation, they help compose a superior
community, thereby confirming received opinion.</p>
<p>I think he grouped schools not with a formula but with schools that shared common characteristics including:</p>
<p>Key to the college profiles
Description
Cost for the 1999-2000 year
Chief competitors for applicants
Number of applicants
Percent accepted
Percent yield
25th-75th percentile test scores
Percent in top tenth of high school class
National Merit Scholars
Percent from out of state
Percent of freshmen returning as sophomores
U.S. News selectivity rank</p>
<p>He included all schools including LACs and specialty schools. I've left his descriptions for the first 12 schools as an example. The rest can be found on his website.</p>
<p>FIRST</p>
<p>Harvard University. 1636, private, $32164; shares applicants most often with
Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Brown; 16818 applied, 12% accepted, 79%
yield, middle half scored 1400-1580 SAT, 90% in top tenth of class, 370
external National Merit Scholars (22.4% of class), 85% not from
Massachusetts, 96% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 1st among
national universities.</p>
<p>SECOND (3 schools)</p>
<p>Princeton University. 1746, private, $31599; shares applicants most often
with Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT; 13006 applied, 13% accepted, 69% yield,
middle half scored 1360-1540 SAT, 93% in top tenth of class, 124 external
National Merit Scholars (10.6% of class), 84% not from New Jersey, 98% of
freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 2nd among national universities.</p>
<p>Stanford University. 1885, private, $30939; shares applicants most often
with Harvard, Yale, Brown, MIT, Princeton; 18885 applied, 13% accepted, 64%
yield, middle half scored 1360-1540 SAT, 87% in top tenth of class, 201
external National Merit Scholars (12.6% of class), 61% not from California,
98% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 5th among national
universities.</p>
<p>Yale University. 1701, private, $31940; shares applicants most often with
Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Brown, Univ. of Pennsylvania; 11947 applied,
18% accepted, 62% yield, middle half scored 1360-1540 SAT, 95% in top tenth
of class, 146 external National Merit Scholars (11.2% of class), 93% not
from Connecticut, 98% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 3rd
among national universities.</p>
<p>FIFTH (2 schools)</p>
<p>California Institute of Technology. 1891, private, $25476; shares applicants
most often with MIT, Harvard, Stanford, California--Berkeley, UCLA; 2944
applied, 18% accepted, 47% yield, middle half scored 1420-1570 SAT, 100% in
top tenth of class, 38 external National Merit Scholars (15.0% of class),
57% not from California, 92% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank
4th among national universities.</p>
<p>Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1861, private, $31900; shares
applicants most often with Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, Cornell
Univ.; 8676 applied, 22% accepted, 55% yield, middle half scored 1400-1560
SAT, 95% in top tenth of class, 103 external National Merit Scholars (9.9%
of class), 90% not from Massachusetts, 97% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 6th among national universities.</p>
<p>SEVENTH (6 schools)</p>
<p>Amherst College. 1821, private, $31819; shares applicants most often with
Yale, Brown, Harvard, Stanford, Dartmouth; 4491 applied, 23% accepted, 43%
yield, middle half scored 1320-1480 SAT, 80% in top tenth of class, 20
external National Merit Scholars (4.5% of class), 88% not from
Massachusetts, 97% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 3rd among
national liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>Brown University. 1764, private, $32280; shares applicants most often with
Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cornell Univ., Princeton; 15490 applied, 17%
accepted, 55% yield, middle half scored 1290-1500 SAT, 88% in top tenth of
class, 70 external National Merit Scholars (4.8% of class), 96% not from
Rhode Island, 97% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 8th among
national universities.</p>
<p>Columbia University--Columbia College. 1754, private, $32706; shares
applicants most often with Harvard, Yale, Brown, Stanford, Univ. of
Pennsylvania; 12251 applied, 14% accepted, 54% yield, middle half scored
1290-1490 SAT, 87% in top tenth of class, 45 external National Merit
Scholars (4.7% of class), 75% not from New York, 97% of freshmen return;
U.S. News selectivity rank 7th among national universities.</p>
<p>Dartmouth College. 1769, private, $31983; shares applicants most often with
Brown, Harvard, Princeton, Cornell Univ., Yale; 10143, applied, 21%
accepted, 51% yield, middle half scored 1350-1520 SAT, 88% in top tenth of
class, 56 external National Merit Scholars (5.1% of class), 97% not from New
Hampshire, 96% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 9th among
national universities.</p>
<p>Swarthmore College. 1864, private, $31690; shares applicants most often with
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Brown; 4585 applied, 19% accepted, 41%
yield, middle half scored 1310-1540 SAT, 83% in top tenth of class, 32
external National Merit Scholars (8.8% of class), 88% not from Pennsylvania,
95% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 1st among national
liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>Williams College. 1793, private, $31520; shares applicants most often with
Harvard, Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown, Yale; 4528 applied, 26% accepted, 45%
yield, middle half scored 1300-1500 SAT, 81% in top tenth of class, 21
external National Merit Scholars (3.9% of class), 85% not from
Massachusetts, 97% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 2nd among
national liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>THIRTEENTH (3 schools)
Duke University.
