I feel a lot of state universities were penalized by large student bodies. That list is garbage.
landing spot. will be interesting to see how he does.
I feel a lot of state universities were penalized by large student bodies. That list is garbage.
I also noticed that Michigan's student population is higher than any school above them in the list - the closest is UCLA, which has almost 3000 fewer students, and almost none of the colleges outside of California even compare. Considering the negative slant toward large universities, that's still fairly impressive.
Well when you compare them to the other Big Ten teams (for the most part), Michigan is pretty high then. Hard to believe some of them are so low though.
WE'RE JUST AS GOOD AS UM. THAT'S UNPOSSIBLE
Well, I think the list sucks, so I can't blame a Sparty for not thinking that list is accurate. Look at some of those schools on there. No way Minnesota, Penn State, or even Nebraska should be ranked so low. They placed a high priority on class size and it has skewed that list.
USNews is far better than this thing put together by Forbes. You guys really think there are 90+ better schools than Michigan in this country?
How is Harvard #8, and Claremont McKenna College (wtf?) #9. That alone says this list is complete garbage.
By the way, no offense to students/ alumni of CMC.
Don't give them any bulletin board material; we play Claremont McKenna College in 2012.
I don't think 90 schools in the world are better than UM, all things considered.
What's also criminal is how low Wisconsin is. It doesn't have U-M's reputation, but otherwise is exceptionally similar to us, including research volume and excellent doctoral grad programs. In fact, if the rest of the world ever figures out how great U of Wisconson is, we're in trouble. And that's a quote I've heard from someone pretty high up in the U's administration. LOL
The problem is the criteria they're using are crap. I posted the methodology a few posts down...
edit: Here it is again so you don't have to scroll down: http://www.forbes.com/2010/08/01/best-colleges-methodology-opinions-colleges-10-ccap.html
That is totally ridiculous.
I think it is too low, but the list if put together by students, it is not an actual objective ranking. I am sure it is a combination of how fun the school is, how much students feel they are learning, campus atmosphere, etc... I don't think anyone would debate that Michigan is a top 25 school academically. But honestly UM is pretty tough academically (at least EECS was awful hard; I did some engineering classes at an Ivy and an MBA from an Ivy and none of those comes even close to how tough academic life was at UM for me). Given this I understand why students would rank the school lower.
...based on my experience as a professor at public and private universities. A friend of mine who has taught at Arizona and Wellesley told me that the best kids at 'Zona are markedly better than the kids at Wellesley, which really surprised me given Wellesley's reputation. Obviously there are certain advantages to being a flagship state school, even one without the high reputation of Michigan: you get some really really good students.
The public universities really get docked for large class size. Also Michigan loses a lot of points for having really high out of state tuitions. So basically this list proved nothing about what the best schools really are.
It is hard to belive that there is such a large difference between Northwestern and UM, but a small difference in placement between UM and U of I. U of I should be no where near UM and frankly should not be ahead of Penn State and Purdue either.
Really a shitty list and thats the end of this discussion.
They have Pomona College in Southern Cal in the top ten. This is a school if you said you got a degree from to PEOPLE IN LOS ANGELES they'd say, "Where?"
What a random, ridiculous list.
I didn't go to those schools, but you know less than nothing about CMC, Pomona, and the like if you're trashing them. Top national schools. People in LA would say the same thing about Williams or Amherst, and they'd be idiots.
/otherwise in no way defending the rankings
I know Pomona. It is a fine, fine school, but it is not a Michigan. I went to Central Michigan, Michigan, and The Univeristy of Southern California so I am very familary with the academic world. The forbes list is put together so rich people can read it and feel good about buying their kids way into a liberal arts education, however saying that one can get a "better" liberal arts eductaion at a small school as opposed to a large school is pure myth. As a matter of fact it is class elitism. And to use your point yes many people in LA would not know Williams and Amherst. However Pomona is not over 2000 miles away as those school are. It is in the next county over. That would be like saying people in Boston not knowing what Amherst was. Again the issue is not to trash a school like Kalamazoo college, but to say that somehow that education is "better" than even Central Michigan let alone Michigan is laughable. If you want to say the same, sure it can be argued, but ranked higher? No. It proves the list has a social agenda.
