<p>While one might lament about the impact and lack of integrity of the PA, it remains undeniable that it DOES have redeeming qualities. The garbage published by Forbes and “researched by Vedder” doesn’t present any. </p>
<p>I am strong believer in the value of LACs but comparing the Forbes’ ranking of Wellesley, Smith, Wabash, or SLC on the first page to the University of Wisconsin, Madison’s (ranked 335th) or the University of Texas’ at 215th is simply nauseating. </p>
<p>xiggi,
My point was that what goes on in the classroom and what students are likely going to experience upon graduation is important stuff and IMO should be absolutely central to a college search process. Forbes does this sloppily. Still better than nothing, if for no other reason than it brings to light matters that I think colleges don’t think about often enough, ie, what is the stakeholder’s view of what colleges are delivering?</p>
<p>Hawkette, Forbes is entitled to rank colleges in the manner they think is better, but naming this ranking “Best Colleges” is an insult to the intelligence of all their readers. Pretending that Vedder and his goons used a scientific approach to measure academic excellence is even lower. There are plenty of idiotic rankings ranging from the inept Washington Monthly to the jocular Princeton Review, but at least we only had to look at the source to know what to expect. In this case, Forbes is paving new grounds.</p>
<p>“I would be curious to see how exactly rate my professor was used.
Were ratings weighted or not?”</p>
<p>Actually, not only were they weighted, but they were compared with SET scores (those that universities use themselves) to assess reliability. There is an excellent essay on the Forbes website.</p>
<p>At least they took student opinions into consideration, which is more than can be said for the bogus USNWR, and it’s (non)peer rankings.</p>
<p>Take all with two fistfuls of salt, and throw another half a bag in. </p>
<p>“Funny, you never seem to hear Dartmouth (or Penn, Georgetown, or Cornell) students complaining about the general quality of instruction.”</p>
<p>It is exactly from students that Forbes got their data.</p>
<p>If I want to know about the actual quality of a 2008 Chevy Malibu, I don’t ask a fourth-ranking executive at Tata. I’d ask consumers. (The Tata guy MIGHT know something about the quality of a Chevy 30 years ago, if he’s that old! But I’d doubt that as well.)</p>
<p>I think a caveat that the Forbes survey failed at is in looking at “real” indebtedness. They didn’t take into account the indebtedness of parents (which many families with students going to those so-called “no loan” schools end up with). But they had to work with the data at their disposal.</p>
Self-reporting internet surveys are notoriously unreliable, espescially given that we have no indication of the sample size and reliability for any given school.</p>
<p>Again, I think you need to read the methodology, and the degree to which the results match up with the SET data that the universities use themselves.</p>
<p>I, by no means am complaining. My college is ranked quite a bit higher than USNWR. I just think that some (CMU, Grinnell) are way too low and others are a bit high. However, now that I see that they use a reliability measure, I would like to amend my remarks to say that using rate my professor in that way is not at all bull!!</p>
<p>Now USNWR peer review on the other hand…that is bull.(IMHO)</p>
<p>My dad just sent me a Forbes list of the best colleges according to different criteria than USA – one of them being “how successful their students are in the future.” </p>
<p>Its a pretty awful ranking. Go to websites like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley and see what schools they recruit from — you will see the typical USNEWS top 25 schools.</p>
<p>I suppose it doesn’t matter anyways. I plan to be a premed with a major in biomedical engineering. Whatever sends most to med schools, I suppose.</p>
<p>You’ve probably heard this before, but rankings, for the most part, are just BS. Give more weight to any one category and you get a whole new set of rankings. I’ve been through the top 15 or so of this list, though, and it seems pretty much as-predicted… Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.</p>
<p>lol poseur, you completely misunderstand me. I meant that going to a high ranked school is generally supposed to mean that you will be provided more opportunities. I, of course, know of the many millionaire dropouts and etc, etc. </p>
<p>It’s just a generalization, not an absolute truth.</p>