Rankings are sometimes underrated

College Search & Selection
1

<p>I used this site quite a bit some 4 years ago when I was beginning the dreaded college process. I guess up until I applied, the whole super-competitive college admissions process hadn't really gotten to me. Senior year was a bit stressful, I'll admit, but my high school was pretty good about providing us with an excellent education without being cut-throat. So when it came time to apply to colleges, I really bought the whole "choose the right school for you, rankings don't matter at all" line. I still ended up at a top 10 university, mainly due to location and size, and really somewhat in spite of its ranking! In retrospect, it seems a little crazy the extent to which people emphasize this "go where you think you'll be happy" thing to high school seniors--who probably have no idea where they'll be happy. I just wanted to come back and post about why I actually believe in the rankings system a little bit, even after having it hammered into me that I shouldn't.</p>

<p>The rankings system is not completely arbitrary or wrong. There is definitely a relationship between the ranking and the intelligence of your fellow students, the professors' teaching ability, the difficulty level of your classes, etc. It is certainly possible to go to a mediocre school and do wonderful things with your life. However, for a kind of average, normal human being, this probably isn't gonna happen. If you are like me and tend to just go with the flow and do what your friends are doing, it is seriously beneficial to be around people who are going to do great things. The things that I love about my school include not just the classes but the general environment that I'm in. My friends challenge me to think more, to articulate my ideas, and to generally be a more intellectual person. Granted, there is not a precisely linear relationship between ranking and academic atmosphere, but I definitely think there's a correlation and its significant enough to make a difference. </p>

<p>I recently visited a friend who goes to one of the "Colleges that change lives." She is not completely happy at her school because we went to a very good high school and this school is really a notch down. Again, I think it's possible that it could change your life; college is what you make of it, but really her school is small, her professors are uninspiring at best, and I was completely shocked to discover this after all the hype about lower tier schools that are as good as if not better than top universities. I suppose as a high schooler I wasn't really the best at critical thinking. I believed whatever people I thought knew what they were talking about said often enough, but I think I would have liked to read a different opinion on the matter, so I'm posting this here now. I'm sure there are other colleges I could have had a good experience at... but I don't buy that I would have learned or grown as much at a lower tier school.</p>

2

<p>

No. Doing proper research is. Rankings cannot and should not replace proper research on selecting the right colleges. </p>

<p>Your point about the intelligence of classmates, however, should be carefully considered. I’ve learned as much outside the classroom as in it, and I agree that this could not have happened anywhere.</p>

3

<p>I’m not suggesting that people not do any research. I’m just saying that around here, it seems that people really make it seem like ratings should not play ANY role in your decision. If someone posts a college list that is just the top 5 or 10 universities in order, people will definitely start questioning them rather… aggressively. I think ratings have an extremely strong correlation with the intelligence of classmates and therefore should be considered as a factor. Possibly even an important factor… but of course not the only one. That’s why the subject line was “Underrated” not “Rankings should determine where you go to college”!!</p>

4

<p>Veronique, I don’t think you will get any arguement on the importance of rankings. But to suggest that rankings are “underrated” on CC is ludicrous. Most CCers genuinely believe that #8 on the USNWR is better than #18. And those will also believe that next year, should those two universities switch places in a matter of three or four years, the university that is then ranked #8 will be better. In reality, with thousands of universities spread around the United States, the difference between universities ranked even 20 or 30 spots from each other is marginal, if at all existant. And that’s assuming the ranking is fair, which most rankings aren’t. </p>

<p>This said, I agree that rankings are something to consider, only not in a vaccum and to the exclusion of all else. Intended major, cultural fit and finances are all as important as the overall ranking of a university.</p>

5

<p>Veronique, I agree with you - not that USNWR rankings should be the holy grail - but objectively “ranking” schools, by whatever criteria is most relevant to you, is a better approach than seeking a “fit.” Students plan to go to college to be stretched, to be exposed to and explore new things. So then they’re told to find a “fit” - in other words, a place that validates whatever biases they currently carry. What constitutes a “fit” to a lot of 17-year-olds? - “I do / don’t like preppy attire.” “I’m comfortable around people who are most like me.” “My tour guide was cute.” “I find Gothic architecture intimidating.” “I didn’t like the lasagna in the dining hall.” </p>

