Jump to content

Talk:U.S. News & World Report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

This page definitely needs more expansion. I marked it as a magazine stub. --Koblentz 12:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Roy University doesn't seem real to me.

Are there international editions of U.S. News & World Report in different languages? =) Jumping cheese Contact 05:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main overview should include the company's mission. I would like to insert "Its mission is to help people make the best decisions." after the first sentence and link to this page: https://www.usnews.com/about-us to ensure the public knows where to find that information on the company website. Katemodonnell (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

The USN&WR Magazine Archive web page claims there were 3 predecessor titles that started in 1926.

  • United States Daily, 1926-1933.
  • United States News, 1933-1948
  • World Report, 1946-1948
  • U.S. News & World Report, 1948-1984

Source -> https://www.ebscohost.com/archives/magazine-archives/us-news-and-world-report-magazine-archive--OctaviaGraystone (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Correction

[edit]

The new editor is Brian Kelly not Brian Duffy. Source -> http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/staff.htm

Media Bias

[edit]

I'm curious to know where US News and World Report Falls on the media bias contiuum.

71.208.200.101 19:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It tends to be conservative. EIFY (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get this into the article somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.84.98.78 (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely liberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

[edit]

This material is unsourced. It needs references and citations before being restored back to the article. -Classicfilms 20:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critics claim that annual fluctuations in rankings are driven by the magazine's desire to generate news and increase circulation, and not by real changes in the quality of a given institution. Moreover, twenty-five percent of each institution's ranking is based on a peer assessment survey completed by college presidents and administrators. While U.S. News asserts that this "allows the top academics we contact to account for intangibles such as faculty dedication to teaching", it is unclear what basis college presidents and administrators have for making these assessments for more than a handful of institutions. Regardless of the basis for these administrators' assessments, this process reflects what colleges and administrators think of institutions. However, the U.S. News survey does not measure employer satisfaction with newly minted college graduates.

Because the U.S. News rankings measure an institution's educational practices and curricular offerings indirectly at best, alternative survey instruments have been developed to identify institutions that routinely provide enriching educational and social experiences and environments for their students. An example of such a survey is the National Survey of Student Engagement. This survey currently is used at a relatively small number of colleges, however, and many of those that use it do not make their results public.

A few institutions, most notably Reed College, have refused to cooperate with U.S. News's data-gathering efforts because of concerns about the ways that such ratings schemes lead institutions to distort their priorities and resource allocations in order to boost their rankings.[1] U.S. News has come under fire for its rankings of graduate programs as well. Almost all of the deans from American Bar Association-accredited law schools signed a letter sent by the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) decrying the ranking methodology. Detractors of U.S. News say their rankings rely too much on "subjective" factors. Regardless, U.S. News continues to rank law schools down to the 4th tier, despite only ranking the top 50 schools in other professions, such as medical schools or MBA programs.

Supporters of the U.S. News college rankings argue that they condense a wide variety of useful information for prospective students and their families. One by-product of the rankings' increased profile has been the development of standardized definitions of many of the quality indicators that U.S. News and other guidebooks publish. The most notable of these is the Common Data Set, a data template devised by several guidebook publishers to standardize their annual collecting of data from college and university institutional researchers.

In addition to the newsstand issue, the rankings are elaborated in America's Best Colleges, a college guide published by U.S. News in print and online. The commercial success of the U.S. News rankings has spawned similar efforts at other publications, including Newsweek, the Atlantic Monthly and the Times Higher Education Supplement. Although an explanation of methodology accompanies the rankings, U.S. News has not revealed the formula it uses for determining them. Much of the raw data used in the rankings is provided by institutional researchers at colleges and universities.

The magazine also ranks hospitals annually in various specialties.

References

  1. ^ http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200511/shunning-college-rankings

College rankings

[edit]

It seems like a disproportional amount of the page is devoted to the college rankings. Actually, only the intro section is not about college rankings. I suggest that the college ranking sections to be edited down or expand on the history and current status of U.S. News. Jumping cheese 19:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, seeing as there is already in article devoted to college rankings, this section is far to long and should be dramatically reduced or even removed.- thank you Astuishin (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I removed some material - if I removed something that you think should be there, go ahead and restore. -Classicfilms 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I took out the table of rankings but it was restored by another editor - so perhaps that should stay. If it does, the formatting needs fixing.-Classicfilms 19:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd cut the whole ratings thing down to one short paragraph, since it is not proportional to all the magazine is and does, which should be on this page. If the rankings are really that notable, put them in their own article and {{main}} over to it. --J Clear 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea - the magazine is known for its rankings, and the criticism is current news (which makes it notable) so mention of both subsections should appear as short paragraphs - and both have {{main}} links already . As for the table, maybe it should be moved to another page for tables related to rankings. -Classicfilms 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the college ranking system is the only thing us world and nes report is known for, because it's such an awful magazine. Not to say that the rankings arent awful too, because they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.23.253 (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly & Internet Publication

