Who's Anxiously Waiting The Us News And World Report Rankings!

College Search & Selection
41

<p>butch,
I have had this debate numerous times with others, but let me make it simple for you. The PA score and "academic quality" mean different things to different people and have different levels of value to different people. Employers don't obsess over the "academic quality" of a college, at least not as it is defined by USNWR and voted on by those in the academic community. Employers care about the quality of the students that ABC College graduates. Thus, IMO, for the vast majority of undergraduate students who are expecting to join the for-profit world post-graduation, the greater interest is likely on how potential employers perceive a school and the preparedness level of their graduates. </p>

<p>The perspectives of employers are what guide my perceptions of colleges and any comments that I might direct to you or other prospective/current students and alumni. I care and value what employers say about a college and its students and the role that the faculty may have in producing stronger (or weaker) graduates. I think it is clear that this perspective is often at odds with the "academic quality" judgments of those in the academic community who perceive little to no direct responsibility on the part of the faculty for student outcomes. </p>

<p>In addition to the different prisms through which people make their judgments, please also recognize that USNWR is a for-profit magazine trying to maximize sales while retaining legitimacy. USNWR tries to appeal to as many people as possible without completely turning off those in the educational world whose help they need in producing the annual rankings. No doubt the college administrators don't like a non-academic group making up such a ranking (after all, academics love their monopoly), but they comply nonetheless as to not do so would likely lead to lower rankings, worse publicity, fewer applicants, etc. </p>

<p>So, take the USNWR (and any other) rankings with a grain of salt as their list should not be interpreted as a one-size fits all ranking. For those interested in pursuing a Phd or a career in academia, take the PA or some of the other academic-centric surveys seriously. For those interested in what they will experience in the classroom, look at the Faculty Resources factors most closely and consider matters like the now-dated Teaching Excellence survey. For those who care about the quality of the classmates, look at the Selectivity factors (although I would strenuously disagree with you about the worth of Top 10% ranks which I consider as pretty anemic evaluators of student quality). And so on and so on. </p>

<p>For my part, there are some absolutes (good students, small classes, faculty focused on teaching, schools with lots of money) that guide my thinking (and ranking) of colleges, but I also understand that others will almost certainly weight the same factors differently.</p>

42

<p>I'm anxious to see the statistics. I like to read about colleges I won't even be applying to lol.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
I think it is clear that this perspective is often at odds with the "academic quality" judgments of those in the academic community who perceive little to no direct responsibility on the part of the faculty for student outcomes.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? Are employers' viewpoints of school quality really at odds with the PA rankings? </p>

<p>It has always been my understanding that companies recruit heavily at the schools which also happen to have favorable PA ratings. Do you have some examples of schools which are well-regarded by academics, but which are thought to be poor schools by employers? At which schools are they really "AT ODDS" with peer rankings?</p>

44

<p>hoedown,
There is frequently a fundamental disagreement with how academics view a college and how those in business will view a college. I have often made this contention in pointing out the sharp differences in PA scores of some colleges and my view that these scores are not reflective of what students can expect about how employers will reward them in the post-graduate, for profit world.</p>

<p>Consider the following PA differences:</p>

<p>3.3 Tulane
4.0 Rice
4.1 U Texas</p>

<p>3.9 Notre Dame
4.5 U Michigan</p>

<p>4.0 USC
4.2 UCLA
4.8 UC Berkeley</p>

<p>3.6 Boston College
4.6 Columbia</p>

<p>Now consider their starting and mid-career salary levels (as indicated by Payscale.com):</p>

<p>$49,100, $95,800… Tulane (3.3)
$64,000, $110,000… Rice (4.0)
$49,700, $93,900… U Texas (4.1)</p>

<p>$56,300, $116,000… Notre Dame (3.9)
$52,700, $93,000… U Michigan (4.5) </p>

<p>$54,800, $99,600… USC (4.0)
$52,600, $101,000… UCLA (4.2)
$59,900, $112,000… UC Berkeley (4.8)</p>

<p>$52,700, $103,000… Boston College (3.6)
$59,400, $107,000… Columbia (4.6)</p>

<p>It is clear from the data (and there of plenty of other examples) that the real world rewards graduates differently than how academia perceives these schools. You may argue that money isn't everything and I would agree, but it is a major motivator behind why students go to college and what they seek in their post-graduate lives. </p>

<p>The salary data is the marketplace at work. By contrast, IMO academia, with its PA scoring, is much, much more of a fixed game. </p>

<p>If I am a prospective student who is considering a career in academia, then the PA scores might have some value. But for the vast majority of college matriculates who will not be pursuing a career in academia, I believe that these salary figures are a much fairer and accurate reflection of how the real world views these colleges.</p>

45

<p>Hawkette, a department may be more "distinguished", which is what PA score measures. Not all academic departments can be classified as "distinguished". However, pay in certain fields, such as education and engineering, is much more egalitarian...similar job skills = similar market-based pay.</p>

