<p>I don't even know about it until now. But I have a lot of interest though.</p>
<p>calling on tokenadult to post his/her favorite Professor's stats line: self-reported survey data is not "data"....</p>
<p>
<p>Isn't that people who fill the Peer Assessment wants us to believe? Except for the group of "renegades" who publicly admitted the truth about the Peer Assessment. </p>
<p>As far as waiting anxiously --or eagerly. Well this year, they need an extra week to compile all the drivel they have added to the 2009 edition. This year we'll have the absolute pleasure of learning what "educated" guidance counselors think are the best colleges in the United States. The only silver lining is that this illustrious group must have rushed to the online version of last year's U.S. News to read a bit about the schools they are supposed to know about and ... know how to evaluate. What a gift! </p>
<p>The raw data culled by U.S. News remains priceless (or at least worth every penny of the 10, 15,, or 20 dollars they charge) but the absurdity of the ranked list gets harder to stomach as they keep adding new "features" to keep their vision of an academic playing field. </p>
<p>Caveat Emptor has never sounded more true!</p>
<p>Please note the irony of "the response to the criticisms that say the academic peer assessment survey filled out by college administrators is too slow to pick up improvements at colleges." Sweeping the real criticism of the academic peer assessment survey (blatant manipulation and lack of knowledge of the respondents) Morse and his acolytes simply serve us more of the warmed-up sour soup. </p>
<p> [quote]
In our ongoing effort to make our America's Best Colleges guide as useful and informative as possible to our readers, U.S. News plans two new features for the upcoming 2009 edition of the America's Best Colleges rankings to be published on Aug. 22, 2008, on usnews.com.</p>
<p>The first one is in response to the criticisms that say the academic peer assessment survey filled out by college administrators is too slow to pick up improvements at colleges. U.S. News asked top academics in spring 2008 to name schools that they think are "Up and Coming Institutions." College presidents, provosts, and admission deans were asked to nominate up to 10 colleges that are making improvements in academics, faculty, students, campus life, diversity, and facilities. These schools are worth watching because they are making promising and innovative changes. This question on the survey enabled college officials to pick schools that are rapidly evolving in ways that the public should be aware of. We think the public and academia will be very interested in the results.</p>
<p>Second, U.S.News & World Report in spring 2008 for the first time asked a nationwide cross section of public school high school counselors for their views on undergraduate programs at American colleges and universities in our national universities and liberal arts colleges ranking categories. How will U.S.News & World Report use these new ranking data? We are going to publish the findings in the upcoming America's Best Colleges issue of the magazine, available in August 2008. We believe strongly that the opinions that high schools counselors, who play a key role in the college admission process, have about the merits of the nation's leading colleges will provide a very valuable source of information for prospective students, their parents, and our readers.
</p>
<p>The 2010 version promises to be even better as the U.S. News plans to poll the janitors and bus drivers as well.</p>
<p>Well, if we were all honest, the problem is not with USNWR. The problem is with parents and students (and others) who place too much value on these rankings, often taking a personal view of it and becoming either very defensive or very condescending. Perhaps we just need to examine it for what it is, and then put it down and move along.</p>
<p>
[quote]
calling on tokenadult to post his/her favorite Professor's stats line: self-reported survey data is not "data"....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, that line is still better than the asinine and taken out of context "Correlation is not causation" that posters love to throw around with great pride and self-importance.</p>
<p>Ignoring payscale data is indeed unwise, so is relying on unreliable or unqualifed data such as the one presented by the WSJ. For example, according the most recent Businessweek statistics, the following where the highest paid BBA graduates:</p>
<ol>
<li> Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan), $61,100</li>
<li> Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper), $60,000</li>
<li> Georgetown University (McDonough), $60,000</li>
<li> New York University (Stern), $60,000</li>
<li> University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (Ross), $60,000</li>
<li> University of Pennsylvania (Wharton), $60,000</li>
<li> University of Southern California (Marshall), $58,000</li>
<li> University of Virginia (McIntire), $58,000</li>
<li> SUNY-Binghamton, $57,000</li>
<li> University of California-Berkeley (Haas), $57,000</li>
<li>Cornell University, $55,000</li>
<li>Emory University (Goizueta), $55,000</li>
<li>Lehigh University, $55,000</li>
<li>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, $55,000</li>
<li>Washington University-St Louis (Olin), $55,000</li>
</ol>
