<p>UCBChemGrad:</p>
<p>Don't forget the (subjective) employer survey that certain parties recommend adding. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Xiggi/hawkette: where is the objective, quantifiable data to support this "presumption"?</p>
<p>bluebayou,
Just curious to know what you think...If USNWR were to decide to add to the subjective aspect of their ranking and involve more voices, in what order would you favor the following groups:</p>
<p>a. high school guidance counselors
b. employers
c. college students</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>a. No
b. No
c. No</p>
<p>You do realize that having high school guidance counselors serve as college rankers is one of the key proposals under consideration in the article that is the subject of this thread, right?</p>
<p>UCB, thank for your amusing repartee and the unveiling of Xiggi U. Perhaps, Deep Springs could be convinced to add my name to theirs, and we'd be done. </p>
<p>Fwiw, if I may, I'd like to repeat my point about the PA. What I do not like about it is that it's too darn short and nebulous. If you and your group are indeed correct in that it reflects the opinion of a very knowledgeable group of august scholars and administrators, why not make the data both PUBLIC and verifiable, or at least make the identity of who replies and who ignores a matter of public interest. </p>
<p>While I'd like to know who gives a 5/5 in every category to your alma mater, I'd settle for something else: a greatly expanded peer assessment with CLEARLY identified categories ... ten or twenty of them. Yes, I'd like to see how such "intangibles" as huge lectures, poor housing, and a small army of teaching subs stack against the reputation of a Nobel Prize winner. Yes, I'd like to see clear categories and not an ever changing mumbo-jumbo that does not satisfy anyone, with the notable exception of people who can figure out the reasons why schools such Harvey Mudd are ranked below the non-coed stars of yesterday. </p>
<p>I also would like USNews to cease its current practice of mixing two separate issues for the sole desire of keeping a level field that benefits a clearly set of schools. By their own admission, without the propping those schools would drop much lower. </p>
<p>As far as separating graduate schools from the undergraduate schools, the need exists because USNews decided to call its survey ... the BEST COLLEGES. Since there is already one version of the BEST GRADUATE SCHOOLS, there is no need for a hybrid product that simply muddies all waters by allowing data points that have little impact on undergraduates to mar the final product, and this by design.</p>
<p>hawkette;</p>
<p>I thought you were asking for MY opinion in post 43...and my response is that I would not use any of the three items, so there is no need to "order" them. The reason I wouldn't use GCs has already been noted by xiggi. Heck, our head GC maybe be one of those surveyed, and he didn't even know that the UCs and Cal States had changed their admission criteria (in 1998) until I told him in 2003!</p>
<p>But, I certainly would use the advice of the two counselors that are wise enough to send their students to Xiggi U. :D</p>
<p>xiggi:</p>
<p>
[quote]
thank for your amusing repartee and the unveiling of Xiggi U.
[/quote]
You're welcome.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I do not like about it is that it's too darn short and nebulous. If you and your group are indeed correct in that it reflects the opinion of a very knowledgeable group of august scholars and administrators, why not make the data both PUBLIC and verifiable, or at least make the identity of who replies and who ignores a matter of public interest.
[/quote]
I agree with you on this point. However, it might be too challenging logistically for USNWR to report and if they did, it might introduce unintended backlash/bias. USNWR utilizes a third party accounting firm to collect and tabulate the survey data...having a professional, unbiased company collect the data is better. If USNWR published participant's names/titles, affiliation, and survey results it will affect unbiased participation in future surveys.</p>
<p>2,000 people is quite a large sample size. The sample size likely washes out regional biases. Like you said, though, it would be interesting to see data from the actual survey results.</p>
<p>
[quote]
While I'd like to know who gives a 5/5 in every category to your alma mater...see how such "intangibles" as huge lectures, poor housing, and a small army of teaching subs stack against the reputation of a Nobel Prize winner.
[/quote]
<br>
Why do you pick on my alma mater so much? Has Berkeley wronged you at some point?</p>
<p>
[quote]
with the notable exception of people who can figure out the reasons why schools such Harvey Mudd are ranked below the non-coed stars of yesterday.
[/quote]
Hmmm...why do you assume that LACs and National Universities Peer Assessment Numbers are compared together? Yes, Berkeley has a 4.8, Harvey Mudd has 4.5 (?)...I don't think you can look at those numbers and say, "Oh, Berkeley's better than Harvey Mudd." The LACs are in a separate category from National Universities...as they should be. Also, I don't think National University academics are rating LACs and vice versa...I could be wrong...in this case it would be nice to see the data.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I also would like USNews to cease its current practice of mixing two separate issues for the sole desire of keeping a level field that benefits a clearly set of schools.
[/quote]
I don't agree with this because both private and public national universities benefit by having high PA scores...the weighting methodology is the same for both categories.</p>
<p>USNWR segregates and lists the top publics but if ranked separately on the national rankings, publics would be treated as second class citizens and this would be a sad day for the U.S. U.S. strength has been greatly enhanced by large, publicly funded national research universities...to claim the quality of education delivered at a top-ranked public university is any different from a similarly top-ranked private university is wrong...academics agree with this (assigning high PA scores to both public and private universities). </p>
<p>USNWR objective data does not say anything about the quality of education delivered. It says a lot about class size, SAT scores as a proxy for student smarts, and funding. USNWR has flaws in objective data as well... especially in its calculation of funding to derive the financial resources rank. Funding for medical schools is included...tell me how this benefits undergraduate students? </p>
<p>Objective data can be manipulated...opinions polls are subjective, but are less manipulated by sleight of hand calculations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As far as separating graduate schools from the undergraduate schools, the need exists because USNews decided to call its survey ... the BEST COLLEGES. Since there is already one version of the BEST GRADUATE SCHOOLS, there is no need for a hybrid product that simply muddies all waters by allowing data points that have little impact on undergraduates to mar the final product, and this by design.
