It would depend on their criteria, but due to the smaller class sizes in general (especially for intro/survey-level courses) – if class size is a variable, the LACs would at least have that advantage over universities. It’s kind of apples-and-oranges, which is probably why USN has separate overall rankings for universities and LACs.
As a result, I wouldn’t be surprised much if an integrated LAC/U “teaching quality” ranking featured mostly LACs in the top, idunno, 200 schools. Of course, knowing USNews, they would likely have a “faculty citations/awards” variable as well, which would favor universities probably. Even if that doesn’t necessarily mean better teaching for undergrads.
But students go to other states. If college is “regional” than it has less value at other places. Also, there is overrepresentation in the area. You hardly can be impressed with MIT diploma in Boston. But it would make an impression in DC or Miami. Have you heard that some MIT graduates are hiding their credentials because they are considered overqualified for many jobs? (Employer is not interested in paying for MIT if a job can be completed by other graduates.)
And this is the problem. Why are we sending kids to college?
To learn? Or to get a piece of paper with a name on it? For a predetermined (some think) career outcome.
So many of these things that make Harvard elite have zero to do with the student experience. Many professors - are bad, really bad - at most schools.
People don’t even know what they’re buying - yet they continue to buy.
And it’s funny how one publication controls the narrative - because business models are built upon what they say.
That’s a lot of power.
Why else would Vandy have a hissy fit and others have to justify - that they’re no longer cream of the crop when they’re the same school they were the day before the rankings were published.
Why? Because now families might question - is my investment really worth it at that school?
Maybe WUSTL isn’t worth it - they’re asking for Harvard money with a second level rank…
Not so much based on US News per se, but I have not-so-subtly been encouraging my S24 to take a good look at colleges which are at the intersection of high entering student qualifications and high reputations for undergraduate teaching.
Actually, he is going to be applying to St Andrews, and that is sort of their thing in the UK. A lot of people will still insist Oxbridge are in a class by themselves reputationally, which is hard to dispute. But St Andrews has increasingly positioned itself as the OTHER undergraduate institution in the UK where kids with really good numbers go (for most courses), and then they also tend to do well in value-added measures and student surveys.
We’re also looking at LACs with a good reputation for all that. Again, not that I did this based on US News, but his potential LAC list includes Amherst (tied #1 at US News), Carleton (same), Swarthmore (tied for #4), Macalester (tied for #6), and Haverford (tied for #9).
Research universities are complicated because finding that intersection with so many of them is more spread out. But again, no coincidence we have visited, or will visit, Brown (#3), Dartmouth (#5), William & Mary (#6), Yale (#16), CMU (#24), Wake (#31), UVA (#48 big tie), and WUSTL (also in #48 tie). Not all these will make the application list, others could have been candidates but just didn’t make the initial cut for other reasons. But generally speaking I very much encourage him to think about all this in terms of balancing these issues and trying to find a good intersection.
Some of the schools on this list that don’t get as much love on CC include:
Elon, #1 (gets some love, but not as though it’s on everybody’s list kind of love)
Georgia State, #2
Howard, #10
Miami-OH, #11
U. of Maryland-Baltimore County, #12
Arizona State, #13
Baylor & Belmont, tied at #22
Additionally, the Jesuits got lots of nods here:
Boston College-#8
Gonzaga & Santa Clara-tied at #13
Loyola Marymount-#16
Marquette-#19
Georgetown-#21
Fairfield-#28
For liberal arts colleges, there aren’t as many “surprises” because liberal arts colleges are known for their undergraduate teaching. But in terms of schools that don’t get mentioned as often on students’ application lists:
Davidson-#6
Agnes Scott-#11
Berea, Colorado College, and Reed-tied #16
Spelman-#19
Morehouse-tied for #20
Bard-tied for #25
Unfortunately, this is the problem. How much do these other schools know about these particular schools? Could this be the type of thing where the right college officials are gladhanding and touting their efforts at a couple of conferences and get these nominations, whereas if one actually went to the campus, those practices wouldn’t be as evident? Or maybe there were some folks who say, this group usually does education well, so just nominate all of them? Nominations are a good first step, but I’d like some kind of evidence that couldn’t be manipulated by the politically savvy.
Yeah, there are plausible pros and cons to both the standalone LAC model and LAC-in-a-research-university model. For some kids, one or the other will clearly be better. For other kids, shopping in the zone of competitiveness might make sense. As usual, it is impossible to come up with a rankings scheme that will make sense for all kids.
There may never be a perfect way to compare schools academically
Fit matters. Assuming a school is affordable, if it ticks the boxes that are important to a kid, it’s probably going to be a quality option for that kid.
The most important ranking for any aspiring collegian is not one published by a media outlet; it’s the ranking done according to whichever fit variables are important to the applicant.
I note when we have been doing what I described above, we have really been leaning on our high school’s experienced college counselors in addition to my knowledge/research. We trust them to give us an unbiased sense of where they think our S24 would do well by these considerations. Obviously they do not have perfect knowledge either, but I think that is a really valuable resource nonetheless.
