Check out http://www.virid.us/ for more info on green education.

If you are selecting a college on its green merits, as opposed to the quality of its instruction, faculty, cost, or other meaningful indicators, you are an idiot.

So...Fresno State with the farm land....and solar panals....and electronic recycling....and farm market....and having the whole campus shut off at night.

ya we dont even get mentioned hmm....
We were on Treehugger at least twice.

No respect i guess

@ I am so wise: I agree.

If you are seriously going to choose a college based on how green it is, you are probably not making the best choice. How green a school is should not be a deal killer, nor should it make a choice a sure thing. Perhaps the ranking should look at curriculum instead. Or how about how green alumni jobs.

Seriously, kudos for getting this out in the rankings, but honestly, make it more pragmatic.

Not necessarily so.

Generally speaking, schools, companies and organizations who do a good job at being green are forward thinking, innovative, and have a sense of purpose or obligation in helping out their community or the world, which could then reflect its administration, policies, curriculum, student body and faculty.

People can go to a non-ivy league college (or even - gasp! - a community college) and still lead full, productive lives.

Now, choosing a college for its party scene or fraternities/sororities (which more kids do than choosing a college for its environmental policies) is absolutely idiotic.

"Generally speaking, schools, companies and organizations who do a good job at being green are forward thinking, innovative, and have a sense of purpose or obligation in helping out their community or the world".

Dare I ask for emperical evidence? This is one of those poorly formed stereotypes that gets accepted as fact because it makes people feel good. The green movement has a strong reactiionary streak leading it to promote antique and failed ideas like organic food and oppose better ideas like nuclear power, GMOs, and so forth.

Ah. Asking for empirical evidence is tough. After all, how does one empirically observe and measure nebulous concepts as forward thinking, innovation and a sense of obligation towards the community?

I should be more clear. There are definitely green organizations that are reactionary, or simply saying they're green without really doing anything that is environmentally helpful, or simply misguided and rooted in emotions rather than hard science.

However, when done in the proper way, "thinking green" can stimulate innovation and forward thinking, such as developments in alternative fuels and energy sources (such as wind and solar power), rethinking current business models, and so forth. Biology and chemistry have benefited from the green movement (not that they are completely carried on the backs of the environmental movement, but that it's contributed to its advancement).

That's about as empirical as I can get right now, without digging further.

And as for organic food being a complete failure, or nuclear power being a "better" option, I think we're still debating that. Not that nuclear power is of Satan, or that organic food will save the world, but it's too early to write it completely off yet.

As for evidence on that, while not a silver bullet killing the nuclear issue, a nay sayer on nuclear energy (which, despite the title, is more about economics than environment):

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/16/amory_lovins_expanding_nuclear_power_makes

It's an interesting read. Sorry I can't provide much more right away. It's a bit difficult to dig up "proof" on the fly and this kind of subject is a bit difficult to measure scientifically.

I think some of you are missing the point.
Many kids who are applying to college are applying to about number of different schools. Say all their schools have the degree that person wants and other fit characteristics. If you get into 4 of them (all having similar finacial aide packages) but 2 are on the honor role for green living and two are not, why not use that information in the decision making process?

Or using the example with above mentioned colleges, if a kid gets into yale harvard and dartmouth maybe yale or harvard get a bump for being green, and dartmouth loses out.

It's an extra piece of information, and it's very practical if used the right way. It's information for people who want to live in accordance with their values, and it is about finding the right fit.

I think we might also be forgetting that attending college and breaking out on one's own after high school is not strictly about the academics or the "prestige" a particular institution might carry. It's about discovering how one wants to live life and fit in to the community at large. In other words, it's often about chosing a lifestyle as much as it is chosing an academic education.

I wish they would have done this sooner. When I was applying to colleges four years ago, I didn't even think about each school's environmental impact. Although, if I was applying now I would definately take a look at that list. The environment is something on everyone's mind, even highschool students, who might have to deal with the impacts of global warming etc. in their life times. Granted, that shouldn't be the only deciding factor on what college to go to, but it is definately good information to have going in, and something I'm sure many students will take into consideration. I'll definately take this list into consideration when I apply to Grad school.