Quote:
|
Now, now, Xiggi. Take a deep breath. College rankings is NOT a scientific process, even when it appears that it is.
|
It is not a scientific process, but when the methodology shows clear signs of using elements that are pure garbage (and one misleading item that "looks" good) as input and when the output confirms the old GIGO say, I'd say that the validity of such an exercise is nothing but a joke.
Who is Who? Rate my professors? How does a school** that stands for "Pay your fees/Collect your bees" compare to Caltech or Harvey Mudd in graduation rates? The easiest to graduate ought to be the best?
One can be different but when you end up placing schools such Wabash and Whitman well above Grinnell, you know something is wrong. Deeply wrong!
**That is SMU!
Quote:
|
However, the Fulbright and Rhodes scholars is a valid measure.
|
There is a world of difference between one award being incredibly prestigious and representing a valid measurement of a university quality of education. What is the PERCENTUAL and ANNUAL representation of the Rhodes for ALL universities in the country?
Are all Fulbright equal or do you make a difference between the Teaching Fulbright and the others? Do we need to, as an example, compare the performance of Brown's German Department with ... Smith's or Pitzer's?
Prestigious ... Absolutely! Used as a valid measure for anything but the performance, resources, and REASONS of a school to increase its Fulbright ... Absolutely NOT!