Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the whiners cannot explain away is why HPYSM did so well while so many other high brow schools did not. If the methodology is a complete sham or just random, HPYSM would not constitute half of the top 10. Further, other top universities and LACs make the top 10, top 20, and top 50. Again, this is not random. The head scratching and consternation is really around a set of “treasured” schools that didn’t perform well. Perhaps, it would be better to understand why those didn’t perform well instead of assailing the methodology.

As for the methodology, it is not primarily a survey. That’s just a weak way of dismissing the results. What people seem to struggle with most is the comparison of student outcomes to expectations. Expectations account for two things: the quality of the student body and the regional cost of living. So, a Williams or Amherst faces more headwinds than Kenyon. Yet, there is no guarantee that Kenyon will punch above its weight. What’s eye opening is that HPYSM have probably the highest expectations hurdle, and yet, they jumped it - big time! Claremont McKenna and Davidson also standout here. Take note.

Are you serious? All they needed to do was build this Frankenstein of a “study” from the bottom up, engineering the assumptions to ensure that none of the HYPSM institutions fell outside the Top 10 (knowing how hyper-fixated many are on this small group) to lend empty validity to their work for consumers like you.

Ok, so now we have a conspiracy theory, but what’s the motivation? Sounds nuts.

The motivation as the pp explained is to lend some "credibility" to gullible parents by at least keeping HYP on the top ten list. I work in the statistical sphere--assumptions can be manipulated in any which way and form to get the results you want. Consumers have to pay careful attention to the methodology and assumptions used, otherwise you will be taken for a ride. Parents currently are so obsessed with rankings it's a profitable business. They can't all produce the same rankings so they manipulate the assumptions. They keep HYP there to keep you happy that it is a "legitimate" ranking because they know you will not read the fine print.

This doesn’t make sense. The WSJ and its readers are serious people. Yes, they respect a ranking that acknowledges the strengths of HPYSM, but do you really think that the WSJ wants to offer its audience clickbait? Also, many other prestigious schools are listed high in the rankings. Maybe not as high as some would like, but considering the total number of schools out there, their placement is fine. Just because someone could engineer a thoughtless, stupid ranking, doesn’t mean that a publication like the WSJ would. Finally, this is not the WSJ’s first go at college rankings. What motivation would they have to suddenly dupe people?

A better use of your statistical knowledge might be to better understand why particular schools scored how they did instead of arguing that the WSJ has committed professional suicide without explaining how or why.

Do you really think it’s reasonable to ask others to consider the why of how NYU ended up ranked 275+ places lower in a published ranking than Babson College?

NYU’s poor ranking may be fairly straightforward. First, the college resides in NYC - a HCOL area - so the expected salary outcome is high. That is, NYU student outcomes are judged by the standard of the college’s location, so a bunch of kids getting Wall Street jobs, per se, doesn’t represent a good outcome; it’s expected. Second, NYU’s cost of attendance is atrocious. The school is very expensive and relative to other similar schools, their financial aid is poor. Third, NYU kids (at least those who report them) have great test scores. So, the students are expected to have great outcomes. Fourth, while NYU students get jobs in NYC, it’s my perception that, on average, they don’t get the highest paying and most prestigious jobs. Sum it all up and NYU outcomes are average for NYC metro and really smart kids, yet families pay a ton for their kids to attend there.

Compare that summation to NYU’s intracity rival, Columbia, which ranked highly. Columbia faces the same expectation hurdles of HCOL NYC and smart students, but their kids get the BEST jobs in NYC and the average cost of attendance is decreased by better FA. The result? Columbia gives a better bang for the buck and gets a high rating

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the whiners cannot explain away is why HPYSM did so well while so many other high brow schools did not. If the methodology is a complete sham or just random, HPYSM would not constitute half of the top 10. Further, other top universities and LACs make the top 10, top 20, and top 50. Again, this is not random. The head scratching and consternation is really around a set of “treasured” schools that didn’t perform well. Perhaps, it would be better to understand why those didn’t perform well instead of assailing the methodology.

As for the methodology, it is not primarily a survey. That’s just a weak way of dismissing the results. What people seem to struggle with most is the comparison of student outcomes to expectations. Expectations account for two things: the quality of the student body and the regional cost of living. So, a Williams or Amherst faces more headwinds than Kenyon. Yet, there is no guarantee that Kenyon will punch above its weight. What’s eye opening is that HPYSM have probably the highest expectations hurdle, and yet, they jumped it - big time! Claremont McKenna and Davidson also standout here. Take note.

Are you serious? All they needed to do was build this Frankenstein of a “study” from the bottom up, engineering the assumptions to ensure that none of the HYPSM institutions fell outside the Top 10 (knowing how hyper-fixated many are on this small group) to lend empty validity to their work for consumers like you.

Ok, so now we have a conspiracy theory, but what’s the motivation? Sounds nuts.

