The Economist Magazine's List of America's Best Colleges

The Economist in October 2015 published results of own research and its first-ever U.S.college rankings.[1]

The objective of new college rankings set to define and display comparable economical advantages, what may be of particular importance for prospective students: 'the economic value of a university is equal to the gap between how much its students subsequently earn, and how much they might have made had they studied elsewhere'.

On September 12 U.S. Department of Education published a College Scorecard [2] website containing a cornucopia of data about universities. The government generated the numbers by matching individuals’ student-loan applications to their subsequent tax returns, making it possible to compare pupils’ qualifications and demographic characteristics when they entered college with their salaries ten years later. That information offers the potential to disentangle student merit from university contributions, and thus to determine which colleges deliver the greatest return and why. The scorecard, makes reference numbers for 'expected earnings' easy accessible and in order to calculate 'median earnings' evaluation method used to run the scorecard’s earnings data through a multiple regression analysis, a common method of measuring the relationships between variables.

2015 list
Rank [3] Name
Washington and Lee University 1
Babson College 2
Villanova University 3
Harvard University 4
Bentley University 5
Otis College of Art and Design 6
Lehigh University 7
Alderson Broaddus University 8
Texas A&M International University 9
California State University, Bakersfield 10

    College and university rankings | Rankings of universities in the United States

    1. The Economist (2015). "The Economist: List of America's Best Colleges". The Economist. Retrieved October 31, 2015.
    2. US Department of Education (2015). "College Scorecard Website". US Department of Education. Retrieved September 12, 2015.
    3. The Economist (2015). "The Economist: Value of University: Rankings Details". The Economist. Retrieved October 28, 2015.
    gollark: 7 (mostly due to 1, 2). reliance on code generation as a poor alternative to macros.
    gollark: 6 (partly cultural). User/implementer divide. Only the people who write the standard library get to use generics, `recover`, etc. And no.user type can get make, new, channel syntax, generics.
    gollark: 1. Lack of generics mean that you can either pick abstraction or type safety. Not a nice choice to have to make.2. The language is horrendously verbose and discourages abstraction.3. Weird special cases - make, new, some stuff having generics, channel syntax4. It's not new. They just basically took C, added a garbage collector and concurrency, and called it amazing.5. Horrible dependency management with GOPATH though they are fixing that.
    gollark: <@301092081827577866> I have reasons for bashing Go. Several reasons.
    gollark: It is?
    This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.