Are public universities hurt or helped by USNWR methodology?

<p>
[quote]
IMO, the perspective of employers is actually where the rubber really does hit the road.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
and ask the five or ten or twenty or fifty biggest employers how they would rank the schools at which they recruit

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm afraid I would have to disagree with the entire premise of this logic. I think that asking large employers what they think is a deeply flawed way to measure school quality or student quality. </p>

<p>You have to remember what employers are really looking for. They're not really looking for are skilled and knowledgeable employees. Not really. What they're REALLY looking for are skilled and knowledgeable employees * who are also willing to work for low pay and in bad conditions without complaining. *. Let's be honest. If companies could get brilliant employees to work for minimum wage with no benefits while sticking them with terribly boring jobs with no possibility for career advancement, and not have any of those workers quit to work elsewhere, we all know that the companies would do just that. </p>

<p>Hence, what companies REALLY want is a school that produces HIGHLY COMPLIANT graduates who are willing to take low wages and crappy jobs without complaint, possibly because they have no other option. But of course, that is precisely what students don't want. Students want to have the power to dictate terms to the companies, even if that ticks the companies off.</p>

<p>As a case in point, I'll give you the example of MIT. Many of the larger engineering employers are now pulling out of recruiting at MIT. Why? Simple - because they say that it's too hard to recruit MIT graduates. They demand too much salary. They demand to be able to work on cool projects in the more desirable locations (for example, I have heard many MIT CS students say that they will only work in either Boston, New York, California, or internationally, but nowhere else). They demand to have excellent advancement and career development potential. In short, they demand a lot of things that a lot of those large companies are, frankly, just not willing to provide. Let's be honest - a lot of these jobs at these companies are not well paying, do not have good future career potential, are not located in desirable places, in short, are not very desirable jobs. In fact, when asked why these employers were pulling out of MIT, some of them very frankly said that they felt they could have more success in filling their jobs with students from local, unprestigious schools as these students will happily take those jobs without complaint. </p>

<p>But the point is, I would hardly treat employer rankings to be definitive. Employers don't really want the best employees. What they really want are "good enough" employees who don't make a lot of demands.</p>

<p>Sakky, the revealed preference survey is not a random sample. It works backwards. It looks at what it perceives to be the top colleges, finds out which high schools sends kids to these colleges and then sends out questionnaires to these high schools. Some schools respond, some don't.
The survey is also skewed to a wealthier student body than the student body of the US. </p>

<p>And the logic that if a student chooses A over B and another student chooses B over C; therefore, students would choose A over C is wrong (page 10).</p>

<p>Plus students make there choice about which schools they prefer when they apply to school, not just after they get their acceptances. The revealed preference survey tries to measure the latter, but does not measure the former where many of the decisions are made.</p>

<p>Do you really think more smart students would rather go to Williams than NYU or UCLA?</p>

<p>I agree with your post#122.</p>

<p>sakky,
I disagree. Employers want quality employees above non-quality employees and they consistently judge whether they can find those at MIT or at some alternative. The critical factor is that the job for which they are hiring has a certain value to it. They are willing to pay up to the value of the job and preferably below. That’s just capitalism. Other relationship factors may play a role in this, but each job that each college graduate will pursue has a maximum value which waxes and wanes according to a myriad of general and specific economic factors. </p>

<p>The employers set the market price for wages and adjust accordingly to fill their needs. If the MIT grad is too expensive, then they move on to an alternative. What this exposes is that the employers don’t see a huge difference in the quality of SOME students coming out of an alternative, lower ranked, school and what is coming out of MIT. They don’t need to hire the whole school, they need to hire one or more graduates, but the reality is that employers know that student quality is widespread (if erratically so) and that much of the education anyway is going to come on the job, not from what the student has learned through their undergraduate years. </p>

<p>This idea is analogous to brand management in the same way that Ralph Lauren or Lacoste (MIT, Harvard, etc) is able to charge a premium for their polo shirts (graduates) while almost identical shirts (Tufts, U Rochester) can be found at the same or lower price at alternative retailers. RL and Lacoste may give some buyers the extra confidence and satisfaction they need to make a buying decision, but many other buyers realize that the same or nearly the same quality can be found in other, lower cost brands. And at the end of the day, it’s a shirt (job) and what is the utility of the product. Consumers will only pay so much for a shirt. Employers will only pay so much for a job. </p>

<p>For the large majority of students picking colleges, finding a job after college is a critical factor. But the reality is that most job markets are local and the value of the overpriced brands can get marked down. </p>

<p>As for how this compares to the current PA system, my suggestion is that employers, as a stakeholder in the process, would be a valued addition to the evaluation of colleges. Academics would hate it, but I’m guessing that students and families would love it.</p>

<p>
[quote]

You have to remember what employers are really looking for. They're not really looking for are skilled and knowledgeable employees. Not really. What they're REALLY looking for are skilled and knowledgeable employees who are also willing to work for low pay and in bad conditions without complaining. . Let's be honest. If companies could get brilliant employees to work for minimum wage with no benefits while sticking them with terribly boring jobs with no possibility for career advancement, and not have any of those workers quit to work elsewhere, we all know that the companies would do just that.