[edit]

First, I dropped the UPI reference entirely, as it has been two months since the announcement and the website still features plenty of news on it - there is no evidence of a complete shift to consumer guides. Second, I clicked on the subscription link and they're still selling print subscriptions, albeit for no more than a year at the most. That tells me they're going ahead with the some print schedule - they're not all internet yet. Recent comments by the editor are silent on the entire topic.

Secondly, the Times reference cites anonymous sources, so you can't say "the magazine announced" any more.

If anyone disagrees, please discuss here before changing the article. Thanks.

--KNHaw (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mideast Conflict

[edit]

Information on the publication's views on the Mideast conflict would be rather useful. ADM (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals

[edit]

WP probably should not reprint the list itself, although this is a borderline copyright issue.Borock (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, you are correct, it is a copyright issue, even if it's "borderline". Second, even if USNWR doesn't complain, this might be due to its being grateful for the "advertising" i.e. the "endorsement of inclusion": why is it the function of WP to include this list in this way? Third, the Wikipedia article's presentation currently has no encyclopedic contextualization of the merits of the USNWR ranking based on any cited independent WP:RS, so the list at an intellectual level stands only as an "advert without analysis". Given the state of things at USNWR, the sources within the reference list indicate that it's actually RTI International - unfortunately a research organization which has numerous other arms that have commercial ties to many of the types of teaching hospital systems it endorses - that does the work that USNWR then puts to print. There's a little guesswork as to whether the list gets proper, accountable editorial review at any level, and whether any of the "rules and statistical trimming procedures" USNWR/RTI use for the process have been assessed for relevancy or merit (in the citation, USNWR says the rules are "complex"... perhaps a euphemism for "arbitrary and unsubstantiated"...?) or, indeed, how to apply the list practically. In fact, the non-independent citations from the USNWR indicate an opinion that the list is relevant for the complex / elderly patient with recurrent problems and imply it isn't relevant for routine healthcare (but I don't see that information in the Wikipedia article, and I'd have thought it's that that should be there, rather than the list itself without a relevancy / applicability assessment...). Also, it's no surprise that given the "specific" methodology of the USNWR list there is almost complete discordance from the line up in "Improving America's Hospitals: The Joint Commission's Annual Report on Quality and Safety, 2012." This point has been dutifully reported by Robert Lowes Sept 20, 2012 "Joint Commission's Top-Hospital List Still Missing Big Names" available at [www.medscape.com/viewarticle/771280]. Robert Lowes's article points out that the discrepancy between these lists is due to methodology. The JC process claims to be based on meaningful parameters of quality. The Wikipedia article's treatment of the USNWR list is at present grossly incomplete and unencyclopedic, a oversimplified "endorsement of inclusion". To restate that, the current content is "duplication of the raw source data rather than actionable encyclopedic information" and as such it amounts to a subtle (not so subtle) advertorial. I will cull the list (but I will leave the reference to the USNWR web material, because that's much more complete and readers can adjudicate it for themselves) in the next week or two unless a viable counter-argument emerges as to including the list as currently presented. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the list itself due to the concerns I previously laid out (above), kept the reference links thereto, amplified the background methodological conceptualization that underpins the list as explained by the USNWR citation, and further amplified that USNWR statement by adding a citation to Robert Lowes's Sept 20, 2012 article in Medscape Medical News. The section could be further improved by further independent WP:RS, as per guidelines. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the print edition totally D.O.A.?

[edit]

This entry seems to suggest that the magazine still exists in print form aside from its special education, hospital. etc. reports. My understanding is that it's solely a website nowadays. Isn't this correct? [signed] FLORIDA BRYAN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:1000:4E2:9227:E4FF:FEF0:BBDE (talk) 21:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Italicization

[edit]

Is there a reason that the name of the magazine is not italicized? Here is what the opening looks like as of today:

U.S. News & World Report is an American media company that publishes consumer advice, rankings and analysis. Founded as a news weekly magazine in 1933, U.S. News transitioned to primarily web-based publishing in 2010. U.S. News is best known today for its influential Best Colleges and Best Hospitals rankings, but it has expanded its content and product offerings in education, health, money, careers, travel, and cars.

