Forbes article...ugh
- Thread starter RUtimes5
- Start date
I think Forbes having us #158th proves what BS that story is. That's about 100 spots lower than USN&WR... Forbes also ranks us 80th in research.. yet the international world research university rankings has Rutgers 41st IN THE WORLD and 28th in the USA.
Go figure.
Go figure.
Last edited:
"Rutgers is one of the nine colonial colleges founded before the American Revolution. Others in the group, including seven Ivy League schools, have reached very high levels of academic distinction (all in the top 60 on the Forbes list), while Rutgers has languished considerably (158th)." We have a different mission than those other schools. Also, not buying that we are 158, I don't know where they got that # and how it was derived, seems intentionally low to prove a point.
This confirms my doubts about Forbes. It's never been one of my favorite publications. I do recall that we don't do well in their rankings, but can't remember why. The story is exaggerated in key aspects and does its best to bury the real news of the effects the B1G money will have. People should their best to ignore articles like this and not get agita about them.
remember when forbes was a relevant publication?
i don't, but i figure maybe some of the older gents do.
i don't, but i figure maybe some of the older gents do.
I saw this but decided not to post it. Then I did some research on the author. It was very illuminating:
1. He attended Northwestern and Illinois, so he likely is an individual from Big 10 country who does not appreciate bringing Rutgers into the conference.
2. He cites Rutgers' Forbes ranking without mentioning that HE was the one who created it! From his bio on the Forbes website:
I served on the Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education, ran the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, and for years administered Forbes' Best Colleges rankings.
3. Now was the real shocker - It turns out that he was allegedly part of a secret group of economics professors who were hired by tobacco companies to write articles that countered the negative stories about tobacco as part of a "cash for comments" scheme. You can view the primary source documents in the links below.
http://sciencecorruption.com/ATN186/00003.html
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_K_Vedder
Here is info on Richard Vedder:
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9919
Read the info, Google his name for other sources, and draw your own conclusions. Verify your sources - That is everyone's responsibility in today's media landscape.
-Scarlet Jerry
1. He attended Northwestern and Illinois, so he likely is an individual from Big 10 country who does not appreciate bringing Rutgers into the conference.
2. He cites Rutgers' Forbes ranking without mentioning that HE was the one who created it! From his bio on the Forbes website:
I served on the Spellings Commission on the Future of Higher Education, ran the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, and for years administered Forbes' Best Colleges rankings.
3. Now was the real shocker - It turns out that he was allegedly part of a secret group of economics professors who were hired by tobacco companies to write articles that countered the negative stories about tobacco as part of a "cash for comments" scheme. You can view the primary source documents in the links below.
http://sciencecorruption.com/ATN186/00003.html
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_K_Vedder
Here is info on Richard Vedder:
https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9919
Read the info, Google his name for other sources, and draw your own conclusions. Verify your sources - That is everyone's responsibility in today's media landscape.
-Scarlet Jerry
EASY guys, this is not a Forbes 'article', it is a blog post. Forbes invites a variety of contributors to write a variety of opinion pieces. It's not a news article written by a Forbes reporter. That said, everything in the post passed muster from the fact checker's standpoint (or it wouldn't be published).....SO....as long as these things are true....someone is going to write about them. Screaming at the messenger is a silly waste of time.
Forbes today is as good as any of those Facebook pages that post 30 second “news” videos .. “You HAVE to see what this guy did” .. “What this person did next, will blow your mind” .. “This man had a dream, you’ll NEVER believe how he did it” .... etc. ie the real “Fake News” - Facebook videos.
I think we all understand that, but this piece, although the statements in it have a nodding resemblance to the truth, give ery misleading impression. I don't know much about Eastern Michigan and Colorado State, but those pieces too seem to accentuate the negative.
It was the reference to Forbes' college rankings that had me lean towards thinking he was a Forbes' source. Very misleading. My first reaction was that he was just some blogger... the article was so sketchy... with no "guts" to it... I should have trusted that reaction.
I don't know. Yes, he strings together some facts about Rutgers albeit in a poor and confusing manner without background information.
My issue is more about use of examples for an overall problem. Take Michigan as an example. The author highlights Michigan as a shining example of financial success. Yet, Michigan is carrying $240M of debt.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/articl...e-could-make-ums-240-million-athletics-debt-a
Now I understand Michigan is optimistic that this debt represents a low probability of risk. In addition, debt is necessary in order to grow your business and continue to invest to make it successful. Yet, there is a risk that carrying that much debt will cause payback issues in the future. Michigan is counting on continuing to win sporting events with rising TV revenue. We'll see.
Maybe the author should point to his own alma mater, Illinois. They're carrying $260M of debt and based on the crowd sizes I've seen at football games in Champaign, the revenue picture has to look a little murkier compared to Michigan.
https://www.thechampaignroom.com/20...etics-debt-josh-whitman-michigan-jim-harbaugh
Both articles about Michigan and Illinois massive debt point out the TV revenue stream as a contributing panacea. Why not spend a few more sentences in the Rutgers article mentioning how when they receive full payment, coupled with projected growth going forward, their fiscal problems start to disappear (similar to Michigan and Illinois). There's no reference to the fact that Rutgers is still being paid as a G5 school instead of a B1G school and that's about to change.
My issue is more about use of examples for an overall problem. Take Michigan as an example. The author highlights Michigan as a shining example of financial success. Yet, Michigan is carrying $240M of debt.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/articl...e-could-make-ums-240-million-athletics-debt-a
Now I understand Michigan is optimistic that this debt represents a low probability of risk. In addition, debt is necessary in order to grow your business and continue to invest to make it successful. Yet, there is a risk that carrying that much debt will cause payback issues in the future. Michigan is counting on continuing to win sporting events with rising TV revenue. We'll see.
Maybe the author should point to his own alma mater, Illinois. They're carrying $260M of debt and based on the crowd sizes I've seen at football games in Champaign, the revenue picture has to look a little murkier compared to Michigan.
https://www.thechampaignroom.com/20...etics-debt-josh-whitman-michigan-jim-harbaugh
Both articles about Michigan and Illinois massive debt point out the TV revenue stream as a contributing panacea. Why not spend a few more sentences in the Rutgers article mentioning how when they receive full payment, coupled with projected growth going forward, their fiscal problems start to disappear (similar to Michigan and Illinois). There's no reference to the fact that Rutgers is still being paid as a G5 school instead of a B1G school and that's about to change.
I normally am on the side of fiscal responsibility in this area, but other forms of responsibility would suggest this is a waste of words. It's way too early to judge the Colorado State stadium's impact; it just opened. As for us, saying financial projections in the past would suggest the one about us being in the black in a few years is unlikely is just unfair. Big Ten money wasn't part of those past projections, if in fact there ever were any.
Either way, this is not the source for sports information, even if it involves money.
Either way, this is not the source for sports information, even if it involves money.