<p>“I wouldn’t be championing Forbes ranking system even if Washu had been placed in a shiny top 10 or top 15 spot…” from your post #19</p>
<p>I don’t really have a problem with anyone cheerleading for Wash U. From your earlier statement I just thought you contended that your opinions were objective.</p>
<p>You’re inferring something I never contended. </p>
<p>It would be hard to read through my past posts and come to a conclusion that I am completely objective about WashU. Many times, I’ve admitted being biased because my S attends. </p>
<p>I can honestly say that even if WashU had landed in the top 10 or so of the Forbes ranking effort, I would not be touting it or promoting it as accurate once I could see that the methodology used to produce it was, for want of a better word, bogus. (GIGO as I said before). And I certainly would not use it to cast negative insinuations about another university that didn’t happen to be my favorite. </p>
<p>No one is putting much stock in this rating system according to what I’ve read on CC. Using data sources such as ratemyprofessor and Who’s Who has been described in terms ranging from “lame” to “a joke” to “utter garbage.” So I’m not alone in my opinion. (One person suggested that it be published every year on April 1, which is probably appropriate.) </p>
<p>And I don’t see how you can equate ratemyprofessor with surveys used by social scientists for scholarly research, which is peer reviewed before being published… so I don’t get the irony you referred to in your previous post.</p>
<p>You claim to acknowledge your biases and then in the same breath go on to attack Forbes as if this isn’t an example of you displaying your bias. For the vast majority of schools rated well by U.S. News Forbes simply confirmed what U.S. News concluded. Are you contending this was sheer coincidence? If Forbes as you rant is “worthless”, “lame” and a “joke” this wouldn’t happen. Does it have a particular agenda against Wash U. and a couple other schools? (BTW I am sure you are right that there are fans of the few other schools who were downgraded by Forbes who share your motivations and who make the same charges against Forbes.) I can again go over U.S. News shortcomings and you can again trash Forbes with your broadsides, and to some extent we will both be right. However it is clear that unless and until Forbes gives you the reassurance that you seem to need concerning the worthiness of Wash U, you will continue to trash Forbes, while denying that it has anything to do with your particular needs or biases.</p>
<p>I will trash the Forbes ranking as long as they continue to use ratemyprofessor and Who’s Who in their methodology. And I won’t be the only one.</p>
<p>What makes you think that Forbes didn’t go through the same scrutiny as U.S. News before publication. ( so there is no confusion I don’t think many would consider your analysis that it is “a joke” and “lame” to be peer review.)</p>
<p>More to the point, as I said earlier, no need to rehash U.S. News’ many faults, I think we know why they don’t trouble you. On the other hand, care to guess what parents like you on the UVA or Georgetown board who are vested in this sort of thing think about the reliability of U.S. News. </p>
<p>Most revealing is that you continue to evade my question. Why is it that if Forbes is “a joke” and “utter garbage” it generally confirms U.S. News rankings for most schools. If there was nothing to Forbes as you contend there should be no similarities to the rankings. Care to explain?</p>
<p>Asked and answered. See your previous posts and my reply #31. Same answer. I can’t analyze how they came up with their “findings” when I’m given no access to the data. </p>
<p>Where is the data on positive versus negative citations on ratemyprofessor for each university? </p>
<p>They also didn’t include in the Forbes article any back up data for their interpretations of the Who’s Who data. How did they tally it? Did it include references only to UG college attendance — which it would have to to make it comparable to the USNWR rankings for UG, which they explicitly do compare. If the Who’s Who cites include references to grad school attendance, how can that be a valid measure against the USNWR rankings? </p>
<p>Sorry, but this ranking methodology is a mishmash of made-up info thrown together like a dog’s breakfast. I think Forbes has to try to explain it, not me. </p>
<p>Can we stop repeating ourselves now?</p>
<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>
<p>Will you people give it a rest. It seems that rollins has made it a mission to bash WashU (16 out of 20 posts bash WashU) and others are giving rollins a stage to undertake that mission. Just let this thing die and be happy with your situation.</p>
<p>Interesting that you feel I am on a mission to bash Wash U. My posts have only responded to Jazzymom’s refusal to concede anything as to any suggestion that U.S. News is not the gospel. I have merely been responding to her repeated contentions that the system used by another publication that isn’t so favorable to Wash U. was “thrown together like a dog’s breakfast”. I never argued that the U.S. News ranking of Wash U. was “garbage” etc. You’ve read nothing from me approaching that level of hostility. Let’s be clear who has an agenda here.</p>
