USNews national ranking can sometimes be shallow and miss the point of attending college which is to create value. Post graduation earnings net of tuition cost. I think value should be the end goal when students decide on which colleges to apply too and choose.
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/best-value
This is even more useless than the original ranking itself. Combining two bad inputs doesn’t make the output any better. As a matter of fact, it’s guaranteed to make combined output worse.
I think it’s a reasonable ranking about value.
Kiplinger appears to specialize in value analysis, and combines universities and liberal arts colleges in the same ranking:
Not sure this ranking accounts for post-grad earnings. The link page indicates “net cost of attendance for a student who received the average level of need-based financial aid.” Where is earnings included in the ranking?
A bit like ranking restaurants vs. best value restaurants. Fun to look at, but not something to get too caught up in. The parameters that go into these rankings are subjective, which means the final results are subjective.
Personally, I think the end goal should be a student’s career interest and intended major. I don’t advise those who hate math and science to apply as a CS/Engineering major at MIT because of an aggregate “value” measure.
Any “value” ranking also has an implied cost - here it’s the “average” amount paid. A full scholarship vs. a full pay student will have vastly different value metrics.
And as noted above, this is not included anywhere in the rankings to which you linked.
How so, considering it omits what you consider important?
The ranking does not consider post graduate earnings at all, so it is certainly not a measure of post graduate earnings net of tuition cost. Instead the largest component of ranking is the ratio between USNWR quality rating and average net cost without merit scholarship for out-of-state persons who get FA (full pay kids not included). It sounds silly when writing it out. In any case, I already posted it about it in the other thread. Rather that repeat everything, I’ll just mention that it requires assuming the following for the rating to have any kind of meaning:
*Students attending publics pay out of state tuition
*Merit scholarships and other non-need based aid does not influence college cost
*Average cost among those receiving grant based FA is more important than average net cost among all students
*A high sticker price private college that gives lots of need based aid is a better value than an equal quality lower sticker price college with the same average cost
*All students pay room + board, including those commuting from home
*Your net cost is similar to the average, with above assumptions
*The USNWR national rankings are an accurate measure of college quality
Denominator issue too …
Averages …
ETC …
Stevens is considered to be a great “ROI” college as it gets people jobs across the river … and sure … a dev from Stevens you can get a great job, but on AVERAGE in middle office or back office …
MIT grads would be going straight to Quant Dev and Front office …
Of course there are exceptions to every rule … and outliers to every average
Because of individualized price discrimination through scholarships and financial aid discounts, “value” can only be determined individually (or for standardized student profiles of parent finances and student achievement), since the net prices that one student may see may be substantially different from those that another student may see at the same colleges.
Post grad earnings are a misleading metric, because entry level salaries depend entirely on the local market. It’s like saying my house is $800,000, so it’s a better house. In Dallas, that would be a 7 bedroom mansion. In San Francisco, that would buy you a 2 bedroom apartment with a view of a brick wall.
A 90k starting salary sounds great, but if it’s on the east/west coast, you’re living paycheck to paycheck. If you moved anywhere outside the east/west coast, your salary is going to be adjusted to the market salary and cost of living.
Also, debt can have a very negative impact on future job prospects. If you graduate with 100k in debt, you’d be stuck in high pressure corporate jobs. Sure they would pay more, but those kind of jobs are not a fit for most people. Personally, I’ve learned the hard way that job satisfaction is worth much more than salary, and rarely do people get to have it both ways.
Coolguy, I know you are just trying to make a point, but any 22 year old who cannot live on the East coast on 90K per year has an extremely warped perspective. I know families- folks raising children- who live on less. And no, they aren’t eating cat food and living in a cardboard box.
I cannot speak to California. But I’ve been hearing this particular trope a lot lately, and even in Boston, NYC and DC (likely the three most expensive cities on the East coast) a kid can “manage” on 90K. Especially if there are no other dependents, especially in a job with health insurance.
Sheesh. Paycheck to paycheck? Sure- if the kid needs a doorman apartment in a fancy neighborhood, no roommates, a subscription to the opera and a car and parking garage. Who lives like that in their 20’s??? My kids didn’t. They took public transportation, they had roommates, they managed fine on a LOT less.
But, you’re the one that introduced the subject.
Note that he discussed college ranking does not consider post grad earnings, so whether post grad earnings are misleading or not has nothing to do with the ranking.
Here is what the US Census says about household income, number of persons per household, and per capita income in various coastal cities that have an expensive reputation:
City HHI/#persons PCI
Boston 71445/2.36 44690
Los Angeles 62142/2.80 35261
New York 63998/2.60 39828
Oakland 73692/2.58 43191
San Diego 79673/2.70 41112
San Francisco 112449/2.36 68883
San Jose 109593/3.12 46599
Seattle 92263/2.11 59835
Washington 86420/2.30 56147A recent college graduate with a $90,000 income should be able to do better than just scraping by in any of these cities.
I’m looking at his original post #1. He specifically equates “value” with post-grad earnings “net of tuition costs” - and then cites a specific college ranking. I’m not making that up unless he edits it.
UCB, thanks for digging up the data.
If anyone’s kid here is living paycheck to paycheck in a job which pays 90K with health insurance, send them over to Blossom. I will teach the kid how to brew a pot of coffee (who needs Starbucks?) cook a nice dinner so they can invite their friends over (imagine how much money they’ll save on take-out and restaurants) and how to open a nice but not budget-busting bottle of wine. The lesson will include getting around on the T/Metro/Subway (depending on the city) and how to calculate your savings buying a monthly vs. paying by the ride. AND how to fill out the form at work to get your public transportation subsidized (you cannot imagine how many employees at big companies do NOT get this benefit, because they do NOT fill out the form),
You don’t need to pay me- but you can make a donation to a food bank in the city where your kid lives to help the family of 4 living on 30K (now THAT’s paycheck to paycheck).
Note that there were 2 separate posters. The guy from post #1 is Dr.CoolDude . He incorrectly implied that the linked USNWR ranking involved post grad earnings. The ranking metric that is the focus of this thread does not consider earnings. Dr.CoolDude hasn’t post in this thread since the first day of the thread and may be long gone. More recently coolguy40 added a comment about post grad earnings, probably after seeing the misleading post from Dr.CoolDude.
The US Census figures re: PCI should not be used as a measure of what constitutes “living paycheck to paycheck” in these cities for one living alone as one earning these amounts would be lucky to be able to live paycheck to paycheck on those incomes.
P.S. Even the HHI amounts would only enable a single person to live at or slightly above “paycheck to paycheck” in San Francisco, Seattle, NYC, San Jose, Wash DC, San Diego, & Los Angeles.
So are you saying that the median household income supporting the household size of 2+ people instead on 1 would be below paycheck-to-paycheck – i.e. poor?