<p>Yep, and thanks for all that good info, bclintonk. What I meant is that even as its added programs, its also remained true to its original mission and its education programs are well-regarded and well-subscribed. It turns out a lot of teachers.</p>
<p>Gellino, the PA is a direct measure of universities' perceived resputations by a group of their peers. Whether it is accurate or not is another subject. We all know it is 100% based on opinion. </p>
<p>The WSJ report is not an average rating of undergraduate institutions by thousands of peer companies around the nation. If it were, it would be of great value. I know, I know, Goldman Sachs has not idea what Morgan Stanley is doing and Ford has no clue what GM is doing and Pfizer really doesn't want to know what Merck is doing and so on and so forth. But when all of industry's averaged opinion of undergraduate institutions is averaged, I think you would get a rating that would be of interest to some students.</p>
<p>Oops, I clicked the Who's Anxiously Waiting To Debate Umich's reputation again.</p>
<p>
Hawkette, for what academic programs/majors are BC and Tulane known?</p>
<p>
[quote]
$56,300, $116,000… Notre Dame (3.9)
$52,700, $93,000… U Michigan (4.5)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here's how I would interpret this data: UMichigan is much more highly regarded than Notre Dame. Depsite this, the average mid career median salary of Notre Dame grads with no advanced degree is 25% higher than UMichigan grads with no advanced degree. I don't really see how it's possible to come to any other conclusion when presented with these two conflicting items. I certainly understand how people may have problems with the process of how these statements are reached, but once they are presented, they certainly seem in opposition to me.</p>
<p>Indiana is going up. A 30 point rise in average SAT and 10% drop in acceptance rate will reduce the selectivity rank. Also peer assessment might go back up to 3.8 which is what it was at in 2006-07.</p>
<p>i am anxious to see the LAC´s ranking</p>
<p>Gellino, the data seems very strange. Michigan's median starting salary for Ross and Engineering is $60,000 and at Notre Dame is $54,000. Either Notre Dame is the only university on earth where Arts and Science majors out-earn Engineers and Business majors coming out of college or the data is faulty. And it's not just Michigan. Columbia, Duke and Northwestern all have strange results. I am not sure that those figures translate into their reputation in industry. I doubt Bucknell and Lafayette are more repsected than Columbia and Duke.</p>
<p>gellino, my interpretation is that both represent pretty good salaries for someone right out of college. Looks to me like employers think both Notre Dame and Michigan grads are worth paying well. It looks like they may even pay Notre Dame grads more than Michigan. They're both being paid pretty well, for new grads, by my standards.</p>
<p>What it doesn't tell me is that employers DISAGREE with academics who think these schools have distinguished programs. Looks to me like employers and academics largely align on that topic, although they may differ in how much they distinguish one from the other. Academics put Michigan higher, employers put Notre Dame higher--but on both measures, they're ranked up there.</p>
<p>I went to a school ranked a lot lower than Michigan and Notre Dame, and from what I could see that played out in starting salaries, too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Michigan's median starting salary for Ross and Engineering is $60,000 and at Notre Dame is $54,000.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How is this data any more reliable than Payscale, a company who specializes in this type of compilation and analysis? It is subject to the same self-reporting bias and incompleteness.</p>
<p>This wasn't anything about UMichigan or Notre Dame, just the conclusion that I would think one would come to after reading hawkette's statement.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What it doesn't tell me is that employers DISAGREE with academics who think these schools have distinguished programs.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Supporters of UMichigan are constantly on here saying how academics think UMichigan is so much better than Notre Dame because of the 4.5 vs 3.9 PA; suddenly a study comes out saying that despite attending a much less respected school, Notre Dame grads actually earn 25% more by mid-career and that doesn't strike you as a disagreement?</p>
<p>Well, if you want speak generally, like "academics think Notre Dame worse than Michigan, and employers think Michigan is worse than Notre Dame" then yeah, I guess hawkette's interpretation based on this data is correct. </p>
<p>But a general statement that employers flat out disagree with academics doesn't bear out when you don't restrict your view to just the top-tier schools. Everything that I've seen suggests that employer opinions (based on recruiting, pay, whatever) are largely in line with that of those academics who fill out the Peer Assessment. Well-rated schools who got 4s and 5s on the PA draw the top recruiters and the big job offers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Everything that I've seen suggests that employer opinions (based on recruiting, pay, whatever) are largely in line with that of those academics who fill out the Peer Assessment.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that hawkette's point was: largely in-line, yes; fully in-line, no. He then went on to cite a few specific examples where there was a discrepancy. Nothing more, nothing less.</p>
<p>He is actually a she. Perhaps I read hawkette's comments as more than what you did because of previous comments she has made that were quite critical of the judgment of academics. And some other wording choices. </p>
<p>I agree with your summary that they don't fully agree, they just partly agree. No argument there. </p>
<p>Hawkette points to a "fundamental disagreement" with how employers and academics see an institution (see post #49). In my view, however, anyone who pays a new grad out of Michigan or Notre Dame $50,000+ surely doesn't "fundamentally disagree" with the academics who rate those schools as pretty distinguished.</p>
<p>sorry hawk, i guess i should have said "second-rate harvard", that make you happier? This is pretty common phrasing in a lot of arguments against privatization of public Universities, a number of prominent scholars have argued that schools like Michigan/Berkeley would simply be a "second-rate harvard", ie Northwestern, when you make them private, and they think that's bad, when right now they are the best public schools in the country, that appeals to many people. Not in anyway trying to put down any of these schools.</p>
