<p>Book was for rent at my library, so I got it, got bored, and decided to go through each school and find their ranking. Here they are, I may have missed one or two, but this is how he ranked them. This is the 9th edition so it’s not the last oen he did, he made 10 editions.</p>
<p>1 Princeton 4.95
2 Harvard 4.94
3 Michigan 4.93
4 Yale 4.92
5 Stanford 4.91
6 Cornell 4.9
7 Cal-Berkeley 4.89
8 Chicago 4.88
9 Wisconsin 4.87
10 Cal-Los Angeles 4.86
11 MIT 4.85
12 Cal Tech 4.84
13 Columbia 4.83
14 Northwestern 4.82
15 Penn 4.81
16 Notre Dame 4.8
17 Duke 4.79
18 Brown 4.78
19 Johns Hopkins 4.77
20 Dartmouth 4.76
21 Illinois 4.75
22 Minnesota 4.74
23 Rice 4.73
24 Carnegie Mellon 4.72
25 Cal-San Diego 4.71
26 U Washington 4.7
27 Indiana 4.69
28 UNC 4.68
29 Washington U St. Louis 4.67
30 SUNY-Buffalo 4.66
31 Tufts 4.65
32 Vanderbilt 4.64
33 Ohio State 4.62
34 Virginia 4.61
35 Cal-Irvine 4.6
36 Penn State 4.59
37 NYU 4.58
38 Cal-Davis 4.57
39 Rochester 4.56
40 Iowa 4.55
41 Georgia Tech 4.54
42 Michigan State 4.53
43 Purdue 4.52
44 Tulane 4.5
45 Rutgers 4.48
46 SUNY-Stony Brook 4.46
47 Cal-Santa Barbara 4.45
48 Brandeis 4.44
49 US Air Force Academy 4.43
50 Case Western Reserve 4.39
51 Missouri 4.38
51 Rensselaer Tech 4.38
53 Emory 4.36
53 US Naval Academy 4.36
53 Pittsburgh 4.36
56 Kansas 4.34
57 Cal-Riverside 4.33
58 Iowa State 4.3
59 Colorado School of Mines 4.2
60 Georgetown 4.15
61 Amherst 4.14
61 Texas 4.14
63 Cal-Santa Cruz 4.11
63 Wayne State (MI) 4.11
63 Colgate 4.11
66 Arizona 4.08
67 Arizona State 4.03
67 Boston U 4.03
67 SUNY-Binghamton 4.03
70 Fordham 4.02
70 US Military Academy 4.02
70 Bryn Mawr 4.02
73 Pomona 4.01
73 Maryland 4.01
73 SUNY-Albany 4.01
76 Claremont McKenna 4</p>
<p>CC’s take on the Gourman Report</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.collegeconfidential.com/...rman_report.htm[/url]”>http://www.collegeconfidential.com/...rman_report.htm</a></p>
<p>*The Gourman Report (officially, Gourman Report: Undergraduate Programs and Professional Programs in American and International Universities) takes a boldly different approach. Instead of ranking schools by overall quality (whatever that is), Dr. Jack Gourman ranks the best English programs, the best Chemistry departments, etc. - everything from Accounting to Zoology. Gourman used dozens of criteria, from faculty salaries to how well the mission of the department is defined, to produce the quantitative rankings.</p>
<p>Gourman’s rankings are controversial, and favor large state universities according to some critics. Nevertheless, this book has stayed in print since it was first published in 1991 (and again in 1996) and is a staple of guidance offices in many high schools.</p>
<p>College Confidential Comments: Our usual caveats about any ranking scheme apply to the Gourman rankings. Seemingly objective, quantitative rankings can be altered dramatically by changing the weights of individual factors. In addition, many issues, like quality of teaching, are difficult to translate into numbers that can be compared across many schools. Gourman’s rankings are further complicated by an opaque methodology that produces numeric results without the detailed backup data.</p>
<p>While we would certainly not recommend choosing a school based on its relative position in the Gourman Report, we do think the book can be a valuable aid to identifying possible schools. This is particularly true when the student is strongly inclined to a particular major. Glancing through the top ten or twenty schools in Geology, for example, might yield several choices that had not occurred to the student. Even if the rankings are suspect, having some measure of program reputation may be better than having an undifferentiated list of a hundred or more colleges that offer a particular program. *</p>
<p>While it has some usefulness keep in mind the school does not take into consideration LAC (which there are a considerable number of ) and does not rank Dartmouth (basically because it functions like a LAC).</p>
<p>Wow, I went through every school, and then later found a page with all of them listed 1-50, all that work when it could have been so much easier, lol</p>
<p>here is a link</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=171420[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=171420</a></p>
<p>I think that Collegehelp, actually has a book, because s/he does list different rankings according to the report. Just do a search for Gourman report under the college search forum and you should see a number of threads.</p>
<p>Who honestly thinks that UMich beats Yale and Stanford, or that WI-Madison beats MIT?</p>