<p>Undergrad</a> - BSchools</p>
<p>As for starting salaries for Engineers, onne need just go to individual college websites. Most universities post salary surveys. In the case of Engineers, it generally doesn't matter how highly ranked a program is. Engineering salaries are typically standardized (median salary anywhere between $54,000 and $62,000). But here are a few just the same:</p>
<p>2007</a> Commencement Survey (Spring)</p>
<p>All of the above data is specific. We know what they represent. </p>
<p>Most colleges of Arts and Sciences do not publish detailed and accurate surveys of their students' starting salaries. That's partly because as much as half of them go straight to graduate school and/or because A&S career offices aren't designed to gether that much data. </p>
<p>However, one thing is clear. The WSJ does not explain how it gathered its data or how to properly interpret it. It is, and there is no other way of slicing it, useless.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ignoring payscale data is indeed unwise, so is relying on unreliable or unqualifed data such as the one presented by the WSJ. For example, according the most recent Businessweek statistics, the following where the highest paid BBA graduates:</p>
<ol>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan), $61,100</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon University (Tepper), $60,000</li>
<li>Georgetown University (McDonough), $60,000</li>
<li>New York University (Stern), $60,000</li>
<li>University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (Ross), $60,000</li>
<li>University of Pennsylvania (Wharton), $60,000</li>
<li>University of Southern California (Marshall), $58,000</li>
<li>University of Virginia (McIntire), $58,000</li>
<li>SUNY-Binghamton, $57,000</li>
<li>University of California-Berkeley (Haas), $57,000</li>
<li>Cornell University, $55,000</li>
<li>Emory University (Goizueta), $55,000</li>
<li>Lehigh University, $55,000</li>
<li>Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, $55,000</li>
<li>Washington University-St Louis (Olin), $55,000
[/quote]
</li>
</ol>
<p>While there might be some valuable information in the data provided by payscale, the questions about the methodology and scope of their "research" lead to look at the results with quite a smile. </p>
<p>As far as a listing of the "highest paid BBA graduates" one should remember that the BBA degree is NOT necessarily viewed as the best path to a career in business or the pursuit of an advanced degree. There is a reason why such degree is only offered at the two *lowest *ranked Ivy League schools --if indeed it is indeed called a BBA and not something else. </p>
<p>While the comparative information *might *be accurate, it does not offer much value because of its incompleteness, as many of the very best schools are not listed.</p>
<p>PS Should we wonder what might happen if similar comparisons included the salaries for BBA or MBA from Europe?</p>
<p>Xiggi, my point is that when comparing salary information, one should act responsibly and compare major to major, region to region, industry to industry. </p>
<p>Comparing salaries the way the WSJ did, with absolutely zero attention to specifics is insulting to those of us with half a brain and downright dishonest and misleading to the young and impressionable.</p>
<p>I am not particularly watching for this year's rankings... Ratings are over-rated.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, that line is still better than the asinine and taken out of context "Correlation is not causation" that posters love to throw around with great pride and self-importance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've used the line correlation is not causation on cc several times, but (hopefully) believe its always been in context, but I'm sure my good friend xiggi will chime in where it is not. :)</p>
<p>The businessweek median salaries are taken off each school's OWN official data which is much more reliable than WSJ's unverified survey where any person can pose as a RPI or Harvard grad and post 3 million or 20,000 salaries.</p>
<p>Since engineering is likely the most important field in the world, I'd say an RPI degree is more important and relevant than most of Brown's offerings. As far as engineering employers go, RPI is generally seen as superior to the Ivies with the exception of Cornell which it is rougly equal to.</p>
<p>"since engineering is likely the most important field in the world"</p>
<p>haha wow...i dont think there really is such a thing as "the most important field in the world."</p>
<p>Casey, I think I could make a valid arguement that taken as a whole, the engineering profession has provided the most value to modern society.</p>
<p>rico, that is absolutely ridiculous. Medicine, theology, chemistry, government, business, psychology, economics, and on and on and on could all make an argument that they provide the most value to society. Saying Engineering is more important is like saying wheels are more important than a motor in creating a functioning car, or that green is the most important color in the rainbow. Society needs everything to function. Engineers aren't any more important than anyone else.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since engineering is likely the most important field in the world, I'd say an RPI degree is more important and relevant than most of Brown's offerings. As far as engineering employers go, RPI is generally seen as superior to the Ivies with the exception of Cornell which it is rougly equal to.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>One, engineering is not the most important field in the world (this is coming from an engineer). </p>
