<p>I think Xiggi expressed himself very eloquently and I completely agree with his sentiments on this. Collegehelp, would you mind explaining why 93 percent correlation with hard data means anything? The PA component of the rankings is rank with subjectivity and irrelevance to today's consumers of the college product -- the applicants and their families. Really, really tired of the snobberies in the academic world. Reminds me of the class system in UK a generation or so ago. It's still there, I guess, but fading. Let us hope the same happens here in our universities. The current situation is ludicrous.</p>
<p>I fully agree with jazzymom. Cronyism is alive and well in the hallowed hallways of academia. And they often work hard to keep the upstarts pushed down.</p>
<p>The "true" measure of the quality of an institution is not just in the sphere of alleged objective data points, but also in the sphere of subjective analysis. What I mean by that is simply that one man's heaven is another man's hell. What may be a Superior rating for Berkeley for one person, professional, academic peer assessor, student, parent, counselor, teacher etc, may well be a more modest Mediocre to another. Would not an engineer naturally favor higher scores for engineering programs and color his/her view of the institution? How about a Philosophy professor? An English professor? Chemistry?</p>
<p>I am sort of aligned with Hawkette on this subject, though a tad different. We do need to spread the view that many, many colleges are really deserving of a better "assessment" (I hate the word ranking because it implies an elitist view that is undeserved many times and reeks of cronyism). Moreover, I would suggest everyone: student, parent, college would be better off if more kids who scored extremely well on their SAT's and gpa's looked BEYOND the just the top 25 (either national universities or LAC's). Spreading the wealth of knowledge is BETTER for everyone, frankly. It would sure help the admissions glut at the top 25. And....to be fair, if people who are clearly reaching for stars were advised to focus on schools where they would be better suited and in all likelihood perform better and be happier and stop flooding the admissions offices with applications that are certainly to be rejected. No, I am not being an elitist, just a realist and trying to get rid of these ridiculous volumes at the top 25 which create in many instances an image of extreme selectivity, which is often confused with superior quality.....</p>
<p>Again, nothing wrong with dreaming and reaching, within reason. But every year thousands of kids apply to schools that are BEYOND their reach, and even thousands more apply with no serious intent to even attend the college if admitted. That is a grave disservice to everyone, particularly if it is just about ego.</p>
<p>All this chatter about whether USC is "better than" Berkeley or vice versa is a fool's errand. They are very different schools with different strengths and weaknesses, completely different culture, different size. Ditto for UCLA. </p>
<p>In short the only peer assessment that matters is YOUR OWN assessment and how that school fits you and how you fit that school, which includes your SAT score, gpa, class rank, socio-economic background, perhaps even your race and religion in some cases (notably at some private schools), your personality, your ambition and self motivation, your ability to fit into a large school environment or small school environment, sports, geographic location, weather, dorm room quality and size, faculty size and credentials, bureaucracy or does it run like butter?, overall campus warmth or coldness, graduate programs, is it a good feeder school?, your specific program strength or weakness, cost, etc.</p>
<p>The Peer Assessment of Reed College is very high. But would a student who is a better fit at Furman University in South Carolina be "better off at Reed" simply because its PA is a tad higher? Likely not. Or even a student who would be a better fit at Pomona, would they be better off at Berkeley? </p>
<p>That is not to say we didnt have a quick gander at the PA scores and such of the schools we looked at. But it was a cursory and superficial look see. We looked REAL hard at the faculty and their credentials and tried to get a picture of their personalities and warmth and such. We were looking for a strong challenge, not a bunch of teachers who engage in babysitting or grade inflation or so forth....tough teachers who make you think, without being cruel or unfair or engaged in gamesmanship on grading (it happens a LOT!). We looked particularly hard at the well being and mental state of students already on campus: were they stressed out, unhappy, complaining, frenetic and otherwise not enjoying themselves? (What good is going to college if you are so unhappy?)</p>