My church rents out Kenyon College's campus every summer for a week for summer camp. That place is amazing, you almost forget that you're in Ohio. They have some of the nicest athletic facilities I've ever seen courtesy of Paul Newman who is apparently an alum.
and still, i can't accept this language from the OP:
"Only three Ohio schools ranked higher than Michigan, ..."
stupid ranking criteria = stupid list
they'll sell some magazines, though.
Its a student made list, obviously by a bunch of idiot OSU students.
because if they deliberately penalize UM but they still rated it higher than OSU.
A sign of sanity rather than idiocy, I'd think.
Let them count the billionaires who have graduated from UM. After all, isn't that the only thing they're useful for?? Plus they're in bankruptcy as well. Suckers. We are the Leaders and Best. Proof is in the pudding, and below:
Jorge Perez (Ross' partner in Florida)
Larry Page (Google)
Wasserstein (from Lazard)
Tisch (owner of the Giants)
here's the list from wiki:
Forbes' lists always suck. I thought everyone knew that already?
one public university in the top 50....unbelieveable.
William & Mary is also a state university... not that 2 out of 50 is really all that much better
Air Force Academy, Naval Academy and West point all public schools
IMO, all that matters at a college is the quality of your peers:
* More intellectual peers increase the odds that you'll learn something useful outside the classroom. (Contrast this to some couch-burning hicks. I suppose there'd be lessons there, too.)
* Smarter classmates will create a more competitive environment in the classroom and (if all goes well) push you to higher levels of achievement.
* High-end peers will provide valuable "networking" opportunities in the future. Numbers matter here (UMich is much bigger than K'Zoo).
- - -
Most other measures are less meaningful. Class size? If you can't learn independently by college you'll have a rough time. Professor teaching the class (rather than a TA)? The full professor might have lousy teaching skills, especially if he's at a large research-oriented place. (I don't mean to imply that all TAs are good at teaching.)
I don't have up-to-date numbers on test scores. I'm sure Oberlin's are good compared to UMich's. Kenyon's too, maybe. Denison? I doubt it. Anyway, for most courses of study I wouldn't trade UMich for any of them (though Oberlin is certainly interesting).
I didn't cover costs. Limiting the discussion to Michigan, it's hard for me to understand how anyone would choose expensive K'Zoo College (a fine institution) over UMich *if* basing the decision on the three earlier points.
This is pretty much why college rankings are dumb, U.S. News and World Report included. Each list has to arbitrarily assign values in order to generate a list. Weighing issues such as number of majors, class size, numbers of classes taught by TAs, student body enrollment, etc. Each criteria has different value to different people and can't be quantified as part of some ranking formula.
Not to mention, that once you establish a formula, it can be manipulated. For example, I had a friend from a school high on most lists who talked about the graduating class campaigning for small donations to the school at graduation, since U.S. News valued the percentage of alumni who donate to the school in their formula.
My advice to any high school student would be the following: You should figure out what you want your college experience to be like, narrowing the list of schools to that subset. From there look at three statistics, cost, test scores, and average gpa, to get a subset that's right for you and apply/visit schools to decide on the best school for you. Forget about school rankings. If you're a good student, and go to a school with other good students, you will do fine in life.
That list is a crock of shit.
I had never heard of Whitman College (#16) before reading this list.
Also, who the heck is Harvey Mudd (#22) and how did he get a school named after him?
in Walla Walla, Washington, was named for Marcus and Narcissa Whitman, who were killed by Cayuse and Umatilla Indians in 1847. Whitman is highly regarded for its undergraduate education.
you haven't heard of Harvey Mudd College doesn't mean it's not a good school. In fact, it is probably the premier engineering college in the country. That is, Harvey Mudd only offers degrees in engineering. If you know you want to be an engineer, you can't do much better than HMC.
Harvey Seeley Mudd (born Leadville, Colorado 1888, died Los Angeles 1955) was amining engineer and founder, investor, and president of Cyprus Mines Corporation, a Los Angeles-based international enterprise that operated copper mines on the island ofCyprus. The science and engineering college Harvey Mudd College was named in memory of him. He was also a Vice President of the Board of Trustees for the California Institute of Technology.
I thought he was the "Mudd's Women" guy from Star Trek.
Harcourt "Harry" Fenton Mudd.
The list is generated from student rankings. Now that is an objective way to rank schools.
