Washington Monthly's alternative college ranking

Parents Forum
1

<p>I discovered today (through the blog of the MIT Director of Student Financial Aid) this</a> article on Washington Monthly's new College</a> Guide, which uses a different sort of mechanism for ranking schools.
[quote]
The first question we asked was, what does America need from its universities? From this starting point, we came up with three central criteria: Universities should be engines of social mobility, they should produce the academic minds and scientific research that advance knowledge and drive economic growth, and they should inculcate and encourage an ethic of service. We designed our evaluation system accordingly.

[/quote]
Their 3 categories were Research, Community Service, and Social Mobility (notes on their methodology [url=<a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.methodology.html%5Dhere%5B/url"&gt;www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.methodology.html]here[/url&lt;/a&gt;] .) I'm not sure I agree with all their assumptions, and of course it's "just another list to sell magazines", but it's interesting to see some different factors being considered in judging the effectiveness of universities and LACs.</p>

<p>Comments?</p>

2

<p>Well, I was pleased to see UCSD and UC Davis get some recognition. Nice to see some fairly affordable schools ahead of the "elites" on a list. Princeton ranked #44? Interesting. Shows that you can get all kinds of rankings for a particular place just by deciding which factors to rate more heavily. For me, anyway, such manipulations point out the importance of each student deciding which factors matter the most to them, and coming up with their own top ten list.</p>

3

<p>Here, here!</p>

4

<p>"On research, as well, the results are interesting."</p>

<p>Better pad your own back ... just in case the "interesting" research would renain unnoticed! What is wrong with the ego of journalists who cover education for magazines and newspapers that start with Washington? </p>

<p>We already have one typically misguided self-anointed educatiion guru in the form of Jay Matthews. Now, we have another group of well-meaning lunatics who believe that someone OUGHT to impressed by yet another "study" that extols the value of another set of individual and subjective subjective criteria. </p>

<p>In the long run, each and every college in the US will end up being first in some ranking, courtesy of the press.</p>

<p>Oh, one last thing regarding this gem of a study: "A word on our criteria. This is the first Washington Monthly College Rankings." Probably be the last one too!</p>

5

<p>The LAC rankings also make me want to take a little closer look at Wellesley--I was assuming that it might be too "snobbish" for D. Hmmm. Maybe not. Even so, there is that whole women's college idea to get over. So far D is resistant to that idea. . .</p>

6

<p>this is pretty interesting...I was suprised at some of the results. At least penn came in the top 10 :)</p>

7

<p>"Because lower-income students at any school are less likely to graduate than wealthier ones, the percentage of Pell Grant students is an important indicator: If a campus has a large percentage of Pell Grant students—that is to say, if it is disproportionately poor—it will tend to diminish the school's overall graduation rate. Using data from all of our schools, we have constructed a formula (using a technique called regressional analysis) that will predict a school's likely graduation rate given its percentage of students on Pell. Schools that outperform their forecasted rate will score better than schools that match, or worse undershoot, the mark. For instance, 37 percent of UCLA's students receive Pell Grants from the federal government. Using our analysis, one would expect UCLA to have a much lower graduation rate (a mere 48 percent) than it does (a rather high 87 percent) making it the top performer in the category."</p>

<p>Have the researchers "studied" the ethnic composition of the 37% of students who receive Pell Grants at UCLA? Do they know FOR A FACT that this subset of the poorest students has the worst grades and scores? Did they bother reading some of the reports produced by the UC system after the Moore's speeches? </p>

<p>What kind of bogus regression analysis did they use to predict a graduation rate of 48%? Did they build a model based on the worst performing school and worked their way up?</p>

<p>This "study" is pure and unadulterated horse manure.</p>

8

<p>Xiggi, 87% of the students with pell grants graduated from UCLA. That's a pretty good number. UCLA deserves kudos.</p>

