<p>
</p>
<p>The “Research” column has some good numbers. However, they aren’t normalized for size. And why count only Science & Engineering PhDs? Again, it isn’t set up so much to inform individual college choice as to measure somebody’s notion of social benefit from the greatest number of do-gooders. It’s the Jeremy Bentham ranking.</p>
<p>I understand your point, xiggi. </p>
<p>Care to point out how the USNWR data crunchers measure how schools are educating outstanding young people?</p>
<p>“Care to point out how the USNWR data crunchers measure how schools are educating outstanding young people?”</p>
<p>In Emory’s case I can do it. They duked top applicants into thinking that there were more high scorers on the SAT who had enrolled before them. Emory submitted fake statistics to USNWR, who obviously just print whatever is given to them. Consequently, Emory gained some “outstanding young people” to matriculate to their school based on lies and distortions. See how it works UCB? :-)</p>
<p>^ RJK, that’s just getting them in the door. Doesn’t say anything about what goes on when they’re there. </p>
<p>But this does:
[Fun</a> at Emory - YouTube](<a href=“Fun at Emory - YouTube”>Fun at Emory - YouTube)</p>
<p>:-)</p>
<p>US News makes little effort to count bushels of corn per acre (outputs).
They try to assess the conditions. They take soil samples, measure the rainfall, and to confirm those objective measures (in case they’ve overlooked some important measure), ask farmers where is the best ground. Unfortunately, some farmers lie. Or they are too far from the field to know what they’re talking about.</p>
<p>My continuing issue with the Washington Monthly rankings is they don’t include the service academies. They would probably be right at the top of the LACs list.</p>
<p>I see nothing wrong with these rankings. Of course people are going to complain if their school isn’t listed high but objectively I don’t see anything bad.</p>
<p>
That’s the only good thing about this ranking; unlike most others, it doesn’t try to accomplish the impossible (informing individual college choice…)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While I do not think the USNews has the ambition to do that, one could use the “expected graduation rate” as one measure --despite it counter-intuitive use by USNews in the ranking methodology. Others could point in the general direction of the alumni giving as a proxy for the “happiness” of its alumni. </p>
<p>But again, I am NOT saying the USNews pays much attention to anything else than the “input” metrics and ignores outputs. My point was (and is) that Birgeneau could have used a number of more accurate elements in his hyperbolic appraisal of the ARWU. For instance, nobodu could have criticized a statement about the academic reputation and awards earned by the senior faculty at Cal and the staff who makes a living leading the research at its ancillary facilities. </p>
<p>And, of course, the above statement is STILL fueled by my strong belief that Nobel and similar prizes do little to nothing for the overwhelming majority of the students who attend Cal. Just like taking the football trophy home, it flatters one’s ego in a very intangible way. </p>
<p>Back to our regular programming!</p>
<p>“Others could point in the general direction of the alumni giving as a proxy for the “happiness” of its alumni.”</p>
<p>Hello, this is your alumni association calling you and begging you to make a donation. As you know, we are a private school and depend more heavily on your donations than those that are public. We would like you to donate generously, but we will be glad to accept any gift no matter what the size. If you don’t send anything, our high rating is at risk at USNWR since they use percentage of alumni who donate as a criterion for rankings. We will call you once a week until you send in some money. We just know that you were very happy with your experience here and want to remind you, over and over, that you owe us back.</p>
<p>
LOL! Alums typically donate a somewhat meaningful total like $20 or don’t donate at all. Its more of a symbolic gesture than anything else. No Harvard Alum is going to be cheap enough to only donate 50 cents.</p>
<p>^^^Twenty dollars is real significant. LOL</p>
<p>^$20 is less than it costs them to send all those solicitations and alumni mags and to make the phone calls and keep their alumni database up-to-date.</p>
