<p>Do you think they will be out on Monday?
;)</p>
<p>lol damn i thought you had a link...</p>
<p>I don't know why I care...but there's something deep and dark inside of me that wants to know.</p>
<p>CURSE YOU SATAN!</p>
<p>lol @ brand. Yeah you typed it all official looking, I thought you had the new rankings.</p>
<p>I heard August 18</p>
<p>Yeah my 2006 subscription doesn't run out till like the 16th or something, so not quite yet.</p>
<p>I know that colleges really want to be ranked high on that thing, but honestly, given what they use to measure the colleges by (financial donations, etc...) - I have to say I'm not too impressed with the ranking. So, what exactly is the big deal? </p>
<p>I wish some publication would come out with something more useful - like an assessment of the actual classes offered, professors, etc....</p>
<p>How can you do that objectively?</p>
<p>Unless you're completely college knowledge-deficient and don't know Amherst from UMass-Amherst, you should avoid basing decisions on the list. College guides, and mostly talking with students, alumni and visitng the colleges are far more helpful.</p>
<p>I've come to the conclusion that theres only 1 way to objectively judge a school - by how much money their alumni make out of college. Other than that nothing matters. If a degree from Harvard is worth more than a degree from Yale, Havard is the better place. If a degree from Hamburger U is worth more than a degree from Stanford, Hamburger U is the better place.</p>
<p>Of course the rankings we currently have I bet would fall in some sort of rough order of how much money their graduates make - although I am curious to see the actually average starting salaries of schools compared.</p>
<p>Wealth-driven rankings are stupid. You don't go to these colleges for vocational training, you go for the education, the people, the opportunities. As such, academic quality and student/alumni satisfaction should be far more important. College guides and students/alumni can tell you about both much better than US News or salaray-based rankings can.</p>
<p>how are wealth driven rankings stupid? Its generally a common thought that after your first job, where you went to college doesn't matter. So all that matters about your college is how much you make out of it. Obviously smarter kids go to the better colleges - and smarter people make more money. It isn't a stupid idea.</p>
<p>Hmm, well I think that US News is bogus, and they should really think of some more effective criteria [granted I don't have a quantitative method], but then that goes to show you that you really can't compare one college to another, and that in reality it's all about personal preference when applying to colleges.</p>
<p>Dear jags861,</p>
<p>Condolences for thinking college doesn't matter after your first job.</p>
<p>If you'd read my post, I said that college is NOT about the money, and its about the people, the academics, the opportunities. I seriously doubt anyone would complete forget all the people and the education, and lose all the opportunities seized in college, after their first job. You make more out of college than just a good salary.</p>
<p>Money doesn't equal happiness.</p>
<p>I would think that the alumni giving percentage tells you something about the opportunities, education, and types of people at a college. A large percentage of alumni giving clearly means that they were happy with their education. Alumni giving is factored into the U.S. News rankings, so they are not completely bogus.</p>
<p>Or perhaps the alumni are giving because they were wealthy upon entering the college and so just like daddy they continue to give money, or perhaps they're giving money to give a leg up to their children, there quite a many reasons why someone would be motivated to donate to their own college, but hmmm, I still think that USNews is bogus, and that's not entirely easy for me to say.</p>
<p>Lots of giving can mean alumni are rich, and thus feel obligated to give back. Satisfaction can be derived from only a few of the three indicators I mentioned- or else academically bad schools would be forever poor. Similarly, many happy alumni do not give money back to the school. In addition, the US News report factors in cooperation as well, as schools who don't cooperate with them get much lower rankings.<br>
Percentage of alumni giving is an okay indicator but not in the way that US News implements it.</p>
<p>butcherer</p>
<p>don't be sorry for me. i'm not wrong.</p>
<p>the rank of the college you attended in it of itself doesn't matter for 99.9999% of people once they graduate. Upon graduation, and receiving a job, employers look at where you have previously worked, and your performance there as a judge for hiring you, not the name or rank of the school you attended.</p>
<p>What I mean, when I say colleges can only really be objectively ranked based on salaries is this. There is correlation that more smart people go to the best colleges than the mediocre ones. There is correlation that smart people make more money than average people. There is correlation between the money one makes out of school, and the school one attends. Keeping that in mind, it would make sense that the smartest people, who make the most money, will have attended the best schools. They make more money because they are seen as more desirable by employers. Why would they be more desirable? Because they should be receiving a more highly qualified person.</p>
<p>This is why I believe money made is a great indicator of how good a school.</p>
<p>Hypothetically: Say person A attended MIT for engineering and person B attended Virginia tech for engineering and Person X went to caldwell college for engineering. Say the overall average in the nation for engineering graduates is $50,000 with a standard deviation of $1000. The Person Ae gets paid $55,000 upon graduation, Person B gets paid $51,000 upon graduation, Person X gets paid $48,000. This will tell me that Virginia tech is a better than average school for engineering, and MIT is a much better than average school (borderline the best) for engineering. And caldwell college is a below average school for engineering.</p>
<p>Money says a lot.</p>
<p>i agree if there is any ranking that could actually be evaluated without using vague studies and opinion, it would be to find the average graduate's salary. I believe that may come in handy some day, as college prices are continuing to rise and will eventually really make people think twice before going to a 60k/yr. private school. It's not that far away, and if you know going to school A gives you an excellent chance of making X amount more in money than school B, you would probably take that into consideration. I know I do. Gotta pay back those loans somehow.</p>
<p>But hmmm, well I don't exactly how to respond, I mean I plan on becoming a teacher when I graduate from college, and I know that my salary will most likely be considerably lower than the average salary of my graduating class, so I don't know, I just think it's superficial [which is what US News ranks are anyway] to have a criteria based on salary, but oh well, just my two cents.</p>
<p>Well I'm obviously not advocating basing your decision solely on such rankings. As a teacher, I would imagine you are pursuing your passion and will likely be granted some sort of relief on your tuition, since universities realize that teachers have a tough time paying back so much debt. I know Stanford does that, as well as NYU. I would think Harvard does. But for someone that views two universities as equally appealing, and (like myself) will be taking out over 80k in loans, a significant difference in expected salary would force me to choose one school over the other based purely on financial reasons. I got lucky though...my #1 choice is my favorite due to personal reasons, and it's Econ grads make the most out of any school. :)</p>
<p>I think it's really hard to say, overall, this school is better than that school. It's not hard to say, overall, this school's graduates make more than that schools. It's just numbers.</p>