[/quote]

Would you mind naming some of these companies? I'd like to avoid doing business with them.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, the revealed preference survey is not a random sample. It works backwards. It looks at what it perceives to be the top colleges, finds out which high schools sends kids to these colleges and then sends out questionnaires to these high schools. Some schools respond, some don't.
The survey is also skewed to a wealthier student body than the student body of the US.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now, this, I agree, is a valid criticism of the paper. I agree (and the authors agree) that the paper would be better if they looked at a larger set of data.</p>

<p>But look, that criticism is true of practically every paper out there. Every paper could be improved with more data. Every model could be refined if the search space was larger. But the reality is, you almost never have all the data that you want. Every paper has to start with something. If you're constantly going to complain about incomplete data, then no papers would ever get written, because the data is almost always incomplete. </p>

<p>As for the criticisms that the data is skewed towards the wealthy, I believe the authors addressed this point. Wealthier students tend to be the status leaders in that other students tend to want to emulate the behavior of those wealthier students. That's why Harvard is such a preferred school - because people want to rub shoulders with wealth and privilege. </p>

<p>
[quote]
And the logic that if a student chooses A over B and another student chooses B over C; therefore, students would choose A over C is wrong (page 10).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First off, I think you meant p. 12, at least in the latest version of the paper. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/revealedprefranking.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/revealedprefranking.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The notion of transitivity lies at the very heart of the principle of revealed preferences - to question it is to question the very foundations of revealed preferences, and by extension, the entire body of literature that is based on RP. NUMEROUS papers in social science (Econ, poli-sci, sociology, psychology) use RP models where the principle of transitivity is assumed. </p>

<p>So hey, if you want to question revealed preferences, that's fine. You are free to do that. Just understand that by doing so, you are questioning one of the very basic and accepted cornerstones of modern social science. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Plus students make there choice about which schools they prefer when they apply to school, not just after they get their acceptances. The revealed preference survey tries to measure the latter, but does not measure the former where many of the decisions are made.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now come on, Dstark. You just made the same mistake that the others made. It DOES INDEED measure the former, and in fact, is precisely the value add of the paper. If it only measured the latter, it would be a very boring paper, because, as I said before, it would only be reporting on cross-admit data. For example, students get accepted to schools A and B and x% of them choose A. That's just journalistic reporting of the data. </p>

<p>What the paper adds is a model that fills in the gaps by attempting to ascertain what people WOULD have done had they been given the choice to also go to C (whether they applied to C or not, or whether they got into C or not). That's what much of the latter part of the model is all about. </p>

<p>Let me give you an example. I think it would surprise nobody to discover that Harvard is a more preferred school than, say, Michigan State This is true even though obviously very very few people are going to apply to both Harvard and to Michigan State. And the few that do are probably unusual For example, maybe there are some guys who are good enough to get into Harvard, but are also good enough athletes that they think they have a shot at the NFL or the NBA, so they might consider going to Michigan State to play ball so that they can take their best shot at the pros. Or maybe they just happen to live in East Lansing and are highly family oriented such that they don't really want to move, even if it's to go to Harvard. But the point is, I think we can all agree that those few people who apply to both schools are certainly not representative of most other students. Very few other people are going to seriously consider both schools enough to apply to both of them. </p>

<p>Michigan State might actually win the cross-admit battle with Harvard for the small and unusual body of cross-admits that exists (again, football players might prefer Michigan State). Or even if MSU doesn't win, maybe the cross-admit battle is not heavily tilted towards Harvard. But does that translate to the rest of the population? Of course not - because you said it yourself, most people who are Harvard-caliber won't even apply to Michigan State, and most people, if they were to be given the choice, would clearly choose Harvard. Hence, on an overall basis, there is no comparison between the two schools in terms of RP. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Do you really think more smart students would rather go to Williams than NYU or UCLA?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is that really so hard to believe? Williams is an elite LAC. I don't think it's so hard to believe that a lot of top students would prefer elite LAC's over large schools (and both NYU and UCLA are very large). As has been said before on other threads, the elite LAC's have excellent reputations for strong teaching and strong graduate school placement, and a lot of top students want that. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I disagree. Employers want quality employees above non-quality employees and they consistently judge whether they can find those at MIT or at some alternative

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But right there is the contradiction in your logic. To reinterpret what you just said, employers don't just want quality employees. They want quality employees * that they can actually retain *. </p>

<p>And that's entirely consonant with what I said above. Sure, at MIT, you can find plenty of high quality engineers. But what if you can't actually get any of them to accept one of your offers? Or even if you do, what if he quits in a short period of time because he is frustrated by the perceived lack of opportunities at your company and thinks he can do better elsewhere (i.e. perhaps because he sees all his old MIT classmates doing well and getting great career opportunities, and then he starts asking himself why isn't he also doing as well as them)? In such a case, the employer might as well not even bother to recruit at MIT. They'd be better off recruiting at a lesser school where more students are more willing to take their jobs and keep them. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The employers set the market price for wages and adjust accordingly to fill their needs. If the MIT grad is too expensive, then they move on to an alternative. What this exposes is that the employers don’t see a huge difference in the quality of SOME students coming out of an alternative, lower ranked, school and what is coming out of MIT. They don’t need to hire the whole school, they need to hire one or more graduates, but the reality is that employers know that student quality is widespread (if erratically so) and that much of the education anyway is going to come on the job, not from what the student has learned through their undergraduate years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, but this is not quite a fair comparison. You've admitted it to be the case. I agree that SOME of the students at a lower-quality school are just as good as those coming out of MIT. But that's the key word - "some". The problem is, how do you know who they are? Economically speaking, you have to pay a search cost to ferret out those students at the lower-ranked school who are high quality from those that aren't. </p>