Rice University.
University of Pennsylvania. </p>
<p>SIXTEENTH (7 schools)
Cornell University.
Georgetown University.
Haverford College.
Johns Hopkins University.
Middlebury College.
Northwestern University (Ill.).
Pomona College. </p>
<p>TWENTY-THIRD
University of Chicago. </p>
<p>TWENTY-FOURTH (6 schools)
Bowdoin College.
Carleton College.
Harvey Mudd College.
Juilliard School.
Wellesley College.
Wesleyan University. </p>
<p>THIRTIETH (3 schools)
Claremont McKenna College.
Grinnell College.
Washington and Lee University.</p>
<p>THIRTY-THIRD (5 schools)
Barnard College.
Curtis Institute of Music.
Davidson College.
Emory University.
Vassar College. </p>
<p>THIRTY-EIGHTH (4 schools)
Bryn Mawr College.
Macalester College.
Smith College.
University of California--Berkeley. </p>
<p>FORTY-SECOND (10 schools)
Bates College.
Carnegie Mellon University.
Colby College.
Columbia University--The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied
Science.
Oberlin College.
Reed College.
Tufts University.
University of Notre Dame.
University of Virginia.
Washington University.</p>
<p>FIFTY-SECOND (5 schools)
Brandeis University.
Colgate University.
College of William and Mary.
Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art.
New York University. </p>
<p>FIFTY-SEVENTH (5 schools)
Boston College.
Rhode Island School of Design.
U.S. Naval Academy.
Vanderbilt University.
Wake Forest University. </p>
<p>SIXTY-SECOND (10 schools)
Bard College.
Colorado College.
Connecticut College.
Eastman School of Music of the University of Rochester.
Hamilton College.
Kenyon College.
Mount Holyoke College.
St. John's College (Md.).
U.S. Air Force Academy.
Whitman College.</p>
<p>SEVENTY-SECOND (9 schools)
Bucknell University.
College of the Holy Cross.
Franklin and Marshall College.
New College of the University of South Florida.
Rhodes College.
St. John's College (N.M.).
Sarah Lawrence College.
Trinity College (Conn.).
U.S. Military Academy. </p>
<p>EIGHTY-FIRST (6 schools)
Case Western Reserve University.
College of the Atlantic.
Georgia Institute of Technology.
New England Conservatory of Music.
University of California--Los Angeles.
University of Michigan--Ann Arbor. </p>
<p>EIGHTY-SEVENTH (9 schools)
Boston University.
Peabody Conservatory of Music, Johns Hopkins Univ.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Trinity University (Tex.).
Tulane University.
U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
University of Rochester.