9

<p>but in general I agree with xiggi these rankings are pure B.S.</p>

10

<p>As flattering as this is to my own alma mater, I think it's hogwash.</p>

11

<p>yes, but they are FUN....and bcos folks like us discuss them, it sells magazines. LOL</p>

12

<p>"Xiggi, 87% of the students with pell grants graduated from UCLA. That's a pretty good number. UCLA deserves kudos."</p>

<p>Dstark, I am afraid that is NOT exactly how the numbers are used in the study work. </p>

<p>They use a regression analysis to predict an overall graduation rate for the school. After all, it is very doubtful that the could find detailed graduation rates by income levels. So, they use two numbers they have to build an "expected graduation rate" for the school: numbers of Pell grants at a school and average graduation rate. </p>

<p>I do not disagree with giving kudos to schools with high graduation rates. The issue at stake here is that the study ranks schools according to under- or overperformance compared to an extremely questionable yardstick. </p>

<p>Actually, you could use the UCLA numbers to DEMONSTRATE that there is no correlation between Pell grants and graduation rates at the MOST SELECTIVE schools in the country. I do not think it is hard to believe that there are a number of Pell grantees that have qualification and scores onpar with the average Ivy Leaguer. In each income level subset, there are overperformers and underperformers. The overperformers are earning admissions at our most prestigious schools. If the number of Pell grantees is smaller at HYP than at other schools, this is mostly due to single admission rates and more sringent admissions. The lower you go in selectivity, the higher the number of Pells you'll find. That should be a pretty simple concept. </p>

<p>FWIW, here are a few numbers about UCLA. How anyone could predict a graduation rate of 48% for the type of students admitted at UCLA is beyond me. </p>

<p>"The overall applicant pool had exceptionally strong academic qualifications, with nearly 18,700 students earning GPAs of 4.0 or above.</p>

<p>Admitted students had an overall grade point average, including honors and advanced placement courses, of 4.25. The average SAT I score for the admitted class was 1,347. The average SAT II Writing score was 674, the average SAT II Math score was 689 and the average score for the third SAT II test, a subject test chosen by the student from a list of specified subjects, was 693. Students took an average of 19 honors and Advanced Placement courses.</p>

<p>UCLA’s strength also is reflected in its graduation rates. UCLA has the highest graduation rates in the UC system and among the highest in the country. UCLA graduated 83.5% of the fall 1999 freshman class within five years."</p>

13

<p>Yeah, it is kinda fun to think about. Let's start a new list. How can I get Bemidji State up there in the top twenty. How about giving extra weight to all colleges located on a lake. . . and have a Paul Bunyan statue nearby. . .</p>

14

<p>Xiggi, I guess I am less interested in the methodology and more fascinated that a national university that takes in more pell grant students than anybody else sees these students graduate at such a high rate.</p>

<p>UCLA must be doing something right.</p>

<p>Here we have a state school that has no trouble finding over 2000 pell grant students a year and we have IVY schools that are international in scope and they have trouble finding 200 kids a year.</p>

<p>I kind of like this ranking.</p>

15

<p>Dstark, you have 50,000 Pell recipients in California. The combination of artificially low instate rates at the UC-system and access to additional grants in California is a great inducer to remain in state. When it comes to Pell grants, we should also separate the schools that use an IM method of financial aid from the schools that use the FM. States where homes have risen rapidly in value may force their students to stay in state ot seek other public schools. </p>

<p>I do not think Harvard and Yale are finding more Pell grantees as difficult as finding ways to accept them in light of the COMPETITION. For every student that is admitted, there are 15 to 19 well qualified students who need to be rejected. There are simply limits to the adjustments that a school can make.</p>

16

<p>You guys need to realize this is a ranking by "how much does the university improve society." That is a lot different from "how much does the university improve me."</p>

<p>I think the list is useless for students deciding where to go. Their interest should be in what the university is going to do for them. </p>

