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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initially I was puzzled with some of the ratings in the various categories, until I realized that they are based on actual data vs expectations, where if the data outperforms the expectations, they receive a higher rating. I was looking specifically at graduation rate and was initially surprised to see higher grad ratings on some of the schools where I knew they were lower.

I actually like this balanced approach. I think looking at both this ranking and USNWR would be a good way to evaluate a school. I also like the New York Times tool, where you can set your own parameters. You can learn a lot from these three platforms.

No, it's like measuring your schwantz from the floor up. Does not give an accurate measurement of what it claims to. It's data, not information.

Sorry you are not happy with the results of your school that sunk in the rankings. Signed, mom of kid whose kid's school is in top 20 for both USNWR and WSJ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke at 45, should be enough to show how dumb this ranking is. This thread shouldn't be this long.

Just tells you that the outcome may not be what its hyped up to be vis-à-vis the cost of attending Duke....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone please post the top 50. or at least #21 through #50 as the top 20 have already been posted ?

Top 50....plus 150 extra as bonus...

Anonymous wrote:Duke at 45, should be enough to show how dumb this ranking is. This thread shouldn't be this long.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Duke at 45, should be enough to show how dumb this ranking is. This thread shouldn't be this long.

Duke in the top ten shows how dumb USNWR rankings are. The student body is more impressive than the departmental rankings.

Anonymous wrote:Duke at 45, should be enough to show how dumb this ranking is. This thread shouldn't be this long.

Anonymous wrote:You do not have to believe me. They may have made some minor tweaks. I have not spoken to them this year. But the grand majority of the methodology clearly is the same, and I reckon I am not the only person to have had conversations with them about it.

People double-down on poorly thought out and executed processes all the time. CEOs do it, coaches do it, professors do it. It is a flaw with many humans. And if you were defending your job once you received lots of criticism with a “no, but we are right” defensive approach, that would not make you unique.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initially I was puzzled with some of the ratings in the various categories, until I realized that they are based on actual data vs expectations, where if the data outperforms the expectations, they receive a higher rating. I was looking specifically at graduation rate and was initially surprised to see higher grad ratings on some of the schools where I knew they were lower.

I actually like this balanced approach. I think looking at both this ranking and USNWR would be a good way to evaluate a school. I also like the New York Times tool, where you can set your own parameters. You can learn a lot from these three platforms.

No, it's like measuring your schwantz from the floor up. Does not give an accurate measurement of what it claims to. It's data, not information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Initially I was puzzled with some of the ratings in the various categories, until I realized that they are based on actual data vs expectations, where if the data outperforms the expectations, they receive a higher rating. I was looking specifically at graduation rate and was initially surprised to see higher grad ratings on some of the schools where I knew they were lower.

I actually like this balanced approach. I think looking at both this ranking and USNWR would be a good way to evaluate a school. I also like the New York Times tool, where you can set your own parameters. You can learn a lot from these three platforms.

No, it's like measuring your schwantz from the floor up. Does not give an accurate measurement of what it claims to. It's data, not information.

Anonymous wrote:Initially I was puzzled with some of the ratings in the various categories, until I realized that they are based on actual data vs expectations, where if the data outperforms the expectations, they receive a higher rating. I was looking specifically at graduation rate and was initially surprised to see higher grad ratings on some of the schools where I knew they were lower.

I actually like this balanced approach. I think looking at both this ranking and USNWR would be a good way to evaluate a school. I also like the New York Times tool, where you can set your own parameters. You can learn a lot from these three platforms.