The list bears no link to reality. Harvard in at number eight? Really? Take a look at where Michigan's programs are typically ranked, both from an undergraduate and graduate level, and then plug in the numbers for rankings. For shit sakes, just the engineering component of the North Campus, even pre-Pfizer, was larger than many of the colleges on the list. Then there is the little issue of the 200 or so majors at Michigan, most world class, vs the handful of majors offered, in comparison, by many of the colleges on the list.
How many of the schools on the list have top ranked graduate programs in law, medicine, business and engineering. Verrrrrry short list.
How many of those colleges have the largest stadium in college football and a town rich in culture where you can walk around the streets, day or night, and feel safe?
Sorry...had to rant.
The algorithm applied by Forbes to determine what college is the best "deal" has always been a joke - I think the military academies are great avenues for intellectual achievement, but saying they are better than places like MIT and Northwestern in large part because they have no tuition (ignoring the whole 2+ years required service) shows the fallacy in their metrics.
This poll is a joke. First, it is a "student" poll. A lot of these private schools pump it up by getting a high percentage of their students to vote. Students at places like Michigan have better things to do. Johns Hopkins is 88 - get real.
Oh look, Claremont McKenna College is the 9th best college in the country!
EMU is 601!
Haha, why does it say Pittsburgh has a student population of 81?
The U.S. News & World Report annual list is a little sucky, but at least they show exactly what their methodology is. This looks like a few people got together in a room and picked names out of a hat. How do quantify the "students' experiences?" How much weight is given to class size, student-to-faculty ratio, etc. and why? I could have made the same list in ten minutes, except I don't think mine would suck as hard.
Here's the methodology:
This methodology doesn't do Michigan any favors. #3 on the list is student debt, which I assume will be directly related to tuition (Michigan isn't cheap). Also, one of the big factors is student evaluations from rankmyproffessor.com? That doesn't seem like the most reliable way to determine student satisfaction...
It is hard to take a online professor ranking system that includes the relative "hotness" of that individual. Personally, I only care about my prof's 3-cone time and vertical leap.
Leave it to a business publication to eschew any regard for scientific validity.
ratemyprof.com is obvious
But why debt? Why not use direct cost, which is a much less confounded measure? Debt might be more strongly correlated with, for example, average houshold income of the student body than it is with actual cost of attending the university or proportional scholarship allotments. Bullocks!
food for thought... average big ten ranking is 241.5 where as the sec is 307.08. Discuss among yourselves
Do we know how they developed their rankings? I'm assuming they didn't base it completely on student population and cost of tuition.
Edit: mfan beat me to the punch.
A few choice rankings:
#73: Kalamazoo College
#85: St Mary's (CA)
#88: John Hopkins
#89: St Mary's (MA)
#104: Salem College
#106: Hillsdale College
#107: University of Washington
#108: Carnegie Mellon
#150: University of Georgia
#234: Utah State
#242: Georgia Tech
#293: University of Miami
#597: Embry-Riddle (List out of 610)
Wow...I think my favorite comparison here is Utah State over Georgia Tech and Miami.
How about Cornell at 70 and NYU at 173?
Also, check out No. 9 - Claremont McKenna College
What's so great about small class sizes? Students may become more academically proficient, but many of the transfer students I've met, who came from smaller schools, had a difficult time adjusting to the social atmosphere of a big school.
Point is, big campus means you are better socialized, exposed to greater diversity, and thus better prepared to flourish in a global, urban society. Isn't that worth something?
This list is garbage. It clearly gives too much weight to class size which gives liberal arts colleges a huge boost in the rankings. As a Cornell alum, I can't take any ranking that puts us 70th seriously. As somebody who has been at UM for the last 3 years, I can't take any list that puts us 92 seriously. Forbes should probably stick to writing about money.
I understand Claremont Mckenna is an excellent school but 92 is atrocious. Also, have we dropped out of the top 25 in USNWR? How can we be #19 in THE WORLD according to this list
but not even top 25 in the country by the same source? Being down in football is bad enough but this is sad.
you're just being facetious about the world university rankings, but those and the "regular" USNWR rankings are vastly different in methodology and focus. UM has always been a bit of a "destination" school for international students coming to the US. For instance, people in Korea know about Harvard and Stanford, but more also know about Michigan than UCLA, Cal, or USC.