<p>I agree with ST2 and that’s all I’m going to say.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where on earth did you attain that “fact?” I believe the average gpa for admitted law students is something like 3.5 or 3.6. Sure the bottom of the middle 50% range might be 3.2, but, to put it frankly, that is going to be mostly the huge (and unreasonable) number of minority students law schools always try to recruit. </p>
<p>Look at nearly any top law school and you’ll see 1/3 of their students are minority. I’m not going to go into how ridiculous this is since 1/3 of our country isn’t in the minority. My point is that this skews the gpa average, so if you’re white, you sure as hell better have at least a 3.5 or you’re not getting in.</p>
<p>Rollins,</p>
<p>You attempt to point out a flaw in jazzymom’s argument saying that while she might balk at the “survey method” used by Forbes for the ranking, she probably wouldn’t do so at the “survey method” used by sociology professors at WashU. First, rollins, ALL sociologists will use survey methods, not just those at WashU; how else do you think sociologists conduct research. But more importantly, you disregard the fact that the surveys used by sociologists will most likely be of a different quality than that used by Forbes, from ratemyprofessors.com. I have experience in working with epidemiologists and sociologists on writing survey questions, and they have specific ways to ensure their surveys are consistent, unbiased, and become representative of certain populations. If a sociology paper is suspected to be too subjective due to its methodology, it would probably have trouble being published. Ratemyprofessors.com, however, cannot be said to necessarily represent a school. It only gives a narrow scope into a school–the professors–and it may not even be accurate in its portrayal of the professors (ie students who post “great professor” just because of the good grade, “poor professor” just because of a bad grade", ■■■■■■■■ people; anything may happen on the Internet, etc) There is no controlling who logs on and posts and the potentially unfair biases certain students have towards certain professors. And different schools might have different numbers of students who hear or know about ratemyprofessors.com; how would you account for unfair sample sizes?</p>
<p>kindofblue- you are absolutely right. the site i posted that said washu is #19 said the middle 50% of gpas is from 3.3-3.7. I don’t know where that other peson got 3.2 from. only 25% of the students have a gpa less than 3.3 and im betting they had to have A LOT of other factors working in their favor in order to get in. and the middle 50% of gpas for HYS + Columbia was about 3.75- 3.95. clearly, you could have less than a 3.9 and still be accepted.</p>
<p>Hax0rz, I never said that you couldn’t point out weaknesses in Forbes methodology, just as many have pointed out flaws in U.S. News methodolgy. Again my point isn’t to bash Wash U. or U.S. News. I only took exception to the broadsides against Forbes which are clearly based on its rating of Wash U. To get to the bottom line HaxOrz, I don’t know if you share Jazzymom’s wholesale rejection of Forbes, but if you do, perhaps you can explain why it for the most part mirrors U.S. News rankings. I don’t know why Wash U. didn’t do so well under Forbes criteria, but I do know that the criteria is not completely worthless. It is statistically impossible for it to have come up with the results that it did if its criteria was completely unreliable.</p>
<p>The best proof Rollins could offer that WU is in fact overrated is proof that he was accepted. Claiming that it is “statistically imposssible…” shows only that he is more uninformed than originally suspected.</p>
<p>as a future sophomore at Boston college…I am amazed at the CCAP ranks at forbes. BC ranked 11. I just wanted to say I like how CCAP looks at how successful people after leaving the college which matters a lot. I mean I just found out that one of the guys that holds the patents for the ipod click wheel went to BC…lol!</p>
<p>Wow Pmflah do you really consider this to be a response to anything I posted.
Never said that WU was overrated - just posted another set of rankings and then came the attacks.
So how do you explain that Forbes largely mirrors U.S. News rankings if Forbes methodology is “garbage” and “worthless”? I mean other than by calling me names.</p>
<p>Who’s Who. that’s enough said. wow. Who’s who is so lame that it’s actually detrimental to put it your list of activities and awards. if you seriously have to resort to things like honor roll, merit scholar, and Who’s who. </p>
<p>lmao and now forbes has that as a criteria? i don’t relaly see the point in arguing this out. ranking are not perfect, and they are especially not when they way they rank them is soo uhhh out of skew.</p>
<p>Still no response. Just more name calling. But I do agree, rankings aren’t perfect, neither Forbes nor U.S. News.</p>