<p>I wish the liberal arts majors on CC are not so insecure that they constantly attack other majors.</p>
<p>As much as I appreciate ideal that college should not be about getting a job, most people can’t afford that luxury.</p>
<p>@DrGoogle it stands for Vocational-Technical. <a href=“Vocational-technical school - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocational-technical_school</a></p>
<p>SoMuch, I first thought it was a typo but after Barron’s comment I finally realized it.
I think it’s a disservice to a lot of students to diss these tech or CS majors. Particularly this person is a parent that is even more astounding.
Perhaps a liberal arts degree didn’t help this person. Sour grapes?
I mean my daughter is happy with her major, she wouldn’t dream of studying anything else but she wouldn’t diss these majors. Not if she uses these tech stuff in her life. Maybe I raised her right. Maybe it’s not the liberal arts major but maybe these badgers were not raised right? Maybe their parents are to blame? How’s that for a rant?</p>
<p>*badgers should be *bashers</p>
<p>I try to give the benefit of the doubt and assume what was meant is that colleges shouldn’t be ranked solely on how beneficial they are for getting employed in certain fields, and that the education in and of itself has merit. Different rankings with different focus just provides more info in my opinion. Take what works and leave the rest. A student who enjoys what she’s studying is getting a great education!</p>
<p>Glad to hear that improperly reared badgers aren’t causing problems! </p>
<p>I used to give people the benefits of the doubt but lately I’m getting sick and tire of the tech/engineering bashing that I’m ready to fight back. Rolling up my sleeves and ready to step on the boxing ring. </p>
<p>@DrGoogle Wow I’m surprised to see that sort of conversation start here. LinkedIn is a tech startup that (in my experience) is most heavily used by people in the fields that they’re ranking colleges for.</p>
<p>Unlike USNWR, they’re even very honest about what they’re evaluating and don’t try to come up with any “overall” rankings and instead focus on field-specific issues. For someone to bash tech majors in this context is pretty pathetic.</p>
<p>Dividerofzero, I agree people should never open the thread if they don’t like the title.</p>
<p>@PurpleTitan - you say the first 13 on the IB list are Wall Street targets. So, BC isn’t? If not, why is it #14? Not arguing, just genuinely curious. Also, any idea why Colgate doesn’t crack the top 25 for either finance or IB? I thought it had a strong alumni network and it showed up in a high spot on an ROI list once before…</p>
<p>Small school does not do well because this kind of ranking favor large public schools.</p>
<p>How do you look at a list where almost all the ranked schools are medium sized or smaller private and conclude that the ranking favors larger publics?</p>
<p>Because I think this ranking counts the number of grads from each school so of course the large public school is going to win by sheer number.</p>
<p>I am not a fan of linkedin, but I think this ranking demystifies the idea that going to colleges in Silicon Valley has better chance in gaining employment in software development.</p>
<p>@Wyanokie: BC does place on the Street. It’s probably more of a semi-target. The rest of the IB top 25 are all Street targets or semi-targets.</p>
<p>Colgate may have a strong alumni network, but that doesn’t mean that they’re on Wall Street.</p>
<p>@DrGoogle: actually, the LinkedIn rankings seem to be more of a percentage ranking (percentage of alums of a school in an industry at the most desirable companies in that industry), so if anything, that would hurt the top big publics, which may offer the same opportunities as a UPenn/Columbia to a talented kid but would have a student body of more varying abilities.</p>
<p>Purple, I reread how they rank, it’s the percentage of the pool of people that were counted. That’s said I think it’s remarkable that Caltech and Harvey Mudd ranked very high because they are small school.</p>
<p>@DrGoogle:
<a href=“Ranking Universities Based on Career Outcomes | Official LinkedIn Blog”>http://blog.linkedin.com/2014/10/01/ranking-universities-based-on-career-outcomes/</a></p>
<p>" For each university and profession, we then calculate the percentage of relevant graduates who have obtained desirable jobs. These percentages allow us to rank universities based on career outcomes across different professional areas."</p>
<p>The way I read that is that they calculate the percentage of a school’s grads in an industry who have desirable jobs in that industry.</p>
<p>So no penalty for small schools (ergo not that remarkable that Mudd and CalTech do well). If anything, a penalty for big state schools with more varied student bodies (in terms of ability). Hence UIUC is top 5 in alums at Google+Apple+Facebook but #12th in the Software ranking.</p>
<p>@PurpleTitan Since the data is very easy to access, I’m wondering how we can adjust for student body ability. That way we might be able to come up with data for how an equally talent student will perform at UIUC vs. CMU, for example.</p>
<p>Actually, I’ve an idea. We can measure field-related indicators of incoming student body quality and compare that to indicators of how well the student body does later on. The deviations from the trend would perhaps provide a measure for how each college performs relative to its pear.</p>
<p>@dividerofzero: sure, though at a university like UIUC, the incoming quality of students in Engineering (and certain other majors) are likely higher than those at many other colleges of that university, so how do you adjust for that? Also, not only CS majors go in to software.</p>