<p>Everyone thinks that the US News Rankings are the norm, and that everyone should go by them. Because US News has one ahead of another, everyone thinks that way. This is another legitimate ranking where schools are ranked in different ways, and different criteria are used. I honestly would rather be at UMich than Yale or Stanford, and WI-Madison than MIT. While it’s known that US News discriminates against Publics, these rankings do the opposite, discriminating against LACs.</p>
<p>Yea EVERYONE knows Wisconsin beats schools like MIT, Dartmouth, Upenn, Columbia, etc.</p>
<p>The publics aren’t the only preposterous item in this ridiculous ranking.</p>
<p>1 example: Georgetown at #63!!! Behind NYU? Ridiculous…</p>
<p>Us News is not perfect but if Wolves and any other kid really doesn’t care about recruiter rep and job opportunities then I guess this is a good enough ranking. </p>
<p>One just has to be be conscious of the CRITERIA used and in my opinion is is quite ridiculous but if one likes the criteria then I guess the ranking is valid. </p>
<p>I just think we should have a ranking that is representative of how real students act. I bet 9.9 out of 10 students who get into Yale and Umich pick YALE so perhaps a ranking that more accurately reflects that along with job opps + education quality would be best suited for me.</p>
<p>You’re coming back talking about recruiter reputation (which US News doesn’t include in their rankings), which makes these rankings more legitimate, as they are more based on recruiter rankings and overall view of the school that US News.</p>
<p>Make a list on how real students think the colleges should be ranked. Interesting. How do you believe those rankings will fall out? That list will be the same as the US News list, because whenever one wants college rankings, it’s straight to the US News ranks. That’s the general perception that everyone thinks a school’s “quality” is, how they rank in the US News. Then someone comes out with rankings that aren’t too different than US News but neverless different, and we dismiss them as “wrong” “bad rankings”, etc. When no one looks into the methodology and why the rankings are what they are.</p>
<p>Extrordinarily biased toward publics.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t say it’s <em>biased</em> toward publics, but it might appear this way because Gourman cares about breadth of curriculum, facilities, research expenditure–whereas US News factors none of these qualities in. US News cares more about student-faculty ratio, selectivity, and class size. Hence, different criteria produce a markedly different order. This is why the large research schools with well-known grad programs (Berkeley, Michigan, Wisconsin, UCLA etc.) are much higher on the list than small undergrad schools that stress teaching, such as Dartmouth. Interestingly, the Gourman report is much more accurate in representing the way the <em>international</em> community views the academic quality of the colleges.</p>
<p>“You’re coming back talking about recruiter reputation (which US News doesn’t include in their rankings), which makes these rankings more legitimate, as they are more based on recruiter rankings and overall view of the school that US News.”</p>
<p>Peer rating on Us News is very closely correlated with recruiter rep. How can you say this ranking is representative of recruiter rep when Goldman Sachs and other top recruiters don’t even RECRUIT as some of these public schools that you have ranked above Ivies.</p>
<p>2nd: I did EXACTLY what you said. I said the ranking is good if you are a diehard of the criteria used (which means you loooove publics) and I said that is okay but most people would not put such public bias over top notch education and job opportunities. You can’t tell me Umich is getting more Ibanking jobs than Upenn or more % of law school acceptees than Yale.</p>
<p>I said Us News was not perfect but it somehow DOES correlate with recruiter reputation. Obviously there are exceptions such as WUSTL being overranked and Georgetown being a bit underranked but for most kids it sure will be better than a school that ranks Umich over Yale.</p>
<p>3rd: My high school friends have never seen Us News rankings and even they will laugh if you show them this ranking. It is not that we are not OPEN. It is that this is quite a “weird” criteria and ranking for MOST people. </p>
<p>Different people care about different things…</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but I don’t think that Michigan, UCLA, and UC-Berkeley, while very good schools, they don’t beat Columbia.</p>