<p>Private colleges start soliciting the parents while the kids are still in college. Shortly after I send in my D1’s $48,000 tuition payment I get a warm letter from the college president explaining how much they rely on contributions from alumni, parents, and “friends of the college” and reminding me that what I just paid represents only a fraction of what it costs to educate may daughter. They hit newly minted graduates with that message before they can take their mortarboard off, and they keep pestering them until they can get something, anything, out of them, partly so they can list them in the percentage of “satisfied” alums who give back, but also because it’s well known in the fundraising racket that charitable giving is habitual and once you start giving, you’re likely to continue giving, and your contributions will tend to grow with your income, so it’s a net gain even if the first few years are a loss leader with that $20 contribution not paying for the costs of all the pestering.</p>
<p>I don’t think alumni giving has much to do with satisfaction. It’s a pretty heavy guilt message most of them use: “Others paid for you, now it’s your turn to give back.” That, or a veiled threat: “You wouldn’t want to see this place fall apart and have your degree decline in perceived value because of it, would you? So pay up!” They’re a little more subtle about it, but those are the underlying messages. It’s never, “Oh, remember your own happy, golden days at Elite Fancy-Pants College; wouldn’t you like to help someone else’s child live that same dream?” Because they know a fair percentage of their alums were miserable in college, for at least parts of it, and they don’t want to let them use that as an excuse not to pay up. And because they know a lot of their alums don’t give a rip about someone else’s kid. This is just something between the college and you, and it’s put as a straight value proposition: “We, the college, know it cost more than you paid to get you your degree; you got more than you paid for, so so you still owe us.” </p>
<p>It’s different at public universities. Many of them never systematically tried to wring money out of their alums in the past, except for big donors. And there’s still an underlying attitude in many states that paying for public higher education is the taxpayers’ responsibility, not the family’s and not the alum’s, and there’s often a lingering resentment that the cost was so high when the family feels it had already paid through taxation (often vastly overestimating how much of their tax dollar has ever gone into public higher education). So it’s just a harder sell from the outset, not only because the machinery hasn’t been in place as long and the tradition of giving isn’t as ingrained, but because giving to a private college or university feels like giving to a charity (or simply paying back on what the charity gave you, which is how they prefer you to think about it) while giving to a public university feels to many people like being asked to pay a voluntary additional tax because the rest of the taxpaying public is too cheap to pay the bills. It’s just comparing apples and oranges.</p>
<p>
The Nobels and similar academic prizes burnish the academic reputation of a research university. The elite privates would not have the academic reputation they have earned by just being selective and enrolling smart undergrads. It is the faculty and their research rewards that enhance a university’s academic reputation. </p>
<p>Outstanding research => Prestigious academic awards => Increase/maintain academic reputation => Attracts other top faculty => Attracts top students</p>
<p>But you’re right, a Nobel doesn’t directly do much for the majority of students, but it does enhance academic standing of the institution they attend. A student receives an academic education with the name of the university on the diploma. A football trophy just enhances the reputation as a football power.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UCLA asked my dad for donations twice, of which he paid once; They asked me for donations two or three times too: once during a VERY pushy phonecall during my first year there, and again on finals week right as i was graduating.</p>
<p>I might be more inclined to donate if they didn’t charge us obviously BS fees like ‘student-enhancement’ fees, for us to their custom websites that like 90% of our professors don’t even use; or if they didn’t engage in predatory parking tickets; or if they didn’t make me pay $20 to join our alumni network, and an additional $30 to access our job network (of which being a member of the alumni network is a prerequisite.) And this additional $30 only gives us access for 6 months.</p>
<p>That being said, i was given an amazing opportunity by a universities that, if it were private, would have undoubtedly rejected me. That’s something i’ll never forget, and which will get me to donate in the future.</p>
<p>
Good idea! We will put out a donation box at our local alumni events and ask everyone to drop in his/her business card and donate $20 to the university. If enough alumni clubs do that (and we have a lot of them), Michigan should be able to double its “alumni giving rate” (as measured by USNWR) in no time.</p>