<p>I don’t get what the percentage of work study funds spent on community service has to do with the quality of the school. Why is stuffing envelopes for a fundraiser any more valuable to the student than stuffing envelopes for the admissions office? Am I missing something here?</p>
<p>This rating isn’t about the quality of the school–it is about how well the school “gives back” to the community. Personally, I don’t think it even measures that very well, but that’s what it’s all about.</p>
<p>I have to LOL at all the posters gnashing their teeth at the specific ranks of individual colleges inthe WM poll when in just a few weeks time these same posters will be defending the USNEWS poll by saying (among other things) “It’s the data that matters, not the ranking.”</p>
<p>Well, I agree. As with the USNEWS poll, WM is steering our attention to a slightly different set of data points. And, they’re doing it mostly by using outputs, not merely as a proxy for how wealthy a college is (and how many wealthy students attend.)</p>
<p>If I had to put it in a nutshell, I’d describe the WM poll as a proxy for schools that are “punching above their weight”, regardless of how rich they are; it asks the question, "Which college is performing the greater task, College X which enrolls 100 Pell Grant recipients and graduates 10 of them, or College Y which graduates the same 10 but only enrolled 10 in the first place?</p>
<p>Of course, Pell Grant recipients aren’t the only data points of interest. There are enough here for an array of different colleges to shine, and frankly, they help explain why the elite colleges do as well as they do. For example, it’s hard to deny that Ph.d production and research are part of the conventional wisdom of what makes for a great university. Personally, what I find fascinating is how poorly the rich colleges do on the “community service” metric, even the ones that advertise themselves as, “producing leadership” (cough, Claremont McKenna.)</p>
<p>Haha, johnWesley aka Circuutrider, you simply cannot let go of your envy of the success of a small school on the West Coast. It must be hard to read how the applicants vote with their feet and make it the most selective LAC in the country.</p>
<p>Fwiw, I doubt that you understand the metric you decided to use to criticize the leadership element. </p>
<p>But, what is new? Cheap criticisms are a dime a dozen.</p>
<p>^^And, of course, it’s always the graduate of “the most selective LAC in the country” that always stoops to ad hominem attack as a substitute for reasoned argument.</p>
<p>The only rankings that make any sense at all are those that measure one objective criterion, with no subjective criteria and/or subjective weighing of multiple objective criteria.</p>
<p>Examples of sensible rankings: SAT/ACT scores of the first-year class; acreage; NCAA championships; number (or per capita number) of Rhodes/Fulbright/Marshall scholars; per capita alumni giving (assuming the definition of “alumni” is uniform across schools).</p>
<p>Prestige is an intangible and cannot be measured accurately. Whom does one ask? College deans? Employers? Which employers? The “person on the street”? Is a Gallup poll more accurate? “Best” cannot be measured unless there is a direct (sports, chess, math) competition, and then it’s only accurate on a given day.</p>
<p>Sure, these rankings are silly. So are the USNWR rankings and every other ranking that purports to show the “best” of anything.</p>
<p>
That’s the only context in which ranking makes sense, since a single national ranking is not useful as a way for an individual student to select a university.</p>
<p>That being said, the methodology here is strange.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No ad hominem at play here, my dear friend John Wesley. I simply chuckled at the fact that from that sea of misinformation and suspect if not moronic data, you could single out a school for its failure to transform its riches into community service. I opined that you did not understand the metric (and its silly source) but could have added that you, obviously, have little to no idea on how community service is funded at the Claremont Consortium. Just as it is the case at many schools, there are plenty of pockets of funds that available in addition to the general work study, or summer community service work study program. Even for someone with a distinct obsession (for not apparent reason) for a school, it would be hard to appreciate, especially since he has no apparent attachment or … knowledge. </p>
