<p>
</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that you were the first to draw a direct comparison between Claremont McKenna and UTEP. If you re-read what I wrote, CMC’s mention came in the context of other “rich” colleges. I’d be perfectly happy to compare CMC and a school you might be familiar with: Pomona.</p>
<p>And, the difference is not difficult to zero in on: Pomona sends way more students to doctoral programs. Plain and simple.</p>
<p>Xiggi -</p>
<p>It is important to recognize that a public university that graduates 40% in six years has not held 100% of the students hostage for six years, collecting tuition and fees the entire time. Most of 60% of that initial class who have vanished from the university’s rolls did so very early on, and headed into community colleges and the workforce. Yes a certain number would have struggled in place until eliminated under SAP, but the majority got on with their lives a lot sooner.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong, JohnWesley, I did no such thing. I did not mention CMC until you added this line, with the obvious quip about “producing leadership”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you even looked at the “data” used by WM to measure that criteria? As far as PhD production, feel free to make all the comparisons in the world, or rely on the multiple posts added to this forum that show the production of PhD per capita that makes the LAC look stellar. That is, if you consider the production of PhD and their impact on undergraduate studies that important or relevant.</p>
<p>Happymom, I am very aware of the persistence of students at UTEP, and understand your point. </p>
<p>Fwiw, relevant numbers for UTEP are easily retrieved here:</p>
<p><a href=“Information Resources”>Information Resources;
<p>
</p>
<p>Claremont McKenna actually does pretty well on one major leg of the Service matrix: it’s currently #12 among LACs for ROTC graduates.</p>
<p>Wow UTEP moved fast, they already updated their wikipedia entry:</p>
<p>UTEP was recently ranked the 7th best university in the nation based on social mobility, research and service to the community.[8] </p>
<p>(the source link was to an article talking about these rankings.</p>
<p>[University</a> of Texas at El Paso - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_at_El_Paso]University”>University of Texas at El Paso - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Anyway, I think you can make a good argument that these rankings are abut the service the university provides to the larger community. Schools like Harvard and MIT only directly help only the academically gifted (you could argue they indirectly help the entire country with the research they generate, but this is only done with a vast amount of money, probably hundreds of times as much as schools such as UTEP).</p>
<p>However even if we take the purpose of this ranking as measuring how much these schools help their local county/state populations as opposed to an actual measurement of the quality of the education they provide or the value of the degree they issue here are still some flaws with the research methodology. </p>
<p>Firstly, there are some categories here that frankly don’t actually seem say anything about the university, either the quality or its impact. ROTC rank is measuring a very narrow type of student activity and frankly the amount of students who are in the ROTC is largely based on the strength of the military tradition at that school and the surrounding area. I cannot see how measuring this gives any insight to how this school contributes to the surrounding community (maybe if this was a ranking based on how much these universities help the US military?). Peace corps rank also may fall into this kind of category, as it is a very narrow category to use in a study like this and at best only very indirectly indicates anything about the university.</p>
<p>Secondly, these rankings do actually have at least some focus on prestige in their categories a la the other mainstream conventional ranking systems (Faculty receiving significant awards rank, Faculty in national academies Rank). Again there are also some oddly narrow categories here, such as Science & engineering PhD’s awarded Rank (what other PhD’s don’t count? I guess that makes every school that isn’t a science heavy or tech school inferior, right?)</p>
<p>In short the purpose behind these rankings is interesting but the actual categories they chose to evaluate these universities is rather dubious, and this is likely the cause of the strange nature of these rankings.</p>
<p>PS: That said to all the posters who got so inflamed by these rankings and seemed to take them as a personal attack, you guys need to lighten up.</p>
<p>I think the only national data on Phds is for those areas.</p>
<p>Wow, Yale is ranked 54th. It almost cracked the top 50! Maybe next time.</p>
<p>^^ The National Science Foundation data covers PhD production in many academic fields, including not only science and engineering but also social sciences (economics, psychology, political science & public administration, sociology, anthropology), humanities (linguistics, history, english & literature, foreign languages, religion & theology), architecture, business, and law.</p>
<p><a href=“https://webcaspar.nsf.gov/[/url]”>https://webcaspar.nsf.gov/</a></p>
<p>The WM “bachelors to PhD rank” presumably captures aggregate PhD production, adjusted for school size, across all the fields covered by the NSF data. In my opinion, PhD productivity is a useful indicator (absent other indicators) of how well a college motivates and prepares undergraduates to succeed in advanced study of the fields their professors actually teach. That’s why I consider it a fairly good academic quality metric, even for students who have no interest in getting a doctorate. </p>