<p>I did not make these rankings. I don’t know why you are associating me with these rankings. They aren’t mine. I just posted them out of a book.</p>
<p>Who does the Peer Assessment? Other deans and senior facutly at schools. Those aren’t recruiter rankings. They aren’t even closely related to recruiter rankings. And recruiter ranking shouldn’t be used as the sole factor in getting college rankings. Your statement is simply not true.</p>
<p>I didn’t state that I love pubics. And you are wrong if you think that you can’t get a top notch education and job oppurtunities at a public school, or even a school that’s not top 100. The methodology favors publics, just as US News discriminates against publics. Go halfway between, and I bet you find a decent ranking.</p>
<p>You guys rip apart rankings, and then come back and say “no way!” because you have been brainwashed into believing that one thing has to be better than another, because other rankings show that.</p>
<p>I’m sorry but you imply that these rankings are better than Us News and I just am pointing out that for most people; Us News makes more sense.</p>
<p>Also; the peer rankings CORRELATE with recruiter rep; not that they ARE recruiter rep.</p>
<p>You are really putting a lot of words in my mouth with the “you are wrong if you think you can’t get a quality education at…” blah blah blah. </p>
<p>Please don’t put words in my mouth as that is one of my huge pet peeves 
I also do not know if you are referring to me but I am FAR from brainwashed. </p>
<p>I MEMORIZED the avg starting salaries for more colleges than probably any person on this board and during my junior year I would go to Barnes and Noble and READ for hours on college admissions and stuff like the Wall Street Journal. I was the President of my debate club and won awards for my essays and intelligence so trust me when I say I am pretty eloquent in the art of free-thinking :)</p>
<p>7 Cal-Berkeley 4.89
9 Wisconsin 4.87
10 Cal-Los Angeles 4.86
11 MIT 4.85
21 Illinois 4.75
22 Minnesota 4.74
27 Indiana 4.69
28 UNC 4.68
30 SUNY-Buffalo 4.66
33 Ohio State 4.62
40 Iowa 4.5
48 Brandeis 4.44
53 Emory 4.36
60 Georgetown 4.15
61 Amherst 4.14
63 Wayne State (MI) 4.11
63 Colgate 4.11
73 Pomona 4.01
73 SUNY-Albany 4.01
76 Claremont McKenna 4</p>
<hr>
<p>This is complete bs.</p>
<p>Georgetown 60 and Amherst 61. Thats a goddamn joke.</p>
<p>Haha I just noticed that, Bob. Amherst behind Buffalo is quite funny because I know this total marijuana addict who had like a 2.5 and was suspended twice who goes to Buffalo :)</p>
<p>“I MEMORIZED the avg starting salaries for more colleges than probably any person on this board and during my junior year I would go to Barnes and Noble and READ for hours on college admissions and stuff like the Wall Street Journal.”</p>
<p>I tended to agree with you in the little argument, but DAMN you memorized avg starting salaries? That’s the most lame thing I’ve ever heard. Obviously you are one of those losers who only cares about the money. People like you are the reason others might not want to attend an Ivy League. They are scared of finding your type. Remember the study by an economist, at Princeton no less, which said that those who can get into Ivies but choose public schools make the same amount of money as those that go to Ivies. Certainly there is controversy, but DAMN you have issues when you memorize avg starting salaries. How do you even know they are accurate?</p>
<p>I care about money + education 'cause I’m a business student. I’m just showing that everyone cares about different things such as Wolves with his own special criteria. I believe Us News shows better recruiter rep and educational quality. </p>
<p>I have a good memory and used recruiter rep + salaries to make my decisions junior year concerning college applications; that is all :)</p>
<p>If it helps, I turned down 2 Ivies for my school.</p>
<p>Ok I here you. But it still reads as if you made your college decisions almost exclusively based on money. There’s a reason that’s an average, not everyone made the same ya know. And it would seem much better, going with your theory, to go with the school who had the best program/highest paying program in your particular major rather than the school as a whole.</p>
<p>Haha no, not exclusively. I am tryin to show that I went out and did my own research which included salaries but definitely student reviews and quality of education mattered too. </p>
<p>Sorry for not being clear on that; I was too caught up on trying to make a point :)</p>