<p>And here comes the difference: I do not spend my time scouting for news about Wesleyan. Except for reading the seminal Gatekeepers, and knowing a few people who have been ecstatic about attending the school, I know nothing about their successes or failures. Frankly, I find it more than enough than keeping up with some news from the schools I attended, and would not worry about a “competing” school located in an area that does not generate much interest. At best, I get engaged in some discussions about “local schools.” </p>
<p>But you? Perhaps it might make it less surprising to read to constant bashing if you made your interest into the affairs of Claremont McKenna more apparent. Is it a representation of the Dutch adage that … the tallest tree catch the most wind? As in that schools that reach the top attract your attention? </p>
<p>I don’t know, but it is getting rather old, and especially since your information and conclusions about the school are almost always flawed and poorly researched.</p>
<p>^^More sour grapes. You don’t believe Claremont McKenna merits the same attention I would give Amherst, Williams, Middlebury, Pomona, Wesleyan, Swarthmore or any other of the elite institutions I follow? That’s your privilege. I would just note for the record that it is nearly always you who seems to start the annual WM rankings thread, almost always as if it were a preemptive strike against Claremont McKenna’s predictable poor showing. If it were a simple matter of the poll not capturing some data point - common to all LACs - you would’t be so sensitive about it.</p>
<p>
The methodology of the “Service” metric is hardly comprehensive; rather, it is quite arbitrary and does not take into account many different factors. For instance, ROTC tradition is weak at many schools. It’s not very advertised and so many students aren’t aware that their campuses even have ROTC programs. The community service ranking is also misleading, as colleges are located in different settings. Community service opportunities are obviously more numerous for colleges located in urban settings. What about measuring the quality of research coming out of universities? I’m sure your “rich colleges” will have more research being produced that betters the quality of human life. Is that not a service to humanity? </p>
<p>Therefore, the criteria used by this survey is hardly comprehensive; indeed, it is quite arbitrary.</p>
<p>^^If you re-read my post@#23, you’ll see that I specifically mention the research and Ph.D production components of the WMpoll as a possible explanation for the prominence of certain elite institutions (in both the university and LAC versions of the poll.)</p>
<p>There are always going to be mitigating circumstances in any poll; that is why we have discussions like this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No sour grapes at all. For the record, I judge the rankings based on their merit and on the methodology used, and absolutely not on how my “favorite schools” fare. The WM could list Claremont McKenna as its top school, and I would still find it a silly hodgepodge of nothingness. Further, I have been highly critical of ranking where the schools I have attended have fared … extremely well. </p>
<p>As far as preemptive strikes, let it be know that I did not even look at the LAC ranking in the WM garbage. I looked at the university ranking and commented on UTEP, a school I happen to know very well. Seeing it listed in seventh position was all I needed to know how different the ranking will be, and that the final “score” would be reflecting something entirely different from a “best” school ranking. And that it would not be different from the year I coined the term Mother Teresa ranking. </p>
<p>I am all for recognizing that schools can be measured under different metric, but recognizing a school such as UTEP for “extraordinary” accomplishment is simply silly. It is a school that admits about everyone, including a vast number of students who barely speak English, will be lulled to milk the government largesse (often through fictititious Pell applications) and borrow themselves into a decade long hole without a whisper of a chance to ever graduate. Thinking that a ranking should recognize and reward such poor version of what education should be requires quite a twisted mind!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep, let the record stand: This is last year’s version. Did I start it?
