i disagree , its based on feedback from 600 recruiters ,30,000 students etc,. and NC was also highly ranked. I don’t think anything in this list is any more or less biased than any other list. (actually may be
only ones to rank undergrade b schools at all). Anyway all I am saying is TCNJ continues to move up and its being noticed now.
I would put Stevens above Rutgers and TCNJ, or at least equal. The graduation rate is a little lower because they have a couple of four year programs like Co-op and the 4 and 1 Masters program. For STEM studies it is superior to TCNJ and at least equal to Rutgers. For business TCNJ is probably the best of the three.
lbad so by your thinking Rutgers should have at least the same ranking yet its way off at #97 lol
I’ve called NJ home for the last 15 years but grew up in CA. And it’s always been shocking to me how poor the college options are in NJ relative to its population, prominence, education level of residents, etc. After Princeton, the highest rank schools are way down the top list. By comparison, CA has Stanford, Pomona, Berkeley, UCLA, USC, Cal Tech, Claremont McKenna, just to name a few. They have 10 UC’s and 23 Cal State Universities, all public. NJ is #11 by population but it’s flagship public school typically ranks in the high 20’s of public universities. NJ deserves better. Ridiculous that they haven’t prioritized this more.
@LBad96 - Strongly agree with your reservations regarding the Bloomberg Businessweek ratings of undergraduate business schools. You may find this an interesting read – http://poetsandquantsforundergrads.com/2016/04/19/bw-ranking-garbage-garbage/.
@BrooklynRye that article is absolutely spot on. I’m surprised that it didn’t mention the very obvious bias towards Northern undergrad B-schools.
@stencils I agree. As I’ve said before, a general ranking of schools is just one factor to consider when selecting a college. Location, price, campus environment, and courses offered all need to be taken into account.
@crazymamaB Stevens is arguably the best school for STEM students in New Jersey, but this a general ranking of the schools’ overall quality. Princeton is one of the best universities in the nation, Rutgers is among the highest ranking state universities, and TCNJ is among the highest ranking regional universities. Stevens is a good STEM university, but not among the highest ranked. While the graduation rates aren’t a deal breaker, they are noticeably lower than those of other STEM schools. That’s why I have it below Rutgers and TCNJ, although it’s still a solid institution.
I think that the lesson to the extent we use national rankings is to parse and understand the information very carefully. If a school environment is ill-suited for a particular student or if a student is unhappy, they will not succeed no matter what the school’s rank. Often students find themselves and thrive at lower-ranked schools where the environment, professors and/or curriculum enhance their experience. I think there is also a bias, particularly among the demographic of eloquent, well-educated parents who frequent sites such as this, toward higher-ranked schools. It has been bred into our DNA. Schools have also become products. We wear their clothes, put their bumper stickers on our cars, and root for their teams. This often overflows to recommending and championing a school based on personal experience rather than on objective criteria or, more importantly, the subjective needs of individual students. The interesting anecdotal perspective for me is the degree to which the branding of schools makes it very hard for up and comers to break through toward becoming household names. No matter the rankings, the elite schools, both nationally and for dedicated majors, remain largely the same for decades if not centuries. The Ivies are the classic example of this. Where there seems to be more flexibility in recognizing new shining stars is in new science and technologies.
I think it’s a bit unfair to call out Stevens too harshly on longer than usual undergraduate graduation rates, as according to their website 30% of their science and engineering students intentionally opt into a 5 year program that includes a year of coop.
@BrooklynRye – it’s nice to bump into you somewhere other than the collegiate fencing board and I agree completely with your comments about the inherent bias of ratings and an inherent bias of well-educated parents to put too much emphasis on ratings.
@stencils - We are inherently competitive animals, my friend. As go college ratings, so too go fencing ratings, and so forth…Nice to see you on another thread as well.
@BrooklynRye The way I see it, rankings and statistics are primarily affected by the highest achieving / hardest working students attending schools that are supposed to be the most prestigious. It’s their own skills and motivation that bolster the reputations of their universities. The educational experiences the best regarded schools are supposed to offer are meaningless if the students don’t want to learn and just want possession of a degree.
Likewise, those who graduated from the most prestigious schools tend to be most successful career wise simply because they’re hard working and high achievers. They truly want to succeed. It’s hard to determine how their careers would have turned out if they went to lesser regarded schools, but it’s probable they still would have been successful. At the end of the day, the Alma mater you attended has little bearing on where you ultimately end up, except for giving the school bragging rights.
@stencils Stevens has the highest tuition of the New Jersey colleges. The statistics of a school that charges as much as Stevens does would normally be up to par with the top tier institutions. But they’re not. While the 5 and 6 year graduation rates are fairly solid, they’re only slightly higher than Rutgers’ rates and lower than TCNJ’s rates, both of which are noticeably less expensive than Stevens.