<p>We wanted to attend a college on the move....one with a game plan forward, not living in the past on old myths and images living entirely off tradition. </p>
<p>Tradition is valuable and important for the culture of a school. But we also wanted vision for the future. A sharp increase in applications can mean many things. But it often means that more kids are recognizing the value of the education there for some particular reason, and hopefully it isnt parties.</p>
<p>And we looked at the business community peer assessment....how are graduates of that school perceived?</p>
<p>Okay, Fried, what school did you settle on?</p>
<p>friedokra, I usually agree with your train of thought. The rankings game for me is primarily a way for some people to say I went to a better school than you; therefore, I'm smarter or better educated. A bunch of nonsense to me. It's nonsense when magazines rank and it is nonsense when posters rank too. </p>
<p>The stuff about my school is an up and coming school (and yours is not) doesn't do it for me. Every school says they are an up and coming school or they are improving. The only schools that don't say that are schools that want more government money. :) </p>
<p>However, you said this...</p>
<p>"And we looked at the business community peer assessment....how are graduates of that school perceived?"</p>
<p>So what and where are these results?</p>
<p>The one that was the best fit (it was a match school) for my D. It fit her interests academically, geographically, culturally, etc. She is very happy and doing very well. We visited campus last April after she received all her offers (she had 5 other offers) and was ecstatic, "this is me!" kind of feeling. So for her, its a perfect fit...so far. (Knock on wood!) Its a school that made the top 5 in increases in applications 2001-2006. In 2007, they increased their applications another giant leap. Indeed, they had 22,500 applications for 1,700 seats in the freshman class. They had a long wait list. (We were not on it.) Its a school that is rigorous and challenging but not overwhelming and frenetic. Its not elitist by ANY measure. Its an outstanding feeder school to graduate and professional schools...often enough Ivy League schools. Its faculty is amazing: demanding yet friendly. Their credentials are superb in every department. Its a school known for classic liberal arts education and that is its strength. It has great traditions. It has some famous celebrity alums. Its a beautiful campus with great and varied dorms. The students are all happy and very helpful. THey are tight nit. It works well for her. </p>
<p>The school: Fordham University in New York.</p>
<p>dstark: We looked at the graduation rate and the jobs/employment rate. We asked around. We looked for anecdotal information on the web. And we looked at who and how many went to graduate school and where. </p>
<p>In Fordham's case they had 5 Fullbright Scholars last year, three of whom were in History, one of their strongest departments.</p>
<p>Fordham enjoys a well deserved reputation in the business community, both for its College of Business Administration and for its Arts and Sciences graduates. Many, many Fordham grads work in Manhattan and on Wall Street. Some senior executives at WallStreet firms are Fordham grads. They have a monument on campus, very moving I might add, for the Fordham grads who lost their lives on 9-11 in the WTC. 231 names if I recall correctly. Many of whom worked at Cantor Fitzgerald a highly respected bond brokerage house on the 101st floor of the WTC where everyone perished that fateful day.</p>
<p>But to answer your question, we had to do the work and ask around...and ask at Fordham. Rev. Fr. McShane, the President, is a very charismatic, funny and AMBITIOUS man....and he loves to answer questions like this. So I did. I cornered him and peppered him with about 20 TOUGH questions in April. He was forthright, clever, engaging and at the end of the questions he asked me, "Do we have a SHOT?" I liked his ambitious humility. He was ANYTHING but arrogant. And he knows my D's name, where she is from and what school she went to. He has seen her in the hallways of the Admin building and stopped her. He obviously has a great memory.</p>
<p>But enough plugging her school. This thread is not about that. But since you and mammall asked, I answered.</p>
<p>CAVEAT: No school is perfect for everyone. Fordham may or may not be great for you and yours. </p>
<p>Seeing my D happy and thriving is worth EVERY PENNY we are spending up there. I wish that for EVERY student.....and family. To find that niche school for them, be it in Alabama (Roll Tide!) or New Jersey or California or Nebraska. That you thrive in school and perform at optimum levels and achieve all your dreams!</p>
<p>friedokra, I enjoyed reading about Fordham. Congratulations to your daughter for finding a school she likes so much. Good luck to her.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It has some famous celebrity alums.
