Yep. I kind of see both ways kind of lame. Having students pass exam like in many European countries that determine (or limit) your career for the rest of your life is not the best. On the other hand, going to college with zero idea what you want to study and often switching majors several times is not good too. Finding middle ground is difficult. Some colleges admit by school (Engineering vs.Business vs. Science etc.) Others have limited enrollment… Everything kind of complicated.
Well right, but at some of the best-regarded colleges in the US, they may not declare until after two years (and might actually switch even later–ask me how I know). And there may be no particular admissions to that major except maybe needing to do some pre reqs. So how would you evaluate the selectivity of such majors?
And then after college, this could mean a lot or a little or anything in between. Like, for the purposes of PhD program admission, you really want to have been an outstanding student in your department. Except there are good professors all over. So like your department may not be particularly famous overall, but if it is at a generally well-regarded college and you get a really good recommendation from a good professor, that could get you into a lot of top grad programs.
But suppose you don’t want to do that, you want to go to law school. Within broad limits, top law schools mostly do not care what you major in, just that you did really well (and probably that you got a high LSAT). There is a whole complex discussion about whether your college matters in that process once you control for everything else, but even if it does, your major almost surely does not.
So . . . what would it even mean to rank the majors of kids who could declare whatever they wanted, and they would all be equally good for law school?
I actually have no real problem with that, probably because it worked out fine for me, and also many other people I know.
Because to me, the idea you do not really need to start specializing until the last couple years of college makes perfect sense to me. Like, how are you even supposed to know what you will like and do best at in college, given the limits of the usual secondary school experience? Doesn’t seem possible to me, so why not have the first couple years of college be devoted to exploring and figuring that out?
Of course if you know sooner, with sufficient confidence, OK, cool. But if you want to try a bunch of stuff at the college level before deciding what you want to specialize in at the college level, seems sensible to me.
3 Likes
The National Research Council used to rank doctoral departments every decade, but I guess Congress decided to no longer fund the effort? Last ranking was ~2010
https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/an-assessment-of-research-doctorate-programs
1 Like
Not sure the ranking would indicate selectivity as that’s a more school-wide metric. But at some point, students will graduate with with a degree in “X” from that school. The student will, by definition, have met all the requirements set by the school to receive a degree in that major. And it is the major that could be ranked - the classes, the profs, the research ect.
1 Like
Totally agree…I wasn’t going to be a physics or CS major. I lack the aptitude and therefore the interest. I’m thinking more about this issue as D is a senior this year and is exploring job opportunities. It sounds so trite, but college is truly what you make it and this is what the rankings can’t capture. A motivated go-getter who networks, build relationships, applies themselves in classes and says “yes” to all kinds of opportunities will find that doors open. Which ones, when, and how aren’t necessarily clear–but doors do open. I didn’t even know my professional field existed when I was in college, but it turned out to be a good match with a lot of growth and financial upside–and I stumbled into it because I said “yes” to another opportunity which led to a contact who took a chance on hiring me.
Even if you attend a top ranked school in a chosen field/major, it really comes down to going above and beyond in whatever way that might mean. That’s been my advice to my D: Say yes to the on campus job, yes to the leadership position in the club and sorority, yes to the opportunity offered by a professor, yes to the office hours or the chance to re-do an assignment, yes to an unpaid internship, yes to an introduction. It all adds up. And that isn’t a function of where you go to college, but what you do once you’re there.
The only caveat, since we’re talking about rankings–and a point I made up-thread–is that some colleges truly lack credibility and students graduate with a major that really doesn’t provide the educational foundation needed for ongoing success. While it isn’t about #32 vs. #72 on USNWR, when you’re talking about a for-profit college or #387 on the list, you might want to look closer at what you want to do and whether college makes sense. I think a lot of students feel like they need to go, but aren’t academically or psychologically prepared.
I see a good job as a byproduct of a good education. Rather than choosing a major based on “what leads to a good job”, ask “what am I good at and what I am interested in”. From there, work hard, say yes, and see what doors open.
4 Likes
Bingo - I personally believe this is 98% of it. My kids are proving this, at least to me, especially my Poli Sci/International Studies major at Charleston who was offered plum DC internships for the Fall and is working at a top think tank. While kids from her school don’t normally land in these rules, I don’t think it was the school as she had seven offers, five of which paid.
And as I mentioned before - a rank doesn’t account for cost. If someone is attending a school at $30K vs. a higher ranked at $80K, how does that factor in? Too many students are like - I must go to top 20 and I don’t care what it will cost in loans. There is a student now - it must be Carnegie Melon or Columbia - why must it be? What if it strangles you for life? How will that rank help.
My theory is that we’re all looking for a guarantee (for ourselves and our kids). It starts early–“My kid is an early reader! They must be “gifted” and therefore destined for success!”–and culminates in college admissions. It might be true that a tippy-top college (Ivy+) stacks the deck for success, but it’s not a guarantee. My SIL went to Stanford and has an engineering degree. She’s never had a job and lives with her mother at age 53. Granted, she’s an outlier, but on a smaller scale, lots of people attend top schools and work alongside the rest of us. It’s not a magic bullet.
These days, with college being wildly expensive and admissions so incredibly tough–dare I say random–I think we’ll see an expanded definition of what people perceive as a “good college.” But as has always been true, a big name helps you get your first job, but after that, it’s your experience, your network and your skills. The college might help open the first or second door, but it’s not a guarantee of continued professional success.
1 Like
So just to provide some framework, the different common sorts of college rankings include selectivity, return on investment, observed placement, value-added, and intrinsic quality. I note value-added and selectivity are related because you need to know entering qualities and exiting qualities to measure the difference between them.