@ExpertOnMistakes - What you wrote above is an extremely innovative way of looking at the difference between ‘elite’ undergraduate institutions and the ‘run of the mill’ colleges. In a sense, the elite colleges historically began as finishing schools for the very rich and well-born. Many of these young people were more than simply spoiled, rich kids and, in any case, ascended to the highest ranks of society including in politics, sciences, business, literature and in the fine arts. While one may argue that the best teachers, lecturers and guest speakers were drawn to these elite institutions and their well-heeled student bodies, in the end it was largely the ethos of the the students that led to their subsequent success. In other words, the reputation of these schools was built on their students. Once established, it simply became the accepted mantra that one had to go to Harvard, Yale or Princeton to be in the class of student-graduates to achieve the highest levels of societal performance. The elite colleges have perpetuated this ever since. In fact, however, one can see that this is not the case. With increased competition to get into elite schools, combined with the exorbitant expense of private colleges, more and more students unable to gain admittance and/or to afford elite colleges, have opted for State schools and ‘lesser’ institutions where their stats garner substantial merit or other funding. Thus a new generation of high-achieving citizens are actually coming from State school systems and lesser-ranked private schools. This is not to say that so-called ‘elite’ schools do not have value. They still attract the best and brightest students, the most renowned thinkers and teachers in all fields, and provide tremendous opportunities for students both while in school and after graduation. They have also amassed ridiculous amounts of money. It is still something to say, “I graduated Harvard Class of 2020”. However, to your point, as a practical matter, it says more about the student as to who he/she is and to their intelligence, abilities and industriousness, than as to where they went to undergraduate school. Thank you for a cool post!
I think the majority of the lists over-rate Rider. Our high school guidance counselor said they could get anyone into that school even if they were rejected everywhere else. If you have the money to pay, you are in.
True. Including net price(price after financial aid including room/board/transportation/etc), Stevens is still the most expensive school in NJ(Although the post-grad salary is the highest out of the NJ schools.) It’s a good school.
Stevens net price is around $30K-$40K
Rutgers net price is around $20K-$30K
TCNJ net price is around $15K-$30K
@BrooklynRye Completely correct. It’s no coincidence that seven of the eight Ivies were among the first colleges established in the United States. They were able to build their reputations by being the only options available to students who wanted to continue their education. They had all of the famous and successful alumni, forcing younger colleges to play catch-up and try to obtain famous graduates of their own. Of the colonial colleges, only Rutgers doesn’t maintain an elite status, but that’s because it became the flagship institution of its state, intended for a large group of hard-working students rather than an elite few.
Nowadays, many hard-working students can be found at flagship and lesser-known schools instead of just the elite colleges. However, even though it’s still the students who are primarily responsible for a school’s statistics, the elites are still able to maintain their rankings for a few reasons. First of all, the highest-achieving students tend to be very status conscious and want their alma mater to be a noteworthy credential, even if it means little in the long run.
Furthermore, the wealthy students usually attend the highest ranked schools. Success after college is based more on timing and connections than credentials and experience and the wealthy have the most connections. So when the wealthy students graduate from an elite college, they’re more likely to find work and become successful, which further bolsters the elite college’s reputation.
When you look at the people born in the 20th century who ascended to the presidency, only Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan did not attend top ranked schools as an undergraduate (though Nixon later went to Duke as a graduate) and perhaps fittingly, all came from poor backgrounds. Just as the elite colleges are able to maintain their statuses throughout the years, the wealthy are able maintain their statuses through having more career connections and financial benefits. Nevertheless, as seen with the three aforementioned presidents, any hard-working individual is capable of succeeding in their goals, regardless of their alma mater and financial backgrounds.
One time in my workplace, we had a discussion of the colleges we attended. In the end, a co-workers joked that it didn’t matter where we went to college - we all wound up in the same place.
@ASJackson923 As I said in another comment, Stevens is probably the best school for STEM students in New Jersey. It’s less suited for non-STEM students, but to be fair, colleges are typically geared towards a certain demographic. Princeton is for the highest achieving students, Rutgers is for the general population of students who want a good college education, and TCNJ is for students who want an affordable and well-regarded education in their state.
once again I must point out that TCNJ has many national level accolades and provides those that can get into some of its top programs a great and highly competitive education .
@stones3 I didn’t say TCNJ doesn’t have national level accolades nor was I criticizing the education it provides. When I said “in their state,” I was referring to students receiving a well-regarded education in New Jersey, not that TCNJ is only well-regarded in New Jersey. However, its primary demographic is New Jersey residents and only 6% of its student body are out of state.