It would be relatively easy to rank by career outcomes for law schools, where there is only one major, and there is a very limited range of target job and career outcomes (basically various kinds of lawyer).
But undergraduate colleges are more difficult to do this with, since any possible ranking of this nature will vary by both college major and target jobs and careers.
In either case, one also has to be wary of selection versus treatment effect. Are outcomes better at one school versus another because the school does something better or because employers (or graduate / professional programs) prefer that school (treatment effect), or because that school is more selective and enrolls stronger students who (on average) become stronger job seekers and graduate / professional school applicants, regardless of where they go to undergraduate?
Thatās quite the āthereforeā leap! People choose one place over another despite rankings, therefore the rankings need be changed to reflect this?
This argument is fascinating but I donāt believe the whole āHarvard is Harvardā line of thinking.
āHarvard wins most cross-admits against Princeton but Iād have thought Princeton would provide a more dedicated undergraduate experience if you were looking for pure academics alone. To my mind, that means a non-negligible component have to be choosing Harvard because Harvard has a certain reputation.ā
For one, itās a poorly kept secret that grade deflation and Princeton- and grade INFLATION at Harvard, meant that a kid with their eye on professional school almost always chose Harvard even if their heart said Princeton. Why risk a 3.3 at Princeton if the same academic performance yields a 3.8 at Harvard without having to step down?
For another, MANY students mistakenly believe that attending Harvard means youāre a lock at Harvard Law School (hey, there are lots of Harvard college students at HLS, why not me?) and Princeton doesnāt HAVE a law school. Ditto for the med school-- especially since Harvard dominates the teaching hospital scene in Boston, so even if you canāt get into Harvard Med school (which is most Harvard med school wannabees) kids figure they get a second bite at the apple when residency rolls around. Princeton has neither a med school and therefore, no teaching hospitals. Ditto the B-school (which is arguably easier to get into than HLS or Harvard Med-- but weāre talking about 17 year old kids who donāt know this yet when they decide Harvard not Princeton).
Iāve seen kids pick Harvard over Princeton because they think of Princeton as an intense place, and Harvard cuts you more slack. I donāt know if this is true. And yes, they had law school inclinations, and were GPA sensitive. I am not sure there is grade deflation at Princeton anymore. Grading is reasonable. I have not heard any complaints in this regard from my kid.
Colleges in US resemble consumer brands in many ways. Thereāre mass-market luxury brands that constantly market themselves to project and maintain their images. Thereāre value brands that provide good quality-to-price ratios to appeal to cost-conscious consumers. Thereāre also niche brands that provide exceptional quality, regardless of price, but rely mostly on word of mouth.
How does one rank colleges? Based on the perception of luxury? On value? Or purely on quality? We all make different decisions daily because we have different means, needs, and experiences. Itād be impossible to rank all products/services in any sector, except for a very narrowly defined attribute. For example, we wouldnāt rely on some general rankings to choose which cars to buy. Some of us more highly value reliability. Some value affordability. Some others value performances more. And still others value exclusivity. If a publication arbitrarily assigns certain weights to each of these categories and comes up with some sort of general rankings, theyād be useless, wouldnāt they? So why do we rely on some general rankings of colleges to tell us which colleges to attend?
If there is a value to ranking colleges, I donāt think it comes from ranking elite private universities like Harvard or Princeton. Everyone respects those institutions and people will do whatever they can to attend, regardless of any ranking.
I think the same is true of leading public flagship universities. You can have a degree from UNC, Maryland, Texas, UCLA, Indiana, Florida (and the list goes on) and employers will be happy to consider any of these graduates for an opening.
I think the values of these rankings comes from a better understanding of the ānot as well knownā schools. A substantial percentage of our country has no idea how hard it is to attend (and the quality of the education you receive) from places like Williams, Pomona, Rice & WashU. I had seen Northeastern on resumes before, but I was blown away a few years back when I saw the average SAT score of their admitted freshman class. There are schools in this segment that I have gained a whole new respect for just because of their ranking (right or wrong).
āThe Association of American Universities (the āAssociationā) is an association of leading comprehensive research universities distinguished by the breadth and quality of their programs of (a) academic research and scholarship and (b) graduate education.ā
(Reading between the lines: institutions where undergraduate education is a third-tier priority at best).
Indeed. One of my best profs was a Nobel Laureate who purposely chose to teach Frosh classesā¦
(And to be fair, one of the worst was a Nobel Laureate; he hated that he had to teach at all. He was even disliked by his Grad Students, but that was his personality.)
Iād guess this to have been intended partly as a humorous comment, with the suggestion of some truth in some cases. Under this interpretation, itās not really a refutable statement.
I would love to know the name of ONE institution where undergrad education is a third-tier priority at best. No points for Yaleās school of nursing, Rockefeller University, or other institutions that only serve post-bachelor students!
Folks on CC love to bash large lectures, universities which bring in hundreds of millions of dollars over decades for large research projects, etc. Reality is quite different. The great thing about a university which DOES get money for large projects- thereās LOTS to go around, including paying undergrads for research slots, and including getting fantastic mentoring from the rest of the team.
A school can be good at two or all three, but that does not necessarily mean anything about its order of priorities.
An analogous example would be a student focused on getting into medical school but fails even though it is their top priority, but earns a 4.0 in courses in a major that happens to be unrelated to pre-med courses.
Talk to professors at R1 institutions and see where they send their kids to college. They know the realities of the institutional priorities where they are, and what their promotions and evaluations are primarily based on.
The professors I know at R1ās pray to any god they can that their kids are smart enough to get into their OWN institution.
Any specific example youād like to try? Yes, you get the occasional MIT professor whose kid goes to Beloit. Are you going to claim that said kid COULD have gotten into MIT but is studying physics at Beloit instead? Because that would be QUITE a claim!
Beloit is a fine institution, so not picking on them specifically.
