65% of students come from what they call “in-territory” (Kentucky and Appalachia), but 43 states and Washington DC are all represented in their student body, and 74 countries outside the US. So while certainly the school skews heavily towards Appalachian students and many likely return to their home regions, not sure we can just look at the median KY salary for comparison (though not sure where else to look….)
No matter how you cut the data (if the WM and the Google AI are close to accurate), Berea is not driving outcomes (and their Outcomes rank is indicative). How meaningful are Access and Affordability when the average grad probably could do better working in a trade or even service industry right out of HS. Even if the school were completely free, that’s still 4 years of income that the student has given up.
I think some of those arguing to not use the data is that going to an LAC has further meaning than making an abundant living.
Perhaps for some but again, there’s a reason even the top LACs don’t post data but a Bucknell and Richmond do. People who go to Williams and Amherst, by ranking alone, assume they’ll be leaders and I’m guessing income leaders -no different than someone who goes to Michigan or UNC or Cornell.
Anyway, I have zero issue with LACs - I recommend many in my posts in fact -and yes one can find flaws with any methodology but I do think most go to college, especially a big time name with the idea of being big time themselves. Maybe not those on CC which as we know aren’t the norm.
There has to be one ranking out there everyone can trust :).
To be fair, Berea is not the party at fault here. AFAIK, Berea has never claimed ROI as its reason for being. A CC poster took the WM ranking and rearranged it according that metric. Berea gives poor people a chance at a liberal arts education at virtually no cost. Whether that should be considered an unmitigated good has been debated since the days of Socrates.
I did - and only to look at it from another direction.
Some may see value in that. Clearly others do not.
Any of the criteria can be individually ranked, of course. I believe @AustenNut did so in fact - not sure if the same survey but she isolated schools in Va and PA, if I recall, for certain metrics in the survey.
Good point. Berea’s mission is a positive one, and it is absolutely laudable to go a LAC to get a a well rounded education, but it seems silly to think that student specifically choose Berea to springboard right into to a well paying job. Doesn’t mean some can’t and perhaps some may, but understanding their numbers is important.
It’s not that others don’t see value in “that”. It’s just an attempt to put the data into context, especially when you’re questioning the value of attending a LAC by citing a clunky salary data set. It’s a conversation. Join it.
But let’s be honest: you’re doing more than just sorting. Taking a watered down salary data point and setting up a strawman ROI claim, as you have, is misleading and misinformed.
I simply took one of their data points and put it out - and noted the top ones seem to have the highest paid majors. Others decided that it’s useless.
To each their own.
I have no bias against LACs - majoring in sociology is majoring in sociology, regardless of the where. I have bias against certain majors but nonetheless, didn’t restrict my kid from a major I’m biased against, just like my dad didn’t limit me from what I realize now was a useless major.
No, the point’s been made a thousand times in many other threads claiming to compare ROI among different colleges, principally, between LACs and universities; that universities have all sorts of niche pre-professional programs that don’t normally have liberal arts and science antecedents.
Computer science was probably the last one to squeeze its way in, under the rubric of “Applied Mathematics”. But, I’d say 99% of the time, these comparisons are between applying what you know for an immediate return and knowing what you don’t know for what may be a lifetime of learning.
I think you did but we don’t need to belabor the point.
And then brought in the ROI discussion, wondering how people feed themselves and made the point that people need to pay their bills. All fine to do.
When the limitation of the data was explained, you just repeated that “salary data is fair game.” That response I do not understand. It’s a long form version of “but still ….”
Really, though, I should have just started with your original point. As for the top ones having the right majors, let’s call them the T10:
Harvey Mudd - engineering, no business.
Claremont - no engineering, no business.
Bucknell - engineering and business.
Holy Cross - no engineering, no business.
Lafayette - engineering, no business.
Trinity - engineering, no business.
Amherst - no engineering, no business.
W&L - engineering and business.
Colgate - no engineering, no business.
Colby - no engineering, no business.
Two have both engineering and business and three have just engineering, no business. The rest have neither.
Doesn’t that kind of end the discussion?
I think the culprit here is that you may be severely underestimating how many kids are hired into industry who major in areas like econ and non-engineering STEM.
Nobody is taking offense. Just another POV and more information for your consideration.
The next 10:
Davidson, no engineering, no business
Hamilton, no engineering, no business
Barnard, no engineering, no business
Haverford, no engineering, no business
VMI, didn’t look, a different type of college
Williams, no engineering, no business
Wellesley, no engineering, no business
Linfield, business, no engineering
Richmond, business, no engineering
Middlebury, no business, no engineering
So in the whole T20, ignoring VMI, we have 5 engineering programs and 4 business admin degree programs. Seems like that leaves a lot of people at a lot of places doing something else and paying the bills.
Its more than just a POV. It’s a constant attempt, ad nauseum, to explain the many issues with the “ROI” or “salary outcome” reports, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. Just because some choose to focus on it doesn’t make it meaningful. Especially clear in the case of the school that is the title of this thread. Berea may seem to have a good ROI b/c so many pay next to nothing to attend, but as several explained upthread, the salaries of the graduates, even 5 years out, are quite low. So students that would qualify (if admitted) for large need-based/no loan scholarships at other schools might be better off applying to them, or as one explained above, in Appalachia, perhaps if they ONLY focused on income/salary, they might consider a trade or skipping an advanced education. Aside from the “money” focus, some choose to go to college to get a well rounded education. What a concept.
An approach that can lead to all manner of success down the road. The truth is, the under-employed barista is a bit of a hackneyed stereotype.
It’s anecdata, sure, but my kids’ classmates, high school and college, are employed doing a wide variety of things and pursued a wide variety of studies at a wide range of types of schools. Kids majoring in everything from biology to accounting and elite and non-elite schools, large publics and small privates.
The world is shockingly interested in hiring people outside of engineering, nursing or business. Nothing wrong with any of those, of course, but imagine telling a kid they’re going to struggle to pay the bills if they don’t major in engineering or business. Please.
The data and metrics speak for themselves , if one can and is willing to read and understand statistical measurement. And accept the limits of the measures, that so very many here have tried to explain.
