2008 vs 1999: What’s changed in the USNWR data? Who’s hot and who’s not?

<p>Bluebayou,
I think you misinterpreted my post. In an employer survey, I would not expect any corporate recruiter to grade a school that they did not have good knowledge of. In that example, if someone from GS I-banking were asked to grade Tufts, I would expect him/her to refrain from doing so. My later comments are not related to GS, but rather to my personal view of how I think most employers would view Tufts vis-</p>

<p>Change the question to, if you are instate for Cal and using your own money paying full tuition would you go to Stanford or Cal given the choice. Might be more like 50-50 then.</p>

<p>Yeah, Xiggi - I think bluebayou is right about the "honors" courses. The UC application doesn't have a way to report an "honors" class which isn't an "approved" honors class, IIRC.</p>

<p>Hawkette - I don't know if you recall, but my personal opinion is that the only metric which really counts is the quality of students who choose to attend a school. I see admissions as a capitalistic system, where the "money" students have to spend is their academic qualifications - test scores, GPA's and all the holistic crap which gets thrown into the mix. I do trust the collective wisdom of the marketplace in this instance - individual errors in judgment are made, but overall, the colleges are "valued" correctly.</p>

<p>And PA - which I consider to be nothing but a euphemism for "reputation" - has a valid value in that economy. Let's assume that Harvard just let itself go and became - well, second-tierish in its actual academic function. The reputation would keep it higher in the rankings than it really deserved for a long time because, regardless of the academic reality, the reputation earned from past excellence would still have a value to its graduates. </p>

<p>We've all read how a university's prestige is really only good for getting a graduate his or her first one or two jobs - after that, career becomes based on real world accomplishment. Well, our newly crappy Harvard's name would still get its graduates that foot in the door - for several years, in fact - based on old impressions. So the applicant/consumers would still be wise to value Harvard due to it's residual reputation - because it's still worth something. Eventually that value would erode, unless Harvard turned it around - but there is lag time and momentum (or inertia, if you look at it that way) rationally built into the marketplace.</p>

<p>hawkette:</p>

<p>Negative; your post was rather clear. I'm just questioning the logic of your posts. On the one hand, you dislike the PA bcos its a survey and it's hard for college Professionals to know about thier competitors, but on the other hand you think it fine to survey employers (who probably know more about non-liberal arts colleges). Similarly, you suggest that Tufts' PA is under-rated while at the same time acknowledging that some employers might prefer Ivy Leaguers for whatever reason -- isn't this a discount Tufts' reputation? Just can't have it both ways, IMO. :)</p>

<p>ps to xiggi: the UCs post their common data sets online, so anyone can easily find the UW gpa by campus.</p>

<p>With all the bad publicity and controversy around the PA especially, do you guys think that it will be discarded at some point? Has USNews ever ranked the schools in the specific categories without assigning percentages?</p>

<p>I am wondering, how did they determine that PA was worth 25% of the total score and the other parameters their respective percentages?</p>

<p>Just as a sidenote, GS and other Wall Street firms do recruit at Tufts. Perhaps not as extensively as at the Ivies or at pre-professional business programs, but, hey, they must be doing something well if a Tufts grad heads JPMorgan. OK, end sidenote.</p>

<p>kluge,
I was not aware of your strong preference for student quality as the key metric, but I agree with you on this. I think that this has far more value in looking at a college than how much research is being conducted (most of which is at the graduate level anyway) and how that plays into a college’s rep among academics. </p>

<p>As for reputation, I agree again and believe that this has real value in the marketplace, but I see it as more limited than you. Also, compared to the average bear, I assign higher weight to the opinions of those in flyover country. I have repeatedly argued that I see only a handful of colleges having true national recruiting appeal and that the folks in each region favor their high quality privates and (if applicable) high quality publics over most other colleges. Look at the Tufts example again. A student from there competing for a job in the Northeast with a student from a USC or a U Texas or an Emory is almost certainly going to have a leg up in the recruiting. I believe strongly that the reverse would also be true should the Tufts student venture out to the West, the Southwest or the South. </p>

<p>bluebayou,
Well, then my meaning was poorly written. Sorry for the lack of clarity. Please keep in mind that I am arguing that whoever is doing the rating (academics, employers, etc.) should only rate those colleges that they really know. I suspect the academic opinions of Tufts were formed looooong ago and never evolved (and this has been the pattern that I have seen in the data for virtually the entire Top 50). I believe the views of employers are much more current and while, an individual employer may not favor Tufts, there are plenty of others who do or at least have enough current knowledge to offer an informed opinion and I am referring to the collective judgment when I guess at their perception via my grade comparison to Harvard.</p>

