<p>Here’s some information about the people behind this study:</p>
<p>[Brain</a> Games & Brain Training - Lumosity](<a href=“http://www.lumosity.com/]Brain”>http://www.lumosity.com/)
[Company</a> Information, Company History, and Management Team - Lumosity](<a href=“http://www.lumosity.com/about/our-team]Company”>http://www.lumosity.com/about/our-team)
[Online</a> Brain Training - Academic Research Collaborators & Healthcare and Other Partners - Lumosity](<a href=“http://www.lumosity.com/about/partners#scientific-board]Online”>http://www.lumosity.com/about/partners#scientific-board)</p>
<p>They appear to be a bunch of neuroscience geeks trying to make some money off their knowledge (just like thousands of people in software and biotechnology start-ups.) They (or somebody familiar with their work) decided to try applying their techniques to the problem of ranking colleges. </p>
<p>Applying completely different concepts and methods from the ones used by US News, these folks come up with a ranking that is fairly similar. Posters are getting too hung up on a few individual differences (Columbia University too low, Pacific too high, etc.) Granted, the general similarity may be because both this ranking and the USNWR ranking reflect (directly or indirectly) colleges’ ability to attract a certain kind of student, without really measuring instructional quality or outcomes.</p>