Rich Rod is ruining our program. If only LLoyd were still here, we'd be way higher.
For all those yelling about class size, the methodology does NOT indicate that class size is a primary driver in the rankings. Here are the drivers by Forbes' categories:
No. 1: Student Satisfaction (27.5%)
No. 2: Postgraduate Success (30%)
No. 3: Student Debt (17.5%)
No. 4: Four-year Graduation Rate (17.5%)
No. 5: Competitive Awards (7.5%)
Now, the drivers by weight (highest to lowest):
You can see some interesting things here. First, RateMyProfessor evals are the most heavily weighted factor. They explain that they're trying to get at student satisfaction and the quality of instruction. They also footnote "scholarly research" both supporting and against the validity of using such data.
Second, alumni salary from Payscale.com is the next most heavily weighted factor. I could see this being a valid measure if a truly representative sample from every school used it, but that's practically impossible to determine.
Third is typical 4 year debt load. I agree with Ernis' contention that direct cost is probably a better measure, or something like average financial aid given as a percentage of total annual tuition/room/board cost. They need to normalize this metric rather than just comparing straight debt. Maybe a debt-salary ratio of some sort.
Fourth, listing of Who's Who in America? Really?? I get solicitations for that every now and again, although I'm not sure how or why. I don't put much stock into this. What is it supposed to prove, anyway? That I'm fancy and want the world to know?
Fifth, they use 4 year graduation rate, but research actually shows that the average public university student finishes in SIX years and that private school students average FIVE years. I finished in 5, many of my friends in 4 1/2 (December graduation). They rely on the Department of Education statement that "normal time" to complete a Bachelor degree is four years. This is clearly not the case today.
Anyway, it's easy to criticize any set of rankings. I applaud Forbes for trying to take a different approach and, in particular, to try to leverage online data sources. However, I do feel their overly heavy reliance on RMP and payscale seriously impair the credibility of their rankings.
Also, I believe at many privates/ Ivys you can only stay for 4 years and have to leave afterwards where as at Michigan people can stay for 5-6 years..
RateMyProfessor.com is blocked at my office:
by 8e6 R3000 Internet filtering
This list goes counter to just about every other major ranking I've seen- USNews and World Report, US News and World Report's International rankings (which have different criteria), the Wall Street Journal, and, I believe, others such as the International Herald.
In sum, this is one hell of an outlier in the data set. Screw off, Forbes.
Forbes would rank a bed and breakfast in Idaho higher than the Venetian in Vegas as a vacation spot... This odd emphasis on smaller school size is tired at this point. "Small, quaint classroom environment that leads to more attention to each individual student to nurture their educational journey" blah blah.
School rankings should be based on:
Quality of staff
Quality of facilities
Quality of students
Graduate job acquisition success.
Size doesn't matter.
but ranking U-M that low is ridiculous.
Perfectly valid list. It would only be bad if they were solely trying to rank academics, which they are not. Their methodology is given. Any ranking has to be viewed through the context of what they are trying to rank. Of course it helps to open your mind a little.
It's internally valid, sure, because "every system is perfect at getting the results it was designed to get" as a wise man once said... or something to that effect.
But Forbes is trying to make a list of "best bang for your buck" universities. As they state in the methods section, they consider attending university an investment and so, this list is their attempt at providing an estimated ROI. Yet, I doubt that their methods accurately project this measure. Thus, it is lacking in external validity, IMO.
I'd put into the list. A lot of the information about various schools including my alma mater Valparaiso have errors in the information provided.
But it makes for great debate, so it was printed. Interesting, but to say it is inaccurate is an understatement.
Just more fodder in the opinion mill.
these lists always seem to favor small, private colleges.
you know what i say to that?
your small, private college lacks one big house and one yost ice arena amongst many other things. i don't care if it is 300 of the brightest phillips exeter kids at a small college on the side of a mountain in up-state maine.
The problem is, most of those small colleges, despite only having about 500 spots a year for studetns, are easier to get into than Michigan. I had a friend from high school who went to Bates (ranked well above us). He wanted to go to Michigan, but didn't get in.
And if most employers (outside of Maine) saw U of M on my resume, and Bates on his, I know which one they would see as most impressive.