<p>MIT, on the other hand, provides you with a presorted selection set. Their admissions are tough, and the curricula is tough, such that those who make it through are, on average, of very high quality. That means that you can afford to pay lower search costs. You don't have to engage in such an intensive and expensive search because much of the sorting has been done for you. </p>

<p>To use more econ-speak, the major problem with any labor market is adverse selection. If you choose to pay X for a particular job, you are always going to tend to attract those people for whom X is the best they can do (because other employers will pay them less than X). On the other hand, those people who have choices that are better than X are going to turn your job down (or quit the job if they mistakenly choose it). Note, X doesn't have to be just money, it can be a combination of things (benefits, career opportunities, etc. - hence, X can be thought of as "utility"). </p>

<p>
[quote]
For the large majority of students picking colleges, finding a job after college is a critical factor. But the reality is that most job markets are local and the value of the overpriced brands can get marked down.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They "can" be marked down, but they usually aren't. Let's face it. MIT grads (and grads of HYPS) aren't exactly hurting for jobs. MIT, in particular, is swamped with consulting and banking firms. I don't think that MIT students are unhappy with their choices of jobs. Far from it, in fact. It's become something of a running joke at MIT that many of the top MIT engineering students will never work as engineers, instead opting to become consultants or bankers instead. But that does seem to be what they want. Hence, I hardly see any evidence of the MIT 'brand' being "marked down". Rather, it's that the engineering firms who want to hire MIT students now have to compete against the world's top consulting and banking firms, and many of those engineering firms just don't want to do that. Either that, or they have to compete against Google, which is the one engineering firm that does seem to have sucked much of the oxygen out of the room at MIT, and again, most engineering firms just don't want to compete against Google for talent. I can immediately think of one large software firm that shall remain unnamed that was quite ticked off by the MIT hiring process, because every one of their offers got turned down because the students would rather do other things (many of them turned down the company to take offers at Google, some turned it down to go to grad school, and the rest turned it down to become consultants/bankers). I have a feeling that they won't come back next year to recruit, for fear of the same thing happening. </p>

<p>
[quote]
As for how this compares to the current PA system, my suggestion is that employers, as a stakeholder in the process, would be a valued addition to the evaluation of colleges. Academics would hate it, but I’m guessing that students and families would love it

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, no, I have to disagree, because, again, employers are not an unbiased stakeholder. Far from it, in fact. Employers have their own agenda, as has been stated above.</p>

<p>Let me give you another example. Let's use Harvard. Harvard is quite infamous for ticking off many recruiters. This is especially true of HBS, but is also endemic in many of Harvard's other programs. HBS recruiters in particular often times tend to give HBS extremely low marks. And the complaints tend to be the same - that the students are arrogant, that they demand too high pay, that they demand too much power, that they're difficult to negotiate with, etc. etc. But here's the rub - * they keep coming back anyway *. No matter how annoyed the recruiters are, the top recruiters keep coming back to HBS. If they really didn't like it, they wouldn't bother to show up. And many of the less desirable recruiters indeed don't show up, because they found it so difficult to recruit people in the past. But the top recruiters keep coming back, no matter how annoyed they are. </p>

<p>The point is this. I don't think employers should be "satisfied" with a particular school. In fact, I would argue that they should actually be DISsatisfied, as long as they keep coming back anyway. After all, think of it this way. A truly satisfied employer is one that is getting all the people they want at low cost. In other words, a school can greatly increase employer satisfaction by just convincing all the students to just take lower salaries. That would certainly increase employer satisfaction. But would it really increase student satisfaction?</p>

<p>The point is, by bringing in employers as a stakeholder, you are bringing in a party that doesn't really have the students best interests at heart. Like I said, we all know that employers would love to get away with paying slave wages to everybody if they could. No employer WANTS to pay high wages to anybody. They do so only because market forces dictate that they do so - i.e. that if they don't, people will choose to work elsewhere. </p>

<p>Hence, instead of using employer satisfaction, I would key solely on STUDENT satisfaction. After all, at the end of day, what ultimately matters is how satisfied the STUDENTS are. They are the ones paying, after all. They are the ones who actually attend the school. Hence, they are the ones who should be satisfied. If schools can figure out a way to increase student satisfaction, even at the expense of losing employer satisfaction, I would say that's a good trade. Again, at MIT, at Harvard, sure, a lot of employers are ticked off. But who cares? Like I said, you SHOULD be ticking off the employers, because if they're not ticked off, that just means that aren't negotiating hard with them to extract as much money as you possibly can. The STUDENTS at MIT and Harvard are satisfied with their career choices, and that's all that really matters. You want your students to get what they are worth, and if that means ticking off employers by forcing them to pay higher salaries and perks than they want to, that's too bad for them. You want your students to have negotiating power, not the employers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You have to remember what employers are really looking for. They're not really looking for are skilled and knowledgeable employees. Not really. What they're REALLY looking for are skilled and knowledgeable employees who are also willing to work for low pay and in bad conditions without complaining. Let's be honest. If companies could get brilliant employees to work for minimum wage with no benefits while sticking them with terribly boring jobs with no possibility for career advancement, and not have any of those workers quit to work elsewhere, we all know that the companies would do just that. </p>

