<p>Nice try. We already know that you are not a social scientist. (“mishmash of made-up info thrown together like a dog’s breakfast” - Don’t think Wash U. profs would approve of your analytical tools.). I am not asking you to rehash your selected criticisms of Forbes. We’ve read them ad nauseum You don’t however need an academic background to understand basic statistical probability. Again I am asking you to explain why if Forbes really is based on nothing of value how can it for the most part mirror U.S. News. If your premise was true this would be a statistical impossibility. I’ll try putting it another way for you. You seem to cling to U.S. News rankings as “the” legitimate standard. Assuming aruendo that there is merit to that other than the fact that it rates Wash U. well, the fact that Forbes for most schools ends up with the same general rankings shows that there is some legitimacy to Forbes rankings. U.S. News validates Forbes. Looking at it from the viewpoint of statistical liklihood, the proposition that there is some reliability to Forbes’ methodology is the only explanation. It’s just not an explanation that you like.</p>