The motivation as the pp explained is to lend some "credibility" to gullible parents by at least keeping HYP on the top ten list. I work in the statistical sphere--assumptions can be manipulated in any which way and form to get the results you want. Consumers have to pay careful attention to the methodology and assumptions used, otherwise you will be taken for a ride. Parents currently are so obsessed with rankings it's a profitable business. They can't all produce the same rankings so they manipulate the assumptions. They keep HYP there to keep you happy that it is a "legitimate" ranking because they know you will not read the fine print.

This doesn’t make sense. The WSJ and its readers are serious people. Yes, they respect a ranking that acknowledges the strengths of HPYSM, but do you really think that the WSJ wants to offer its audience clickbait? Also, many other prestigious schools are listed high in the rankings. Maybe not as high as some would like, but considering the total number of schools out there, their placement is fine. Just because someone could engineer a thoughtless, stupid ranking, doesn’t mean that a publication like the WSJ would. Finally, this is not the WSJ’s first go at college rankings. What motivation would they have to suddenly dupe people?

A better use of your statistical knowledge might be to better understand why particular schools scored how they did instead of arguing that the WSJ has committed professional suicide without explaining how or why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the whiners cannot explain away is why HPYSM did so well while so many other high brow schools did not. If the methodology is a complete sham or just random, HPYSM would not constitute half of the top 10. Further, other top universities and LACs make the top 10, top 20, and top 50. Again, this is not random. The head scratching and consternation is really around a set of “treasured” schools that didn’t perform well. Perhaps, it would be better to understand why those didn’t perform well instead of assailing the methodology.

As for the methodology, it is not primarily a survey. That’s just a weak way of dismissing the results. What people seem to struggle with most is the comparison of student outcomes to expectations. Expectations account for two things: the quality of the student body and the regional cost of living. So, a Williams or Amherst faces more headwinds than Kenyon. Yet, there is no guarantee that Kenyon will punch above its weight. What’s eye opening is that HPYSM have probably the highest expectations hurdle, and yet, they jumped it - big time! Claremont McKenna and Davidson also standout here. Take note.

Are you serious? All they needed to do was build this Frankenstein of a “study” from the bottom up, engineering the assumptions to ensure that none of the HYPSM institutions fell outside the Top 10 (knowing how hyper-fixated many are on this small group) to lend empty validity to their work for consumers like you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WSJ is owned by the same super villain that own Fox News. Not exactly a credible source these days.

Both your posts (11:09 and 11:10) indicate that you are very much invested in discrediting these rankings. Hmm, I wonder why...

Anonymous wrote:WSJ is owned by the same super villain that own Fox News. Not exactly a credible source these days.

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the whiners cannot explain away is why HPYSM did so well while so many other high brow schools did not. If the methodology is a complete sham or just random, HPYSM would not constitute half of the top 10. Further, other top universities and LACs make the top 10, top 20, and top 50. Again, this is not random. The head scratching and consternation is really around a set of “treasured” schools that didn’t perform well. Perhaps, it would be better to understand why those didn’t perform well instead of assailing the methodology.

As for the methodology, it is not primarily a survey. That’s just a weak way of dismissing the results. What people seem to struggle with most is the comparison of student outcomes to expectations. Expectations account for two things: the quality of the student body and the regional cost of living. So, a Williams or Amherst faces more headwinds than Kenyon. Yet, there is no guarantee that Kenyon will punch above its weight. What’s eye opening is that HPYSM have probably the highest expectations hurdle, and yet, they jumped it - big time! Claremont McKenna and Davidson also standout here. Take note.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.wsj.com/rankings/college-rankings/best-colleges-2025
https://www.wsj.com/rankings/college-rankings/best-colleges-2024

I have to say, I find it hard to believe in the credibility of a ranking that can have a school in the top 10 one year and outside the top 100 the next. Amherst College: #8 to #120.

I recovered my Wall Streef Journal account and figured out why this list is so weird:

- It’s been a bad summer for web traffic and ad sales. A weird list that generates angry traffic beats a good list that gets fewer views.

- Roughly half of the results are based on a *student survey*, even when the team was creating statistics on what seem like factors that should be based on hard, common data set data or alumni surveys. Example: learning opportunities and learning opportunities. The “character building” factor seems to be based on a proprietary set of survey questions that isn’t available online, or at least was hard to find online.

Anonymous wrote:Why is Vabson unranked by usnews

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the whiners cannot explain away is why HPYSM did so well while so many other high brow schools did not. If the methodology is a complete sham or just random, HPYSM would not constitute half of the top 10. Further, other top universities and LACs make the top 10, top 20, and top 50. Again, this is not random. The head scratching and consternation is really around a set of “treasured” schools that didn’t perform well. Perhaps, it would be better to understand why those didn’t perform well instead of assailing the methodology.

As for the methodology, it is not primarily a survey. That’s just a weak way of dismissing the results. What people seem to struggle with most is the comparison of student outcomes to expectations. Expectations account for two things: the quality of the student body and the regional cost of living. So, a Williams or Amherst faces more headwinds than Kenyon. Yet, there is no guarantee that Kenyon will punch above its weight. What’s eye opening is that HPYSM have probably the highest expectations hurdle, and yet, they jumped it - big time! Claremont McKenna and Davidson also standout here. Take note.