<p>Would you mind naming some of these companies? I'd like to avoid doing business with them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, I don't know. Wal-Mart? McDonalds? Heck, any fast food restaurant, almost any company at the mall/shopping-center, any of these types of jobs.</p>

<p>Go to any mall, any shopping complex, any retail outlet, and you will see vast numbers of people working at jobs that pay very little, usually don't have benefits, and have very litte possibility for career advancement. I think we all know that - when we get a Big Mac from McDonald's we know full well that a lot of the people working behind the counter are making minimum wage, with no benefits, and don't exactly have strong opportunities to advance. Think about it from McDonald's point of view - why should they pay any more than that, if they can get sufficient workers to work for low wages? {Of course, the flip side to that is that many of those workers are just teenagers with no marketable skills, and working at McDonalds is the best they can get, and certainly better than not having a job at all}. Similarly, you go to the mall, and most of the people working there (i.e. the cashiers, the shelf-stockers, etc.) are making very low wages without benefits and litte opportunity to advance. Go to the supermarket, and most workers there are getting paid very little. You really think the guy at the supermarket ringing up your purchases is making 100k a year? Come on, you know he's not. </p>

<p>But does that mean that we should stop eating fast food? Or stop going to the mall? Or the supermarket? Or what about food in general - much of the produce we eat is picked by migrant farm workers who are paid very little. </p>

<p>Look, we live in a capitalistic world where employers are looking to pay workers as little as possible. The key for you as a worker is to then get marketable skills so that you have negotiating power vis-a-vis those employers. Those workers at McDonalds probably don't have anywhere else to go (because they don't have marketable skills), which is why they have to put up with low wages at McDonalds. If somebody else offered them more money, they would take that. But nobody is offering that. </p>

<p>Furthermore, I would proffer a defense of these companies. It's not their fault that a lot of people don't have marketable skills. Nobody is ever forced to work in one of these jobs. All these companies are doing is paying people their market value, and it's not their fault that that market value is low. These people are making low wages, but that's still better than not having a job at all (after all, everybody has the option to just quit and do nothing, so the fact that you choose to work in one of these jobs must mean that that's a preferable choice for you versus doing nothing at all).</p>

<p>sakky,
I agree that MIT has lots of quality students that command a lot of attention, but their quality does not change the laws of economics. The utility of the job drives the process and the wages that are ultimately set whether the student hails from MIT or any other school and whether this takes place in I-banking, consulting, whatever field you want. If the job is worth X and the student wants X+25%, then he/she is not going to get the job. </p>

<p>I know that people from the Ivies and other top privates want the world to believe that it can't run without them and it is true that there are lots of talented kids at those schools. But the reality is that it is a competitive world and talent is plentiful and widespread.</p>

<p>As for employers having a say in the school evaluation process, I think that many top schools would be terrified of such a prospect as their graduates would be compared to those from “lesser” schools in settings that actually have real consequences. The employer is hiring a student and the employer is well placed to make a judgment about how well prepared that student is for postgraduate life. Employers know that the differences between students at various schools are minor and school reputations are often wrong as applied to a single student or group of students.</p>

<p>Top schools want and need to perpetuate the idea that their students are superior and that the schools are worth the expense and deserve the prestige. Understandably, anything, such as an employer survey, that could endanger that would be resisted. But I maintain that the student (particularly at the lower ranked school) would benefit considerably from this knowledge. </p>

<p>Finally, in an ideal world, I would like to see the faculty assessed in sort of a 360-degree mode rather than only by other academics. Let academics remain part of the process, but give a voice as well to students, families, alumni, employers. These other stakeholders have just as legitimate an interest (if not more) as academics do in the faculty assessment process and results. Each group would have their own bias (just as you would find in any 360 degree review at a typical major corporation), but the result would be a more well-rounded view of faculty that might spur greater attention to undergraduates.</p>

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>I can't take your arguments seriously. Walmart and mcdonalds are not recruiting college grads to man their cash registers. What an absurd response.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What they're REALLY looking for are skilled and knowledgeable employees who are also willing to work for low pay and in bad conditions without complaining.

[/quote]

I think this is a bit of a generalization and while it may be true in some cases, I don't believe that this applies to all companies. Probably this thinking applies more to lower level positions that are routine and have little room for advancement. However, I think companies who are recruiting highly skilled and knowledgable employees who are creative and have the ability to adapt to new situations is more akin to recruiting professional athletes. I might be naive, but I believe that those companies are looking for people with potential to bring their talents and make meaningful contributions in the long run.</p>

<p>Maybe part of the problem with some grads is that they actually bought into the idea that they are very unique and better than everybody else. I agree with hawkette that talent is plentiful. It is possible that some companies find that it is just too difficult to work with prima donnas and hire their talent elsewhere. (It happens in sports all the time. At some point, the talent is just not worth the contract demands.)</p>

<p>"And the logic that if a student chooses A over B and another student chooses B over C; therefore, students would choose A over C is wrong (page 10). </p>

<p>First off, I think you meant p. 12, at least in the latest version of the paper. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fac...refranking.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fac...refranking.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The notion of transitivity lies at the very heart of the principle of revealed preferences - to question it is to question the very foundations of revealed preferences, and by extension, the entire body of literature that is based on RP. NUMEROUS papers in social science (Econ, poli-sci, sociology, psychology) use RP models where the principle of transitivity is assumed. </p>

