<p>
[quote]
Sakky, the RP does not measure academic quality or reputation. It measures popularity and nothing else. It tells one nothing about a university's faculty (by far the most important factor in determining the quality of a university) or of the curriculae. It does not look at the resources availlable to the students or the opportunities presented to them. Therefore, it is a joke of an academic ranking. Fiske closely examines the academic offerings of a university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I never said RP was an 'academic' ranking. Neither did the RP authors. I and the authors have always been clear about what it is - it is a revealed preferences ranking, nothing more, nothing less. </p>
<p>So the real question is what is more useful - an academic ranking, or a revealed preferences ranking. I would argue that it is the latter. Why? Simple. Let's face it. I would argue that even at the top schools, the majority of students aren't really there for the quality of the faculty or the curriculum. Alexandre, I think we had agreed in a past thread that we both know why they are really there. They are there to advance their careers. Nothing more, nothing less. I think we can all agree that if a college degree didn't help your career, either in terms of getting a good job right upon graduation, or setting you up for grad school (with the hopes of getting an even better job later), most people wouldn't be going to college. Like it or not, that's the truth of the situation.</p>
<p>Hence, since that is the truth of the situation, then it is more proper to assess where the top students want to go? Why? 2 reasons. #1 - market signalling. Schools are ranked in a pecking order as to how desirable they are, and so that is used as a proxy of a market signal as to how good of a student you are to get into that school in the first place. For example, many (probably most) people who go to Harvard are going there just to be able to SAY that they went to Harvard, and in particular, to signal to the market that they were good enough to get into Harvard. It is that * signal * that makes certain schools more desirable than others. </p>
<p>McKinsey, for example, is one of the heaviest and most prestigious recruiters at Harvard, but one McKinsey recruiter even said that, at the end of the day, they don't really care about Harvard * per se *. If they could somehow get the list of people who just got admitted to Harvard, regardless of whether they actually went, they would recruit off of that list instead. But Harvard will never give that list out, so they do the next best thing which is to recruit the graduates, because obviously to graduate from Harvard, you first had to get into Harvard. But the point is, they're not really looking for the quality of the Harvard education. They're looking for the Harvard selectivity. Many other employers behave similarly. And many students know this as well. In fact, at most of the top schools, especially HYPS and even to a large extent M and C, the hardest part of getting the degree is simply getting in. Hence, many students basically treat their curriculas as basically an obstacle they have to survive to getting to the job they want. Whether that's right or wrong, that's the reality of the situation.</p>
<p>Secondly, the other major value of college is in the networking. Networking is enhanced when lots of other top students attend the same college. The mere fact that lots of other top students go to a college is, by itself, a good reason for you to go to that college. It's like going to a singles bar. You want to go to the bar that happens to have lots of attractive eligible people. Maybe that bar is really a dive and there is a far "better" bar just down the road. But if eligible people don't go to that "better" bar and keep going to that dive, then you should also go to that dive. In other words, the people make the school.</p>
<p>If all this sounds a bit unfair, in some sense, it is a bit unfair. Or, should I say, it's a matter of market 'network effects'. Demand creates its own demand. It's like the market for telephony gear - the more people in the world that have telephones, the more useful it is for you to have a telephone. Hence, the more desirable it is, the more desirable it is. The main reason why Harvard is so desirable is because other people think it is so desirable. Sounds like a tautology, but it is true. If, all of a sudden, everybody in the world thought that Harvard was no longer a desirable place to study, then Harvard really would become undesirable. Top recruiters would stop going there, because they would no longer have an assurance of finding top people there. People would no longer see Harvard as a top networking and signalling opportunity, because, again, the top people wouldn't be going there. The value of a Harvard degree would collapse. </p>
<p>In some ways, this parallel's Veblen's theory of conspicuous consumption as well as the notions of status and luxury goods. The truth is, lots of high-status goods in the world are not really of the highest quality. The Toyota Camry is a far more reliable car than the Bentley. So why do you see the rappers showing off their Bentley's, and not their Camry's? Those rappers show off their Bentley's because they are trying to show off to the world that they are successful enough to be able to * afford * the Bentley, not because the Bentley is really the best-made car they can get. Nobody gains status by showing off a Toyota. </p>
<p>Come on, Alexandre, you talk as if everybody is really going to college because they are really trying to learn, really trying to take advantage of the curricula and the faculty. You and I both know this is not true. Most students don't care about that. You see this at its most prominent in the top business schools - I would argue that the overwhelming majority of MBA students at the top B-schools don't care about the education, and are really there to network and to do recruiting. But even in undergrad, you still see this a lot. I know at Berkeley, there were a lot of students who didn't care and just wanted to get a job. I am sure at Michigan, it was the same. </p>
<p>So basically, what you are talking about is perhaps what students * should * care about. But what the RP study shows is what students * actually * care about. Hey, maybe students care about the wrong things. Like in my example of the singles bar, maybe everybody should be going to that nice bar down the road as opposed to the dive that they currently attend. But be that as it may, if people still insist on going to a dive, then that dive becomes desirable. Ultimately, it is the students themselves who ultimately make a school. For example, it doesn't matter if Berkeley actually has a better program than Stanford if everybody * thinks * that Stanford has the better program.</p>