University of the South.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>~uc_benz~</p>
<p>I don't think you're giving enough credit that HS students have at least a modicum of analytical skills when it comes to choosing a college that is right for them.</p>
<p>Rankings aren't supposed to rank which college is right for YOU. If that were the case, there would be millions of different rankings out there. They are supposed to measure the quality of the school with respect to each other.</p>
<ol>
<li>USNEWS</li>
</ol>
<p>They are also the most comprehensive of the rankings, with alot of sub categories. Even though I don't think their "overall" rank is well forumulated (peer review should be given more weight), the sub-rankings alone are worth it. I also dont think the Preference ranking is any good as a college ranking. How good a college is depends on what professionals, scientists, and deans think, not just on what HS students think is best for them.</p>
<p>i wonder, how can rankings be reliable if the people who are ranking the colleges have never experienced all the colleges first-hand? </p>
<p>can categories like "student preference" or "number of nobel winners" or "alumni giving rate" actually tell you about how good the school is? </p>
<p>i think people should look at each ranking's methodology before trashing it. rankings were created based on qualities that the researcher thought were important in determining what he or she thought would make a school good. those qualities may not correspond to your own values or interests. thus, to some, one ranking may actually be good, but to others, it would be a joke. we realize that no ranking will be perfect and satisfy everyone, because this is impossible. </p>
<p>im also disappointed by how people bash other rankings because the other rankings dont agree with USNWR's rankings, and immediately call those schools overrated or underrated relative to usnwr. sure the usnwr is comprehensive, but its far from perfect too.</p>
<p>USNEWS.. don't really like it, but its the way to go.</p>
<p>For a long term ranking, I would argue size of endowment. Money leads to the long term stability in an educational experience. Lack of money lead to cutbacks, lack of diversification, etc. This is true even at HS boarding schools (the size of their endowments is amazing).</p>
<ol>
<li> Phillips Exeter Academy...$ 639 M </li>
<li> Phillips Academy Andover $ 569 M </li>
<li> Girard College..................$ 355 M </li>
<li> Hotchkiss School..............$ 320 M </li>
<li> St. Paul's School..............$ 311 M </li>
<li> Deerfield Academy...........$ 271 M </li>
<li> Groton School..................$ 228 M </li>
<li> The Peddie School............$ 214 M </li>
<li> Choate Rosemary Hall......$ 198 M </li>
<li>St. Andrew's School, DE..$ 160 M </li>
</ol>
<p>I think you will notice a pattern in pretige and size of endowment. It should be noted that #4 Texas (and they nudged out Princeton for #3 this year) and#10 Texas A&M (nudging to #9 this year) represent multischool systems. In addition, State schools have a tougher time managing their budgets year to year because they are dependent on State financing which can change year to year, especially with State balanced budget amendments :</p>
<p>Rank June 30, 2003</p>
<ol>
<li> Harvard.................$18,849 M</li>
<li> Yale.......................$11,034 M</li>
<li> Princeton.................$8,730 M</li>
<li> U of Texas System ..$8,708 M</li>
<li> Stanford..................$8,614 M</li>
<li> MIT..........................$5,133 M</li>
<li> U of California..........$4,368 M</li>
<li> Columbia.................$4,350 M</li>
<li> Emory......................$4,019 M</li>
<li>Texas A&M System.$3,802 M</li>
<li>U of Pennsylvania...$3,547 M</li>
<li>U of Michigan..........$3,464 M</li>
<li>Washington U.........$3,454 M</li>
<li>U of Chicago...........$3,221 M</li>
<li>Northwestern.........$3,051 M</li>
<li>Duke.......................$3,017 M</li>
<li>Rice.........................$2,937 M</li>
<li>Cornell....................$2,854 M</li>
<li>Notre Dame............$2,573 M</li>
<li>Dartmouth..............$2,121 M</li>
<li>USC........................$2,113 M</li>
<li>Vanderbilt...............$2,019 M</li>
<li>U of Virginia........... $1,800 M</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins.........$1,714 M</li>
<li>Brown.....................$1,461 M</li>
</ol>
<p>For LACs:</p>
<ol>
<li>Grinnell..................$1,111 M</li>
<li>Williams.................$1,082 M</li>
<li>Wellesley...............$1,043 M</li>
<li>Pomona....................$994 M</li>
<li>Swarthmore..............$930 M</li>
<li>Amherst....................$877 M</li>
<li>Smith........................$823 M</li>
</ol>
<p>The endowment of LACs is impresive given the size of their schools. What is scary, however, is that the endowments of Phillips Exeter and Andover are almost a large.</p>
<p>The amazing thing is how close the pecking orders for pretige and popularity mirror endowments. Judging from this, I would say the long term outlook of Grinnell, for example, is good even though their prestige and popularity are lacking at the moment.</p>
<p>I would be more interested in a ranking based upon graduate school and employment record by department. </p>
<p>Another approach would be to see where the top of your intended field went to school. It is relatively easy to find bios of top execs, reporters, government officials, doctors and the likes.</p>
<p>Watching talking head talk shows and finding out where the smartest ones went is eye opening sometimes.</p>
<p>What the kids in your school think. Prestige is all anybody should care about.</p>
<p>Because the actual education and environment doesn't matter at all, right?</p>