<p>I’m not trying to demean the critical judgment of teens here; I’m just saying that if the development of critical judgment skills is the primary purpose in attending a college, it’s irrational to ask a pre-college student to use that underdeveloped skill to find some subjective “fit.” Doing an analysis in as objective a fashion as possible to produce your own ranking is a much more reasonable strategy.</p>

6

<p>USNWR is a good starting point but shouldn’t replace research and visits IMO. Ultimately, a person should go to a school they love and feel comfortable at. If it is a top 25, great if not, that is OK too. Two kids actually followed that advice and they had very good options. One child is actually going to her last choice school because after she visited, she fell in love with it and never changed her mind. She got accepted to much higher ranked schools. She has never regreted her decision. Getting accepted to a top tier school is an ego booster, but it isn’t always the best fit. For my kids, just getting accepted was enough. It was a little hard on mom and dad for them to turn down a couple of schools (ego thing:)) Luckily, there are many, many good schools both public and private. In the end IMO, how well you perform in the school you have chosen will be what counts.</p>

7

<p>“Ultimately, a person should go to a school they love and feel comfortable at.”</p>

<p>I agree to a certain point. But over on the Parents Forum, there’s currently a thread stated by the parent of a prospective student who wants to know where her son could go to find conservative faculty, because he’d be angered by having to listen to faculty who espouse liberal viewpoints. I don’t mean this as a slam against the OP of that thread, but that kid desperately needs to hear some liberal viewpoints, just as flamingly liberal kids needs to go somewhere where they’ll be challenged by contrasting views that draw them outside the boundaries they’ve drawn for themselves. Barricading oneself among masses of like-minded people is not a fit that leads to worthwhile outcomes. Now if your favorite pastime is playing tuba in the marching band, and you really want to have a good marching band in which to play - well that’s a pretty good type of “fit” to seek.</p>

8

<p>If the whole idea that ranking matters based on student quality, than USNWR wouldn’t be the way to go. Depending on what you’d think is quality, the only measures that would matter to the OP are things like high school GPA, median SAT scores, or perhaps, selectivity (allowing factors that are less quantifiable to be factored in).</p>

<p>Another great example of how rankings don’t really matter so much as they contain some information which may be interesting and helpful.</p>

9

<p>It sounds like the OP poster was thinking of huge disparities in rankings. I don’t think she was concerned about differences in rankings of, say, 20 positions. At least this is what I infer from the fact that she’s comparing a Top 10 university to one which is a step down from high school in terms of academic quality.</p>

<p>When the difference in rankings is huge, there usually is a real difference in academic quality. Additionally, the quality of peers, the overall environment and other intangible factors are likely to be vastly different. I speak from experience here - I’ve attended both McGill and universities which were nowhere near as highly ranked. One was a private liberal arts college which few people outside the general area have heard of. Another was a “directional” public university. Neither is even a top 100 university by any stretch of the imagination.</p>

<p>I agree that seeking to be around only those people you think you’re similar to is harmful. For one thing, you might not actually be that person. I’m not who I thought I was at age 17 (which has a lot to do with why I’m going back for another degree, but that’s beside the point.) Also, anyone really needs to learn to get along with other types of people.</p>

<p>That said, what attire people wear could actually be a valid concern. Not in and of itself, but what it says about the people who wear it. A 17-year-old could be painfully aware that they don’t fit in with and won’t be accepted by people who wear “preppy” clothing. Should they choose a university where 80-90% of the students wear “preppy” clothing?</p>

<p>On a related note, even if a university appears to have different types of people, it’s not safe to assume that they interact with each other. If they don’t, it’s not much better than being in an environment which is mostly people who are like oneself.</p>

10

<p>“. . . even if a university appears to have different types of people, it’s not safe to assume that they interact with each other. If they don’t, it’s not much better than being in an environment which is mostly people who are like oneself.”</p>

<p>That’s a good point. There’s an appropriate element of “fit” to assess when you’re visiting a campus.</p>

11

<p>“Fit” is an uniquely American phenomenon due to the great number of colleges and universities here. In other countries, people just go to the “best” school they can get into, however they define “best.”</p>

<p>“Fit” does have a place. If you’re choosing between peer institutions, then by all means look for “fit.” Otherwise, do what everyone else in the world does. All things being equal, go to the most highly ranked school possible. </p>

