New College Simply ranking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pp who called College Simply rando. I do think US News is also skewed.

I have yet to see what I consider a balanced ranking. Were I to create one, it would be by tiers, not individual numbers which can always be parsed.

So why do you even need a ranking? Your kid should make a decision based on what is important to them, not on a ranking. If you need a ranking, I like the Nyt tool where kids csn adjust sliders to match their interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless we know who College Simply is, who funds it, what is their mission, etc… this is meaningless.

The criteria are clearly skewed to severely hamper large student body schools. I prefer balanced criteria

It’s a rando website. Do you seriously get excited about a list because it is on the internet? You realize that’s about the lowest bar on earth. If only each of us was as selective about information as we are about college reputations… then again, we certainly wouldn’t be on dcum if we were 😜

Do we not think forbes over inflates public schools? Berkeley is ranked 5 there, that's insane too.

It's US News that went completely overboard with the publics last year. Some of them moved up dozens of spaces in a single year because of the way US News changed their algorithm - getting rid of class size, discounting the qualifications of professors, years to graduate, putting a strong emphasis on number of Pell Grant students while ignoring those on school financial aid, and so on. It was a ridiculous list that was more reflective of an ideological bias as opposed to measuring the quality of the undergrad experience.

So it's good there is push back from all the other publications doing college rankings. But it's also absolutely true that any random organization can publish a list, so take them all with a giant shovel of salt.

+100, every public school on US News is 10 spots too high. UCSD at 28 but Tufts at 40 is crazy. UNC ahead of Emory, WashU, CMU is crazy.

On what basis are you making this determination? I was an undergrad at Harvard, got my PhD at UC Berkeley (where I TAed quite a few classes), and taught at a private T100.

Your peers do determine a good chunk of your learning experience. The A and B students at Berkeley could have easily held their own at Harvard. The private T100 students were very different: less prepared, less motivated, and very entitled. They were also pretty wealthy compared to the Berkeley students. The faculty responded to this by offering less challenging assignments and inflating grades. The tuition dependence of the T100 private, which lacked Harvard's endowment or Berkeley's state subsidy, made them treat the students like customers. Grad schools understood this when evaluating GPAs.

The faculty at the T100 were also less well published than those at Harvard or Berkeley and far more focused on budgets than on the big issues of the day. The fact that a university is private doesn't make it good, and a public with strong students and faculty is much more similar to an Ivy than a private also-ran.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless we know who College Simply is, who funds it, what is their mission, etc… this is meaningless.

The criteria are clearly skewed to severely hamper large student body schools. I prefer balanced criteria

It’s a rando website. Do you seriously get excited about a list because it is on the internet? You realize that’s about the lowest bar on earth. If only each of us was as selective about information as we are about college reputations… then again, we certainly wouldn’t be on dcum if we were 😜

Do we not think forbes over inflates public schools? Berkeley is ranked 5 there, that's insane too.

It's US News that went completely overboard with the publics last year. Some of them moved up dozens of spaces in a single year because of the way US News changed their algorithm - getting rid of class size, discounting the qualifications of professors, years to graduate, putting a strong emphasis on number of Pell Grant students while ignoring those on school financial aid, and so on. It was a ridiculous list that was more reflective of an ideological bias as opposed to measuring the quality of the undergrad experience.

So it's good there is push back from all the other publications doing college rankings. But it's also absolutely true that any random organization can publish a list, so take them all with a giant shovel of salt.

+100, every public school on US News is 10 spots too high. UCSD at 28 but Tufts at 40 is crazy. UNC ahead of Emory, WashU, CMU is crazy.

I would go to UNC before Emory, WashU or CMU, and it wouldn’t be close.

[Anonymous]

I'm always shocked when I see the school that my beatup pickup having, wife beater wearing, riding lawnmower riding, huge gut having, middling neighborhood by DC standards dwelling middle aged Latino neighbor went to make that list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are U Michigan & Georgetown?

Umich-50
Georgetown- 29

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless we know who College Simply is, who funds it, what is their mission, etc… this is meaningless.

The criteria are clearly skewed to severely hamper large student body schools. I prefer balanced criteria

It’s a rando website. Do you seriously get excited about a list because it is on the internet? You realize that’s about the lowest bar on earth. If only each of us was as selective about information as we are about college reputations… then again, we certainly wouldn’t be on dcum if we were 😜

Do we not think forbes over inflates public schools? Berkeley is ranked 5 there, that's insane too.

It's US News that went completely overboard with the publics last year. Some of them moved up dozens of spaces in a single year because of the way US News changed their algorithm - getting rid of class size, discounting the qualifications of professors, years to graduate, putting a strong emphasis on number of Pell Grant students while ignoring those on school financial aid, and so on. It was a ridiculous list that was more reflective of an ideological bias as opposed to measuring the quality of the undergrad experience.

So it's good there is push back from all the other publications doing college rankings. But it's also absolutely true that any random organization can publish a list, so take them all with a giant shovel of salt.

