Despite the criticism about college rankings that began in 2007, the popularity of these lists grew in 2008. Forbes, for the first time, added its rankings to the list with a complex methodology. On the other hand, Dr. Robert J. O’Hara used Google as his tool for rating colleges. Very simply, he typed the word, “university,” into Google for results. This list of rankings focuses solely on college rankings from 2008, along with their methodologies.

Forbes’ America’s Best Colleges 2008

Methodology: This is Forbes‘ first attempt at college rankings, following CCAP’s (Center for College Affordability and Productivity) pick of 569 undergraduate institutions. CCAP’s staff, mostly college students, gathered data from many sources. They based 25 percent of the rankings on seven million student evaluations of courses and instructors, as recorded on the Web site, RateMyProfessors.com. Another 25 percent depends on how many of the school’s alumni, adjusted for enrollment, are listed among the notable people in Who’s Who in America. The other half of the ranking is based equally on three factors: the average amount of student debt at graduation held by those who borrowed; the percentage of students graduating in four years; and the number of students or faculty, adjusted for enrollment, who have won nationally competitive awards like Rhodes Scholarships or Nobel Prizes.

OEDb Online College Rankings 2008

Methodology: This is the second year that OEDb mined through multiple sources to find the initial list of colleges. The colleges were culled from DETC (Distance Education and Training Council); eLearners.com; Peterson’s Distance Learning and Online Degree Programs Search; and, US News & World Report’s E-Learning Guide’s top 20 largest and top 20 oldest degree-granting online programs. The same metrics and methodology were retained for the listings this year, but more colleges were added to the mix. All of these categories are weighted equally. None of the ranked schools were surveyed; rather, the data was culled from trusted third-party sources. OEDb claimed that these rankings are the only of their kind, in that they attempt to objectively rank degree-granting online colleges that operate nationally.

The Consus Group 2008

Methodology: The Consus Group did not change their methodology from 2007. They used three categories in their methodology to compile its annual college rankings for 2008. Published rankings reflected current and historical ratings by numerous sources, including: U.S. News, Gourman Report, etc. An institution’s aggregate published ranking comprises 50 percent of its overall score. Selectivity measured the quality of schools’ admitted candidates. Selectivity was based upon the percent of applicants admitted, SAT scores, and the percent of admitted applicants in the top ten percent of their high school classes. An institution’s composite selectivity comprises 45 percent of its overall score. Yield reflected the percentage of admitted candidates that matriculate to the admitting university. An institution’s yield comprised five percent of its overall score.

NSSE 2008 Results

Methodology: This ranking, which explains how students engage with college environments, is built by surveys distributed by NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement). The population files collected for the NSSE survey are comprehensive, as they include all first-year students and graduating seniors within an institution; however, surveys are random so NSSE can compare all the undergraduate results to the National Norms of all participating NSSE schools. Institutions must pay to participate in this survey. The Center for Survey Research (CSR) at Indiana University collects all of the data using techniques based on best practices in large-scale survey research.