<p>
[quote]
ps to xiggi: the UCs post their common data sets online, so anyone can easily find the UW gpa by campus.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>BB, indeed, the CDS are very helpful to uncover great details about the freshman classes. In addition the UC offers a trove of information on its students as sites such <a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/quickfacts.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/quickfacts.html&lt;/a> . From there it is easy to dig deeper and seek for more reports including interesting ones posted by the UCOP.</p>

<p>However, please note that I do not find this information particularly interesting in general. While the statistics boasting ultra high GPA's or combinations of great number of students culed from the top 10% and reasonable acceptance rate are illustrative, I prefer to look at a different angles of the California education system for compelling stories. Analyzing the fate of students predestined to swell the stomach-churning statistics of high school dropouts or otherwise rub elbows at community colleges that could not be more different from the mighty UC system does tend to make a discussion about 16 Honor courses having an impact on GS recruiting or the USNews PA an entirely trivial matter.</p>

<p>xiggi:</p>

<p>then may I suggest that you state what you mean instead of commenting on "trivial" matters (which tend to get you off point)? :)</p>

<p>As you note Calif has a BIG problem with K-12, which is primarily 7-12, IMO. But, suggest you don't project Texas' problems on Calif K-12 system, particularly when the "trivial" facts belie your point.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In a world (or state) where everything gets labeled Honors this or Honors that, such information loses its appeal. This said, Honors Basketweaving and Honors Baton Twirling are quite popular in Central Texas.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think dstark and hawkette are really on the same page, just a tad different focus.</p>

<p>One other point we have to consider is the type and quality of life at various colleges. There is some value to the comments that a student who graduates cum laude, magna cum laude or summa cum laude at a very large state school has managed to navigate the system well and should be given credit for doing so. These are not bubble schools with pampered students. </p>

<p>There is also value in recognizing the experience of going to school in a large metropolitan area: LA, SFO, Chicago, St. Louis, Philly, Boston, New York, D.C. and Atlanta etc. and yes N'awlins, Nashville, Miami, San Diego and Seattle. The point is that going to school is more than just sitting in a classroom and living in a dorm or sorority/fraternity. Its life in a bigger city as well.</p>

<p>In some of those settings at some of the best schools, there is a measure of saying, "these kids are ready for the real world of work and responsibility." Not to say the kids at Furman, Bates, Dartmouth, Cornell, Colby, Rhodes, etc are not well prepared. They are more rural and considered more "bubble schools" (meaning protected from the big city life etc) Its just different going to school in the big bustling metropolis, particularly if its DC to New York to Boston corridor.</p>

<p>Comments anyone? ( I am ducking as I type.....don't throw any tomatoes!)</p>

<p>Xiggi, can you go to a class at your college and know which students went to private high schools and who went to public high schools. I don't mean by the way students dress ot their material goods. I mean by their intelligence. You're a senior, right? Can you line up your fellow seniors and say private high school, private, public, private, ...? Do you know everybody's SAT scores?</p>

<p>Try not to be too flippant. :)</p>

<p>Your numbers about students who prefer Stanford over Berkeley are a little higher than the official numbers. ;)</p>

<p>Friedokra, it is harder to get street smarts when you go to a beautiful school, in beuatiful surroundings, and where the only poor people or middle class people are the workers at the school. </p>

<p>But maybe, you won't need too many street smarts in life. :)</p>

<p>Hawkette is a little more elitist than I am. :) She is more concerned about the rankings of the school and I am more concerned about the individual student. I'm not as in love with private schools as she is either. :)</p>

<p>And Vanderbilt and Notre Dame would never be on my list, much less be ranked. Brandeis, maybe. :)</p>

<p>fried:</p>

<p>"One other point we have to consider is the type and quality of life at various colleges."</p>

<p>I concur but some on cc continue to only focus on SAT scores since it is the only nationally-normed, available data point....</p>

<p>
[quote]
xiggi:</p>

<p>then may I suggest that you state what you mean instead of commenting on "trivial" matters (which tend to get you off point)? </p>

<p>As you note Calif has a BIG problem with K-12, which is primarily 7-12, IMO. But, suggest you don't project Texas' problems on Calif K-12 system, particularly when the "trivial" facts belie your point.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>BB, I believe I commented on the issue of 16 AP courses that was brought up by Dstark. Arguing a point does not make it interesting!</p>

