<p>Can anyone explain how to interpret the grad school rankings? I understand that schools are ranked according to numbers, but what about the schools that are listed with NA after them and with no rank? What does that mean?</p>
<p>Also, what if a school is not listed at all, but when you type it into the US News and World report website it comes up listed as "best graduate schools". I am really confused!</p>
<p>When hiring applicants for special education positions in New York, does it help if you have attended Columbia (ranked #3) vs Fordham (ranked 61) or CUNY Hunter (ranked 91)?</p>
<p>A Harvard educated public school teacher will make the same as a SUNY educated public school teacher. The pay scale is based on “steps”(not based on the college you attended).</p>
<p>I was asking more about the chance of getting a job in the first place? I would think the better the school the stronger an applicant you would be for a potential teaching position.</p>
<p>I think it sometimes helps to have gone to a highly-ranked school. Companies can sometimes be just as big of prestige whores as the worst CC parents. It helps especially for that first job. Later in your career your work experience matters more than your college.</p>
<p>It also helps to have gone to a famous school. For example in California some people might be more impressed with a USC degree than one from say Harvey Mudd even though Mudd is probably a more academically rigorous school. USC is simply way more famous (mostly for football).</p>
<p>I would think the better the school the stronger an applicant you would be for a potential teaching position.</p>
<p>Depends on the hiring committee.
I have served on several hiring committees for principals, and double that for teachers- K-12.
Others on the committee are generally those who will working in same dept, and it isn’t uncommon for those on the committee to feel threatened by someone who seems brighter/better educated/harder working.</p>
<p>My point is that Mudd is more selective than USC, its students have higher average SAT scores, etc. and is known (to people who pay close attention to such things) to be a demanding, tough-grading school. But there are tons of people out there who have never or barely heard of it. Everyone has heard of USC. When applying for a job that fame factor can sometimes work in favor of someone from USC. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>And I’m not suggesting Mudd is any kind of teachers’ college but merely using it as an example of an academically rigorous school that gets overshadowed by a nearby school more famous for athletics than academics. The same could be said for USC & Pomona College, or Univ. of Oregon & Reed College, or Univ. of Texas & Rice, or Univ. of Minnesota & Macalester.</p>
<p>cour, ahhh, but when applying for a job, the people hiring will make sure that they know the difference in academics between USC and Harvey Mudd, would you not think?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Going to a school that is known for its athletic teams might actually be a negative when a serious employer is looking at you.</p>
<p>For instance, lets talk about other schools as famous as USC in sports and pit them against Harvey Mudd:</p>
<p>Alabama (USNWR #96) v. Harvey Mudd - who would you hire?</p>
<p>Tennessee (#106) v. Harvey Mudd - who would you hire?</p>
<p>Florida State (#102) v. Harvey Mudd - who would you hire?</p>
<p>By the way, I honestly believe that the general public does not know how good academically USC (#26) and Notre Dame (#20) really are, primarily because of their success on the Football field.</p>
<p>“cour, ahhh, but when applying for a job, the people hiring will make sure that they know the difference in academics between USC and Harvey Mudd, would you not think?”</p>
<p>For many fields, probably not. And I would guess that many people haven’t really heard of Harvey Mudd. </p>
<p>If you are serious about a career in education, a couple of thoughts. While I can’t speak specifically to New York, here there are not nearly enough special ed teachers and having the certification is what will get you the job rather than where the certification came from. Secondly, there have been several posts on CC in the last few days about the impact of education budget cuts on hiring. Right now, I am afraid that many school systems will opt for the cheaper employee, which would be the one with only an undergraduate degree in teaching. In otherwords, having a masters can actually be a negative thing. (Though, at least around here, if the degree is in special ed, I think you would be ok.)</p>
<p>If it were me, I would investigate what it would take to add the certification to the degree I currently have vs. getting a masters at this time. If the requirements are basically the same, I would pursue the masters, otherwise I might not.</p>
<p>I would probably choose the most financially reasonable option.</p>
<p>JohnAdams12, I would not assume that corporate recruiters have that degree of understanding of the minor differences from college to college. In general they “fish” where they have had success. If they have hired a person from college A and that person has done a great job they will be more inclined to hire from college A in that major again…especially with entry level positions. In your example, perhaps the recruiter knows that there are a number of Alabama grads in the company who are performing at or above full performance and they don’t have any anecdotal knowledge of Harvey Mudd they may very well tilt toward Alabama.</p>