Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the parents who finally have their kids’ school receive a better ranking think this list is perfect.

Bingo!

Anonymous wrote:Makes more sense than the US News rankings.

How so? Only 10% of this ranking was based on academic success.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This seems like a list without payoffs and manipulation.

Ummm, Carnegie Mellon is below Cal Poly SLO. In what world is that accurate? (Its' not---CalPolySLO is a good school, but definately not on par with CMU)

Average quality of student is ignored on this list which is a shame. Student quality determines how fast and deep classes can go, for humanities and stem. CMU is far and above better than cal poly. Caltech should be in the top 10.

Yup!
This list apparently favors large states schools vs smaller private schools on many levels. Which is the opposite of what we look for in schools. I believe in smaller class sizes, the ability to major in whatever you want versus competing in Hunger Games 2.0 (HS was 1.0) to get into your desired undergrad major, and similarly the Hunger Games experience to get into the actual classes you want/need for your desired major.

I don't care about the mega facilities or research happening at most large state U's because most undergrads will never get the opportunity to experience any of it---except for the crappy profs who don't give a shit about teaching but are required to teach one-two courses each semester (they are there for doing research and research only as a prof)

1. What you call Hunger Games, I call life preparation. They have to compete and stand up for themselves. Sometimes it doesnt work out but you keep pressing on. Kids their age not in school have/seeking full time employment. Many are in the military. You can continue with the handholding or let them find their way in adulthood.
2. My kid was introduced to research during his freshman year at UMD. Had paid research internship through a joint UMD/Fed government agency the summer after his freshman year.

Your tirade is completely off the mark.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the parents who finally have their kids’ school receive a better ranking think this list is perfect.

Why wouldn't they?

Because it is not based in reality.

Anonymous wrote:My determination of a ranking's quality is solely based above whether my alma mater is above its rival or not. On this ranking, the rival is ranked higher; thus, it is a bad ranking.

I long ago stopped caring about my alma mater's ranking. I just look at my kids schools. Both are top 15 in this ranking. So obviously this is the best ranking.

But any list that has a giant state school like UCLA as well as Williams in the top 20 is of limited usefulness to people. I do believe liberal arts colleges should be put in a different pile. Will give US News that. It's better to separate them.

Other quibble is that I do not share the consensus view that the UCs are awesome for undergrad. Would not rank so high by any metric that is important to the undergrad experience. And then there are a few odd rankings - BYU over Pomona and Georgia Tech down in the mid-30s. That seems like a hiccup to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Otherwise, it seems reasonable.

Anonymous wrote:UF ahead of Michigan, UNC, and UVA. Go Gators!

University of Florida at 26! Go Gators!

All rankings contain a large degree of nonsense, but Forbes stands out because of how much its rankings change from year to year despite the fact that the colleges themselves have changed so little. In other words, Forbes is continually altering its methodology in significant ways.

People who believe that Forbes has figured out in 2024 may consider Forbes's different rankings in 2008 through 2023. They may also consider that Forbes's 2025 rankings will also be meaningfully different.

Of course, static rankings don't generate clicks. So Forbes is incentivized to constantly overhaul its methodology. But, again, if the methodology is constantly being overhauled, why would anyone ever believe that it's a good methodology at any point in time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This seems like a list without payoffs and manipulation.

Ummm, Carnegie Mellon is below Cal Poly SLO. In what world is that accurate? (Its' not---CalPolySLO is a good school, but definately not on par with CMU)

Average quality of student is ignored on this list which is a shame. Student quality determines how fast and deep classes can go, for humanities and stem. CMU is far and above better than cal poly. Caltech should be in the top 10.

Yup!
This list apparently favors large states schools vs smaller private schools on many levels. Which is the opposite of what we look for in schools. I believe in smaller class sizes, the ability to major in whatever you want versus competing in Hunger Games 2.0 (HS was 1.0) to get into your desired undergrad major, and similarly the Hunger Games experience to get into the actual classes you want/need for your desired major.

I don't care about the mega facilities or research happening at most large state U's because most undergrads will never get the opportunity to experience any of it---except for the crappy profs who don't give a shit about teaching but are required to teach one-two courses each semester (they are there for doing research and research only as a prof)

a million times yes!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This seems like a list without payoffs and manipulation.

Ummm really?
Duke at 20 way too low
UC San Diego at 21 way too high
Cal Tech at 22 way too low
Georgetown and Emory at 32 and 33 also too low.
BYU at 36 too High
Pomona at 37 too low
It's a strange list after the top 10.

Please. If Dook didn't have basketball, it would basically be Davidson.

Love Duke and Davidson. Both amazing and underrated schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This seems like a list without payoffs and manipulation.

Ummm, Carnegie Mellon is below Cal Poly SLO. In what world is that accurate? (Its' not---CalPolySLO is a good school, but definately not on par with CMU)

Average quality of student is ignored on this list which is a shame. Student quality determines how fast and deep classes can go, for humanities and stem. CMU is far and above better than cal poly. Caltech should be in the top 10.

Yup!
This list apparently favors large states schools vs smaller private schools on many levels. Which is the opposite of what we look for in schools. I believe in smaller class sizes, the ability to major in whatever you want versus competing in Hunger Games 2.0 (HS was 1.0) to get into your desired undergrad major, and similarly the Hunger Games experience to get into the actual classes you want/need for your desired major.

I don't care about the mega facilities or research happening at most large state U's because most undergrads will never get the opportunity to experience any of it---except for the crappy profs who don't give a shit about teaching but are required to teach one-two courses each semester (they are there for doing research and research only as a prof)

Anonymous wrote:My determination of a ranking's quality is solely based above whether my alma mater is above its rival or not. On this ranking, the rival is ranked higher; thus, it is a bad ranking.

Your "analysis" is as good as any other!

My determination of a ranking's quality is solely based above whether my alma mater is above its rival or not. On this ranking, the rival is ranked higher; thus, it is a bad ranking.

Anonymous wrote:Nevermind it's Rice

The DCUM Rice booster must have been involved in forming the list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This seems like a list without payoffs and manipulation.

Ummm really?
Duke at 20 way too low
UC San Diego at 21 way too high
Cal Tech at 22 way too low
Georgetown and Emory at 32 and 33 also too low.
BYU at 36 too High
Pomona at 37 too low
It's a strange list after the top 10.

Please. If Dook didn't have basketball, it would basically be Davidson.

Sure, this list is as good or bad as any other