<p>For the record, the self-deprecating comment about Texas does clearly transcend to our Western shores. Simply stated, I do not buy for a second that the majority of classes offered in California schools are more advanced than in other states, and I do not buy that the admission policies of the UC system ensure the level of integrity some would like us to believe. I believe that a analysis of the average SAT and SAT Subject Scores at the UC would provide sufficient evidence that having an academic seal of approval does not make the class ... superior. So, no, I did not project a problem that is Texas centric to California. I may deride our Texan Honor Baton Twirling classes, but I think you'll find plenty of dubious subjects with fancy names in California. Two wrongs do not make one right!</p>

<p>"Simply stated, I do not buy for a second that the majority of classes offered in California schools are more advanced than in other states"</p>

<p>Who says the majority of classes are more advanced?</p>

<p>Xiggi, the average SAT and SAT2 scores of Berkeley and UCLA are pretty high. The students that go to these schools also take many AP courses.</p>

<p>You can have a poor public school system in California and have superior students at Berkeley and UCLA. These two possiblilities are not mutually exclusive.</p>

<p>Maybe you should study a semester at Berkeley. :) I'm sure you would be the top student at the school and just blow everybody away with your abilities.</p>

<p>Xiggi, you do it and I'll meet you there for lunch. :)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Xiggi, can you go to a class at your college and know which students went to private high schools and who went to public high schools. I don't mean by the way students dress ot their material goods. I mean by their intelligence. You're a senior, right? Can you line up your fellow seniors and say private high school, private, public, private, ...? Do you know everybody's SAT scores?</p>

<p>Try not to be too flippant. </p>

<p>Your numbers about students who prefer Stanford over Berkeley are a little higher than the official numbers.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Dstark, of course, you can't! </p>

<p>For starters, should we not ascertain the exact composition of private schools in this country? Are all private schools akin to Harvard Westlake, Marlborough, Exeter, Andover, or a number of highly selective and highly selective schools? Are we supposed to ignore the existence of public schools established in wealthy districts (think Silicon Valley, Marin County, Santa Monica, or Highland Park in Dallas, Texas) and not compare them to the number of private schools that toil in the darkest and most dangerous inner-cities, and often with a budget that represents a small fraction of the "poor" public schools?</p>

<p>Now, for more direct answers. No, I don't know everybody SAT scores. Actually I don't know anybody's score and would have to think hard to remember mine. Simply stated, those metrics lose all relevance the moment we start orientation. Can you separate students by their intelligence? Obviously, it's not hard to recognize the brilliance of a few who have been really blessed in that department. Does it make much difference within a small school such as the one I attend? Nope. This said, expanding your horizon just a little bit reveals a different picture. For instance, the chasm between students from the same high school grows deeper every year, and this mostly due to the different environments among colleges, especially at mega universities. It's hard to explain, but easy to notice, if this make sense to you. </p>

<p>I hope this answer is not too flippant!</p>

<p>
[quote]
Maybe you should study a semester at Berkeley. I'm sure you would be the top student at the school and just blow everybody away with your abilities.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While the first one might happen, I know for a fact that the second part of your very generous comment would be impossible. Without any false modesty, I would be ecstatic to remain well within the average. All the while trying to survive the "drinking from the firehose" and furiously paddling like a duck to stay above water.</p>

<p>Xiggi, we can't tell, private or public high schools attended.</p>

<p>Are you saying you can tell from your old high school you can tell by their education who went to public and who went to private colleges?</p>

<p>Edit: That is one poorly worded question.</p>

<p>Let me try again.</p>

<p>The high school students you went to school with go off to college. After a few years can you tell who went to private colleges and who went to public colleges? (I'm talking about education levels).</p>

<p>I'm glad to see that SAT scores lose their meaning pretty quickly. :)</p>

<p>Xiggi, if you really study a semester at Berkeley, I will break my rule of meeting online people and buy you lunch or dinner over there.</p>

<p>And Xiggi, if you would be within the average at Berkeley, than maybe Berkeley students aren't too bad?</p>

<p>instead of making statements without even providing evidence, how about look at some recruitment calendars for top companies and you will see what schools receive national recruitment....</p>

<p>let's take for example the big banks....you will clearly notice that with the exception of very few schools, they recruit mainly from east coast schools (even some of which are not "highly regarded" by the CC population. Why is this so? Big banks are often headquartered in NYC; so it makes sense to concentrate recruitment efforts in the north-east. However, if you look at the big banks, including GS, JPM, Morgan S, and B of A, and then look at consulting companies such as BCG and others, you will notice that some schools also receive that national recruitment that has been alluded to so far....</p>