<p>A university that takes a lot of deadbeats and makes them marginal contributors to society (meets high graduation rate for lower income folks goal) and whose doctorate programs produce great research (meets research goal) and whose undergraduate students largely can't get hired so they go into the peace corps or the military (meets public service goals) might be great for society, but not a good choice for the extremely bright and self motivated undergraduate student.</p>

<p>I know some will argue that a school with a great graduate program can't have a poor undergraduate program. I disagree. Many state universities put high priority on graduate programs and research to attract the research money. In the process they leave undergrads to be taught by graduate school students that can't speak English and have no interest in teaching.</p>

17

<p>Xiggi, I don't buy your arguments. Harvard can go after poor students in 50 states and all over the world. They have chosen not to do that in the past. </p>

<p>Sometimes things are simple. UCLA accepts more poor people and graduates more poor people than Harvard. If you want to judge a school on this criteria, UCLA wins. If you don't, you don't.</p>

18

<p>Xiggi - the issue isn't grades and test scores - students who qualify for Pell grants have a higher dropout rate because they don't have enough MONEY to stay in school. By definition they come from families with limited means, and the top Pell grant isn't even enough to pay in-state tuition, much less room & board. So it is very, very difficult for these students to stay on track - much more likely that somewhere along the line, finances will force them to quit school in favor of a full time job. </p>

<p>So those figures say that that UCLA does a pretty good job of providing support, perhaps through financial aid policies that are realistic (instead of the usual very big gap between a university's idea of EFC and the true cost of making ends meet).</p>

19

<p>Dstark, the issue that was debated here is the value of the study, not comparing Harvard and UCLA. </p>

<p>The study uses bad data to support conclusions that are absolutely arbitrary. They do NOT have data on graduation rates of Pell recipients, and they are NOT telling you that UCLA graduates 87% of its graduates. </p>

<p>However, if you do want to compare UCLA and Harvard, I happen to believe that Harvard does a BETTER job at graduating the Pell recipients it admits. All data available for Harvard show that they graduate their students at rates above 95% and there are no meaningful differences among income and ethnic groups. </p>

<p>I also happen to believe that Harvard should not be criticized on this front. What are they supposed to do? Throw away their selection criteria to please a crowd that would expect them to give the store away. Poor people and minorities are fairly well represented at Harvard. I stand firm on my argument that only by lowering its standards of admission could you see higher numbers of Pell grants. The hardest thing about Harvard is not to graduate, but to get in. </p>

<p>If you think that UCLA does a better job at graduating its students than Harvard, that is a matter of opinion. However that does not change the fact that a study that is based on setting a graduation rate of less than 50% for UCLA is not worth the paper it is printed on.</p>

20

<p>Calmom, I understand the plight of Pell grantees very well. </p>

<p>However, when it comes to the final picture, the Pell is no longer the most important factor, it is the EFC. Also, we could move this entire discussion to the SEOG grants, and we may have a better picture of the student population with a zero EFC. </p>

<p>In the past we have had many discussions regarding the Pell recipients, and a lot of examples are misleading. One such example has been the comparison between Mount Holyoke and Harvard. Students who attend Mt Holyoke are not better off because the amount of DEBT is much higher than it would have been at Harvard with the old system. With the new system, there is no comparison. </p>

<p>When discussing the different rates of Pell students, we also tend to overlook that many students do NOT expect an expensive LAC or private school to "take care" of them. While, students do expect this from state schools, the reality is quite different. The final EFC + GAP may be lower at the most expensive schools. However, many students shun away from applying to the private schools. Given the yield at the most selective schools, we can fairly assume that the schools are able to offer sufficient finaid to enroll the students they admitted. And we know, they do seem to graduate the students they enrolled. </p>

<p>The problem with Pell grantees are not with the most selective groups of schools. I really do not see what could be learned from comparing the Ivies and UCLA. There are millions of recipients and it seems that discussing the differences for a such as small percentage is silly. The focus should be on trying to increase the graduation rates at schools from say 40% to 60% rather than spending energy analyzing the reasons why there are only a few hundreds Pell recipients at Harvard and Yale.</p>