Thanks KConWiki (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - Looking at this again, it seems that when the phrase "U.S. News & World Report" is used as the name of a periodical it is italicized, but when it is used as a business name it is not. KConWiki (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on U.S. News & World Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split college rankings to U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking

[edit]

@TDJankins: I noticed your reverts on U.S. News & World Report, and mistakenly even sent you a Thank you for the first one. However, the categories are not more accurate as you say. If it is still an online magazine – and it isn't only categorized as such, but also looks like one – then it has not been disestablished, and is not defunct. It also isn't a "University and college ranking".
Secondly, the rankings content has been split apart to U.S. News & World Report Best Colleges Ranking, where material from multiple pages could be combined into a more comprehensive article on that particular ranking. Even though it may be an important publication for U.S. News & World Report, it was given WP:UNDUE weight before, completely dominating the whole article on a magazine with a history going back to 1933. A short summary on the college rankings, combined with a link to the more specific article is not just good enough, but clearly preferable. I hope you can see why I'm restoring my edits. Regards, PanchoS (talk) 00:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the college rankings are what US News is known for and are the biggest part of its current business. As such, there is no undue weight. You're free to add stuff to other pages specifically dedicated to the rankings, but the existence of those pages does not qualify the removal of the college rankings content from this page. Further, I noticed you invented a category: US News & World Report. A company is not a category. Do you work for US News?--TDJankins (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@TDJankins: LOL, this is really funny. Look at my track record, please. I'm neither a fan of that company's rankings, nor of its crappy reporting. Actually, I'm not even particularly interested in American media. Geographically, I could be the company's Central Europe correspondent, except that it probably doesn't have a representation here.
Your revert is not justified, part of it is moderately disruptive, while part of your reasoning is at odds with relevant guidelines and good practice, see for a primer WP:Splitting. But while I usually do care about many things here, I don't care enough about this crappy article to go into an edit-war with you. Earlier or later someone else will raise similar questions and might be more interested in arguing with you. Bye, PanchoS (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Actually, the very same issue has been raised by Jumping cheese before, see #College rankings. Also pinging the other participants there, Astuishin, Classicfilms and Classicfilms. Discuss the issue with them – I'm out here. --PanchoS (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw the ping - my comments were made quite some time ago, so I had to really review the current edits to bring myself to date. I stand by the comments I made above which is somewhat in the middle of either side. -Classicfilms (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on U.S. News & World Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on U.S. News & World Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on U.S. News & World Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Best High Schools

[edit]

Has anyone found any criticism of the Best High Schools rankings?

I have personally visited TJHS for Sci/Tech (historically ranked 1 by USN&WR a few times) and talked to one of the tenured teachers there - he'd been there since the school was opened and run (for the first few years) by the asst Supe of Ed for Fairfax County. In fact, my son and I got locked in since we were there well past the end of the Open House listening and asking questions.

Pretty eye opening... he mentioned something about selling my son and I a bridge if we believed the USN&WR fodder. I was curious as to any credible refuting of it's rankings. Wamnet (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Best countries for comfort and silence for citizens

[edit]

The table contains the list of best countries for comfort and silence for citizens. The countries are listed by their scores below.

