<p>Whenhen wrote:
</p>
<p>And, what exactly would be the incentive to so now? As UCBalumnus implied upstream at post#59, “conventional wisdom” almost certainly dictates against it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a guy on the USC forum who feels the school should greatly reduce the number of CC transfers because they supposedly taint USC’s prestige.</p>
<p>He seems to think only losers go to community colleges.</p>
<p>There’s no incentive to do so now. I didn’t argue that. I was simply pointing out that the reluctance to admit transfers existed long before the US News rankings came about. </p>
<p>Oh and simba, sigh. I guess I don’t understand how people can think that what someone accomplishes by 17 should dictate their entire life path. Please have him post his opinions on the transfer board. I’m sure he’d get some “interesting” replies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If college rankings had as much power to effect social change as some posters seem to be suggesting, then there ought to be a world of good coming out of the Washington Monthly (a.k.a. the “Mother Theresa”) rankings. The WM “social mobility” factor gives points for recruiting and graduating low-income students. Alas, it doesn’t have a “world peace” factor that tracks admission and aid to internationals. Its “service” factor seems to hedge its bets between war and peace equally (by tracking Peace Corps and ROTC participation alike).</p>
<p>But we’re not all arguing about the WM rankings. In fact they don’t come up too often on College Confidential at all. I don’t know, maybe that means the conventional wisdom hasn’t changed too much since 1990.</p>
<p>^^ I think the WM poll is a model for how rankings ought to be used. People instinctively know how to filter out the anomalies (it nowhere states that it is ranking colleges according to which is “best”, merely which is performing the better job of promoting social mobility.) The fact that elite colleges appear on it every year reminds me a little of the proverbial talking bear: their precise ranking is less remarkable than the fact that so many of them appear at all.</p>
<p>And, yes. Increasingly, CC folk do refer to the WM poll for easy reference to the Pell Grant percentages of many colleges. Something else they won’t find in the US News poll.</p>
<p>Why would the number of Pell grantees be truly relevant to an applicant? Should a Pell qualifier feel compelled to apply to schools where he or she “fits” the norm? Is there some value to apply to a school with many Pell students but poor FA over an “elitist” bastion that meets 100 percent of need? For the zero EFC student, is the information relevant if selecting between Cal and The Farm? </p>
<p>Pell grantees are well aware of their needs. The comparative statistics of Pell grantees are mere window dressing and not indicative of anything of great relevance to a low-income student. Unless one considers a lower spending per capita and stretched resources as a positive, or believes that selective schools dig deep(er) in the pool to recruit poor students. Check Carnevale and TCF for the real data.</p>
<p>The social mobility index is a hopeless hodgepodge. Again, check UTEP, and see how pointless that element is in terms of comparing schools. Accept everyone with a pulse and the ability to grab loans and grants and graduate a small fraction of them within 6 years is not a great outcome in terms of social mobility. It is a cynical misrepresentation of higher education. Most students should be better off at a JUCO or CC or learn marketable skills.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed. As an example of how meaningless the number of Pell Grants can be, just look at NYU. NYU has 21% Pell Grantees, which is a sizeable number. Yet, NYU clearly states that they do not meet full need. So, what’s the point, for someone who clearly needs a LOT of financial aid to attend? (That NYU will gap them, and offer outside private loans, which is lose-lose.) IMO, whether a college meets full financial need is a much more important indicator to those needing $ then the % of Pells.)</p>
<p>(btw: Even if USNews doesn’t track it/report it since they don’t think it is of interest to their readers, the data is readily accessible on IPEDS.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When in doubt, go to the one with the stronger rugby team. :D</p>
<p>^^Marie Antoinette couldn’t have put it any better.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For an individual student, the net price calculator is probably a better estimate than claims about meeting full financial need, since the definition of that seems to be flexible. Expected student contributions can vary from $4,000 to $10,000 or so between different schools that “meet full financial need”, and expected family contributions can vary based on federal versus various institutional methodologies (the net price at a “meets full financial need” school is the sum of these two).</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Dissecting the (real) differences between the plans at schools that cover 100 percent of DN and the number suggested by the NPC should account for (relatively) small differences. Inasmuch as the differences being tangible, those should be much smaller than a brute comparison of Pell grantees. </p>
<p>In so many words, it is true that relying on a deeper analysis (via a NPC) is probably superior to simply relying on the blanket statements of meeting full need. But that does not change much that blindly following (or giving much weight to) the simplistic totals of Pell grantees is mostly a fool’s errand, especially when considering that not all Pell’s are for 100 percent of the maximum allowed. </p>
<p>As far as Marie Antoinette goes, I am afraid that our friend JW the Circuit Rider might not truly understand the plight of the students with zero or close to zero EFC. Eating cake might only be feasible if on a cafetaria plan. All I can tell you is that, for many, life is much easier at a rich and generous school with few(er) Pell grantees than at their counterparts that have a mission to serve more students, but not necessarily address all their needs. There is a reason why very competitive students who have large financial needs would pick the richer school – if given the opportunity.</p>
<p>Stating that last part is not regal cynicism, but simple realism.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For a student from a very low income background (let’s assume EFC = $0 at all schools, regardless of federal or institutional methodology), the difference between a net price of $4,000 and $10,000 (the variation in ESC) can be quite significant.</p>
<p>Of course, if the student’s family situation can produce a non-zero EFC, or is such that the federal and various institutional methods vary significantly (e.g. non-custodial parents with significant income), then the difference in net price between various schools that “meet full need” can be even greater.</p>
<p>For an individual student, a school’s percentage of students with Pell grants may be relevant from a social standpoint, not a financial standpoint.</p>
