And here’s your problem. Liberal Arts Colleges and Liberal Arts majors are not the same thing!
As already pointed out there are plenty of LACs with STEM majors. Both of my kids are STEM majors and both are at a LAC.
@Dolemite, I don’t see why you think the “American Leaders” list is flawed. Yes, determining what fields to look at is subjective, but that would be true regardless. And do note that while many colleges offer music, theatre, and writing majors, they don’t offer basketball or football majors (even if it seems like they do).
And there are plenty of actors, musicians, etc that didn’t attend a college on the list. The influence of sports in America from business to entertainment is so large and pervasive that ignoring to the extent that the list does makes it very flawed in my estimation. From the Forbes 30 under 30 lists there is a section for 30 sports figures under 30 (though a few didn’t or haven’t attended a college yet) - there are 20 lists total so 600 total people though I’m sure some are duplicated on the other lists CCAP uses. I don’t think Mike Krzyzewski makes the list, Pat Riley, Bill Belichick, Michael Jordan, Lebron James, etc I could come up with a few hundred if needed.
"And here’s your problem. Liberal Arts Colleges and Liberal Arts majors are not the same thing!
As already pointed out there are plenty of LACs with STEM majors. Both of my kids are STEM majors and both are at a LAC."
Thank you for this.
@ohmomof2 “Even some schools who take 49% or more of applicants manage to get most engineers out in 4 years”
That is true, but it isn’t about most. It is about graduation rates, and drop out rates.
@blossom "I don’t buy the argument that engineers need 5 or 6 years to finish a BS. If MIT can get engineers in and out in 4 years, OR grant a Master’s degree in 5 years, I have trouble understanding why significantly lower ranked engineering programs (many non-flagship engineering state U’s for example) seem to need 5 years and maybe an extra summer.
Either the “requirements” can’t be finished on a timely basis due to budget cuts, unavailability of labs or classrooms or instructors when needed- in which case colleges should be upfront- “you are looking at a 10 semester program and you need to budget for that”… OR the kids aren’t walking in ready to tackle college level math and science.
But the claim that “our program is so rigorous you will need five years to do a BS” seems just that to me… BS."
Engineers can finish in 4 years, but we are talking about rates, not what is possible. For example, at Penn SEAS, in many majors, if you have no AP credits, you will have to take 40 courses to graduate in 4 years (5 courses every semester). CAS students need between 32 and 36 courses to graduate. 8 additional courses is 20% more. That is significant. It can definitely be done, but a higher percentage of the engineers will take an extra semester or year.
Another thing that happens at a U that does not happen at an LAC is that a student may choose not to graduate (by not applying). For example, in my D’s case, she could graduate at the end of this coming year, but she is not going to apply to graduate. Instead, she is adding an extra year and taking a bunch of graduate courses because they are less expensive if she takes them as part of her undergrad. When she graduates in 2 years, she will either complete her master’s concurrently, or have 1 or 2 credits remaining on her MS. I doubt that happens as frequently at an LAC since they don’t usually offer many graduate programs.
@ClaremontMom "Liberal Arts majors …
And here’s your problem. Liberal Arts Colleges and Liberal Arts majors are not the same thing!
As already pointed out there are plenty of LACs with STEM majors. Both of my kids are STEM majors and both are at a LAC."
I am well aware that there are STEM focused LACs. I am saying that Forbes underrates schools that are disproportionately focussed on math, science and rigor because students fail to graduate at higher rates in those majors and they take more than 4 years to graduate in those majors in aggregate. Clearly there are stem-focused LACs, but in aggregate, those majors are a lower percentage of students at LACs. I am just saying that to even that out, you need to compare those rates by major. Why is that unreasonable?
I don’t understand why so many people get so touchy about where “precisely” a school is ranked, like it makes a difference if the school is 3 or 30. There is no #1 school because there is no singular type of student. What might be perfect for one, may be horrible for another. Some schools might be great for STEM students, others for Business, others for Humanities, etc; some for introverts, some for extroverts; some for independent-minded students, others for students who need nurturing.
When we were shopping for schools, we grouped all schools ranked at a certain (broad) number and above (something like 100 for national and 50 for regional), on any listing, and used that just as a starting point. Then it required combing through each and every one to see which fit our selection criteria - location, cost, particular program offerings, religious affiliation, size, etc.
It gets a bit tiring seeing so much obsession with the “top 20.”
“I am saying that Forbes underrates schools that are disproportionately focussed on math, science and rigor because students fail to graduate at higher rates in those majors and they take more than 4 years to graduate in those majors in aggregate. Clearly there are stem-focused LACs, but in aggregate, those majors are a lower percentage of students at LACs”
Do you know that? At my son’s research university, for example, there’s engineering … but there is also theatre, journalism, music, and education. Without crunching the numbers, I don’t really know if his class overall had “more STEM” than D’s liberal-arts college which did not offer engineering. It’s certainly possible, but I don’t know if this assertion is data-based.
So your assertion is that LACs have higher 4 year graduation rates because they have a smaller percentage of STEM majors. I have no idea if that is true, but I get what you are trying to say now.
Here’s another theory…LACs have higher 4 year graduation rates because students can get the classes they need to graduate in 4 years. My kids’ experience has been very positive in regards getting the classes they need compared to some of their friends at big universities. But that is just anecdotal…
A big reason why kids don’t finish on time is because they don’t have the funds to finish in 4 years. So should schools be punished for taking in low-SES kids? Should they be punished for not being rich enough to offer generous fin aid?