Country Comfort and silence score Comfort and silence quality Color 70 or higher 60 or higher 50 or higher 40 or higher 30 or higher Rating
Belgium 99.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Sweden 99.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Finland 99.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Denmark 98.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Switzerland 98.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Netherlands 98.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Germany 97.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Norway 97.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Canada 97.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Italy 96.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
France 96.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Austria 96.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
New Zealand 95.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Spain 95.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
United States 94.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Japan 94.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Israel 93.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Greece 93.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Australia 92.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Ireland 92.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Singapore 91.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Croatia 91.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Latvia 90.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Lithuania 90.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Czechia 89.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Estonia 89.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
United Kingdom 88.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
South Korea 88.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Taiwan 87.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Portugal 87.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Hungary 86.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Poland 86.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Romania 85.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Bulgaria 85.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Slovakia 84.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Slovenia 84.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Chile 83.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Malaysia 82.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Argentina 81.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
United Arab Emirates 80.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Brazil 79.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Bosnia and Herzegovina 79.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Serbia 79.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Montenegro 78.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Uruguay 78.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Panama 78.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Mexico 77.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Ukraine 77.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Albania 77.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Mauritius 76.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Peru 76.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Moldova 76.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Costa Rica 75.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Guatemala 74.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Senegal 73.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
India 72.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Honduras 71.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Trinidad and Tobago 70.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
South Africa 69.8 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Algeria 68.2 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Qatar 67.4 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Bahrain 67.2 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Russia 66.6 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
China 66.2 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Thailand 65.6 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Oman 65.4 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Morocco 64.8 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Saudi Arabia 64.2 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Turkey 63.8 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Kazakhstan 63.4 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Ecuador 62.8 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Tunisia 62.6 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Georgia 61.8 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Armenia 61.6 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Egypt 61.4 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Kenya 60.8 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Botswana 60.6 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Namibia 60.2 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Palestine 59.8 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Azerbaijan 59.4 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Kyrgyzstan 59.2 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Vietnam 58.6 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Pakistan 58.4 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Iran 58.2 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Belarus 57.4 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Sri Lanka 56.6 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Jordan 55.2 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
El Salvador 54.8 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Madagascar 53.6 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Jamaica 53.4 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Bahamas 53.2 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Mongolia 52.8 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Ivory Coast 52.4 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Cuba 52.2 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Belize 51.8 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Gabon 51.6 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
North Macedonia 51.2 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Guinea 50.8 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Turkmenistan 50.6 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Paraguay 50.4 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Dominica 49.8 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Lebanon 49.6 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Bolivia 49.4 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Laos 48.8 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Cambodia 48.6 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Iraq 48.2 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Uzbekistan 47.8 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Dominican Republic 47.4 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Indonesia 47.2 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Ghana 46.6 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Nigeria 46.4 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Guinea Bissau 46.2 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Equatorial Guinea 45.8 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Libya 45.6 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Nepal 44.8 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Philippines 44.4 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Angola 43.8 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Cameroon 43.2 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Bangladesh 42.6 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Myanmar 42.4 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Ethiopia 41.6 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Nicaragua 41.2 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Tajikistan 40.4 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Venezuela 40.2 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Zimbabwe 39.8 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Congo 39.6 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Sudan 39.4 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Eritrea 38.8 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Sierra Leone 38.6 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Mozambique 38.2 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Malawi 37.8 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Mali 37.4 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Niger 37.2 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Uganda 36.6 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Gambia 36.4 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Afghanistan 36.2 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Tanzania 35.8 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Benin 35.6 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Central African Republic 34.8 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Chad 34.4 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Burkina Faso 33.8 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Burundi 33.2 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Haiti 32.6 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Papua New Guinea 32.4 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Togo 31.6 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Eswatini 31.2 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Zambia 30.4 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Rwanda 30.2 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
North Korea 29.6 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Somalia 29.4 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
DRC 29.2 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Yemen 28.8 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Syria 28.4 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Liberia 28.2 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Mauritania 27.8 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
South Sudan 27.6 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Colombia 27.2 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5

173.2.89.144 (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best countries for citizens to live and work

[edit]

The table contains the list of best countries for citizens to live and work. The countries are listed by their scores below.