Unfortunately, it is one that is among the many luxuries available only at a few high schools. And I have actually been disappointed about the lack of what I would consider to be really good on-point surveys.
Like, Niche surveys and reports on Best Academics and Best Professors. I think if you try really hard, you can extract a bit of useful information out of that. But it is pretty clear it is mostly just reflecting general academic reputation, which is not what I am after.
Maybe I am missing something, but this seems like a gap that could be really useful to fill.
One last thing I want to address before taking a break on this thread. I think there is a perception that what students who receive Pell Grants or who come in with less than stellar academic backgrounds need is not necessarily what the strong academic students need or that wealthier students need.
Most educators know that many of the recommended practices for special education students or English language learners are amongst the best practices for ALL students. So using the strategies that are effective for higher-need populations ends up helping ALL of the students, not just those with higher needs. I strongly suspect the same is true for groups whose college data is available in these data comparisons.
Speaking only for myself, I send my kids for opportunity. Not certainty, not ROI. The same reason I paid the costs of them trying out different sports or getting music lessons when they took an interest. Not because I thought that I definitely would see any ROI on my 5th grader playing instrument X, but because I wanted to let them explore options, learn skills and figure out what their passion was. I understood that it was highly probable that investment would not lead to their career or even be sustained at a level to impact college outcomes. But as someone invested in the happiness and success of my kids, I didn’t want to close doors I didn’t have to.
College is the same for us. Perhaps someone goes to college and ends up doing something the could have done without college. I wouldn’t begrudge that or be mad the money was wasted. On the other hand, unless they knew with certainty what they wanted to do before college, skipping it would limit their opportunities later.
Also, college was amazing. I learned so much, matured, tried new things, met my future wife in my case, made friends I have to this day, etc. Why wouldn’t I want my kids to have that opportunity. Up to them whether they get those things out of it.
I certainly recognize not everyone has the privilege to think about it that way, which is why everyone’s situation and motivations are different and also why any rank inherently isn’t going to be meaningful to everyone. Ultimately people need to adult and take responsibility for their actions and not cede it to some business model marketing to them. Of course many don’t…
This is a really good point and I strongly agree with it.
To me, the issue remains how do you figure out if a college is using best-practices for all its students?
And I suppose as a side issue, do you (or potential future next-step gatekeepers) place any value on what your fellow students are like independent from this value-added issue?
caltech probably has better peer quality if just going by test scores and grades, but with less grade inflation, a “typical” student graduating with a lower GPA (and lower grade inflation) will have a harder time getting into med school regardless where they go.
I get caught up a little in the rankings – big rises, big declines, big formula changes (and formula validity in general…), etc. – but when I calm down a bit, with a clearer head I can see that any kid/family considering schools in the top 100, 200, etc… who can afford to send their kid to such schools… is really in a good position. Parse by preference, and apply accordingly. It is unlikely that a kid is going to exhaust the teaching/academic resources of a school.
Make sure you like the location/setting, that the weather is at least bearable, that the school offers what you want to study (and a couple backups are a good idea to ascertain as well), that there are no huge red flags, that the social scene is at least acceptable according to preference, etc.
One of the pleasant surprises of getting a PhD was coming to appreciate the extremely high quality of peers who became faculty members all over the US. I shared graduate seminars with peers who ended up as faculty from Stanford to large state schools to community colleges - and by and large, you wouldn’t have been able to predict who would be where.
This all makes the college search much less stressful, when you understand that there are brilliant faculty and mentors spread throughout the US at hundreds (thousands) of institutions. The higher sector in the US, though oft-criticized and a major subject of angst, really has a tremendous amount of depth.
To your desire for some evidence that couldn’t be manipulated by the politically savvy, yeah. I’d go out on a limb and say that every school in the group nominates all of the others.
Completely agree. I can see a Miami of Ohio, a BC, and SLACs making the best undergrad teaching list. But Arizona State?? It’s hard to believe the 5000 professors at ASU is somehow significantly better on average at teaching than the 3000-5000 professors at any other large state U. I doubt there has been a campus-wide effort spanning two to three decades at ASU to hire and keep only those who teach well that resulted in the 5000 professors at the school today. This particular US News ranking is likely unscientific for reasons @AustenNut pointed out and likely suffers from a small sample bias.
To me, large state schools have roughly the same average teaching quality. Trying to rank their teaching is a monumental task and is probably splitting hairs. If an undergrad is lucky or is strategic in picking classes, the 40 or so out of 3000-5000 professors they encounter in their 4-5 years there would be slightly above average. That’s all that a student has control over.
The depth of quality of US higher ed is reflected in our relative dominance of global university rankings. 6 of the top 10, 15 of the top 25, 30 of the top 50, at least 50 of the top 100 universities are US schools.
And LACs are not even figured into the global quality equation. We have a wealth of college riches truly.