<p>Two, pretty much any Ivy with the exception of Brown, Yale, and Harvard offer an engineering program at least as good as RPI's, if not better. I would argue that Cornell's and Princeton's engineering programs are recruited far better at the undergrad level than RPI. </p>
<p>Three, the only reason why RPI's salaries are so high is because almost every single RPI student goes into engineering. Engineers make a lot regardless of what school they go to. RPI doesn't have liberal arts grads bringing down their salaries like the other Ivies such as Columbia, Brown, or Cornell.</p>
<p>It would be nice if "the very best schools" actually made some decent data available as most recognized business schools do annually and in great detail. However from what data has been pieced together I would bet a large sum that none except engineering/CS dominated schools would exceed and average in the $60 K range. So the best business schools will put their grads on roughly equal footing with the best grads from the "very best schools". That's good enough for most people looking at that option.</p>
<p>Xiggi, Cornell and Penn are not the lowest ranked Ivy league schools, they are the ONLY Ivy league schools with undergrad business programs, which is why they are the only two that offer a BBA. In fact, people consider Penn the best possible school to attend for undergrad business. BBA degrees ARE offered and generally land jobs that are on par or above other bachelor degrees and if an MBA (which is the same thing in masters form in case you were confused) is not a good example of further education after a BBA, how could you consider any degree good for further education? This one even shares the same name.</p>
<p>Carolyn, one of the most knowledgeable and unbiased posters on CC, added a very important comment on the new features that will be added to the US News report. In addition of describing the limitations of the survey, it also highlights the nefarious parts of the U.S. News modus operandi. Stacking the deck in order to ensure a "level playing field" is simply business as usual. The use of subjective information that cannot be verified from the Common Data Set or other source goes a long way to keep a number of schools where Morse thinks they should remain. </p>
<p>
<p>I was one of the guidance counselors asked to fill out the questionnaire. I, along with many other counselors I have talked with, decided not to participate. Here's why:</p>
<ul> <li><p>Only counselors from a very small sample of high schools were asked to participate.</p></li> <li><p>We were only asked to rank selected institutions. No LACs, no master's level universities, few regional public institutions.</p></li> <li><p>When questionned, US News' director of research indicated that they were going to "wait and see" what the guidance counselors said before deciding how to use the information. In other words, if the information conflicted with US News' existing rankings, the guidance counselor rankings would be ignored.</p></li> </ul>
<p>In short, the "ranking" questionnaire was stacked so that only certain universities would be ranked by guidance counselors. </p>
<p>So, be cautious. Like the "peer reviews" US News probably will not be telling you how many counselors participated, how the counselors that were asked to participate were chosen, or that only selected colleges were included in the "rankings."
</p>
<p>Thanks xiggi for posting the quote from carolyn. I had just included it in my post as well (!) but took it out as I saw you had just posted it. It's important information for us all to consider!</p>
<p>The rankings from the US News & World Report are misleading and serve as a business mechanism to ‘market’ colleges rather than illuminating true quality and educational value. The rankings also add stress to the college application process, drive people into a frenzy, and sell the USNWR magazine. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Critics have charged that U.S. News intentionally changes its methodology every year so that the rankings change and they can sell more magazines.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The National Opinion Research Center, one of the largest and most highly respected social research organizations in the US, found that the statistical weights used by U.S. News to rank colleges/universities “lack any defensible empirical or theoretical basis.” </p>
<p>See the Boston Globe article, Dismissing school rankings at: Dismissing</a> school rankings - The Boston Globe
[quote]
It's common knowledge how the statistics can be "gamed." Colleges can solicit applications from students with little chance of acceptance to boost how selective they appear. Schools can adjust when they allow faculty to take leave in order to raise the faculty/student ratio.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Kudos to the colleges and guidance counselors that refused to fill out the USNWR survey! So why do we continue to buy USNWR? I think we should boycott the magazine and refuse to buy it.</p>