So my daughter is starting to get acceptance letters and we have a spreadsheet where we put in the net cost after merit aide, faculty ratio, and rankings… yes, we’re all a bit OCD. Anyway, we want to be able to compare apples to apples once we decide between schools. Most schools rankings seem pretty consistent from one publication to another. Today she got an acceptance from Mills College in Oakland, US News has it at #5 for regional colleges west above lots of amazing schools including cal poly slo, chapman, etc… #1 for best value schools, Forbes has it at #376 below those same schools and many others. What would be that big of a difference in rating methodology?
Here you can compare the methodology used for both rankings. Forbes is heavily focused on financial outcomes (post-graduation salary, student debt), as to be expected. US News has things like academic reputation which Forbes ignores.
It goes to show that depending on the methodology used and your definition of a “good” college, rankings can be extremely different.
US News: http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings
If you’re interested in financial outcomes, The Economist has an interesting ranking: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/10/value-university
So @insanedreamer if Mills does much better in education vs career outcome could one infer that they don’t place their graduates well? Either due to a weak career services department or low name recognition perhaps.
The Economist ranking is hilariously flawed in a couple of obvious ways. It was their first stab at doing something like this, and they kind of messed it up.
I am a big fan of the Economist, and I think it very likely that they will improve their methodology in the future.
“So @insanedreamer if Mills does much better in education vs career outcome could one infer that they don’t place their graduates well? Either due to a weak career services department or low name recognition perhaps.”
I think one should infer, even more, that the students who choose to go to Mills are less interested in going into big money professions and more interested in going into social services and academia.
That’s also a fair thing to say. All the people I know who went to Mills are self-described social activists. However, the tuition at Mills is damn near 45,000 per year, so people should be better informed when they decide to attend a high cost school before entering a low-yield sector.
One main problem with each ranking is:
Forbes: Students largely select their income by choosing where to live (differences in standard of living…) and what they want to do (major, career). Forbes does not take differences in standard of living into account, nor does it factor in self-selection for major and career.
US News: While academic quality is the #1 factor in the quality of a school (IMO), it is very hard to measure validly and adequately. One factor that USNews uses to complete the “academic quality” picture is their Academic Rep variable. USNews asks deans and high school counselors to rate the academic strength of competitors. The deans’ opinions, I think, are fairly valid, since it is their job to be aware of the quality of their competition; high school counselors, not so much. They certainly know which schools are popular, but we can count the number of apps to tell us that.
I stopped paying attention to the various Forbes rankings when they listed Palo Alto as a top 10 college sports town while leaving out Columbus, Ohio, and when they listed New York, London and Tokyo as among the top 10 most beautiful cities in the world.
Forbes has rankings for all kinds of things and seems more interested in having lots of superficially-generated rankings than coming up with a few good ones.
Really? Sports rankings is what gets you all riled up? That seems like the most useless ranking of them all lol.
Picking which ranking you want to follow is all about picking the methodology behind it. If you like the factors that Forbes considers, use Forbes. If you prefer the Economist, or Bloomberg, or US News that’s fine just make sure you read about the methodology.
I don’t know why that would upset you. London is beautiful by any account, I love Tokyo and its electric eclectic, and New York is my home so I think it is beautiful.
Look at multiple rankings, do not rely solely on one. USNews is reliable but it has also considerable shortcomings and biases. WSJ/THE is another one that gives some good insight, but is also not perfect. Forbes, Economist, Niche, College Factual are some other to look at.
@Postmodern I do have to say it is beautiful, but most people have only seen it in awful weather which “dampens” (hehehe) their enthusiasm.
I think this is probably accurate “I think one should infer, even more, that the students who choose to go to Mills are less interested in going into big money professions and more interested in going into social services and academia.” I think just by virtue of the type of students attracted to a small women’s LAC, they’re not largely looking to go into big money professions.
Obviously rankings aren’t everything, but they’re something. If a top 100 school offers a slightly lower scholarship than a #400 school the quality of the education may warrant a difference in cost of attendance. On our spreadsheet we also have other factors like faculty ratio, cost of attendance, as well as rankings. If my daughter did choose Mills it would be on scholarship, I agree full pay wouldn’t make a lot of sense.
Thank you all for the input!
Mills has a great music program. I know lots of people who have taught at or been through that program and they’re superb creative musicians.
The financial rankings are generally based on the starting and/or 10 year salaries of a college’s graduates. That means that more technically focused schools, schools on the coasts, and schools that send a lot of students to graduate school are generally higher ranked. Depending on your student’s career path, that may or may not be applicable to you.