46

<p>ucb,
I'm not looking for yet another argument here about what PA measures, but I think it is important (and too frequently neglected on CC) to note that many students looking at colleges care deeply about their prospective financial fortunes post-graduation. The PA scores don't do this (and never claimed to), but some posters will use PA scores as a proxy for "quality" with the clear inference that this means better and, by extension, better post-graduate possibilities for graduates from ABC College. The PA scores may be accurate as a reflection of how those in academia think and may actually propel a student in his post-undergrad academic career, but it is frequently not relevant to what employers in the for profit world think about a certain school. The salary data is a lot more useful for making that type of assessment. While the academics would no doubt object, I believe that some measurement such as this would be an excellent addition to the rankings. This metric, as the saying goes, keeps it real.</p>

47

<p>^ I think UCBChemEGrad is suggesting you need to compare apples to apples: engineering grads to engineering grads, ed school grads to ed school grads, etc. Some schools will come out ahead in overall salary comparisons simply by virtue of the mix of majors that predominate at the institution. According to payscale.com, median entry level/midcareer salaries by type of degree range from a low of $34,100/$52,000 for Religion, to a high of $63,200/$107,000 for Chemical Engineering---roughly a two-fold difference. </p>

<p>Also, schools whose graduates (regardless of major) go disproportionately into public service, the public interest sector (including academics and K-12 teachers), and the arts will rank lower in average salaries. Yet many, many people are drawn to those professions not by the pay, but by the psychic satisfactions associated with the work. IMHO schools that produce such graduates are not failing in their mission, nor are they in any way less "successful" than those that produce higher percentages of graduates who go into the private sector. Market salaries are an imperfect measure of success in one's professional life. Indeed, the law of supply and demand dictates that it is often the most inherently satisfying and fulfilling careers that draw the lowest salaries, simply because the supply of candidates eager to fill those positions so far outstrips the market demand for them. FWIW, Harvard ranks a "lowly" fourth among Ivy League schools for mid-career earnings of its gradates. Why? Well partly because the single most popular job category for Harvard grads is "Executive Director, Non-Profit Organization," median salary $62,100. </p>

<p>Also, as best I can tell from payscale.com's description of its methodology, no adjustment is made for regional differences in salary or cost-of-living. Not surprisingly, then, the colleges whose graduates earn the top salaries are those located on the East Coast and in California where median salaries and cost-of-living are highest. Within the Midwest, salaries and cost-of-living are highest in Chicago, and sure enough, 5 of the top 7 Midwestern schools in graduates' median salary are, broadly speaking, Chicago-area schools: Notre Dame, U Chicago, IIT, UIUC, and Northwestern (along with Carleton and Case Western). So I think the pairwise comparisons are suspect to the extent they fail to account for these regional differences in job markets and cost-of-living.</p>

<p>Finally, hawkette, I know this is terribly unfair given all I've just said, but I can't resist taking a shot at one of your favorite schools:</p>

<p>Georgia Tech $58,300/$106,000
Emory $52,000/$91,600</p>

<p>And these are both Atlanta schools!</p>

48

<p>U of Illinois ...... $52,900/$96,100
Northwestern ... $52,700/$95,900</p>

<p>and these are both Illinois schools! LOL</p>

49

<p>Bclinton,
I understand all of your objections/criticisms and think most have merit, but despite this I believe that the Payscale data has indicative value. Interpreting it too finely would be a mistake, but there is a lot of good stuff here and the information generally supports many of the other surveys that we have discussed on CC. </p>

<p>I find it amusing that some of the issues you have with Payscale could also be applied to the PA voting. For example, PA voting also does not allow for direct comparison across colleges of different academic disciplines nor does it make any allowance for the fact that College A might be oriented to X field of study while College B is oriented to Y. But somehow that has never stopped those who favor this number. :)</p>

<p>Personally, I think that Payscale’s single biggest weakness is the lack of adjustment for the cost of living in different regions. As a result, the numbers give a false impression of the purchasing power of these salary differences, not to mention the quality of life issues that one could raise in comparing New York to Minnesota. I’d like to find some way to insert a COLA factor into these numbers and then re-run the results. But the Payscale data and the results generally comport with what I know and have learned about colleges across the USA. </p>

<p>You’re right that I like Emory and I think that their results were probably eye-opening for some folks (including me a little bit). I suspect that their numbers are influenced by the experience of the Emory-affiliated Oxford College students who move over to the main campus, but are likely not as strong. This has been one of the dirty little secrets that Emory has been able to keep when USNWR makes its rankings. It will be interesting to see if the school can perpetuate this this year, eg, according to their 2007 and 2008 CDS, their Top 10% students dropped 13% which is an absolutely huge change. I suspect that this is related to the counting of the Oxford students, but if not then look for Emory’s ranking to drop. </p>

<p>As for Georgia Tech, glad to see that they did well. I like that place as well but it’s too lopsided for my tastes in terms of academic offerings and gender distribution to be a school that I could broadly post about. However, in the realm of engineering colleges, it is probably the best at providing my preferred combination of top academics/good social life/active and nationally relevant athletic life.</p>

