<p>Maybe our future president's alma mater doesn't have mid career salaries in that range. </p>
<p>This is rather surprising, considering the average income in the U.S. is only in the mid-twenties.</p>
<p>But the list must be incomplete. Duke's not on it.</p>
<p>GoNavyXC, I see Columbia and Harvard on the list, they're ranked 21st and 6th respectively. Heck, even Occidental is ranked 28th.</p>
<p>It does call into question how much data they are able to collect or how relevant it is when many of these schools have 70-80% go onto some form of grad school; so presumably this info is not taking into account the vast majority of alums at these schools, even if they are seeking to determine just the effect of the UG. One way I could rationalize the results of why Dartmouth would be higher than Harvard is that the former is smaller and more pre-professional (PhDs % at Dartmouth ~7% vs ~14% at Harvard), so relatively less would become professors or other researchers out of Dartmouth, which would otherwise serve to lower the median; however, if they are excluding anyone with an advanced degree then this explanation couldn't be a factor. </p>
<p>In addition, the fact that Franklin & Marshall can come in as #5 among those ranking the top 25%ile (right between Princeton and Stanford; not a place that F&M is usually thought of) and yet F&M only ranks #84 in median salary makes me wonder how much or how reliable this data is. This survey may have more to do with what types of industries the grads of these schools with no advanced degrees tend to gravitate towards serving as the dependent variable.</p>
<p>Titan, did you notice the title of the article? "Ivy Leaguers' Big Edge: Starting Pay" - The point of the article seems to be that Ivy League students do have an edge. Rather than damage this notion, it actually supports it.</p>
<p>Now the actual data may not support it, but the accompanying article, with it's title claim, certainly does.</p>
<p>Yes, that appears to be an incomplete list (Lehigh is another example of a missing 100+ school). But even that said, it makes little sense to be comparing dissimilar schools....a large public with a large number of majors (many low-paying), cannot be compared with a small private that is largely pre-professional. Also, the list does not account for geographic location in the data...giving a false bias to expensive regions of the country in which the graduates tend to reside. Most large companies adjust starting offers and have salary scales that are geographically-depended.</p>
<p>Interesting list, though...but I'd only use it to compare similar-type schools in similar regions...and even then, I wouldn't make too much of it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In the recently released Payscale survey of annual salary levels for college graduates, 40 colleges showed median annual salaries at mid-career at over $100,000.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is that what it is? Or should it read: "In the recently released Payscale survey of annual salary levels for [a small number of responding] college graduates, 40 colleges [out of a extremely limited number of schools] showed median annual salaries at mid-career at over $100,000. </p>
<p>Oh well, GIGO!</p>
<p>Interesting.... article certainly verifies some misconceptions, like going to a lower-tier school is no different than going to that of a top-tiered.</p>
<p>Cervantes, you must not know anything about the electoral college...Barack Obama's schools are on there...thus proving my point that most of CC is liberal and can't even see what I was trying to get at. John McCain's alma mater is not listed.</p>
<p>^I don't know if it is a limited list of schools as there seems to be many listed among the results that I've never heard of. I don't know if there is a way to try the approach of isolating UG effect without there being some flaws, but it is interesting how the usual suspects do seem to generally still come out on top; albeit not in a precise magnitude and rank order as conventional thinking, but not too far from it either. </p>
<p>I would guess that the top 30 schools on their list all have over 50% of grads go on to get some type of advanced degree, so that's not necessarily a differentiating factor among schools here. I'm guessing they just weren't able to get the data for JHU, which is why it's not on the list anywhere, but would think a lower % of its grads would go into business, which would probably hurt it in comparison to other peer schools for purposes of this survey. It would be interesting to see what % of grads report starting salaries and what % of alums reported a mid-career salary.</p>
<p>These lists are never perfect, yet the same schools HYPSM Dartmouth always seem to be at the top.</p>
<p>xiggi...
The "small number of respondents" is 1.2 million. Over 300 schools.
This is a survey of people with terminal Bachelors degrees only. Of course Johns Hopkins, and schools where a large number of grads go on for more education (Harvard, Swarthmore, etc., etc.) get the shaft in the survey.</p>
<p>This is a survey of how well people do in career driven tracks. Lots of Hopkins alums go to professional schools, but of those that do not the overall evidence is that they don't do as well. Much of this has to do with the way Hopkins is geared, they aren't on too many elite consulting and banking recruiting lists. </p>
<p>In the business world its HYPSM Dartmouth leading with schools like Penn, Columbia, and others close behind. Almost every list of career success shows this.</p>
<p>What other lists show this? I can only assume you a a Dartmouth alum/student trying to play up your school</p>
<p>Pretty much every list I've ever seen Dartmouth is top 5ish. Its always up there with HYPSM. </p>
<p>Deal</a> Journal - WSJ.com : Dartmouth: A Good Week for the Unsung Ivy of Financial Connections</p>
<p>2007</a> list of BB Summer Associate class by colleges | WallStreetOasis.com</p>
<p>Private</a> Equity Firms & Universities: What’s the Relationship? | BankersBall</p>
<p>doesn't payscale use voluntary data? not institutional data?</p>
<p>isn't this voluntary data, not institutional data?</p>
<p>I enjoy that the WSJ has so shrwedly reduced schools to five 'types': Ivy League (like that's a type), LAC, Engineering, Party, State, so that Stanford, Duke, etc don't fit into anything on their chart breakdowns even though Stanford comes out #4 overall.</p>
<p>Slipper,
Deal Journal is not a list, although it shows Dartmouth is good for business/consulting/banking. Penn ranks higher than Darmouth in the bankersball survey. The wallstreetoasis list is flawed- it's just some random dude posting about his BB class, and it's not official at all.</p>
<p>I'm sorry, saying Penn and Columbia is behind Dartmouth in the business world is very false in my opinion because</p>
<p>1) Penn has Wharton</p>
<p>2) Columbia is located in the financial capital of the world- NYC. Recruiters can take a taxi and get to campus. Columbia must therefore be extremely good for wall street recruitment. It's an Ivy in the financial capital of the world.</p>
<p>
[quote]
isn't this voluntary data, not institutional data?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yea, which is why it is pretty flawed.</p>
<p>Not necessarily true. the point is in EVERY instance of published data Dartmouth is top 7, most of the time its top 5. On a per-capita basis its often top 3.</p>
<p>I have a degree from Columbia and I know all about its recruiting. At the undergrad level most recruiting is done by the big banks and consulting firms. These firms all travel. So NYC at the undergrad level brings very little advantage for jobs that have on-campus recruiting. Dartmouth, on the other hand has a very real advantage - and one that isn't often known. The D-plan means that students get a term off during the fall-winter- or spring. All of the top banks, consulting firms have special internships during the year to serve Dartmouth in this way. Literally there is no competition and Dartmouth students therefore get privileged access. That is a REAL advantage.</p>