<p>One thing I think though is that an ultra selective elite ivy league school isn’t necessarily better in every way. A Classmate in my physics course said a friend of his over at Duke compared courses with him and both concluded that Colorado State University had an engineering program where it was harder to achieve a good grade than Duke. But who has the reputation. In Colorado, School of Mines has the highest reputation for engineering, yet Colorado State University is nearly as selective and has way more resources and research funding. But selectivity isn’t always a direct merit of excellence.</p>
<p>Think about this- Paul Davies is one of the most famous theoretical physicists in the world. He is probably a great professor. Where does he teach? Arizona State University. How about Michio Kaku? City University of New York.</p>
<p>US News rankings care so much about reputation, but it is the rankings that set the reputation… so it is self perpetuating. Likewise, high school counselors aren’t knowledgable with colleges. I know more about my school than any counselor I’ve ever talked to. Some really don’t know what they are doing. I’ve been miss-guided by guidance counselors. And administrators at other universities aren’t aware of how good other universities are, but they have to give a 1-5 star ranking for hundreds of other universities. And a 1-5 star system is WAAAY too much of an over-simplification of something as complex as a university.</p>
<p>
Duke isn’t in the Ivy League, it is in the ACC.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Opportunity”, of course, being the operative word. I have to admit more than a little dismay at the relative lack of any sense of irony at the notion that relatively affluent kids absolutely need to know the alumni giving rate of a college, but that the percentage of how many people like themselves attend a college is of absolutely no relevance to a a poor person.</p>
<p>UCB, you did not include my last sentence of that paragraph. I do recognize that there are differences and those can be TANGIBLE, especially for zero EFC students. Over the years, I have written many times about schools advertising great financial (as an example MIT and Brown) but being a lot less forthcoming with student’s summer expectations or less than generous applications of outside scholarships. On the other hand, there are schools that have specific (and not always publicized) programs such as loans or grants for winter clothing (in the NE) or specific summer community work study funded programs that allow a student to work at home and not count against the finaid (at Stanford.) </p>
<p>An additional difference is that the items included in the COA might differ greatly as well. A 4,000 (or 10,000) contribution might be easier to absorb if the COA includes generous personal expenses, generous travel allowances, and that pesky insurance. A school that is less generous of does not include the insurance might appear cheaper but end up a lot more expensive. </p>
<p>Finally, there is the issue of personal responsibility and financial rewards after graduation. Most schools will allow a student to borrow the shortfall. What is the impact of a loan of 25,000 that “purchased” an education that cost 250,000 versus a loan of a similar amount at a school where the 4 cost 120,000? And what if takes 2 more years to graduate? How does not account for the opportunity loss? </p>
<p>All in all, finances are a PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL issues that defies simplistic conclusions. What is true for Student A is not necessarily true for Student B with a similar EFC. Family dynamics bring a lot of different twists. </p>
<p>But, again, my point was that checking the NPC and financial aid demonstrated need coverage is a LOT more important that checking a simplistic Pell grantee number, as the latter is mostlty a trivial and misguided attempt to put lipstick on a bulging pig.</p>
<p>
Both are asking for subjective opinion from the “experts” on what they think is best.
You don’t like it because you don’t agree with the results and want a more comprehensive survey. I like it because I happen to agree with the results and think it incorporates intangible and subjective criteria that is important but harder to measure. It’s not elegant, but I believe it mostly reflects faculty quality - which is an important but subjective factor to be included in a college ranking. Until they build a better mousetrap, I’ll continue to support the PA.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am afraid that we might talk about parallel issues. It is obvious relevant to evaluate a number of elements. For some, it might racial diversity. For others, it might the distance from home. For others, the weather, sports, the food, proximity to a city, etc. And the list goes on. All of those are important in evaluating a school.</p>
<p>The discussion here is about the value of such elements in a … ranking process! Simply stated, there is no logic to pretend that a school that has X percent of certain SES groups is better or … worse in terms of getting an education. Anymore than it would be to state that a school that is dominated by Asians (think Cal or Caltech) would be better than a less diverse school such as Vanderbilt (only to make an example.) </p>
<p>The issue is not about the fabric of a school, but the fact that someone used SES variances as a proxy for something qualitatively better. Especially when many would consider that same element as just the opposite!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCB, I have addressed this many a time! I am not opposed to expert opinions. I am opposed to the type of anonymous survey used by USNews. I am opposed to the obvious lack of concern for integrity in the process. I am opposed to the simplistic version of the survey (I have posted copies of what is filled.) </p>
<p>I have stated that what I would see is a public PA where the officials (and not the person I think really fill the instrument) have to sign their name, fully knowing that their replies can be scrutinized by friends and foes. In so many words, no more games a la Wisconsin or Clemson! </p>
<p>I also would like to see an expanded version of the replies that covers RELEVANT elements and CLEARLY removes elements that have no relevance to undergraduate education. I would be happy to see this expanded version replacing many of the current “objective” numbers. AFAIAC, they could eliminate alumni donation! </p>
<p>Lastly, by now, it should be clear that I do not judge the current USNEWS based on the results of the ranking. Most of my favorite schools do … extremely well. That does not stop me from criticizing a process I consider flawed. And, fwiw, the same happens with the Mother Teresa ranking. Obviously, I think that supporting a ranking just because your alma mater fares well in certain sections is a bit disingenuous. :)</p>
<p>
And you’ve complained about the PA for LACs because Smith ranks higher than your alma mater. Disingenuous? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, the issue is whether conventional wisdom is inherently “conservative” and penalizes innovation- as you’ve so amply demonstrated.</p>