Is there really a difference between school #31 and school #34? These ranking split hairs.

Anonymous wrote:Us news is weighted toward endowment

Shanghai world is strictly the academic strength of the faculty and graduates.

Times of London is reputation among institution peers.

If you combine all 3 it may be an indicator .

My understanding is that USNews rankings for engineering schools are based on peer review from other engineers in the world of academia so I give it much more weight than the overall rankings. Is this accurate? are the business school rankings done in the same manner ? peer review?

Anonymous wrote:But don't you see, everything must be quantified! Otherwise, we'd actually have to think about nuance and complexity and we can't have that.

"Everything that counts cannot be counted. Not everything that can be counted counts." -- Albert Einstein

Anonymous wrote:But don't you see, everything must be quantified! Otherwise, we'd actually have to think about nuance and complexity and we can't have that.

That is a very good point. In the specific area of comprehensive college search, I'd say many can benefit fro dome guide or guidance as to schools to consider, but the detailed investigation of candidate schools is very personal.

But don't you see, everything must be quantified! Otherwise, we'd actually have to think about nuance and complexity and we can't have that.

Trying to diminish the USNews rankings is soooo 2013! The latest trend is trying to stop them

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/5/6106807/college-rankings-us-news-boston-clemson-problems?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=voxdotcom&utm_content=tuesday

What if Kim and Miley had their own college rankings? Those, I would find both significanT and influential.

Anonymous wrote:USNEWS rankings have long been considered the "gold standard" of rankings:

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1761&context=articles

and the term "gold standard" is still used when it comes to the USNEWS rankings: http://blogs.gwhatchet.com/newsroom/2014/07/03/colleges-nationwide-await-details-on-a-federal-rankings-system/


The Cornell article discusses how important the rankings are to colleges.

Yada yada yada. We get it. One poster thinks these US News rankings REALLY matter. But so does KIm Kardashian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UNWR flawed, yes. Influential, of course. Exhibit one, you all cared enough to comment.

Miley Cyrus is flawed and people talk about her a lot. I"m not sure I would call her influential.

Ah, but that is where you are wrong. She is influential. You are just not part of her target audience. Big difference between influential and significant.

I hope you are not saying Miley Cyrus is not significant! I hope she runs in 2016!

USNEWS rankings have long been considered the "gold standard" of rankings:

http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1761&context=articles

and the term "gold standard" is still used when it comes to the USNEWS rankings: http://blogs.gwhatchet.com/newsroom/2014/07/03/colleges-nationwide-await-details-on-a-federal-rankings-system/


The Cornell article discusses how important the rankings are to colleges.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UNWR flawed, yes. Influential, of course. Exhibit one, you all cared enough to comment.

Miley Cyrus is flawed and people talk about her a lot. I"m not sure I would call her influential.

Ah, but that is where you are wrong. She is influential. You are just not part of her target audience. Big difference between influential and significant.