<p>So hey, if you want to question revealed preferences, that's fine. You are free to do that. Just understand that by doing so, you are questioning one of the very basic and accepted cornerstones of modern social science."</p>

<p>"And the logic that if a student chooses A over B and another student chooses B over C; therefore, students would choose A over C is wrong (page 10)."</p>

<p>Sakky what they are doing in the survey is incorrect. Logically incorrect.
Their study is based on incorrect logic.</p>

<p>Then they make assumptions based on incorrect logic. </p>

<p>Then they form conclusions based on incorrect methods and incorrect assumptions. </p>

<p>More people would not rather go to Williams than NYU or UCLA. I noticed you actually did not disagree with this. </p>

<p>The way they do the survey is incorrect. Their assumptions are based on incorrect logic. Their conclusions are incorrect.</p>

<p>That pretty much sums up the survey. The survey is a mess. </p>

<p>You can make all the excuses you want but it doesn't change what I have said. What I have said is true. Unlike the survey.</p>

<p>The survey is incorrect. ;)</p>

<p>The entire basis of the RP is that the choices of the students are somehow scientific and meaningful. Many are making the choice on the same criteria that people choose a pair of jeans or a purse--perceived image. Images that have been created by decades of PR and marketing. You think it was an accident that the top schools catered to the wealthy families and excluded Jews and other "undesirables"?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Academics would hate it

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This isn't the first time you've hinted at having the key into the secret window of the academic heart. One of these posts, I hope, you will divulge the source of your knowledge of the emotional lives of academics. Most people won't venture beyond describing their souls and blackened and shrivelled; your confidence is refreshing. :)</p>

<p>standrews,</p>

<p>sakky said that the people who work those jobs are mostly high school kids...not college grads. mcdonalds does hire people with no prospect of advancement and at minimum wage...all that was asked was for was a company which practiced that.</p>

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>way to rattle of an impressive, albiet incredibly long-winded response. you should write my papers for me from now on, obviously you have no problem filling up 10-15 pages heh.</p>

<p>Here is another look at the rankings- published by Bloomberg today-sort of a financial analyst point of view</p>

<p>College Rankings Don't Offer `Alpha' for Parents: John F. Wasik
2007-05-14 00:14 (New York)

Commentary by John F. Wasik May 14 (Bloomberg) -- A small revolution is brewing that challenges the orthodoxy of college rankings. It's being led by private-college presidents and a former counselor who say education's basic mission is being thwarted by the process of picking a school based on a rating. The commercialization of the admissions process has devalued education,'' says Lloyd Thacker, founder and executive director of the Education Conservancy. The Portland, Oregon- based non-profit focuses on improving the college admissions process. What do we do when we tell a kid that where you go to college is more important than what you do? Students are becoming strategists and game players. They're cynical. That's not good.'' Forced to compete for top rankings, colleges often manage their admissions processes to improve their ratings, Thacker contends, in a process known in collegiate circles as strategic enrollment management. Enrollment management attracts more highly prized students and raises rejection rates. The perception and eventual reality that a college is difficult to gain admission to, in turn, raises its cachet -- and ranking. Thacker says the marketing strategy compels colleges to think of desirable students in terms of market share,'' much to the detriment of their educational mission. Parents, convinced that only the top-tier colleges will ensure the success of their children, then start paying for tutors, testing courses and even admissions counselors. They often become obsessed with theright'' school, even if it means an unsustainable debt load for the family.

                     Ivy League Angst

 Anxious prestige-oriented parents begin overmanaging

education choices almost from the cradle. Parents are carefully vetting pre-schools that they think will eventually lead to Ivy League colleges. With the support of Thacker, 12 college presidents recently signed a letter that attacked the foundation of college rankings. The institutions, which include Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and St. John's College in Annapolis, Maryland, say they refuse to fill out U.S. News's reputational'' survey, in which they are asked to subjectively comment on the profile of other institutions. Thacker and the college presidents targeted the reputation portion of the magazine survey because they say itobscures important differences between institutions and encourages wasteful spending and gamesmanship in pursuing improved rankings.''

                    Consumer Decision

 U.S. News, which rates almost 1,400 colleges, noted that

the response rate to their peer assessment section was 70 percent. It's a sound, standard survey,'' Brian Kelly, U.S. News's editor, said in a telephone interview.The bottom line is that if there was a better way of rating colleges, we would do it.'' Public colleges average more than $12,000 in annual expenses, and private schools cost at least $30,000, according to the College Board, a non-profit testing and information organization in New York. It's unavoidable that parents rely on rankings and view higher education as a consumer decision. After all, a critical financial analysis is essential if you're spending from $50,000 to $120,000 for a four-year degree. And these averages don't reflect the length of time some students take -- sometimes six years -- to finish a bachelor's degree, nor the debt load to pay for it. Can a college choice be boiled down to the highest-ranked school as if it were a car or appliance and still make for an educational experience that's the best fit for the student?

