Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Anonymous wrote:I may have misread but I thought the WSJ surveyed current students and recent alums - and based rankings on the self-reported data. I can check tomorrow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for the WSJ. About time. Oh, and I'm loving the over-the-top wailing from the usual suspects!

That's sweet. Now find the Wall Street Journal reporters that went to UC-Merced, Cal-State Stanislaus, Dalton State, Martin Luther College, Kettering University, Benedictine College, and - this one's not f#cking around - The Masters University.

Best and brightest no doubt.

I genuinely don't understand why the editors of the WSJ let this silliness go. There is a huge opportunity to take down US News and this is what the Murdochs came up with? Clearly not ready for prime time. Stupid list. Not interesting. And not even worth talking about. Massive fail.

And yet, here you are! Clearly very interesting and very much worth talking about. Cheers to the WSJ.

Because I would like to see some genuine competition to US News, And I was hopeful for WSJ because they have the brand and the reach. Unfortunately, this is a very lame list that won't be taken seriously. There's this massive, very lucrative space for a major publication, and yet none are reaching for it. Mystifying.

There old partnership with Times was great. They went super woke and denounced prestige.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for the WSJ. About time. Oh, and I'm loving the over-the-top wailing from the usual suspects!

That's sweet. Now find the Wall Street Journal reporters that went to UC-Merced, Cal-State Stanislaus, Dalton State, Martin Luther College, Kettering University, Benedictine College, and - this one's not f#cking around - The Masters University.

Best and brightest no doubt.

I genuinely don't understand why the editors of the WSJ let this silliness go. There is a huge opportunity to take down US News and this is what the Murdochs came up with? Clearly not ready for prime time. Stupid list. Not interesting. And not even worth talking about. Massive fail.

And yet, here you are! Clearly very interesting and very much worth talking about. Cheers to the WSJ.

Because I would like to see some genuine competition to US News, And I was hopeful for WSJ because they have the brand and the reach. Unfortunately, this is a very lame list that won't be taken seriously. There's this massive, very lucrative space for a major publication, and yet none are reaching for it. Mystifying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for the WSJ. About time. Oh, and I'm loving the over-the-top wailing from the usual suspects!

That's sweet. Now find the Wall Street Journal reporters that went to UC-Merced, Cal-State Stanislaus, Dalton State, Martin Luther College, Kettering University, Benedictine College, and - this one's not f#cking around - The Masters University.

Best and brightest no doubt.

I genuinely don't understand why the editors of the WSJ let this silliness go. There is a huge opportunity to take down US News and this is what the Murdochs came up with? Clearly not ready for prime time. Stupid list. Not interesting. And not even worth talking about. Massive fail.

And yet, here you are! Clearly very interesting and very much worth talking about. Cheers to the WSJ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for the WSJ. About time. Oh, and I'm loving the over-the-top wailing from the usual suspects!

That's sweet. Now find the Wall Street Journal reporters that went to UC-Merced, Cal-State Stanislaus, Dalton State, Martin Luther College, Kettering University, Benedictine College, and - this one's not f#cking around - The Masters University.

Best and brightest no doubt.

I genuinely don't understand why the editors of the WSJ let this silliness go. There is a huge opportunity to take down US News and this is what the Murdochs came up with? Clearly not ready for prime time. Stupid list. Not interesting. And not even worth talking about. Massive fail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As soon as you see Babson at #2, ahead of Stanford, Yale, MIT, etc, you know this list is a joke!

Bingo.

This list is lacking any semblance of student quality ranking. Student peers matter. Parents and families want kids to go to the schools that people know have smart kids. This list has zero assessment for smarts.

OMG.

OMG, the cries of the elite as the masses encroach on their turf! My kid just graduated from one of the lesser known schools that rocketed up the rankings and he is making the same $100k as his colleagues whose parents paid almost twice what we paid for his degree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for the WSJ. About time. Oh, and I'm loving the over-the-top wailing from the usual suspects!

That's sweet. Now find the Wall Street Journal reporters that went to UC-Merced, Cal-State Stanislaus, Dalton State, Martin Luther College, Kettering University, Benedictine College, and - this one's not f#cking around - The Masters University.

Best and brightest no doubt.

I genuinely don't understand why the editors of the WSJ let this silliness go. There is a huge opportunity to take down US News and this is what the Murdochs came up with? Clearly not ready for prime time. Stupid list. Not interesting. And not even worth talking about. Massive fail.

Anonymous wrote:This ranking makes total sense and is valuable, if you understand the methodology. Read the explanation carefully, then reconsider why your school scored where it did. Maybe you will learn something.