<p>Rank is, for the most part, consistent and predictable. “Fit”? Not so much.</p>

12

<p>“‘Fit’ is an uniquely American phenomenon due to the great number of colleges and universities here.”</p>

<p>Probably.</p>

<p>Non-US universities tend to be more strictly focused on academics. As a result, they have less of a personality that causes them to work for some students and not others.</p>

<p>The concept of “fit” is also self-perpetuating. If a US university winds up having disproportionately many of a certain type of person, it becomes a good “fit” for that type of person and less of a good “fit” for other types of people. Then even more of that type of person enroll because they’re seeking a good “fit”. The result is a vicious cycle. I don’t know of non-US universities having this problem. To the contrary, at McGill (the non-US university I have firsthand experience with), all types of people are well-represented.</p>

<p>Here in the US, even many state universities have a strong personality that doesn’t work for everyone.</p>

13

<p>OP, in contrast, I attended a top 60 school and hated it, and now attend a ‘tier 3’ school, where I’m getting IMO an equal education for significantly less money. I tend to think these silly rankings mean very little.</p>

14

<p>Could the rankings be incorrect for the specific top 60 school and/or the “tier 3” school, but mostly valid in most cases?</p>

<p>One specific area where the rankings probably fall apart is some urban universities. They often appear unselective on paper because they accept many students from questionable urban schools. The fact that they are less selective directly lowers the ranking. Still, they might be just as rigorous as higher-ranked schools.</p>

<p>Your “tier 3” school, if it’s the one I think it is, is underrated in my opinion. (Two of my relatives went there.)</p>

15

<p>Well it’s pretty easy to guess where I go if you know anything about college basketball, but I have a feeling you’re right.</p>

16

<p>Rankings are nowhere near being underrated!!
Overrated if anything!!</p>

17

<p>"The rankings system is not completely arbitrary or wrong. There is definitely a relationship between the ranking and the intelligence of your fellow students, the professors’ teaching ability, the difficulty level of your classes, etc. "</p>

<p>The rankings are not completely arbitrary – there is a system behind them, of course - but I’m interested in knowing how you think you can know that there is “definitely” a relationship between the rankings and the intelligence of students, the difficulty of classes, and the professors’ teaching ability. You went to a top 10 university, but you didn’t specify any experience ever having been to another university even as a visiting student, much less any systemized studies that you’ve done to support your statement.</p>

<p>“It is certainly possible to go to a mediocre school and do wonderful things with your life. However, for a kind of average, normal human being, this probably isn’t gonna happen.”</p>

<p>It depends on what you define as “wonderful things.” I also suggest that you review the college backgrounds of some of the most famous people in our society. Many of them did NOT attend well-known expensive private schools.</p>

<p>“If you are like me and tend to just go with the flow and do what your friends are doing”</p>

<p>The point is, going to college is supposed to teach you NOT to do this. If you are still this way four years after the process, your college has failed you. The purpose of college – especially a top 10 university like the one you say you attend – is supposed to teach students to become independent thinkers, change agents, movers and shakers, who are willing to buck the trend and stand for what they believe in, not just “go with the flow” and do what their friends are doing. I went to a second-tier liberal arts college and that’s what MY experience taught me, even if my professors weren’t being published in Nature. My friends also challenged me to think more and to articulate my ideas, but </p>

<p>“but really her school is small”</p>

<p>Small colleges suit some people and not others. Your friend’s experience validates nothing.</p>

<p>“her professors are uninspiring at best”</p>

<p>Have you ever taken a class with these professors? Even had a conversation with them? No? SO you are only going by your friend’s word, who is already admittedly unhappy at the school and is likely to have a lower opinion of her professors.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, the meat of the statement that you’re making is that “rankings are underrated” – this is largely false. “underrated” means that there is not enough buzz about them, and the truth is EVERYONE who is applying to college – from the most ambitious prep-school grad to the inner-city public school student – has at least some vague notion of ratings. And most of the top students on CC take them into account very heavily, I’ve noticed. If you look at the “what’s important” poll, you’ll see that the current winner is prestige.</p>

<p>GaDAD: Seems you have the wrong idea of what a “fit” is. A “fit” is not supposed to be a place that validates already held biases. A “fit” is supposed to be a place that one feels comfortable growing intellectual at. It is impossible to objectively rank schools.</p>