                       A Better Way

 There's a better way of evaluating schools. From a personal

financial view, future success often depends on whether a graduate can make enough money to sustain a prosperous, independent and fulfilling life. That's a tall order for any college metric, but let's start with these measures: -- A graduate's debt-equity ratio. Similar to stock analysis, how much are students in debt following graduation relative to the amount of assets they have? The median amount of debt, according to the College Board, is about $20,000. If the graduate doesn't make enough money to cover the debt repayments, it will impair their ability to buy a car, house and raise a family. The lower the debt-equity ratio, the better. Most college financial-aid departments will tell you what proportion of their aid is grants -- which don't have to be repaid -- versus loans. -- The price-earnings ratio. This would be a comparison of the total cost of a degree relative to the average of what graduates from a particular college earn. Here's a benchmark: Adults in the U.S. with a bachelor's degree earned an average of $55,000 in 2005, according to the most recent Census Bureau data. Those with professional, master's or doctoral degrees averaged about $80,000.

                     The Real Mission

 -- The College Alpha. From the average four-year degree

earnings, you can ask the question: Will graduates from your institution of choice earn more or less than the average? Those making more qualify for a premium ranking, or alpha, maybe even justifying the additional expenses paid or debt incurred. These alternative measures are only financial benchmarks and aren't always relevant since there's so much more to education than future earnings. Other things to consider are the size of the campus, the number of professors who are truly accessible to students, and what programs are tailored to the students' needs and abilities. More importantly, what's the quality of the learning experience in which a student can discover how their skills, knowledge and personality work in a dynamic world? This can't be distilled into a ranking. All of the formal education, ratings and ratios in the world won't tell a person what they need to know about attaining prosperity and well- being.

 (John F. Wasik, author of ``The Merchant of Power,'' is a
</code></pre>

<p>Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky what they are doing in the survey is incorrect. Logically incorrect.
Their study is based on incorrect logic.</p>

<p>Then they make assumptions based on incorrect logic. </p>

<p>Then they form conclusions based on incorrect methods and incorrect assumptions. </p>

<p>More people would not rather go to Williams than NYU or UCLA. I noticed you actually did not disagree with this. </p>

<p>The way they do the survey is incorrect. Their assumptions are based on incorrect logic. Their conclusions are incorrect.</p>

<p>That pretty much sums up the survey. The survey is a mess. </p>

<p>You can make all the excuses you want but it doesn't change what I have said. What I have said is true. Unlike the survey.</p>

<p>The survey is incorrect.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right there, I disagree. I don't think the survey is incorrect, and I don't think the logic is incorrect. The logic is based on well-established social science principles, specifically the assumption that revealed preferences is a valid way to measure customer behavior.</p>

<p>Now, again, if you want to say that RP itself is flawed, then that's fine, but that's an entirely different sort of criticism. That would be basically questioning the entire theoretical basis of the paper. You are perfectly free to do that. But presuming that the theoretical basis of the paper is sound, then I have yet to see anybody reveal any flaws in the logical construction of the paper. </p>

<p>As far as NYU vs. Williams vs. UCLA, I would say that if their data and the model shows that that is the case, then I accept it at face value. If you can show me that the model actually has a flaw, or if you want to contend that the authors are deliberately falsifying their data, then that would be an entirely different sort of criticism. But presuming that you are not contending any such thing, then we have to accept that the mdoel they constructed is accurate. It may not be * correct <a href="as%20obviously%20no%20model%20is%20completely%20correct">/i</a>, but it is still * accurate * in the sense that the results are what the model dictates what they should be. Again, note, the modeling technique that the paper uses is well within the mainstream.</p>

<p>Now, again, I would reiterate, if you have a problem with the theory or the methodology of the paper, it would be nice if you actually identified what your specific problem is with it, rather than just dismissing it as just 'being incorrect', without actually specifying why and how. I have already demonstrated that one of the supposed weaknesses of the paper that you and others continue to misidentify is not actually a weakness at all, but actually the key value-add of the paper - specifically, the notion that the paper doesn't account for people who don't even apply. The whole point of the paper is actually to capture the preferences of the entire surveyed group, including those people who don't even apply.</p>

<p>Sakky, I gave you very precise reasons why the rp is flawed (post#123). If you don't believe me, take the survey to a professor in logic.</p>

<p>I don't care what the model says. If the model is flawed, the result is flawed. You seem to care more about the model than the result. </p>

<p>There is plenty of simple information out there that shows more people would rather go to NYU, or UCLA than Williams. </p>

<p>We don't need professors coming out with models and formulas to prove the opposite and to prove the untrue.</p>

<p>"I have already demonstrated that one of the supposed weaknesses of the paper that you and others continue to misidentify is not actually a weakness at all, but actually the key value-add of the paper - specifically, the notion that the paper doesn't account for people who don't even apply. The whole point of the paper is actually to capture the preferences of the entire surveyed group, including those people who don't even apply."</p>

<p>The professors didn't do this sucessfully.
"As far as NYU vs. Williams vs. UCLA, I would say that if their data and the model shows that that is the case, then I accept it at face value."</p>

<p>Since when do you accept anything at face value? Then I guess when Berkeley does studies and finds that transfer students do as well as students that get into the school as freshman, you accept that at face value too. </p>

<p>You went to ********. You should have been taught at a minimum not to accept research at face value. ;)</p>

<p>
[quote]
I agree that MIT has lots of quality students that command a lot of attention, but their quality does not change the laws of economics. The utility of the job drives the process and the wages that are ultimately set whether the student hails from MIT or any other school and whether this takes place in I-banking, consulting, whatever field you want. If the job is worth X and the student wants X+25%, then he/she is not going to get the job.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Of course it doesn't change the laws of economics. I never said that it did. If anything, it REINFORCES the laws of economics - and specifically, the economics of BARGAINING AND NEGOTIATION. </p>