[/quote]
I agree with you. But, I believe it's logistically easier said than done.</p>
<p>There is no real way to rank schools. Most methodologies are seriously flawed. And among those ranked highly, in the end the differences are not in terms of education you might receive.</p>
<p>Ranking colleges makes about as much sense as ranking students -- both are too complex and varied to reduce to a number. Just to know if you are in right ballpark, perhaps colleges could be divided into deciles, as more and more high schools seem to be doing to roughly rank their students. In my opinion, everyone would be better served if colleges would stop paying attention to how they stand in relation to each other. </p>
<p>Guidebooks in which current students describe their own college gave me the most useful insight. Of course a visit is still best.</p>
<p>
<p>UCB, I only "pick" on your alma mater because there has such an effort to use its PA as exhibits in repetitive lists of best colleges on CC AND because, it is so blatantly obvious that its current PA is among the most suspect of all ranked schools in a survey that relates to UNDERGRADUATE. </p>
<p> [quote] Quote: with the notable exception of people who can figure out the reasons why schools such Harvey Mudd are ranked below the non-coed stars of yesterday. </p>
<p>Hmmm...why do you assume that LACs and National Universities Peer Assessment Numbers are compared together? Yes, Berkeley has a 4.8, Harvey Mudd has 4.5 (?)...I don't think you can look at those numbers and say, "Oh, Berkeley's better than Harvey Mudd." The LACs are in a separate category from National Universities...as they should be. Also, I don't think National University academics are rating LACs and vice versa...I could be wrong...in this case it would be nice to see the data.
</p>
<p>I apologize for making references to previous discussions and assuming my point would be clear enough wthout repeating the entire argument. Since I have often written about this issue within the context of LAC's, I believed that a reference to non-coed schools would be sufficient to point to the differences in PA between Harvey Mudd (a school compared to Caltech) and notable all-women schools such as Wellesley, Smith, or Bryn Mawr. </p>
<p>My issues with the PA are not about private versus public schools.</p>
<p>Does anyone know of any human resources directors or grad school admissions directors who, in evaluating candidates, look at the undergrad school on resume, pull out the latest USNWR list, and grade candidate up or down depending on undergrad school?</p>
<p>Because I hope no one in such positions is that shallow.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Does anyone know of any human resources directors or grad school admissions directors who, in evaluating candidates, look at the undergrad school on resume...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely, yes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
pull out the latest USNWR list...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and grade candidate up or down depending on undergrad school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Absolutely, yes. (For example, a grad from Claremont McKenna or Harvey Mudd (or Cal) will be graded up over a grad from University of Phoenix.)</p>
<p>And, no, it's not "shallow" -- it's just good business practice. If your Finance VP wants strong candidates, its much easier for the HR director to search for alums of schools that are known to produce smart, quant jocks. It just makes their searching easier since the undergrad college has already made a short list.</p>
<p>Anecdote: a CEO of a well-known Silicon Valley company used to tell his college recruiters to focus solely on top ~20 colleges first. He used to say that he could teach anyone about the high tech business as long as they were smart and interested....and, by definition, 99% of kids at top colleges are smart. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Absolutely you give a kid from a more "prestigious" school points. BUT the firm or graduate school defines prestigious, not USNWR, although their definition may be similar.</p>
<p>If they are looking at people with a few years of experience the school hardly matters anymore. You look for proof of success after school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
BUT the firm or graduate school defines prestigious, not USNWR, although their definition may be similar.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, and that prestige was 'defined' long before USNews ever published its first ranking....</p>
<p>I hire people for positions requiring a college degree and I have my own opinions on what each undergraduate name implies and so do the other people in my office making hiring decisions. We've never ever used USNWR to help us out. I have no idea how any college is ranked therein.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hire people for positions requiring a college degree and I have my own opinions on what each undergraduate name implies and so do the other people in my office making hiring decisions. We've never ever used USNWR to help us out. I have no idea how any college is ranked therein.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course! And that is why you'll hear many anecdotes such as Mini's often told story that in his neck of the woods people think Williams College really is a bad spelling of Whitman. Same thing for Pomona and Cal Poly! Also, in many areas of Texas, for many employers a degree from UT-Austin and especially from Texas A&M carries more weight because of its bigger regional name recognition. </p>
<p>And, last but not least, is it also possible that if people placed in the position of making hiring decisions do NOT know about certain schools, they'll tend to compound the situation by relying only on schools they may have attended or heard about it? </p>
<p>Fwiw, for all the criticisms hurled at the USNews, I happen to believe that anyone who has the responsibility of evaluating the value of different college degrees ought to add the annual survey to his or her library. For the price of 2 or 3 Starbucks latte, even if imperfect, the survey offers a wealth of information about the CURRENT state of education.</p>
<p>PS Speaking about Texas, do you know how they call a fifth year Aggie (graduate of Texas A$M?) B-O-S-S!</p>
<p>If I saw a resume with "College of the Enchanted Forest" on it I probably wouldn't toss the resume right away, just google it. Maybe go to the College Board site or even the USNWR website, which does provide useful info about what kind of students graduate from College of the Enchanted Forest. But I truly wouldn't look at the USNWR rankings themselves.</p>
<p>In some professions, it is really important for business that your undergrad school be immediately recognized so that is a hiring concern, no matter how much of a hidden gem College of the Enchanted Forest may be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here's a napkin to wipe the egg off your face.</p>