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1384366-washington-monthly-college-rankings.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1384366-washington-monthly-college-rankings.html</a></p>
<p>Or in 2011
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1203411-washington-monthlys-2011-college-rankings-out.html?[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/1203411-washington-monthlys-2011-college-rankings-out.html?</a></p>
<p>Or in 2010
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/985906-washington-monthly-college-rankings-2010-a.html?[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/985906-washington-monthly-college-rankings-2010-a.html?</a></p>
<p>Or in 2009
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/774421-washington-monthlys-2009-rankings.html?[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/774421-washington-monthlys-2009-rankings.html?</a></p>
<p>^^Let’s be clear, UTEP earns its #7 position in the university section because its net price is $2,600 a year. How many community colleges can beat that price?</p>
<p>UTEP is a joke, you would get a better education at a community college.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Hardly. The “advertised” net cost of below $3,000 contributes to the final ranking. Check the methodology to evaluate the percentage of the tuition cost in the final ranking. How much does the “positive” ratio of graduation accounts for that number 1 ranking in social mobility? And how much impact does that Pell boondoggle have. You’d have to know a thing of two about how that works in El Paso, Las Cruces, and Chihuahua to know how the Pell applications work around our neck of the woods. Hint? Not too different from the way some Californians play musical chairs with the income of donut shops and dry cleaners! Report what is convenient!</p>
<p>As far as tuition, here’s a better view of the … reality:</p>
<p>[Tuition</a> and Fees](<a href=“The University of Texas at El Paso - UTEP”>The University of Texas at El Paso - UTEP)</p>
<p>Are the COA that different among the schools in the UT system?</p>
<p><a href=“http://finaid.utexas.edu/costs/130undergradcosts.html[/url]”>http://finaid.utexas.edu/costs/130undergradcosts.html</a>
<a href=“http://utsa.edu/financialaid/cost.html[/url]”>http://utsa.edu/financialaid/cost.html</a></p>
<p>Not to toss gasoline into the fire here but… </p>
<p>Admissions Data (2012):
Percent of Applicants Admitted: 100%
GPA, SAT and ACT graph for UTEP
What Are Your Chances? (from ■■■■■■■■■■)
Test Scores – 25th / 75th Percentile
SAT Critical Reading: 390 / 490
SAT Math: 420 / 530 </p>
<p>4-Year Graduation Rate: 10%
6-Year Graduation Rate: 37% </p>
<p>I am not going to lie, those SAT scores and graduation rates are pretty atrocious. That being said though, a college should be judged on what it offer to students, not on the incoming scores of its students, and UTEP appears to offer a well-rounded package. In this prestige-driven world, lower ranked colleges like UTEP can’t control which students apply. They can just do the best with what they’re given.</p>
<p>UTEP offers a solid (perhaps average) curriculum overall (looking at their EE program)… nothing earth shattering, but it will do the job. Their graduation rates seem to reflect the underprepared nature of the students in relation to the rigor, which is probably adequate.</p>
<p>
I agree with you xiggi. Stanford is ranked too high.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re not doing your cause any good by denigrating a school with, maybe, one one thousandth of Claremont McKenna’s resources and still manages to graduate nearly 40% of its students within six years.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may be because many students who attend those and other colleges believe they best serve their communities (as well as their own personal ambitions) by becoming doctors, engineers, college professors, or (heaven forbid) investment bankers. </p>
<p>Actually, some very rich colleges do very well on some components of the community service ranking. Look at the top 20 for Peace Corps participation. It includes Brown, Chicago, Emory, Johns Hopkins, and Rice. I would not expect schools that get heavy Peace Corps participation necessarily to get heavy ROTC participation, or vice versa.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the middle “Research” ranking is a better metric for collegiate community service than the “Service” ranking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps, but that is not the point raised here, and that point is one that glorifies the so-called accomplishments of a school in a ranking. For the record, one-half of my family members are UTEP graduates, as they go back to a time the area was still part of Mexico. and UTEP had a different name. I also know that the majority graduated without the skills to write or speak English at a professional level. The ones who fared the best graduated from the engineering program and supplemented their education at a technical university in Mexico. </p>
<p>While you mentioned the graduation of close to forty percent, you do not look at the other side, namely failing to graduate more than SIXTY percent. For the overwhelming majority of those students, it would have been MUCH better to attend a community college such as EPCC and obtain an associate degree, or simply attend a technical and vocational college. </p>
<p>All in all, I still do not understand why there is need to compare CMC and UTEP. I suggested that the ranking was a poor attempt to define a “best college” and I used UTEP as an example of the toomfoolery of the methodology. You, in turn, decided to single out CMC for a perceived failure in “community service” based on giving credibility to the data used by WM. The reality is that, were you to have the same DIRECT knowledge of both schools, you might realize how silly your conclusion were. I can guarantee you that, when it comes to community service, much more is done at a school in Claremont than at UTEP. Heck, most local high schools in El Paso do more than UTEP in terms of community service. </p>
<p>Lastly, please know that I am not naive enough to fail to realize that your mentioning of Claremont McKenna had no other objective than being an irritant. And that is quite typical for your contributions under your various identities!</p>