<p>Just think of the situation in terms of game theory. Let's take your example. Let's say a job is worth X. Does that mean that the company will actually pay somebody X for that job? Almost certainly not. As said by others, * the company is going to try to pay as little as possible *, and in terms of game theory, what that really means is that the company would ideally try to pay you * only as much as they think some competing company would pay you *, plus one more dollar, as long as that sum is still less than X. And then, you as the hiree in question, would be incented to take that sum as long as it is better than any other offer you are getting. </p>

<p>Frankly, I think you're attempting to model the situation using a first-pass perfectly competitive economics model. Yet the fact is, labor markets are far far from being perfectly competitive, and are far more amenable to the economics of game theory and bargaining/negotiation. In perfectly competitive markets, there would be no bargaining ever performed - every player would be a price taker and as a result, every employee would simply be earning their marginal productivity. But of course we know that doesn't happen. People negotiate over their salaries all the time, attempting to increase their offers and so forth. How would it be possible to negotiate over anything if the market really was perfectly competitive? </p>

<p>The fact is, practically no employee out there is actually earning their true productivity. Plenty of people earn far less than that. So why do they put up with it? * Because it's the best they can do *. Think of it this way. If you're earning far less than you're really worth, but nobody out there is willing to pay you more, then you're stuck. Bargaining power inherently requires that you have strong alternative options. People who go to no-name schools don't have those strong alternative options. Employers obviously like that a lot.</p>

<p>It all boils down to negotiating power (a subset of what economists call "strategic power"). The key is that those who go to MIT and the Ivies are put in stronger negotiation positions because they have many good options. That puts them in a better position to bargain for higher wages. Obviously the employers don't like that, because everybody wants to make sure that they have bargaining power and others do not. Everybody likes to be in control. But obviously nobody likes to be controlled. Employers love paying as little as possible to those who have no good alternatives. But as a prospective student, you want to be in a position to have good alternatives. That is how you raise your wages. Frankly, that is the ONLY way you can raise your wages. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I know that people from the Ivies and other top privates want the world to believe that it can't run without them and it is true that there are lots of talented kids at those schools. But the reality is that it is a competitive world and talent is plentiful and widespread.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But then if that's true, you have to ask yourself why is it that the most elite employers (i.e. the top consulting firms and investment banks) tend to recruit at only the most elite schools? After all, if talent really is plentiful and widespread, why only recruit at those schools - and in particular, those particular schools in which the students have strong negotiating leverage? I'm quite sure Goldman Sachs and McKinsey could save a lot of money by ditching recruiting at Harvard, and instead recruiting at SE Missouri State where the students would obviously be much cheaper to hire. So why don't they? </p>

<p>I think it must be that these firms find that there is indeed significant value in recruiting at the most elite schools. It probably has to do with search costs (in that those schools have already 'preselected' a high level of quality of candidates for them, reducing the search that the firms have to do). It may also have to do with marketing -as the firms themselves turn around and sell the reputations of their employees (including their alma maters) to their clients as a 'consumer good'. But the point is, there must be some reason why these firms continue to put up with recruiting at the top schools, even though the students there are obviously the most difficult to recruit (because they have strong alternatives). I'm quite sure that if McKinsey showed up to SE Missouri State, they would be able to get thousands of eager recruits who would probably work at cut-rate salaries, as that would still be better than their alternatives. So why doesn't McKinsey take advantage of that? </p>

<p>
[quote]
As for employers having a say in the school evaluation process, I think that many top schools would be terrified of such a prospect as their graduates would be compared to those from “lesser” schools in settings that actually have real consequences. The employer is hiring a student and the employer is well placed to make a judgment about how well prepared that student is for postgraduate life. Employers know that the differences between students at various schools are minor and school reputations are often wrong as applied to a single student or group of students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again, it's not just the top schools would be terrified by such a prospect. I would be terrified. And so should all students. Like I said, employers don't have the best interests of students at heart. Employers are looking for * bargaining power *. They're obviously going to really like any school that gives them great bargaining power - where they can get high quality people at a cut-rate price. But the students obviously wouldn't like that at all.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Top schools want and need to perpetuate the idea that their students are superior and that the schools are worth the expense and deserve the prestige. Understandably, anything, such as an employer survey, that could endanger that would be resisted. But I maintain that the student (particularly at the lower ranked school) would benefit considerably from this knowledge.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, actually, I'm not sure about that at all. Top schools surely want to perpetuate the notion that their students are superior. But I would argue that that GREATLY HELPS the students - particularly when you're talking about bargaining power. If employers think that the students at a particular school are superior (whether they are or not), then that increases the bargaining power of those students. After all, you don't actually need to have strong alternatives to win a negotiation. You just have to have the other party THINK you have strong alternatives. Hence, it's hard for me to see how this is actually hurting the students.</p>

<p>
[quote]