<p>"How is this data any more reliable than Payscale, a company who specializes in this type of compilation and analysis? It is subject to the same self-reporting bias and incompleteness."</p>
<p>At least close to 100% of Business majors and close to 60% of Engineering majors actually report their salaries to their institutions. How many are responding to the WSJ survey? Furthermore, university career centers do not ask or even attempt to ask their alums to disclose their "mid-career" salaries. </p>
<p>"Supporters of UMichigan are constantly on here saying how academics think UMichigan is so much better than Notre Dame because of the 4.5 vs 3.9 PA; suddenly a study comes out saying that despite attending a much less respected school, Notre Dame grads actually earn 25% more by mid-career and that doesn't strike you as a disagreement?"</p>
<p>Gellino, I am sure some posters believe that Michigan is better than Notre Dame. I am sure the opposite is true too. But most "supporters" of Michigan, myself included, do not believe Michigan is better than Notre Dame (or vise versa for that matter).</p>
<p>At any rate, I still fail to see how the WSJ survey is an indicator of how employers rate undergraduate institutions.</p>
<p>If we're taking votes here, I too think Notre Dame's rating is wrong relative to Michigan's. The undergraduates they recruit, admit and enroll are stellar. FWIW, I also agree with evil<em>asian</em>dictator's contention that Duke is superior at least at the undergrad level. I don't agree with all of his reasoning, mind you!</p>
<p>Just because I have intimate knowledge of U-M doesn't mean I am unable to judge other institutions correctly. I don't feel the need to defend Michigan that often--there are plenty of people on CC who will do that, some more objectively and successfully than others. What I prefer to do is provide some perspective on issues that influence other people's judgment of Michigan and other institutions. I know about certain aspects of higher ed that allows me to correct misunderstandings about what numbers mean and how they are reported. I do that a lot in Michigan threads because those are the ones I tend to read--and it involves a school whose measures I know best.</p>
<p>As for Notre Dame's undeserved rating, I will bring this up at the next meeting of the cabal. We usually discuss our US News voting after the Dance of the Goat Entrails.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, if you want speak generally, like "academics think Notre Dame worse than Michigan, and employers think Michigan is worse than Notre Dame" then yeah, I guess hawkette's interpretation based on this data is correct.
[/quote]
The real question is whether the PayScate data can be interpreted this way. It's 'unscientific' to interpret/extrapolate data with no control variables. The PayScale data for individual school is a mixed bag of job/industry/location, so you are not comparing apple to apple when you compare average salaries between schools.</p>
<p>For example, geographic diversity of the student body may have an impact on the average salary. According to PayScale, if you make $67K as an entry level software engineer in Houston, you will need to make $80K in NYC. So if School A has 10% more students from the northeast than School B, it can easily account for $4-5K difference in average starting salary.</p>
<p>Or take the case of GeorgiaTech vs. Emory. With 63% in Engineering and CompSci, it's easy to see why GIT grads earn more on the average.</p>
<p>Or take Sam Lee's argument that "4 of the 6 schools at Northwestern are communications, music, journalism, and education" (comprising over 30+% of the student body). It's easy to see why NU grads earn less if you combine them in a mixed bag.</p>
<p>Or do you really believe that employers prefer -</p>
<p>Polytech U of NY - $62,400/$114,000
WPI - $61,000/$114,000
RPI - $61,100/$110,000</p>
<p>over</p>
<p>Cornell - $60,300/$110,000
Brown - $56,200/$109,000
Columbia - $59,400/$107,000
Amherst - $54,500/$107,000
Swarthmore - $49,700/$104,000
Boston College - $52,700/$103,000
William - $51,700/$102,000</p>
<p>You see ... we can all use data selectively to prove our points.</p>
<p>As Sam so keenly observed ... "Why do many people on this board have the tendency to overanalyze with so little?"</p>
<p>GoBlue,
For your and Sam's comment above,</p>
<p>"Why do many people on this board have the tendency to overanalyze with so little?"</p>
<p>do you mean, like, those folks who post PA scores over and over again with little else to support their arguments? :)</p>
<p>Hey, I agree that the Payscale data is but one data point, but it is information that looks generally accurate to me. I choose to use in the overall context of judging a school along with a large number of data points that provide a larger picture and understanding. Ignore the Payscale data if you like, but I think that for most folks interested in prospective post-graduate financial fortunes, it merits some consideration. Now if we could get the numbers regionally adjusted....</p>
<p>
[quote]
Or do you really believe that employers prefer -</p>
<p>Polytech U of NY - $62,400/$114,000
WPI - $61,000/$114,000
RPI - $61,100/$110,000</p>
<p>over</p>
<p>Cornell - $60,300/$110,000
Brown - $56,200/$109,000
Columbia - $59,400/$107,000
Amherst - $54,500/$107,000
Swarthmore - $49,700/$104,000
Boston College - $52,700/$103,000
William - $51,700/$102,000
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I definitely agree. Anybody who thinks RPI, WPI, and Polytech U degrees are more desirable than Cornell, Brown, and Columbia degrees is just delusional.</p>
<p>One must consider the nature of a school when looking at this data. RPI, WPI, and Polytech U mainly produce students who only go into engineering- they don't have many liberal arts students to lower their salary total because engineering is a high-paying profession.</p>
<p>This by no means implies though that and RPI degree is more desirable than a Brown degree. It just goes to show that what you study is just as important as where you study it.</p>
<p>That study should be disregarded, anyone can fill it out and RPI's own official surveys do not show those numbers. Basically, its like studentreview where anyone can post salaries and some of them range in 300k starting, puhleez!</p>