Are you serious? All they needed to do was build this Frankenstein of a “study” from the bottom up, engineering the assumptions to ensure that none of the HYPSM institutions fell outside the Top 10 (knowing how hyper-fixated many are on this small group) to lend empty validity to their work for consumers like you.

Ok, so now we have a conspiracy theory, but what’s the motivation? Sounds nuts.

The motivation as the pp explained is to lend some "credibility" to gullible parents by at least keeping HYP on the top ten list. I work in the statistical sphere--assumptions can be manipulated in any which way and form to get the results you want. Consumers have to pay careful attention to the methodology and assumptions used, otherwise you will be taken for a ride. Parents currently are so obsessed with rankings it's a profitable business. They can't all produce the same rankings so they manipulate the assumptions. They keep HYP there to keep you happy that it is a "legitimate" ranking because they know you will not read the fine print.

This doesn’t make sense. The WSJ and its readers are serious people. Yes, they respect a ranking that acknowledges the strengths of HPYSM, but do you really think that the WSJ wants to offer its audience clickbait? Also, many other prestigious schools are listed high in the rankings. Maybe not as high as some would like, but considering the total number of schools out there, their placement is fine. Just because someone could engineer a thoughtless, stupid ranking, doesn’t mean that a publication like the WSJ would. Finally, this is not the WSJ’s first go at college rankings. What motivation would they have to suddenly dupe people?

A better use of your statistical knowledge might be to better understand why particular schools scored how they did instead of arguing that the WSJ has committed professional suicide without explaining how or why.

Do you really think it’s reasonable to ask others to consider the why of how NYU ended up ranked 275+ places lower in a published ranking than Babson College?

I know both schools well and I can see why Babson would be way ahead of NYU using their methodology.

Just one anecdote I have and it doesn’t mean it’s typical but my daughter has a friend, they live in a city townhome worth many millions. Owner of something that makes him top 1%. She also has a friend who has four siblings and a single mother.

The townhome one went to NYU Tisch for acting. She’s in LA making no money of her own. Her single mother friend went to Babson and began working at her major right away, got her own apartment and car.

It’s kind of funny some puffed up posters think that because they have never heard of a college it must not be very good.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the whiners cannot explain away is why HPYSM did so well while so many other high brow schools did not. If the methodology is a complete sham or just random, HPYSM would not constitute half of the top 10. Further, other top universities and LACs make the top 10, top 20, and top 50. Again, this is not random. The head scratching and consternation is really around a set of “treasured” schools that didn’t perform well. Perhaps, it would be better to understand why those didn’t perform well instead of assailing the methodology.

As for the methodology, it is not primarily a survey. That’s just a weak way of dismissing the results. What people seem to struggle with most is the comparison of student outcomes to expectations. Expectations account for two things: the quality of the student body and the regional cost of living. So, a Williams or Amherst faces more headwinds than Kenyon. Yet, there is no guarantee that Kenyon will punch above its weight. What’s eye opening is that HPYSM have probably the highest expectations hurdle, and yet, they jumped it - big time! Claremont McKenna and Davidson also standout here. Take note.

Are you serious? All they needed to do was build this Frankenstein of a “study” from the bottom up, engineering the assumptions to ensure that none of the HYPSM institutions fell outside the Top 10 (knowing how hyper-fixated many are on this small group) to lend empty validity to their work for consumers like you.

Ok, so now we have a conspiracy theory, but what’s the motivation? Sounds nuts.

The motivation as the pp explained is to lend some "credibility" to gullible parents by at least keeping HYP on the top ten list. I work in the statistical sphere--assumptions can be manipulated in any which way and form to get the results you want. Consumers have to pay careful attention to the methodology and assumptions used, otherwise you will be taken for a ride. Parents currently are so obsessed with rankings it's a profitable business. They can't all produce the same rankings so they manipulate the assumptions. They keep HYP there to keep you happy that it is a "legitimate" ranking because they know you will not read the fine print.

This doesn’t make sense. The WSJ and its readers are serious people. Yes, they respect a ranking that acknowledges the strengths of HPYSM, but do you really think that the WSJ wants to offer its audience clickbait? Also, many other prestigious schools are listed high in the rankings. Maybe not as high as some would like, but considering the total number of schools out there, their placement is fine. Just because someone could engineer a thoughtless, stupid ranking, doesn’t mean that a publication like the WSJ would. Finally, this is not the WSJ’s first go at college rankings. What motivation would they have to suddenly dupe people?

A better use of your statistical knowledge might be to better understand why particular schools scored how they did instead of arguing that the WSJ has committed professional suicide without explaining how or why.

Do you really think it’s reasonable to ask others to consider the why of how NYU ended up ranked 275+ places lower in a published ranking than Babson College?

Anonymous wrote:I've never heard of 2 schools in the Top 10 (Babson, Claremont McKenna).

Guessing I can't afford those anyway.

Anonymous wrote:Bentley university? Have never heard of this place