<p>Have you read the latest ranking by Smart Money magazine? Article titled "Why the Ivies aren't worth it" by Neil Parmar. They determined each school's "payback" ratio and used data from PayScale.com. "Smart money took a crack at quantifying the long-term value of a college education. Our goal was to spotlight the relationship between tuition costs and graduates earning power." </p>
<p>They looked at what graduates from 50 of the most expensive 4 year colleges earn in their early and midcareers. Then factored in their up-front tuition and fees. Their result is what they termed a "Payback" ratio. </p>
<p>Flaws in the data that were pointed out in the article - Avg. alum salaries included only those who stopped at a bachelor's degree. "The real earning power is what they end up doing in professional and graduate school," Carleton College Dean of Admissions. "Yale's director of student financial services points to his school's world class faculty, libraries, and art collections." The article also does not take into account the private school aid that a student may receive. They used the full price tags. </p>
<p>Top public schools
1. UGA
2. Texas A&M
3. UT Austin
4. Georgia Tech
5. U of Washington
6. Rutgers
7. U of Illinois
8. Clemson
9. Purdue
10. UNC Chapel Hill</p>
<p>Top Liberal Arts Schools
1. Washington & Lee (19th overall)
2. Richmond (22nd overall)
3. Lafayette (28th overall)
4. College of Holy Cross
5. Bucknell
6. Amherst
7. Occidential
8. Colgate
9. Bowdoin
10. Ursinus</p>
<p>Overall rankings -
Lists top Public schools as above
11. Ohio State
12. UVA
13. Indiana
14 UC Davis
15. U Rhode Island
16. U Delaware
17. Penn State
18. U Mass Amherst
19. Washington & Lee
20. Princeton
21. Dartmouth
22. U Richmond
23. U New Hampshire
24. Yale
25. Harvard</p>
<p>Top kids @ URI (or any state school) could go toe-to-toe with students at Harvard. Sometimes the difference between an admit to Harvard and a deny is that someone's mom went there, not that one applicant had more academic potential. </p>
<p>Remember that most highly selective schools make decisions based on their needs, not just academic qualifications. I know Harvard students who had SAT's in the 1300's and were admitted for other reasons....</p>
<p>I suspect that I'm much more familiar with both URI and Harvard than you. There are very few students at URI who will go toe to toe with Harvard students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The article also does not take into account the private school aid that a student may receive. They used the full price tags.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a HUGE flaw in comparing schools that in some cases have half or more of their students on need-based financial aid, which for some students can go all the way to a free ride from tuition, fees, room, and board. </p>
<p>Here's a better source by more astute economists: </p>
<p>You can suspect all you want, but the point is, top kids from URI or UConn, or UMass or where ever are outstanding students. Even looking at Rhodes and Marshall Scholarships, you'll find students from all different types of schools and places including Florida State, Kansas State etc. These aren't the most selective places, but this doesn't mean that there are some students there (albeit it in smaller concentrations) who could have gone to top colleges and done very well. Those who think otherwise, are ignorant about how college admissions actually works.</p>
<p>I'm specifically referring to URI if you read the posts here not UCONN or UMASS. As far as the Harvard people you know with 1300 SATs, this must be from some time ago since the scores are on a scale of 2400. As far as legacies are concerned, when two equivalent candidates are applying for admission, the legacy will get the spot. Harvard has enough applicants to choose legacies with ultra high scores and with anything else they desire.</p>
<p>First, I wasn't talking about the writing section since most colleges still don't use it b/c CollegeBoard hasn't released any conclusive data. But, since you're intent on making the point, yes I know students there who were scoring in the 1800-2100 range who were admitted to [highly selective college] and naturally there are students who score in the same range who end up at state schools. This is fact. </p>
<p>My point: Kids get into [insert highly selective school] all the time who are not academic superstars but for other reasons (legacy, development, athletics, faculty parent, movie star, etc]. Equally qualified un-hooked kids naturally end up elsewhere and they still go on to be great students. It's not hard to understand.</p>
<p>Dumb article. I would be willing to bet the results are statistical noise.</p>
<p>They should have included trade schools. I bet the payback ratio is higher. Go to school for two years and become a licensed paralegal, airplane mechanic, CAD operator, etc... all good jobs for not much schooling.</p>
<p>Or you could look at the corporate CEOs produced which is more important than the clubby Rhodes any day. State schools do very well. The Payscale data is slef-reported random crap. It is not even a survey but just whoever happens to go to the website which I had never even heard of until the articles came out.</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing this OP. I find it an interesting piece of information. Like any kind of ranking system there is plenty of room for intepretation, etc.</p>