Finally, in an ideal world, I would like to see the faculty assessed in sort of a 360-degree mode rather than only by other academics. Let academics remain part of the process, but give a voice as well to students, families, alumni, employers. These other stakeholders have just as legitimate an interest (if not more) as academics do in the faculty assessment process and results. Each group would have their own bias (just as you would find in any 360 degree review at a typical major corporation), but the result would be a more well-rounded view of faculty that might spur greater attention to undergraduates.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I can agree with having students and alumni as stakeholders. But NOT employers. Again, why not? Because the school exists to serve the students, NOT the employers. Again, the employers do not have the best interests of the students at heart. They're not paying anything into the school anyway - so why should they have a stake? It's the STUDENTS who are paying, so it's the students who should have the say. It's the job of the school to actually improve the bargaining power of the students vis-a-vis the empoyers. The employers obviously don't like that, but that's too bad for them. The job of the school is to serve the students, and that fundamentally means making the employers unhappy. After all, if the employers are happy, it must mean that they're getting great deals, but we don't want the employers to be getting great deals. We want the STUDENTS to be getting the great deal. We want the gains to accrue to the students, not the employers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, I gave you very precise reasons why the rp is flawed (post#123).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I addressed these reasons. First, you said that the data is incomplete, which everybody, including the authors, acknowledge. But data is ALWAYS incomplete. That's not a reason, by itself, to reject a paper. It just means that the conclusions of the paper are constrained (as are the conclusions of all papers out there). </p>

<p>Secondly, you basically said that you reject the entire theoreitcal validity of RP, at least as it relates to the subject at hand. Again, I said that if that's what you believe, you are free to do that, but just understand that you are rejecting the validity of a mainstream social science principle. If that's your position, then that's your position. Fine. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't care what the model says. If the model is flawed, the result is flawed. You seem to care more about the model than the result.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I never said that the model is perfect. Obviously no model is. Every model has flaws. I'm sure that in the future, we are going to discover that everything we believe today in science is actually not really true. </p>

<p>The key to me is whether the RP is more accurate and more believable than whatever else is available. Sure, the model is flawed, as all models are. But at least it's more logically consistent than, say, any of the college rankings out there. After all, at least the RP model has a theoretical basis that uses understood and mainstream techniques that numerous other papers have used. What's the theoretical basis of USNews? Or Gourman? Or Shanghai Jiao Tong? Or the THES survey? </p>

<p>The RP model is surely flawed, but it is surely better than any of those rankings. And that's the real issue on the table - what else out there is better? </p>

<p>Look at it this way. The world used Newtonian classical physics as the basis for physics for centuries not because it was perfect (it was not), but because it was the best available model among the alternatives we knew about. Then when relativity and quantum physics were discovered, those models then became better models within the domains that they examined. I'm sure that in the future, yet better models will emerge. But we still have to work with what we know at the time, given the alternatives we have. That's the way that science progresses. If you don't like RP, what's better? </p>

<p>
[quote]
There is plenty of simple information out there that shows more people would rather go to NYU, or UCLA than Williams.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is there? Where is it? And has it been validated according to a model? Again, you said it yourself, pure cross-admit data won't suffice because of the objections that you yourself raised - that much of the preferences are revealed by people not even bothering to apply to a particular school in the first place. </p>

<p>I would like to see an RP model or its equivalent that shows that NYU and UCLA are actually more preferred to Williams. You claim to have a source - what would it be?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky,</p>

<p>I can't take your arguments seriously. Walmart and mcdonalds are not recruiting college grads to man their cash registers. What an absurd response.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I used Walmart and McDonalds as examples. You really don't think that a lot of companies out there recruit college graduates to be manning their cash registers or other such menial labor? Really? I think that THAT notion is absurd. </p>

<p>Take the example of some graduates of Berkeley - look at the kinds of jobs they reportedly ended up getting. Not all of them got "good" jobs. For example, I see that one English graduate from Berkeley ended up being a barista at Starbucks. That's basically making coffee and manning a cash register. One became head cashier at Barnes & Nobles (hey, at least it was HEAD cashier). I see that one Mass Comm graduate became a cashier/floor person at Amoeba Music (which is a local used record store). One anthropology graduate ended up as a head cashier at the Exploratorium (again, at least it was HEAD cashier, right?). Another ended washing dishes at a food service company (Delaware North). One became a "book seller" at Borders. You also have assorted waiters/waitresses and other such sundry jobs. Don't believe it? See for yourself.</p>

<p><a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/English.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/English.stm&lt;/a>
<a href="http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/MassComm.stm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://career.berkeley.edu/Major/MassComm.stm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Now, note, this is BERKELEY we're talking about. Berkeley is a top school. Yet even some of the graduates from Berkleley end up basically manning cash registers or other such jobs. So how do you think it is for the graduates of less prominent schools? </p>

<p>Look, the bottom line is this. Not everybody who graduates from college, even a top one, gets a "good" job. Some of them do indeed end up manning cash registers. I would hardly see how pointing that out is 'absurd'. If anything, denying that as the reality of the situation is what is 'absurd'.</p>

<p>
[quote]
For example, I see that one English graduate from Berkeley ended up being a barista at Starbucks. That's basically making coffee and manning a cash register. One became head cashier at Barnes & Nobles (hey, at least it was HEAD cashier). I see that one Mass Comm graduate became a cashier/floor person at Amoeba Music (which is a local used record store). One anthropology graduate ended up as a head cashier at the Exploratorium (again, at least it was HEAD cashier, right?). Another ended washing dishes at a food service company (Delaware North).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't dispute these stories, but I don't see how they really fit with your argument of "what employers want in a school." Are you saying that these companies specifically recruited at Berkeley for these positions, and did so because Berkeley gave them 'what they wanted' in terms of the kinds of graduates produced? I don't yet see how these examples fit in with the point you were making earlier.</p>