2017 Forbes rankings are out

[Anonymous]

Forbes just released their annual college rankings. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2017/08/02/americas-top-colleges-2017/#8989fd535bf4 HYPSM as 1-5, all 8 Ivies in the top 15.

The top 25, and full list here: https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/list/#tab:rank

1- Harvard
2- Stanford
3- Yale
4- Princeton
5- MIT
6- Caltech
7- U'Penn
8- Duke
9- Brown
10- Pomona
11- Claremont McKenna
12- Dartmouth
13- Williams
14- Columbia
15- Cornell
16- U'Chicago
17- Amherst
18- Harvey Mudd
19- Swarthmore
20- USNA
21- Georgetown
22- Rice
23- Bowdoin
24- USMA
25- Haverford

[Anonymous]

Interesting... Washington and Lee - 31, UVa - 40, W&M 58

[Anonymous]

So this is last year's list - how do the rankings change so much in one year? Either they've drastically changed their methodology or it's all just made up

Here are the top 25 colleges of 2016, according to Forbes.

1 Stanford University
2 Williams College
3 Princeton University
4 Harvard University
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
6 Yale University
7 Pomona College
8 Brown University
9 Wesleyan University
10 Swarthmore College
11 University of Pennsylvania
12 Amherst College
13 University of Notre Dame
14 U.S. Military Academy
15 Northwestern University
16 Columbia University
17 Dartmouth College
18 Tufts University
19 Bowdoin College
20 University of Chicago
21 Georgetown University
22 Boston College
23 Haverford College
24 U.S. Naval Academy
25 Davidson College

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/college-game-plan/these-are-top-colleges-2016-according-forbes-n605391

[Anonymous]

That is totally weird -- Claremont McKenna went from not listed (seems appropriate) to 11th . . . basically swapping with Wesleyan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So this is last year's list - how do the rankings change so much in one year? Either they've drastically changed their methodology or it's all just made up

I can't find their recent datapoints, but here are their scores from 2014 and 2013:

http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/Published-Final-650.pdf
http://centerforcollegeaffordability.org/uploads/2013_Rankings.pdf

Basically, the difference between each school is so small that you'll see fluctuations numerically, but by and large the listing of the top 10/20/50 remain the same set of colleges. Claremont and Mudd are the big jumps into the top 25 this year, but the others are the same usual suspects.

[Anonymous]

I hate to sound cynical, but some of these rankings are just about selling magazines. You won't sell more magazines if the rankings stay exactly the same every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That is totally weird -- Claremont McKenna went from not listed (seems appropriate) to 11th . . . basically swapping with Wesleyan.

CMC was ranked 31 last year. Jumping 20 places is a big increase, but it's not as if they weren't in the ranking at all. It seems likely that they adjusted their methodology to way PayScale salary data higher, as only one LAC is in the top 10 compared to 3-4 usually and Harvey Mudd/CMC have the highest salaries of any of the LACs (and are ranked 2/3 of the LACs): http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/all-bachelors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is totally weird -- Claremont McKenna went from not listed (seems appropriate) to 11th . . . basically swapping with Wesleyan.

CMC was ranked 31 last year. Jumping 20 places is a big increase, but it's not as if they weren't in the ranking at all. It seems likely that they adjusted their methodology to way PayScale salary data higher, as only one LAC is in the top 10 compared to 3-4 usually and Harvey Mudd/CMC have the highest salaries of any of the LACs (and are ranked 2/3 of the LACs): http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/all-bachelors

Also, Duke in top 10 when it wasn't in the top 25 before. PayScale shows Duke at #15 for salaries, so it's very likely the case that they are weighing salaries much more than they used to in the past.

[Anonymous]

The above is correct.

"The proportion of the rankings dedicated to salary double in 2017 as compared to 2016."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cartercoudriet/2017/08/02/top-colleges-2017-the-methodology/#441fb12ce44a

That's why LACs did so much worse in this ranking.

Salary data is useful, but the two sources used are deeply flawed. Payscale data is self-reported, with most colleges reporting under 100 responses. The government's database is only based on students who received federal loans, which could be under 15% of the student body for a lot of these elite schools. Furthermore, a lot of LAC grads go to graduate school where they don't earn much at all those years, but they go on to earn higher salaries later on. Salary data is linked far more to major than college, so it really favors schools with high STEM % over anything else.

A good thing is they took out RateMyProfessors. But they stepped backward and started including Niche data, another subjective and questionable data source.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate to sound cynical, but some of these rankings are just about selling magazines. You won't sell more magazines if the rankings stay exactly the same every year.

+1. And I'd bet there's some relationship between writer and editorial board & where all their kids attend. Haverford & Bowdoin above Northwestern? lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is totally weird -- Claremont McKenna went from not listed (seems appropriate) to 11th . . . basically swapping with Wesleyan.

CMC was ranked 31 last year. Jumping 20 places is a big increase, but it's not as if they weren't in the ranking at all. It seems likely that they adjusted their methodology to way PayScale salary data higher, as only one LAC is in the top 10 compared to 3-4 usually and Harvey Mudd/CMC have the highest salaries of any of the LACs (and are ranked 2/3 of the LACs): http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/all-bachelors

Citing payscale? Yikes. Use https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/ as it (.gov) actually uses tax returns!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate to sound cynical, but some of these rankings are just about selling magazines. You won't sell more magazines if the rankings stay exactly the same every year.

+1. And I'd bet there's some relationship between writer and editorial board & where all their kids attend. Haverford & Bowdoin above Northwestern? lol

They could be. What's wrong with that? Haverford and Bowdoin are 2 of the finest colleges in the country, offering a superlative liberal arts college experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That is totally weird -- Claremont McKenna went from not listed (seems appropriate) to 11th . . . basically swapping with Wesleyan.

CMC was ranked 31 last year. Jumping 20 places is a big increase, but it's not as if they weren't in the ranking at all. It seems likely that they adjusted their methodology to way PayScale salary data higher, as only one LAC is in the top 10 compared to 3-4 usually and Harvey Mudd/CMC have the highest salaries of any of the LACs (and are ranked 2/3 of the LACs): http://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/all-bachelors

Citing payscale? Yikes. Use https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/ as it (.gov) actually uses tax returns!

Even Collegescore card is flawed as it only accounts for those who took out a federal loan (which is a tiny percent of those attending expensive private schools). There is no good salary data source out there.

[Anonymous]

No credible rankings would have such wild swings from year to year.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone actually know the metrics?