[/quote]
Alan Alda and Denzel Washington immediately come to mind. I know there are many more.</p>
<p>""My point is that the PA is a very accurate reflection of hard facts. With statistical analysis, I have shown it to be correlated .93 with a combination of the data presented in US News 2007 Best Colleges. This is such a very strong relationship that it effectively settles the question about whether PA is inaccurate or biased. The issue is moot. It means that 86% of PA can be explained by hard data. The remaining 14% is still up for discussion, I suppose.""</p>
<p>I suspect PA's correlation with overall graduate-school rankings, such as those from NRC, is even higher. It actually explains the anormalies such as Berkeley's PA of 4.8 vs. undergraduate ranking in the 20's or Cornell's PA> USC's PA, although the other undergraduate stats are similar.</p>
<p>kluge,
We probably evaluate this differently and reach different conclusions, but I really appreciate your thoughtful answer.</p>
<p>On the central matter of being able to objectively evaluate a college, I would think (hope!) that every person who has a vote in the current PA process uses some objective benchmarks in making his or her assessment of various colleges. However, (and I think this is a serious flaw in the system) I don't expect the opinions or the benchmarks to be the same from college to college or even from people responding from the same university, eg, SAT scores or class ranks statistics may matter to some evaluators and matters such as faculty publication productivity may matter to others. But IMO, an evaluation that has no process at all, if that is what is happening, makes the result meaningless. </p>
<p>On your timelines, you are a bit more patient than I, but reasonable people can disagree on this. I think that there should be some material changes over a ten-year period. Maybe shorter. I really have difficulty seeing the way the world changes so constantly around us and yet be told year-after-year that somehow the world of academia is almost completely unaffected. Frankly, if this is really how the folks inside academia see it, then this is a huge endorsement for some evaluation by people OUTSIDE of academia. A reality check is what I am looking for. </p>
<p>Finally, re your comments about the marketplace, I think your response misunderstands or underrates the bias that is created in perceptions. People perceive things incorrectly all the time. Their opinions are formed as a result of what they are exposed to and what they individually experience in their lives and in the media that they consume. Rather than calling the result their subjective view, a better description might be that it is their selective ignorance. There are black swans aplenty in college education today in America. </p>
<p>friedokra,
I think you underestimate the stakes. Impressions are formed by these rankings and literally millions of students and families may be impacted by them to some extent in their evaluation of colleges. I'm not automatically accepting that they should, but to think that they don't is a mistake. The most ferocious competition for top students occurs within the group of 25-30 most highly ranked colleges. The problem is that if, decades ago, only a small group of these schools are deemed of the highest quality and no other school or group of schools is allowed to rise to their level, then it has become a rigged game. For anyone that does not have a stake in defending the status quo, this is pretty obvious. And needs to be corrected.</p>
<p>
[quote]
xiggi-
You ridicule the things with which you disagree with words like "funny" and "old" (post # 135). Then you go on a rant about geographic bias and cronyism. Is this the way you discuss things? I am sorry you couldn't find the words to express yourself more effectively?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Collegehelp, with all due respect, please note that my disagreement does not ridicule your conclusions about the validity of the USNews Peer Assessment. I wrote that it was funny to see the terms PA and truth in the same sentence. As far as being old, how would characterize a discussion that has adorned this particular forum from its inception, and actually started on the prior versions of College Confidential? </p>
<p>For the record, I do not think it is very helpful to seek to establish the validity of the Peer Assessment through regression analysis or other statistical tools that bury the precise shortcomings of the data. While I do not doubt for a second that your calculations are as precise as they are accurate, it remains that it does not help explain the rather questionable ranking of a number of schools. Yes, I do rant about geographical cronyism when schools located in on our Western shores or in the deep South continue to earn scores that are significantly lower than the objective data (the remaining 75% of the USNews numbers) does indicate. And, yes I do rant about the PA assessment when a number of stratospherically high scores cannot be explained by the sole strength of their UNDERGRADUATE performance. </p>
<p>Inasmuch as you criticize --or feel sorry for-- my discussion style, I also note that you have so far avoided discussing the PA of schools such as Washington and Lee or Harvey Mudd and comparing their scores to the non-coed schools such as Smith. Similar examples of unexplainable divergences can be found among the Doctoral Universities! </p>