+100, every public school on US News is 10 spots too high. UCSD at 28 but Tufts at 40 is crazy. UNC ahead of Emory, WashU, CMU is crazy.

I would go to UNC before Emory, WashU or CMU, and it wouldn’t be close.

That's you, but prestige wise it isn't close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are U Michigan & Georgetown?

Umich-50
Georgetown- 29

Wow! Very low for U Mich

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where are U Michigan & Georgetown?

Umich-50
Georgetown- 29

Wow! Very low for U Mich

It was the highest ranking public school

[Anonymous]

Michigan, UCLA, UVa, WM are still ranked in the top 15% of all colleges.

[Anonymous]

Upenn and Columbia seem low, and CMU seems like it can only get a good ranking on USnews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SAT/ACT Test Scores - 20%
Acceptance Rate - 10%
Student to Faculty Ratio - 12%
Instruction Expenditures Per Student - 15%
Graduation Rate - 18%
Student Debt - 10%
Post Graduation Income - 15%

I see nothing wrong woth this, it's actually a better methodology than USnews. SAT/ACT scores should be more than just 5% of a college ranking.

It's actually horrible. Acceptance rate favors schools that heavily rely on ED1 and ED2. Test scores without weighing for how many kids don't submit test scores also meaningless. A good number of schools on this list take 40 to 50 percent of their class test optional.

100% correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless we know who College Simply is, who funds it, what is their mission, etc… this is meaningless.

The criteria are clearly skewed to severely hamper large student body schools. I prefer balanced criteria

It’s a rando website. Do you seriously get excited about a list because it is on the internet? You realize that’s about the lowest bar on earth. If only each of us was as selective about information as we are about college reputations… then again, we certainly wouldn’t be on dcum if we were 😜

Do we not think forbes over inflates public schools? Berkeley is ranked 5 there, that's insane too.

It's US News that went completely overboard with the publics last year. Some of them moved up dozens of spaces in a single year because of the way US News changed their algorithm - getting rid of class size, discounting the qualifications of professors, years to graduate, putting a strong emphasis on number of Pell Grant students while ignoring those on school financial aid, and so on. It was a ridiculous list that was more reflective of an ideological bias as opposed to measuring the quality of the undergrad experience.

So it's good there is push back from all the other publications doing college rankings. But it's also absolutely true that any random organization can publish a list, so take them all with a giant shovel of salt.

+1
The changes made by USNWR in recent years have nothing to do with actual quality or the schools.

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its ranking season and there's a new ranking

https://www.collegesimply.com/guides/the-best-colleges/

Shockingingly no publics make the top 40, mainly because of LACs. Refreshing to see a ranking that doesn't kiss their behinds.
Any other surprises?

You think its the mixed in occasional LAC that's stopping publics being ranked on this list and not the majority private universities?

[Anonymous]

Isn't this just the Forbes list?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unless we know who College Simply is, who funds it, what is their mission, etc… this is meaningless.

The criteria are clearly skewed to severely hamper large student body schools. I prefer balanced criteria

It’s a rando website. Do you seriously get excited about a list because it is on the internet? You realize that’s about the lowest bar on earth. If only each of us was as selective about information as we are about college reputations… then again, we certainly wouldn’t be on dcum if we were 😜

Do we not think forbes over inflates public schools? Berkeley is ranked 5 there, that's insane too.

It's US News that went completely overboard with the publics last year. Some of them moved up dozens of spaces in a single year because of the way US News changed their algorithm - getting rid of class size, discounting the qualifications of professors, years to graduate, putting a strong emphasis on number of Pell Grant students while ignoring those on school financial aid, and so on. It was a ridiculous list that was more reflective of an ideological bias as opposed to measuring the quality of the undergrad experience.

So it's good there is push back from all the other publications doing college rankings. But it's also absolutely true that any random organization can publish a list, so take them all with a giant shovel of salt.

+100, every public school on US News is 10 spots too high. UCSD at 28 but Tufts at 40 is crazy. UNC ahead of Emory, WashU, CMU is crazy.

On what basis are you making this determination? I was an undergrad at Harvard, got my PhD at UC Berkeley (where I TAed quite a few classes), and taught at a private T100.

Your peers do determine a good chunk of your learning experience. The A and B students at Berkeley could have easily held their own at Harvard. The private T100 students were very different: less prepared, less motivated, and very entitled. They were also pretty wealthy compared to the Berkeley students. The faculty responded to this by offering less challenging assignments and inflating grades. The tuition dependence of the T100 private, which lacked Harvard's endowment or Berkeley's state subsidy, made them treat the students like customers. Grad schools understood this when evaluating GPAs.

The faculty at the T100 were also less well published than those at Harvard or Berkeley and far more focused on budgets than on the big issues of the day. The fact that a university is private doesn't make it good, and a public with strong students and faculty is much more similar to an Ivy than a private also-ran.

This is completely useless you identify the private.