<p>Burb: Chicago also ranks #1 in The Economist’s MBA rankings:</p>
<p>[Which</a> MBA? | The Economist](<a href=“http://www.economist.com/whichmba]Which”>http://www.economist.com/whichmba)</p>
<p>infinitetime is an anti-Chicago ■■■■■. Naturally, there must be as many anti-$institution ■■■■■■ as pro-$institution fanatics. Since there are so many of the latter around here, a few of the former have to show up as well.</p>
<p>Also, using the NRC rankings as support is at best questionable. There have been a ridiculous amount of problems associated with them. In the first place, they missed the deadline by literally 5 years, which is a testament to NRC’s incompetence. In the second place, they use a variety of questionable methods. For instance, while US News’ mathematics PA rankings gave Chicago 6th place (which was a huge step above the 7th place, given to Caltech), NRC apparently came up with a figure in the 50s. Despite the fact that Chicago has more Fields prize winners than any other institution, and has been traditionally regarded as top 6 (if not top 5, since Stanford isn’t usually considered top 5), and is the home of the only American Fields Prize winner in 2010… NRC’s methods are confused, at best.</p>
<p>Of course, we can all drum up data sets and say “this is the most valid in the world.” (This is BS, because the way in which you choose to analyze your objective data is inherently subjective, a point which everyone seems to forget.) But for every one that shows Chicago lagging behind its peers, there’s another one showing its peers lagging Chicago.</p>
<p>Also infinitetime, I noticed you made a comment about Chicago students rarely winning the Rhodes. Chicago is actually top 5 in producing Rhodes in the last 10 years. Chicago was also top 5 in producing Fulbright over the last 10 years, as it was this year, ahead of Harvard. So clearly those in the positions of power disagree with your harsh criticisms of Chicago.</p>