<p>In the end, what do we have? On the one hand, based on your data, we should feel satisfied knowing that the PA does resist a mathematical challenge. On the other hand, we still have a number of "strange" scores that some of us do not think can be "regressed" away.</p>
<p>Famous celebs from Fordham also include Vince Lombardi (though he was not a celebrity by modern terms....a famous football player at Fordham and coach of the Green Bay Packers and winner of Super Bowl I) and Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro, running mate to Walter Mondale in 1984.</p>
<p>Hawkette:</p>
<p>Dont misunderstand me. I am not saying that rankings should not be examined and are insignificant for college applicants. Quite the contrary. I fully agree they are indeed VERY significant and influence kids views significantly and exacerbate the problem of hyper competition for seats at the top 30 schools. </p>
<p>Universities are caught in a tough spot and while many publicly disavow any interest in rankings, they privately seek to improve their position or guard their position. </p>
<p>Some schools have also increased the number and quality of applicants by their sports programs as well. That is a huge factor for many applicants.</p>
<p>BC is probably the most notable which came from a very well regarded but financially troubled regional school, to a national powerhouse and now among the northeastern elites, largely through their sports programs which got national notoriety in the past 20 years or so.</p>
<p>Here is some data from USNews (2004) with regard to the percent of students receiving merit aid and average merit aid award for a no. of schools. </p>
<ul>
<li>Emory, 5%, $12,428 </li>
<li>Vanderbilt, 11%, $13,882 </li>
<li>USC, 24%, $10,517 </li>
<li>Tulane, 28%, $16,402 </li>
<li>BU, 16%, $11,902 </li>
<li>Duke, 13%, $7,033 </li>
</ul>
<p>And from Kiplinger's.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Corinna Zygourakis, 19, from Houston, Tex., is among that 15%. In addition to garnering a perfect score on her SATs, Zygourakis played violin in a chamber group and ran track in high school. She was courted by Harvard, MIT, Stanford and other top-flight schools, but chose Caltech thanks to a scholarship that covers full tuition and room and board. "My family didn't qualify for need-based aid, and Harvard and MIT don't give merit scholarships," says Zygourakis. "This was by far the best deal I was offered. The academics and the awesome deal made it too hard to pass up." </p>
<p>Merit grants exist at other selective private colleges, too, including Duke University, in Durham, N.C. There, a handful of students from North and South Carolina are eligible for Benjamin N. Duke scholarships that cover full tuition. For Julianna Tabor, 19, a sophomore from Chapel Hill, N.C., the scholarship tipped the scales in Duke's direction. "I was all set to go to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill," notes Tabor, who is majoring in public policy. "It was cheaper, and I had a small merit scholarship. Since I didn't think I could afford to go to Duke, I almost didn't apply," she says. </p>
<p>But Tabor, who scored 1410 on her SATs and was an all-state field-hockey player, gave it a try, and was one of eight students who received the Duke scholarship. She hasn't regretted it. "I've been pushed to grow here," she says. "Duke's a great place and is incredibly academically stimulating." Duke is number 16 on our list of top values in private colleges. (Coincidentally, Tabor's second choice--UNC at Chapel Hill--is number one on Kiplinger's list of public colleges.)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not to point out the obvious, but I'd say there is a strong correlation in the dramatic increase in strength of the student body at certain schools and the amount of merit aid that is offered (and no, this is not an indictment of merit aid).</p>
<p>"I think you underestimate the stakes. Impressions are formed by these rankings and literally millions of students and families may be impacted by them to some extent in their evaluation of colleges. I'm not automatically accepting that they should, but to think that they don't is a mistake. The most ferocious competition for top students occurs within the group of 25-30 most highly ranked colleges. The problem is that if, decades ago, only a small group of these schools are deemed of the highest quality and no other school or group of schools is allowed to rise to their level, then it has become a rigged game. For anyone that does not have a stake in defending the status quo, this is pretty obvious. And needs to be corrected."</p>
<p>If you are so concerned about these rankings, then maybe your kids should consider schools that are ranked the highest. Then you only have to worry that these schools keep their rankings.</p>
<p>If you believe that you can get an equal or better education at other schools and your kids agree, then they should just go to other schools like Friedokra's kid did. If you are right, what have you lost?</p>
<p>PS If your kids are able, consider Stanford. You get a great education, great name and you don't get the NE angst.</p>
<p>dstark,
