> Did you bother to read the article? Yes, I did. In suggesting that their methodology is "debatable", they are indeed hedging their bets. But they are still

> Did you bother to read the article? Yes, I did. In suggesting that their methodology is "debatable", they are indeed hedging their bets. But they are still advancing the theory that, after looking at the data, one could plausibly accept their model. My "anecdotes" consist of four years as an undergraduate at a university (Rice) rated in the bottom 0.5%. I know damn well that Rice prepared the vast majority of students to be extraordinarily successful in the career paths they chose. I also know that my education was tremendously valuable for its own sake, and that the same was true for my classmates. And as an academic now teaching at the University of South Carolina, I can only wish that we offered our students what was offered at Rice. It is true, as a Rice graduate I am biased. But nevertheless I do not believe that I am stretching when assert with confidence that, according to any metric which measures anything worth measuring, Rice lies somewhere in the top 99.5% of universities in the US.