OK, so if you can’t measure selectivity and value-added, that knocks out a couple major types. Return on investment and observed placement also struggle for application when people can do so many things next, many of which do not depend heavily on major.
So that leaves intrinsic value. You could do surveys and such for that purpose, but they usually run into the problem that people lack a basis for comparison.
So these tend to become just departmental reputation and research measures. Which may be a useful input for grad programs, but often has limited or no value for college choice.
How can you specialize in your last few years if you haven’t previously taken all the lower division prerequisite courses? There are some majors that follow a very proscribed sequence of courses and which require a significant foundation acquired in the first 2 years before being able to take specialist courses in your final 2 years. Many sciences are like this. If you’ve spent your first couple of years filling up your schedule with exploratory courses and you haven’t completed the full foundational sequence, you aren’t going to be able to register for upper division specialist courses until you do so which will probably result in you needing at least an extra year to graduate.
Selectivity should be the easiest to measure. For schools that admit by major this is already known. For schools that do not admit by major it would be the overall admit rate of the school (since it is the school that assumes that any admit should be successful as any major they offer).
Yeah, to me this is all just part of the process of “education” that begins in early childhood, and never really ends. And it all really matters! Everything before college. Everything after college. And college itself.
So, you know, it is just life, or at least a component of life. And to me that makes it both less important in some ways than some people seem think, and more important in other ways.
1 Like
Right, but this is collapsing back to not being a ranking by major.
Like, assume for a second general admissions and everyone goes to law school. Selectivity is not by major. Placement is not by major. Value-added is not by major. What would a ranking by major therefore even be telling you?
Med school is not much different. You have specific classes that are required, but they cut across majors (and indeed with enough ambition, you can actually major in something that overlaps few or none of your pre reqs).
And business works like this too at many colleges, where people can also major in a wide variety of things and only take business-specific classes, if at all, in a graduate business program after you get some real work experience.
And so on. While there are other paths too, this is actually a fair description of a big part of a lot of famous colleges. And it is intermingled in with people who are going on to get PhDs and such, in ways that is very hard to disentangle.
That does not surprise me at all. Most if not all LACs are small, and most are without graduate programs pulling the professors to attend to their grad students. This will make the professors accessible (also because they are the ones teaching the classes, which are usually small so they can get to know their students), and not grad students teaching the undergrads (or breakout sessions from huge lecture hall classes taught by professors).
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the vast majority of students graduate with a BA or BS in something. So value to these students is measured by the value that a BA or BS from that school presents. It does not matter if they were admitted by major or not. They got BA/BS from that school and that is what they will take into the world of employment.
If they plan on some type of grad school, the value of that BA/BS may or may not count, but they should know that ahead of time, especially if they want to attend the strongest schools in whatever field they choose. Many different majors can find their way into med schools (MCAT counts), but even there I believe that there are preferred paths based on the academic strengths of the undergrad degree/school.
1 Like
And easiest to game. No app fee. No essay. All kinds of gimmes.
3 Likes
It is what it is
This. Wesleyan’s small grad school component is nothing like the graduate school at Princeton, which enrolls over 3,200 students, more than the total population at Wesleyan. Wesleyan’s PhD programs are niche, but their presence benefits what is indisputably a LAC without overburdening it. Benefits include added course depth, research money and research activity for a school of its kind. It barely qualifies as the icing on the cake, but it is additive to the school.
1 Like
Great example of how go-getters can find opportunities regardless of the ranking of the undergrad institution.
What is your D doing and is the internship fulfilling a step toward her career goals? I recall her focus is specifically working with refugees… Is the placement related to that?
1 Like
So interesting you ask that - because she had two offers from - now I forget the name - found it - the IIRC in Silver Spring Maryland.
They were the two unpaid and they are harder to get to transport wise. And the thought was - you can always work with refugees because there’s not enough people doing so.
She had 5 other offers - and forgetting they are paid and located better (she walks 10 -15 minutes from Capitol Hill to Union Station and takes a train to Dupont Circle - she got excited for the one she’s at - because she is involved with a lot of speeches - and she is giddy for them. So today she texted, I was talking to this billionaire’s kid (yes, she said the name) and she’s always like - I’ve met this diplomat and we spoke about this. So she has so many interests - from refugees to ending female genital mutilation to US/China relations to whatever - that she felt this was a better fit to get herself “connected”.
For the most part but maybe not fully, she applied for internships that were of interest to her. When it was getting late, then she expanded a little more. We thought - my goodness, it’s June or July and she has nothing and the semester is going to start and an internship is required and we’d be shut out - and then the phone started ringing non stop. So I think their hiring timing is later. Had she gotten nothing, she’d have been placed with a state representative.
To answer your question, no it’s not refugee related and she probably put in 70 or 80 apps to get the job offers she had - and there were some federal type with refugees or immigrants that she didn’t get a call on.
But while she had I’d say seven very good offers and the White House called wanting to do a background check (they called late) - this one just got her giddy - from the get go.
And hearing what she’s doing and the content and duties she’s being exposed to, it’s definitely the right fit for her. She doesn’t even complain about the early hours which is a first.
So she got lucky I’d say - and while no one knows the future, hopefully given her internship with the state over the summer and now this one in the fall, she’s onto a productive path to chase her dreams and goals.
PS - the refugee folks, even full time, don’t make a lot - and she realizes that and I think that went into her decision too. They were the first two jobs she didn’t consider, the first two cuts of you will. Plus like most kids after they’ve had paid jobs and she has now since 11th grade, they like making money - so the volunteer thing wasn’t going to work for her.
Hope that answers.
Glad you’re back posting.
4 Likes