<p>It’s true that LACs (even some that are not super selective) tend to have relatively high rates of PhD production. I don’t think we know exactly why. It may be due largely to self-selection factors (the kinds of students LACs tend to attract). Or, it may have to do with the small classes and high level of student-faculty engagement that LACs provide. </p>
<p>The WM editors presumably regard PhD production as one more indicator of the social benefit a college produces.</p>
<p>I’m confused as to their net price calculations, because what they have listed is tuition only for my school for just two quarters. Iiiiinteresting.</p>
<p>^ [An</a> Explanation of Our Categories: National Universities by the Editors | College Guide | The Washington Monthly](<a href=“http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/feature/overall_score_overall_score_re.php]An”>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/feature/overall_score_overall_score_re.php)</p>
<p>"The third column shows the net price of attending that institution, which reflects the average price that first-time, full-time students who receive financial aid pay for college after subtracting need-based financial aid. "</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was expecting this thread to be about Parchment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps, but I don’t know any students who were dissuaded from going to graduate school because of their observation of graduate students. I think that mostly has to do with graduate students being optimistic about their future since it seems so far away. Much more powerful, imo, are the words of experienced faculty, who are familiar with the hiring process, or current adjuncts, who are struggling to find tenure-track employment. (that’s what did it for me at least.) </p>
<p>But even then, undergraduate students think they’ll be the exception, at least from what I saw. I knew like five or six people who applied to graduate studies. Many of them were na</p>
<p>The PhD production numbers measure PhD completions, not admissions. If LAC students are entering these programs naively, why don’t they quickly discover these issues and exit? </p>
<p>Now, maybe some of them do. We’re all speculating. However, the prima facie evidence suggests that schools with small classes (and by extension a high level of student-faculty engagement) tend to be more successful in motivating and preparing students to complete PhDs. It stands to reason that this would be so, to some degree. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the composite integer rankings mask some underlying data that may be significant to you. For example, the overall number N school may have a much lower rate in your major (and related majors) that the overall number N+M school.</p>
<p>Some of the LACs require a master’s-level year-long thesis of every BA gradute. This results a statistically large per-capita LAC pool of PhD applicants that has already shown it can do research, resulting in a large per-capita result of LAC PhD admissions and then completions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Probably because most students, LACs and non, are pretty uninformed. I’m the only student I knew who actively read Chronicle. Most also reason according to one of the following mistakes as outlined in this article:</p>
<p>[Graduate</a> School in the Humanities: Just Don’t Go - Advice - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the/44846/]Graduate”>http://chronicle.com/article/Graduate-School-in-the/44846/)</p>
<p>I’ve also spoken with friends about how irrational the decision is. And friends who realize how irrational it is nevertheless decide to pursue graduate studies in the humanities.</p>
<p>Also, LAC students typically go LACs because they love to learn. Why wouldn’t they want to extend that in a graduate program? I think LACs having high PHD productions is just self selection. It’s not hard to imagine that people who love to learn and find a subject they’re passionate about want to learn more about that subject in depth, which can be done at a graduate program. But as warblersrule has noted in the past, simply completing a PHD doesn’t tell you anything, just like completing a JD doesn’t tell you anything. You have to look at the quality of the program. Sure, people who get JDs from Stanford and Cooley, and pass the bar, are both ‘lawyers’ but one will have a very bright future, while the other is in debt up to his eyeballs with little hope of ever getting rid of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which reminds me of something Mark Twain used to say (not really ;)):</p>
<p>Q: What do they call the person who graduated at the bottom of his/her medical school class?</p>
<p>A: Doctor.</p>
<p>
Yeah, but I imagine graduating from a top PhD or JD program means more. It means better job opportunities, i.e. tenure-track positions straight out of grad school as a result of more and better publications, or offers from top law firms straight out of grad school, or top clerkship positions. I’d say that if you graduated from a top to average (top 50%) of med schools, you’d be in a good position for jobs/residencies. For JD, you’d have to be from a T14 program.</p>
<p>^ I wasn’t equating med school with law or grad school. Just interjecting the old joke for my friend beyphy 'cause it seemed apropos. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d be lying if I said that didn’t bring a smile go my face haha.</p>