The problem with Babson is not the quality of teaching, which is excellent. Its problem is that you don’t get the full college experience by having only business students around, so that limits its appeal. You really do need artists, nerds, and jocks to make a vibrant college atmosphere. And the town of Wellesley, where Babson is located, is a bit far to take full advantage of Boston’s numerous colleges and the vibrancy it brings.
But there is actually the potential to make another nationally ranked university in the town there. The highly respected Olin School of Engineering is right next to Babson. If someone could get Wellesley College to go coed and merge with the other two, you could have Wellesley University, which would be much more appealing to prospective students.
I’m just saying - we’re so ingrained to say - BU beats NJIT - so to see it lose by 180 spots is “shocking” - or FIU beating - probably Florida’s fourth rated public - to be ahead of UCLA, Brown, UNC.
But maybe what they’re doing - and again, I have no idea of the criteria…but maybe what they’re producing is actually better.
I don’t know - but i won’t dismiss it just based on previous perception - is all I’m saying.
I guess that’s the rub. Maybe their methodology is more “valid” compared to conventional wisdom or the other ranking organizations. But if the results are too extreme, no one will believe it. And If no one believes it, it loses all of its credibility.
Not from what I can tell. It appears to be based on Brookings studies, and it doesn’t specify which, but I don’t see any indication those studies looked at college major.
And this would explain why, say, various business and tech-focused colleges were doing so well. I would not really expect that if they were controlling for major.
I don’t know if I would have reliably predicted it, but a lot of what people are pointing to as extreme results make a basic sense when you realize this is mostly a median-earnings value-added measure.
I think there is always a bit of a Catch-22 in situations like this. If you tell people what they already think they know, then they may believe you but they are not learning anything new. But if you tell them something they think must be wrong because it contradicts what they think they know, they are not learning anything new either.
Unfortunately, I think the truth is a lot of people are not very receptive to reconsidering what they think they know. And there is not much you can do about that.
But for those people who are receptive to reconsidering things, then articles like this are not necessarily worse for being surprising in various ways. Because those surprises are all opportunities to learn something new–but only if you are willing to be open-minded.
Interesting - Salary impact versus similar colleges (33%.
Does that means Brown is similar to Princeton but not U Maine or URI?
But at least it’s 70% - and years to pay off net price is a part of that - so schools saddling kids with loans might get hurt. That seems reasonable.
Not sure how you can really grade Learning Environment and it’s different for each kid - and diversity is very important but can it be quantified for outcomes - which in the end, is why people go to school.
What they are apparently doing is comparing observed median earnings to a predictive demographics model derived from Brookings studies. So, if you take College’s demographics and the model predicts a median earnings of $X, and instead the College’s observed median earnings is $Y, where Y >> X, then College will do well in this part of their methodology.
Now if you define “similar colleges” as colleges with similar student demographics, then technically that title isn’t wrong. But it implies a division of colleges into peer groups, and that doesn’t appear to be how the methodology actually works.
Yeah, a lot of that is survey based. I appreciate the effort, but I am skeptical about it really being that meaningful for individuals.
But I don’t actually think it is possible to do this well anyway. Because generic rankings just don’t make sense. Individuals are too different, including in terms of goals during college, goals after college, net costs paid, and so on. The idea one generic ranking could somehow capture all that makes no sense.
I agree with you. But when the results are so dramatically different than most people’s expectations, the WSJ should have spent effort explaining in better detail why the numerous outliers were given their unexpected positions on their list. That would better assuage people’s doubts.
I guess if you took this methodology really seriously (and I would not take it quite this seriously), the implication is both your kids would be kicking butt at many schools, so no points for their specific colleges.
And I am sure that is in some sense true for your kids, but then that becomes the wrong way to evaluate college choice. Like, if a college works for a kid in that way, and is also affordable for their family, and the kid also likes it–what else does it really need to be? It is a good choice for that kid and that family, and no generic ranking can really capture all that on such an individual level.
Not to be cynical, but, “Top N X for Y . . . and number Z will surprise you!,” is a stereotypical marketing strategy in the modern media context.
So I am not sure the WSJ is so interested in tamping down the controversy. Even if people are hate-reading, and linking so others can hate-read . . . they are still reading.
and yes, I personally think it’s the kid more than the school although I will say some kids are in special programs (mine is at Charleston) that few of the students get to access - and so for certain kids, that changes the calculation too that a ranking can’t calculate.
Anyway, I hope everyone whose kid has made a decision and just started college is just as comfortable with their decision - regardless of if their school looks good or not so much in the WSJ rank.
Wonder if the graduation rate used in the rankings dinged schools where many students co op? Thinking about Purdue which was ranked in the high 30s by WSJ in their old methodology.
another way to look at it, is top liberal arts colleges on their list are probably ‘better’ than you think since many (except Swarthmore ??) don’t have engineering majors at all.