RE: Forbes Magazine's 2016 Top Colleges: Rice is #30
(07-09-2016 08:24 AM)texowl2 Wrote: Davidson???? Washington and Lee?? Ok Duke. but if those are who we are being outranked by, wow..........
Davidson must be taking into account Steph Curry's monstrous contract extension after next season, while White & Loaded must be taking into account their graduates' inheritances.
RE: Forbes Magazine's 2016 Top Colleges: Rice is #30
(07-09-2016 08:22 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:
(07-09-2016 08:24 AM)texowl2 Wrote: Davidson???? Washington and Lee?? Ok Duke. but if those are who we are being outranked by, wow..........
Davidson must be taking into account Steph Curry's monstrous contract extension after next season, while White & Loaded must be taking into account their graduates' inheritances.
RE: Forbes Magazine's 2016 Top Colleges: Rice is #30
(07-08-2016 07:09 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:
(07-08-2016 06:37 AM)owl at the moon Wrote: Well they must be obviously biased against strong engineering schools. Or maybe we're biased toward strong ones for some reason.
They're obviously wrong. I'm buying the magazine to protest.
Garbage in, garbage out. Putting such a high emphasis (almost 33%) in one's rankings on post-graduate salary is an absurd way of ranking undergraduate schools. Makes absolutely no sense. Under such a criteria, obviously tech schools will suffer in the rankings as a much higher proportion of their grads go on into teaching and research positions, which tend to be on the low end of the salary scale.
Brookings uses a value-added approach that has Rice pretty highly ranked.
Quote:The value-added measures introduced here improve on conventional rankings in several ways. They are available for a much larger number of schools; they focus on the factors that best predict measurable economic outcomes; and they attempt to isolate the effect colleges themselves have on those outcomes, above and beyond what students’ backgrounds would predict.
Quote:Value-added measures attempt to isolate the contribution of the college to student outcomes, as distinct from what one might predict based on student characteristics or the level of degree offered. It is not a measure of return on investment, but rather a way to compare colleges on a more equal footing, by adjusting for the relative advantages or disadvantages faced by diverse students pursuing different levels of study across different local economies.
In fact, the results from Brookings show:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/researc...eadded.pdf Wrote:Colleges that emphasize a strong STEM education are among the top performers on value-added with respect to earnings. These include highly selective schools such as Cal Tech, which has the highest value-added with respect to salary, MIT, Rose-Hulman, Stanford, Harvey Mudd, and Rice (Table 4).
RE: Forbes Magazine's 2016 Top Colleges: Rice is #30
"Kim Kardashian is on the cover of the most recent Forbes. Forbes ain't what it once was."
She makes 8 figures a year in her fashion and media business; she may be a talentless ass-clown who plays off of too tight shirts and skirts, and selfies galore, but Forbes is about successful business. Maybe the good old USA ain't what it once was.
RE: Forbes Magazine's 2016 Top Colleges: Rice is #30
(07-11-2016 08:14 PM)owlsfan Wrote: "Kim Kardashian is on the cover of the most recent Forbes. Forbes ain't what it once was."
She makes 8 figures a year in her fashion and media business; she may be a talentless ass-clown who plays off of too tight shirts and skirts, and selfies galore, but Forbes is about successful business. Maybe the good old USA ain't what it once was.
RE: Forbes Magazine's 2016 Top Colleges: Rice is #30
(07-11-2016 08:14 PM)owlsfan Wrote: "Kim Kardashian is on the cover of the most recent Forbes. Forbes ain't what it once was."
She makes 8 figures a y:ban:ear in her fashion and media business; she may be a talentless ass-clown who plays off of too tight shirts and skirts, and selfies galore, but Forbes is about successful business. Maybe the good old USA ain't what it once was.
I guess I don't understand Forbes' audience then lol.