<p>One thing I immediately noticed is that many of the top 10 schools have strong/well known engineering programs. I think that skewed the results a bit, but there is still a lesson to be learned from that. </p>
<p>I'm also thrilled to see my D's least expensive choice on the list of the top 25--and it's not Harvard!</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Payscale data is slef-reported random crap.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That reminds me of my FAQ on such junk data: </p>
<p>VOLUNTARY RESPONSE POLLS </p>
<p>One professor of statistics, who is a co-author of a highly regarded AP statistics textbook, has tried to popularize the phrase that "voluntary response data are worthless" to go along with the phrase "correlation does not imply causation." Other statistics teachers are gradually picking up this phrase.</p>
<p>Sorry Kim, but it just aint so. Voluntary response data are <em>worthless</em>. One excellent example is the books by Shere Hite. She collected many responses from biased lists with voluntary response and drew conclusions that are roundly contradicted by all responsible studies. She claimed to be doing only qualitative work, but what she got was just plain garbage. Another famous example is the Literary Digest "poll". All you learn from voluntary response is what is said by those who choose to respond. Unless the respondents are a substantially large fraction of the population, they are very likely to be a biased -- possibly a very biased -- subset. Anecdotes tell you nothing at all about the state of the world. They can't be "used only as a description" because they describe nothing but themselves.
<p>Interesting stuff. In part, I think it speaks to what it takes to come out of a competitive public university with a degree. But what I really liked was reading DocT's posts in my Thurston Howell III voice! :)</p>
<p>I think there are two questions raised but not answered at all by the article. First, is income or wealth the appropriate outcome measure? Are either really the best measures of success? I think having a satisfying career and meeting broader life goals are probably more important; however, I'm not sure how well one would measure these. </p>
<p>Second, I believe that all other things equal (which they often aren't), more wealth (and possibly higher income) leads to a greater sense of security on average and thus might be an important component in a measure of success. Assuming income or wealth were the right measure, has the study in the article gotten a good outcome measure so that its conclusions are meaningful? If I understand the article correctly, I'd say no.</p>
<p>Articles like this are thought provoking but will never answer the question I (and many others, I would hope) would like to have answered:</p>
<p>Do kids at elite schools do well in life because of, or in spite of, their school? The same question, BTW, could be asked of kids at high performing public high schools, and private prep schools.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the question is so difficult to answer that no one has really resolved it, in spite of much effort.</p>
<p>As a parent, I am well aware of the differences among various kinds of colleges. I could have saved a lot of $ sending my daughter somewhere other than where she went, and it might have been fine. I just did not want to take the chance that it would not have been.</p>
<p>It's always nice to see your school ranked #1 for something, but I agree that there are serious problems with the methodology used. I would point out, however, that a lot of the students at UGA pay even less because of Georgia's HOPE scholarship that provides full tuition for all students who had a 3.0 average or above in high school, so it's a pretty awesome return on a really low cost (for in-state students). </p>
<p>I also find it highly ironic that on UGA's website this story is just above another story about impending budget cuts that, according to our president, will result from our extremely low tuition costs. Hmm.... </p>
<p>While I can't entirely answer newmassdad's question, I will say that having both a strong honors program and the financial freedom from not having to pay for an education made a state school really rewarding for me. The financial independence especially allowed me to do enriching yet unprofitable things in the summer like intern with a nonprofit, go on a cross-country geological field study, and do field research in Africa. Not having to work or worry about money while in school also let me have a very active life in extracurriculars, research, and social opportunities. Plus, I'm making my career choice based on what I want to do, not on what will make me the most money, and won't have student or parental loans hovering over my head in whatever I decide to do. So for the right kind of student, I think the financial independence that can come from such low college costs can actually be beneficial in the long run.</p>