<p>I think the single most important criterion for ranking the colleges should be how happy the graduated crowd is with the opportunities they got in their respective lives. All other usual factors (selectivity, scores, faculty PhDs etc.) used by USNWR etc are not so useful. USNWR should get hold of a representative sample of alumni and ask them to simply state how happy they are (on a scale of 0 - 10, 10 being the happiest) with the experience and education they received at their alma mater. </p>
<p>If one were to guess, how would the school ranking be for the top 10 or so spots?</p>
<p>What constitutes happiness?</p>
<p>I really don't think too many college grads are going to say that they hated their schools. Such a ranking would be so subjective, it would be laughable.</p>
<p>Considering the time and energy commitment, I'd think alumni would have difficulty saying anything other than good things.</p>
<p>US News includes an "alumni giving" factor in their rankings, which is based on the percentage of living alumni who continue to donate money to their school after graduation. This statistic is often considered to be a reasonable proxy for "alumni happiness". It is certainly an easier statistic to obtain: it would be difficult, in practice, to poll thousands of alumni from hundreds of schools every year about their level of "happiness".</p>
<p>For US News, "alumni giving" is only one of the factors that they use for their rankings. But it should be possible to pull the "alumni giving" data from the published rankings, and to rank schools by this factor exclusively, if that's what you really want to do.</p>
<p>Thanks, Corbett. It is a good idea to check the alumni giving. I will look for that data.</p>
<p>You realize you can re-sort the USNEWS rankings according to any of the rankings columns. If you do that to alumni giving rates, the top-10 national universities become:</p>
<p>Princeton University (NJ)
Dartmouth College (NH)
University of Notre Dame (IN)
Harvard University (MA)
Yale University (CT)
Duke University (NC)
Lehigh University (PA)
University of Pennsylvania
Stanford University (CA)
Washington University in St. Louis</p>
<p>i would not suggest ranking according to alumni happiness. </p>
<p>They might eliminate some of the schools known as 'pressure cooker' in particular UChicago, MIT, Caltech, and Cornell. These schools are among the top few on the world academically, yet are notoriously difficult and might not produce the most cheerful alumni. </p>
<p>Also, alumni giving rate isn't going to work either. For instance, how would you fairly compare alumni giving at a place like UPenn vs. a place like Brown - they're both on the same academic level, but Penn has Wharton whose graduates produce significantly more cash on a yearly basis than do the English or history majors at either Penn CAS or Brown. This is just a hypothetical example (i'm sure i'll get a 'graduates of brown make good money, too'), but I just want to show certains schools have certain majors that will naturally produce more income meaning the possibility of higher donations. </p>
<p>Just my two cents.</p>
<p>Some schools have already gamed the system by badgering alums for even a small donation as the amount does not count. A better way to do it would be to take total money raised divided by total alumni.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I just want to show certains schools have certain majors that will naturally produce more income meaning the possibility of higher donations.
[/quote]
True, but the US News "alumni giving" statistic is based on the rate at which alumni participate in fundraising, not on the dollar amount collected. </p>
<p>Suppose School A that receives donations from 50% of its living alumni, and that the average donation is $100. Suppose School B receives donations from 40% of its living alumni, and the average donation is $1,000. Obviously School B rakes in way more bucks. But School A would still be ranked higher in the "alumni giving" category by US News, because it has a higher rate of alumni participation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some schools have already gamed the system by badgering alums for even a small donation as the amount does not count.
[/quote]
I expect that by now, every school has made their alumni aware that participation rates affect the US News rankings, and that every little bit helps.</p>
<p>"True, but the US News "alumni giving" statistic is based on the rate at which alumni participate in fundraising, not on the dollar amount collected."</p>
<p>ok, then see my first argument.</p>
<p>measuring graduates happiness with their opportunities is a very flawed idea. first of all, if you have low standards, you're going to be happy with fewer opportunities. That's hardly even a significant point when you compare it with some of the other problems you would face.</p>
<p>There are enough rankings. rankings provide really superficial knowledge in the first place when they try to measure objectively. You want MORE of them and you want them to measure happiness? eh.</p>
<p>
[quote]
i would not suggest ranking according to alumni happiness. </p>
<p>They might eliminate some of the schools known as 'pressure cooker' in particular UChicago, MIT, Caltech, and Cornell. These schools are among the top few on the world academically, yet are notoriously difficult and might not produce the most cheerful alumni.
[/quote]
I don't have access to the US News Rankings, so I can't tell if the "alumni giving" factor penalizes schools like this (Johns Hopkins might be another candidate). </p>
<p>But my guess is that the schools that lose most in the standings due to the "alumni giving" factor are actually the top public universities (e.g. Berkeley, UCLA, Michigan, Wisconsin, UVa, UNC, etc). Donation rates are typically much lower at public schools that at private schools, probably because alumni figure that they already support the public universities through their tax dollars.</p>
<p>It would be interesting to compare the alumni giving rates at (for example) Berkeley vs. Stanford, UCLA vs. USC, or UNC vs. Duke.</p>
<p>Total giving numbers--certainly a different picture than the rates.</p>
<p>"Top 50 Institutions
in Annual Giving
(2004)" "Annual Giving
x $1000"
Harvard University 582,584
Stanford University 524,539
University of Southern California 354,481
University of Pennsylvania 336,989
Johns Hopkins University 315,663
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 294,671
Columbia University 292,977
Cornell University 270,155
Duke University 269,012
Yale University 268,120
University of Texas - Austin 264,935
University of California - Los Angeles 263,691
University of Wisconsin - Madison 262,826
University of Minnesota - Twin Cities 249,782
New York University 215,835
University of Michigan - Ann Arbor 211,610
Ohio State University - Columbus 206,078
University of Washington - Seattle 198,013
University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill 190,220
University of California - Berkeley 182,323
University of Notre Dame 173,686
University of Virginia 168,310
Purdue University - West Lafayette 163,727
University of Chicago 161,603
University of Utah 139,271
North Carolina State University 138,487
Northwestern University 137,606
Emory University 134,322
University of Florida 133,359
Princeton University 126,482</p>
<p>Per capita alumni giving will always favor smaller schools because smaller schools can keep track of alumni better.</p>
<p>Amount doesn't matter. As they say, it's the thought that counts. It's like remembering favorite relative's birthdays. If you love the school/person, you'll send something. I know alums of schools like the UCs who hated every minute of college and would never give a dime. Hence the pathetic endowments. I know newly minted grads of schools that are grad students and give up dinners out for a month to give generously (Harvard, Princeton, Amherst, Williams).</p>
<p>Berkeley and UCLA are both on multi BILLION dollar campigns right now. Also the current endowments are hardly pathetic. UCB is over $2 Billion and climbing. UCLA is over 1 Billion.</p>
<p>The endowments at Berkeley and UCLA are significant, but they are not as impressive as the endowments at private schools in California, when you consider factors like size, age, and professional schools. At the end of [url=<a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112636.html%5D2005%5B/url">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0112636.html]2005[/url</a>], the biggest endowments in the state were as follows (in $ billions):</p>
<p>12.2 Stanford
2.7 USC
2.3 Berkeley
1.9 UCLA
1.5 Caltech
1.3 Pomona College</p>
<p>Pomona College, with 1,550 students, probably has a smaller enrollment than your high school, yet it's socked away more than $1 billion</p>
<p>They wouldn't do happy alumni because no one wants to see Notre Dame as #1.</p>
<p>Of course privates have larger endowments, until recently most state schools did not actively try to build large endowments as the state took care of everything. That changed in the 80's. In 20 years they will have more than all but a handful of privates due to the large alumni base waithing to be tapped..</p>