School and major rankings

<p>Rankings are funny.</p>

<p>We consider it appropriate to rank schools. Clearly, Harvard and Stanford are higher ranked than Nebraska State University. Everyone knows that and most students will look up to those studying at Harvard and Stanford.</p>

<p>We don't consider it appropriate to rank majors. For example, I could say that art history is clearly ranked lower than engineering, and that'd offend people. But in reality, I'm not sure that is much different than ranking colleges. </p>

<p>My philosophy is a student should go to an affordable school that they enjoy, and they should study a major that they enjoy. Forget about rankings and do what a person wants to do.</p>

<p>The ranking of colleges really is absurd, when you think about it, because it contains the hidden–and quite nonsensical–assumption that there is such a thing as a generic prospective student. The correct answer to the question “is College X better than College Y?” is always “for whom?” </p>

<p>Maybe the most that rankings can express is an actuarial trend, i.e., that a greater percentage of students would get an optimal or near-optimal education at Harvard (or whatever school you pick for #1) than anywhere else. But that seems pretty hard to determine, and not necessarily very useful.</p>

<p>Of course, if my son was going to Harvard I’m sure I’d feel quite differently. ;)</p>

<p>I think it makes some sense to attempt to rank (or ‘compare’ if people don’t like the term ‘rank’) different colleges that offer the same major. It’s natural to decide to pursue a particular major and then search for colleges that offer that major and then to consider which college the person thinks would do the best job of teaching that major and/or provide opportunities for grads in that major from that school. Of course there are other attributes to consider as well such as size, location, etc. but it’s very natural and IMO prudent to compare the colleges offering the major of interest (if there is one).</p>

<p>It doesn’t make as much sense to compare majors directly with each other because they’re completely different. Of course, it depends on the person’s goals - if the goal is to determine which major offers has the highest average starting salary, that’s fairly objective and easy to determine but determining which major is more interesting than another is completely subjective such that it’s impossible to rank/compare.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It is significantly different. Colleges vary greatly in quality; this concept does not apply to majors.</p>

<p>The president of Tufts said that one of the worst ways to choose a college was by majors - because so many kids change their minds. Of course that’s exactly the calculation my son is doing for the next two days - Chicago or Tufts for International Relations. I do periodically remind him that he might change his mind. My older son had been obsessed by computer programming since he was seven - I had no problem with him choosing colleges 100% by major.</p>

<p>The idea of ranking majors seems ridiculous to me. My comp sci son will have a higher starting salary than my IR son. But my IR son is completely incapable of doing comp sci at the level my comp sci does.</p>

<p>However, could you say:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The sentence, had it been written that way, would make perfect sense to me.</p>

<p>And that’s my point. It should be just as offensive to rank colleges as to rank majors. Some students are destined for some colleges, and others would not be able to handle it. Some families can afford certain colleges and others can afford other colleges. Choosing one school over another should be seen as something just as personal as choosing one major over another.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>But I don’t think it is. Selection of major is almost always, and should invariably be, interest-driven. I would not, however, say the same for colleges. Sure, some colleges fit certain kids better, but there are many colleges that are simply better overall than others; thus, ranking them is not unreasonable (though I don’t think a perfect methodology has been found).</p>

<p>

This depends on the criteria used to evaluate “quality”. If we’re talking earning potential, for most students it’s the other way around. But money isn’t everything.</p>

<p>Anything can be ranked. The question is whether the criteria hold any value, and that’s a question that everyone has to decide on an individual basis.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I was referring to academic quality (i.e., effectiveness of teaching, accessibility of research, expertise of professors) and the quality of one’s peers (i.e., ambition and intelligence). Schools vary in these regards, and to some extent we can quantify relevant factors; they are not wholly personal considerations, as is the case with college major selection. Now, I’m not espousing the idea that one should go to Harvard over Yale simply because the former is ranked higher (such would be ridiculous), but one should have a significant reason for choosing, for example, a school ranked fiftieth over one ranked first.</p>

<p>

Yeah, but what exactly is academic quality? Can we measure it by GRE/MCAT scores? Total research budget? Average class size? Starting salary?

What makes a person “high-quality”? IQ score? Moral outlook? Starting salary? Athletic ability? Attractiveness? Speaking style?</p>

<p>Ranking colleges barely makes sense, but at least there is some core of common experience across all students at a particular college at a particular time that isn’t captured by what, exactly, they study. My wife and I attended the same college at the same time. We had very different interests – I didn’t take a single course in either of her major departments, nor did she take any courses in my major department. We did have three courses in common, in different years, and participated in different halves of the same internship program in different years. Our friendship-circle overlap consisted of one person before we became friends. But there is no question, none, that we had huge commonality of experience, that there were strong qualities to the institution that applied in exactly the same way to our very separate paths through it. My kids were at the same college, too (a different one than mine). They have had one course overlap, with different teachers, and slightly more friends-in-common social overlap, but again a huge range of consistent experience.</p>

<p>There is nothing like that commonality of experience within a particular major across the whole spectrum of institutions that offer it. You can generalize appropriately about a college across all its majors, but I don’t think you can generalize appropriately about a major across all its colleges. What’s more, in most American colleges your major represents only about a third of the courses you take, sometimes even less. So, while a major is important to one’s education, looking only at the major means that you are ignoring a whole bunch of relevant information. </p>

<p>Finally, majors don’t mean that much. Some majors – not that many – may actually qualify graduates for a particular job or set of jobs. (I’m thinking about engineering or accounting majors.) Most majors don’t do that, and the careers of graduates will be completely shaped by post-bac training, whether formal or on-the-job. My sister, for example, was a Spanish major, and grew up to be an extremely successful mutual fund manager, without attending another day of school. One of my college roommates was an Art History major before getting an MBA, and he could probably buy a small country if he wanted. I promise you that, to the extent it was dependent on their education at all, and not just their innate qualities, their careers much more reflect their colleges than their majors.</p>

<p>This is probably an over-elitist view. No one would tell high school students to go study Spanish Literature or Art History in order to become millionaires. However, if I were talking to freshmen at my alma mater or my sister’s, I sure wouldn’t tell them NOT to study Spanish Literature or Art History, because majors like that would not close off any important avenues for them, and would give them the tools they needed to start along the millionaire career-path if that’s the way they wanted to go.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m thinking that if a person created a criteria for ranking the quality of one’s peers, certain majors would do much better in that category than other majors, just like some colleges do better than others.</p>

<p>Ridiculous.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No one should choose a major because he or she feels that the students majoring in it might be better than those of another major (the differences would be minor and unpredictable), but it seems to be a fine reason for choosing one school over another.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Please see my parenthetical statements that you quoted.</p>

<p>

I did. There are two problems:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Those are obviously just your opinions. I think they’re valid, but not necessarily holy writ.</p></li>
<li><p>Some things are easy to quantify and rank. Others are not. How do you rank “ambition”? What about “effectiveness of teaching”?</p></li>
</ol>