<p>As we discuss ranking and teh merits of choosing colleges on that basis, the following two articles might be of interest to some: ( apologies if they had been psoted elsewhere already) : </p>
<p>^^No, actually, there’s been very little imput from Yale and Harvard so far in the discussion. We know, for example, that there has been agreement among a broad cross-section of LACs (including, Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan, Reed, Carleton and many others) to not use the USNews rankings as part of their regular academic and athletic recruiting materials. Yale did host an Educational Conservancy (the organizaton led by Lloyd Thacker who is mentionned elsewhere in ths thread) about five years ago and perhaps its admissions dean was, in part, influenced by that conference.</p>
<p>Just curious: Do we CC members think that people generally know that USNWR rankings are based on magazine editors’ opinions of what makes a school good? Do people know that the magazine determines the factors and how they are weighted, not educators?</p>
<p>I honestly don’t think a majority of CCers know this. It is as Yale Dean of Admissions, Jeffrey Brenzel writes at the URL cited above:
</p>
<p>The obvious appeal to CCers is that the USNews poll, in particular, reduces the equation to two imputs: money, and exclusivity, by which it presumes to answer the age-old question, “How do you measure prestige?” Prestige, by general consensus, now means, a high score in their poll. </p>
<p>A case could be made that publicity from the magazine results in greater exposure for lesser known schools, but, it comes largely at the price of even more intense competition for the limited places available at the top fifty institutions. More applicants mean the top designated 50 “national universities” and “national liberal arts colleges” can all afford to charge as much tuition as they like, which eventually percolates down the food-chain, resulting in higher tuition across the board. </p>
<p>Access and affordability have, unfortunately, never been one of USNews’ ranking categories. In fact, they are completely at odds with them.</p>
<p>^^That’s only true for students with the highest need. Overall, moderate-need families are paying much more in tuition than they were twenty years ago, thanks to prestige inflation.</p>
<p>I do not think that your generalizations have bearing on all actual events. If not for the misinformation, the melodrama would be entertaining. </p>
<p>I have a family member who received grants from a top 10 LAC amounting to an actual cost to her family of 8K a year. Her family is not in need in any way. I am in a similar situation. I expect to pay much less for education for my student in 2012 than my parents paid, for me, in the early 1980s.</p>
<p>Furthermore, there is no prestige inflation nor any prestige glut; there is only creative marketing.</p>
<p>And it takes more than the assignment of an article-title to a blog post to substantiate an actual trend.</p>
<p>Well, at least now we know what you meant at post#106 whe you said:
</p>
<p>In other words, we’re talking about merit aid, where the school virtually pays a student for scoring high on their aptitude tests, which in turn contributes to the school’s prestige. News Flash: Just because your student is paying less, doesn’t mean it isn’t coming out of someone else’s pocket.</p>
<p>Do you have any economic studies to back up the supposition? (The local Cal State Unis are far from prestige-driven, and in the old days used to be tuition-free. Now they cost a lot.)</p>
<p>And, btw, many “moderate-need” families will find it less expensive out of pocket to attend a need-only, highly ranked (USNews) college than the instate public Uni. I know that is definitely true in California, which does not meet full financial need.</p>
<p>sure, Cal is (as are the other UC campuses) but they are financially and politically constrained by the Regents. And the Regents do not care much for prestige. </p>
<p>but in my post above, I was specifically speaking about the California State University system, and not the University of California system. My obvious point is that ALL educational costs have increased, even for Podunk U.</p>
<p>^^perhaps you don’t need any supporting evidence at your college, but where I when I went to school (in the dark ages), faculty challenged us to support our speculations. </p>
<p>Do you really think that if Wesleyan raises its tuition/fees in tony Middletown, that the good folks at Cal State Fresno or Chico even notice? Seriously?</p>
<p>^^Well, I don’t know where you went to college, but at Wesleyan it would have taken a great deal of willful ignorance to believe that I was calling Cal State Fresno and Chico second tier LACs!</p>