Country Work and living score Work and living quality Color 70 or higher 60 or higher 50 or higher 40 or higher 30 or higher Rating
Belgium 99.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Sweden 99.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Finland 98.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Denmark 98.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Switzerland 97.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Netherlands 97.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Germany 96.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Norway 96.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Canada 95.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Italy 95.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
France 94.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Austria 94.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
New Zealand 93.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Spain 93.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
United States 93.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Japan 92.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Israel 92.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Greece 92.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Australia 91.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Ireland 91.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Singapore 91.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Croatia 90.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Latvia 90.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Lithuania 90.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Czechia 89.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Estonia 89.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
United Kingdom 88.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
South Korea 88.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Taiwan 87.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Portugal 87.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Hungary 86.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Poland 86.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Romania 85.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Bulgaria 85.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Slovakia 84.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Slovenia 84.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Chile 83.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Malaysia 82.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Argentina 81.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
United Arab Emirates 80.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Brazil 79.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Bosnia and Herzegovina 79.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Serbia 78.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Montenegro 78.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Uruguay 77.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Panama 77.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Mexico 76.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Ukraine 76.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Albania 75.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Mauritius 75.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Peru 74.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Moldova 74.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Costa Rica 73.4 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Guatemala 72.6 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Senegal 71.2 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
India 70.8 Very good Dark green Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5 / 5
Honduras 69.8 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Trinidad and Tobago 69.6 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
South Africa 69.4 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Algeria 68.8 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Qatar 68.6 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Bahrain 68.2 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Russia 67.8 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
China 67.4 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Thailand 67.2 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Oman 66.6 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Morocco 66.4 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Saudi Arabia 66.2 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Turkey 65.2 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Kazakhstan 64.8 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Ecuador 63.4 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Tunisia 62.6 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Georgia 61.8 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Armenia 61.6 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Egypt 60.8 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Kenya 60.4 Good Green No Yes Yes Yes Yes 4 / 5
Botswana 59.8 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Namibia 59.2 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Palestine 58.6 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Azerbaijan 58.4 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Kyrgyzstan 57.6 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Vietnam 57.2 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Pakistan 56.4 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Iran 56.2 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Belarus 55.6 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Sri Lanka 55.4 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Jordan 55.2 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
El Salvador 54.8 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Madagascar 54.4 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Jamaica 54.2 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Bahamas 53.8 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Mongolia 53.6 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Ivory Coast 53.2 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Cuba 52.8 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Belize 52.6 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Gabon 52.4 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
North Macedonia 51.4 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Guinea 50.8 Good Yellow No No Yes Yes Yes 3 / 5
Turkmenistan 49.6 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Paraguay 48.2 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Dominica 47.6 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Lebanon 47.4 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Bolivia 47.2 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Laos 46.8 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Cambodia 46.4 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Iraq 46.2 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Uzbekistan 45.8 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Dominican Republic 45.6 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Indonesia 45.2 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Ghana 44.8 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Nigeria 44.6 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Guinea Bissau 44.4 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Equatorial Guinea 43.4 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Libya 43.2 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Nepal 42.6 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Philippines 42.2 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Angola 41.6 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Cameroon 41.4 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Bangladesh 40.8 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Myanmar 40.2 Moderate Orange No No No Yes Yes 2 / 5
Ethiopia 39.8 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Nicaragua 39.4 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Tajikistan 38.8 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Venezuela 38.6 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Zimbabwe 37.8 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Congo 37.6 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Sudan 37.4 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Eritrea 36.8 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Sierra Leone 36.6 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Mozambique 36.2 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Malawi 35.8 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Mali 35.4 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Niger 35.2 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Uganda 34.6 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Gambia 34.4 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Afghanistan 34.2 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Tanzania 33.8 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Benin 33.6 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Central African Republic 32.8 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Chad 32.4 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Burkina Faso 31.8 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Burundi 31.2 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Haiti 30.6 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Papua New Guinea 30.4 Moderate Red No No No No Yes 1 / 5
Togo 29.6 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Eswatini 29.2 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Zambia 28.4 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Rwanda 28.2 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
North Korea 27.8 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Somalia 27.4 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
DRC 27.2 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Yemen 26.8 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Syria 26.6 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Liberia 26.2 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Mauritania 25.6 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
South Sudan 25.4 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5
Colombia 25.2 Bad Dark red No No No No No 0 / 5

173.2.89.144 (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Power types

[edit]

This is the list of countries by power type. The countries are classified as powers in the table.

Country Power type Status by power
United States Superpower (AKA advanced power) Extremely powerful
Japan Superpower (AKA advanced power) Extremely powerful
United Kindgom Superpower (AKA advanced power) Extremely powerful
South Korea Superpower (AKA advanced power) Extremely powerful
France Superpower (AKA advanced power) Extremely powerful
Israel Superpower (AKA advanced power) Extremely powerful
Russia Near-superpower (AKA potential superpower) Very powerful
China Near-superpower (AKA potential superpower) Very powerful
India Near-superpower (AKA potential superpower) Very powerful
Brazil Near-superpower (AKA potential superpower) Very powerful
Poland Near-superpower (AKA potential superpower) Very powerful
Ukraine Near-superpower (AKA potential superpower) Very powerful
Argentina Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Australia Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Canada Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Chile Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Mexico Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Netherlands Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Spain Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Switzerland Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Germany Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Italy Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
South Africa Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Pakistan Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Turkey Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Algeria Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Thailand Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Egypt Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Iran Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Indonesia Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Nigeria Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Philippines Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful
Bangladesh Middle power (AKA emerging power) Powerful

173.2.89.144 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:U.S._News_%26_World_Report&oldid=1222142493"