“Punished” isn’t really the right word, but yes, I believe that all else being equal, a school that is able to offer substantial FA is “better” than one that can’t.
“Do you know that? At my son’s research university, for example, there’s engineering … but there is also theatre, journalism, music, and education. Without crunching the numbers, I don’t really know if his class overall had “more STEM” than D’s liberal-arts college which did not offer engineering. It’s certainly possible, but I don’t know if this assertion is data-based.”
Well, when the average salaries by school in the economist rankings show most LACs lagging significantly, everyone says that is caused by the lower percentage of STEM majors, which I assume is probably true, on average. Now when we look at graduation rates, which favor LACs, I point out the same issue, and people want to challenge it. I mean it can’t be true only for items that favor LACs, but not true for items that don’t.
@claremontMom “My kids’ experience has been very positive in regards getting the classes they need compared to some of their friends at big universities. But that is just anecdotal…”
Anecdotally, I do think that is increasingly a factor, especially at large public U’s. Specifically, I have heard this at Berkeley, Michigan, and Illinois. However, I have not heard if being a problem at private universities like Cal Tech, or JHU who are well resourced and have large endowments.
"Well, when the average salaries by school in the economist rankings show most LACs lagging significantly, everyone says that is caused by the lower percentage of STEM majors, which I assume is probably true, on average. "
Oh, ok. I never much care about ranking schools by average salaries, since I think it’s apropos of nothing and has nothing to do with quality of education. It highly favors those schools which feed to Wall Street, but if Wall Street stopped recruiting tomorrow at those schools nothing about their education quality would change.
MIT students are not typical. One of many differences is they are more likely to have taken calculus and other college level classes during high school than typical engineering students and less likely to require remedial type intro classes, which can lead to reduced total classes to graduation. For example, I completed both a BS and MS in electrical engineering in slightly under 4 years at Stanford. I was able to do this because I started with the maximum number of college level classes Stanford allows, which is the equivalent of ~1 year. MIT students are also more likely to be top students who take college and graduating on time seriously, less likely to have to work long hours to pay for college, less likely to have to fail and have to repeat classes, more likely to have good advising discussing 4-year graduation plans, less likely to be transfers from community college, etc.
There are numerous other factors as well. For example, GeorgiaTech is a great engineering school with talented and dedicated students who have a near 4.0 GPA in HS, yet their 4 year graduation rate is under 40%, far less than the vast majority of other tech schools with this level of students. It’s low because GeorgiaTech offers an optional 5-year co-op program to students where students alternate semesters of on-campus study with semesters of full-time paid employment. A large portion of students choose to take advantage of this 5-year program and get paid work experience while in college. Stanford engineers’ 4-year graduation rate is significantly lower the vast majority of other HYPM… type schools because more than 40% of engineering students do a co-terminal masters where they simultaneously work towards both a BS and MS… a higher percentage than nearly all other colleges that have a higher engineering 4-year graduation rate.
This doesn’t mean that all engineers require 5+ years to finish a BS, only that there are numerous good reasons for taking more than 4 years, and few “non-flagship engineering state U’s” are expected to have a similar 4-year graduation rate to MIT.
@pizzagirl “Oh, ok. I never much care about ranking schools by average salaries, since I think it’s apropos of nothing and has nothing to do with quality of education. It highly favors those schools which feed to Wall Street, but if Wall Street stopped recruiting tomorrow at those schools nothing about their education quality would change.”
I think we can all attest that you are incredibly consistent on that point! 
So schools with large co-op programs have the co-op time counted? Seems to me that a student who graduates in 8 semesters but takes those semesters over 5 years because of two 6-month co-ops is graduating on time.
@dolemite in #87 makes a really good point about how the people who do this ranking may have ignored certain people on their super amazing magic list of successful people if they did in fact leave out sports leaders. Dolemite followed up mentioned a few of those leaders such as Coach K. at Duke who probably makes $3M a year just in salary not counting money he can earn from pitching products yet a violin player might be on the super amazing super cool people list.
So, Dolemite, called baloney on that part of the ranking (as if it wasn’t bogus enough). It is simple a list of the most expensive and low admit rates colleges around to somehow try to justify their costs. I’m not saying the schools on the list are bad or don’t deserve to be ranked highly regardless of how one does the ranking but I think a more common sense ranking would certainly result in a list that might actually have a few schools not in the NE or in Cali!
Stanford is an amazing school but so is Southern Cal.
Data- wouldn’t you agree that being surrounded by students who take college and graduating on time seriously PLUS top advising discussing four year grad plans, PLUS less likely to fail classes and have to take them again-- is sort of the THE DEFINITION of what makes a “better” college???(or at least a more rigorous college- better seems too subjective to me).
I’d love to see the numbers on coops and examine exactly what their impact is on the four year grad rate. I don’t have the data… but I know a lot of kids at Northeastern and Drexel who didn’t get out in 8 semesters (the coops add time of course… I’m giving them a pass on that. But it’s the 8 semester enrollment to get a BS that I’m focused on). Drexel sells coops pretty hard but I’m not sure it’s got the academic and career advising to go with that. It’s easy to sell the program- it’s harder to make it work by giving students the infrastructure they need to get in and out in 8 semesters.
@blossom – yes, it’d be interesting. My daughter went to Northeastern - STEM major - and got out in 8 semesters with 2 co-ops (and a part-time job with co-op employer for 4 years.) All her friends got out in 8 semesters; two did it in 4 years with 1 co-op and summer school. So anecdotally NEU does OK with the 8-sememster grad rate - but I also don’t know that for a fact.
How does retention factor? Do kids that start the program but leave count against the school?