50

<p>I predict that Boston College will make a significant jump in rankings due to the fact that they had 32,000 applicants (up from 30,000), a 26% acceptance rate (down from 27%) and a middle 50% SAT of 1950-2220 (up from 1920-2110)... Tulane should also increase but largely due to the fact that they took away essays, application fee, etc (basically cheating their way up the rankings).</p>

<p>^ Nothing against Tulane though, it's a great school.</p>

51

<p>Changes in acceptances rates have a very minor impact on the USNWR rankings as they count for only 1.5% of the overall score. Standardized test scores are only modestly impactful and account for 7.5% of the score. </p>

<p>Both BC and Tulane are very underloved by academics and IMO their PA scores are much too low at 3.6 and 3.3, respectively. If either got a boost in these numbers, then their rankings would surely benefit as the PA grade is worth 25% of the total ranking score.</p>

52

<p>Tufts is also 3.6 fyi...so I wouldn't call it underloved by academics...</p>

<p>I'm not saying that Boston College will be ranked 10, or even 20...but I do predict it to hit that 30 mark (alongside other schools with comparable PA scores...)</p>

53

<p>


</p>

<p>I quite agree with this, which is why I've said repeatedly I prefer the NRC rankings of academic quality for research universities, in which faculties in each discipline are rated by their peers in the discipline. It's then fairly easy to see which schools are strong in which disciplines, which are strong across-the-board, and which in only certain areas. Unfortunately the NRC rankings come out only every ten years or more.</p>

54

<p>No question that Tufts also gets shafted by the academics and their assignment of PA grades. IMO, in the eyes of employers, there is not a great distinction between their grads and many coming from the non-HYP Ivies, but Tufts has little cachet in the academic world and thus their ranking suffers.</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
I’d like to find some way to insert a COLA factor into these numbers and then re-run the results.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I feel if you tried to do this then the report would become more about examining how many grads from each school are living in North Dakota and Montana as opposed to seeing who are getting the most desirable jobs.</p>

56

<p>Gellino, I think it is valid to insert a COLA into this study. Most Ivy League alums live in the Northeast, particularly in or around Boston, NYC and Washington DC. Most Cal, Stanford, UCLA and USC alums live in the Bay Area or SoCal. Most Michigan, Northwestern and University of Chicago alums live in the Midwest, particularly in or around Chicago and Detroit. Chicago and Detroit (and their surounding areas) are not nearly as expensive as Boston, NYC or Washington DC and their surounding areas or as the Bay Area or SoCal. As such, it is probably best to compare schools in the same geographic location. </p>

<p>Even then, the outcome will be very superficial, since only a tiny portion of alums will be tracked and the details of their compensation will likely be self-reported and probably unconfirmed.</p>

<p>In short, such statistics, although always cute to look at, are about as telling as daily atrological columns. Very cute indeed.</p>

57

<p>I don't want Michigan to drop below UCLA :( Mich should be tied with Virginia for 2nd spot after Berkeley...</p>

58

<p>hawkette, how do these numbers show a fundamental disagreement? </p>

<p>Schools that are rated highly by academics appear to graduate students who are well-recruited and well-paid. This would suggest (quite strongly, in fact) that many employers AGREE with the assessments made by academics.</p>

<p>It is also true that schools rated a little less distinguished ALSO graduate students who are valued and paid well.</p>

<p>This is NOT evidence of employer attitudes being "AT ODDS" with academic attitudes.</p>

<p>For me to believe their attitudes are as far apart as your claims in this thread, you'd have to show me that employers are recruiting most heavily at schools academics think are undistinguished (those with the low ratings), and are avoiding those that academics view as quality.</p>

<p>Let's be honest--employers and clueless, cabalistic academics LARGELY AGREE. Employers, in recruiting and setting salaries, may not draw the same degree of distinction that academics must when they are given a five-point scale and asked to differentiate their peers, but that does not mean that their attitudes are opposite or uncorrelated.</p>

<p>The honest advice I would give students is that those fine PA distinctions don't represent big differences in the way employers see those schools. THAT is true. Employers may not care much about whether you went to Duke vs. Harvard. What is not true is to say to young people that employers don't agree with PA scores at all, or say that they don't care at all whether you went to Southwest Podunk State U vs. Stanford.</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
No doubt the college administrators don't like a non-academic group making up such a ranking (after all, academics love their monopoly)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is also misleading. Academic programs are ranked and rated by a number of non-academic groups. I do not see academics having a "monopoly" on rankings. If you could just knock off the hyperdramatic wink-wink stuff in these threads, I'd stop feeling like you were spreading misinformation. Honestly, that's my biggest concern with some of what you post--generally the gist of it is useful and helpful, but you insert other material that is just plain misleading. It does a real disservice, IMO, to the young people who turn to you and other knowledgeable adults in these threads for guidance and advice.</p>

60

<p>


Hoedown is bringing the smackdown. <---insert hyperdramatic winkwink here---></p>