I agree if your point is that more colleges than ever before are of the highest quality, but I don't believe that that is broadly accepted and certainly not by the PA voters. The problem is the mindset that was established decades ago about the supposed superiority of the Ivy League and a couple of other top privates (SM). That mindset persists today and is best demonstrated in the PA scoring. But the complaint is not that those schools have declined, but that there is little or no recognition that great strides have occurred elsewhere. So, keep Cornell at a 4.6. Heck, even keep UC Berkeley at a 4.8 (although I think that is reflective of their graduate school rep). But don't tell me that a Rice or Georgetown or Emory or Vanderbilt or Georgia Tech or even USC or some other terrific college should be at a 4.0. It just insults the intelligence.</p>
<p>Why does it matter what academia thinks if you think it is out of touch? How does this affect you or your kids? If your kid goes to Rice, Emory, Georgetown etc. how do the PA scores of these schools affect your kids? I am serious. How does this affect your kids? I want to know how this affects my kids. :)</p>
<p>I'm talking macro and you keep responding in the micro. </p>
<p>If you want to get to a specific circumstance, let's suppose you child wants to be an investment banker. He/she goes to Tufts and wants to work for Goldman Sachs, but GS only hires from the Ivy colleges and Tufts does not make the list. He/she gets shut out by this establishment mentality that says only a few schools truly have the student quality that a firm is looking for. </p>
<p>And take the Tufts example and apply it as broadly as you want. Wash U. Emory. Vanderbilt. Rice. Notre Dame. USC. Georgetown. W&M. Wake Forest. The "silly" pecking order of the old days is not actually so silly in its implications for how people view their importance and what they may say about a student or group of students coming from a school (elite or not). I or my offspring can control our lives and our thinking, but we cannot control others and the mistaken/selectively ignorant impressions that they may receive from the media and other sources, eg, USNWR and PA scores of academics. I can only imagine the howls if one day Cornell or UC Berkeley received a 4.0 and the aforementioned received a 4.6. Oh, how this conversation would change. </p>
<p>There is no justification for the PA scoring other than the perpetuation of a status quo established long ago. IMO, it is not reflective of colleges today.</p>
<p>Your view of how to measure PA is not the same as those that participate in PA. My guess is they are looking at breadth and depth of programs, quality or name of professors and you are looking at SAT scores and size of classes etc.</p>
<p>If you are not measuring the same thing it is hard to get the same results. </p>
<p>You keep using USC as an example and their SAT scores. The following is a fact. We don't know the average SAT scores of USC students. That information is not public. </p>
<p>Another example, if take I take SAT scores at face value, USC's is higher than Berkeley's. However, look at average gpas. The average gpa for Berkeley students is 3.9 unweighted. USC's is 3.7. Berkeley's is higher. I don't know the average amount of AP courses taken by Berkeley students but I believe UCLA's is around 16. How many does the average USC student take? I'll bet you it's less.</p>
<p>There is some macro for you. I can use macro numbers and come up with totally different conclusions.</p>
<p>Yes, Goldman Sachs doesn't recruit everywhere. I don't think for a minute that Goldman Sachs uses PA scores when choosing where to recruit. One of my best friends used to work at Goldman, recruited for Goldman and never did he mention PA scores when looking for recruits. </p>
<p>He never mentioned PA scores. He never knew PA scores. He didn't care about PA scores. </p>
<p>"I or my offspring can control our lives and our thinking, but we cannot control others and the mistaken/selectively ignorant impressions that they may receive from the media and other sources, eg, USNWR and PA scores of academics."</p>
<p>No, you can not control others. You will never be able to control others. But you can control yourself. If your kids really want to work on Wall Street, I suggest they try to go to schools where Wall Street recruits in large numbers. Otherwise, I hope your kids find schools they like and where they can have a great experience. </p>
<p>I find it very hard to believe that a person's life will suffer if he/she goes to Rice, Georgetown or Vanderbilt.</p>
<p>The way the world is moving, it might be more advantageous to work in the energy industry and go to Rice than go to Dartmouth and end up on Wall Street anyway. ;) I don't know if you ever watch CNBC, but they shoot from the NYSE. The NYSE is losing people all over the place. Sometimes the place looks like a ghost town. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
GS only hires from the Ivy colleges...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hawkette: since you are a proponent of surveying employers about colleges, wouldn't your quote above support the Ivy schools' 'rank' at least in the eye of GS, at least in terms of Tufts?</p>
<p>And, with regards to USC: it does and has been buying high SAT scores for decades, solely by offering merit money to NMSF's. A student with a 3.3 gpa + 218 psat calif. score will earn automatic merit money at USC (if s/he gets in) whereas a 4.0, 215 psat will not. Which student is stronger? Is USC a great school? Absolutely. Does it compare to Cornell? hmmmmm</p>