Reply to WSJ Rankings 2025

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "WSJ Rankings 2025"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Here is what people should know related to the methodology.  It is not a best college ranking or even an ROI ranking.  It is a subjective return on expected earnings ranking.  In the background, WSJ creates a score that effectively is subjective as it compares colleges to “peers” that have somewhat similar student intakes.  So whatever objective raw score is factual, it is then turned subjective by this segmentation.  Then all of the newly formed scores are compared against each other.  I confirmed last year that this is what WSJ actually is doing.  This is a flawed statistical method, and would not pass a first year college stats class if it was submitted for a grade.

Another poster likened it to competing in a major golf tournament where someone can apply their handicap whereas a full pro could not.  Or, for baseball fans, think of it as WSJ saying the best Texas League baseball team should rank higher than a middling Major League team because the former is first in its class.  No one would accept this.  And yet, that is what WSJ is doing here.

Last year when it introduced the new methodology, I actually had a series of back and forth conversation with the two authors.  They explained their methodology twice to me.  I asked questions to make sure I understood it (I work in applied mathematics) and then challenged this objective to subjective to scoring to ranking approach.  I then asked them to show me where my conclusions about their methodology was wrong.  I was willing to learn something.  I never heard back from them.  In other words, I truly believe they realized that an actual statistician could easily show the massive flaws in their methodology.  For a so-called college ranking methodology to not even be good enough to past muster in an intro college stats class is rather absurd.

It is a shame.  Sticking the previously honorable WSJ brand to this untidy piece of work is a disservice to the reader and especially parents of students aiming to learn about colleges.  The one thing the ranking is good for is how not to attempt statistical models and inference, and then try to cover your tracks.[/quote]

**********

The authors obviously didn’t further engage with you because you’re an insufferable twit.

Which of your favored schools tanked in this ranking?[/quote]

***********

To answer your question -- my "favored" school i.e. my alma mater is one of the top 20 schools in this table, as it was last year.  Sorry my friend, your attempt to attack me is a failure.  And my analysis remains correct though your opinions of me are not very mature.  How old are you?[/quote]

Please stop engaging in this back and forth about alma maters or your kids' schools' rankings. This is going to continue forever. FWIW I agree with you that it's immature for the PP to accuse people of only disagreeing with the WSJ rankings because their school or their kids' schools didn't make the cut, but just ignore it.

I actually like the factors in the WSJ rankings. I can see how some people might prefer a USN style ranking and others might prefer a WSJ style ranking. However, the method is obviously flawed simply because of the vast differences between one year and the next, as pointed out by a PP.  Perhaps if this list gets any traction, they will invest more in resources and establish a more robust methodology. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics