Forbes 2016

Parents Forum
121

I think the argument that Forbes systematically favors LACs over STEM-heavy research universities by using 4-year graduation rates is a red herring. Many LACs do boast high 4-year grad rates, e.g., Williams 88.1%, Amherst 87.0%, and Swarthmore 87.1%. But so do some STEM-heavy research universities like Princeton (25.5% engineering majors, 89.7% 4-year grad rate) and Johns Hopkins (19.4% engineering majors, 87.7% 4-year grad rate).

And some LACs are pretty STEM-heavy in their own right, e.g., Pomona (36% of degrees conferred in STEM majors), Swarthmore (34%), Haverford (34%),and Amherst (33%), as compared to 38% at JHU and 42% at Princeton.

Moreover, the schools at the top of the Forbes ranking don’t necessarily have the highest graduation rates. Caltech’s 84.7% 4-year grad rate is similar to Harvard (85.8%) and higher than Brown (82.9%), MIT (81.6%), and Stanford (75.2%) which all rank well above Caltech in the Forbes ranking.

Some STEM-heavy schools like CMU (72.1%) and Case Western (63.6%) do have lower graduation rates, but CMU’s rate is in the same ballpark as UC Berkeley (73.2%), UCLA (73.6%) and Michigan (74.7) which outrank CMU on the Forbes list. And finally I’d note that neither CMU nor Case Western meets 100% of need, which to my mind seems a likelier explanation why a higher percentage of their students are unable to graduate in four years. The weaker financial aid systems of schools like CMU and Case Western also contribute to their students carrying a higher debt load at graduation, a factor that weighs more heavily in the Forbes ranking than graduation rates.

122

The RMP bit might favor LACs over Research Universities as Profs are there to teach and may be getting higher rankings. There is a Princeton Review of the 300 best Profs and I believe it’s very heavy on LAC Profs. And as mentioned before RMP counts 10% as opposed to the 5% that 4 yeag grad rate counts in the Forbes methodology.

123

@bclintonk “I think the argument that Forbes systematically favors LACs over STEM-heavy research universities by using 4-year graduation rates is a red herring. Many LACs do boast high 4-year grad rates, e.g., Williams 88.1%, Amherst 87.0%, and Swarthmore 87.1%. But so do some STEM-heavy research universities like Princeton (25.5% engineering majors, 89.7% 4-year grad rate) and Johns Hopkins (19.4% engineering majors, 87.7% 4-year grad rate)”

Okay, that is interesting. Then that moves me back to the other question. Perhaps you can help me understand the answer.

Consider the median earnings from economist, which is based on government data for students 10 years after enrollment. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/10/value-university

I looked up the 8 highest ranked Forbes LACs, all of which are in the top 25 in Forbes.
$(000)
$58.1 Williams #2
$52.6 Pomona #7
$50.9 Wesleyan #9
$49.4 Swarthmore #10
$56.8 Amherst #12
$54.8 Bowdoin #19
$55.6 Haverford #23
$58.5 Davidson #25

These 8 schools are ranked 13th on average, and grads have an average income of $55,000 according to the Economist data.

and 8 U’s with significant STEM programs, that were not included in the top 25.

$(000)
$76.7 Duke #26
$70.9 Cornell #30
$74.0 Cal Tech #39
$68.8 Bucknell #49
$72.0 Carnegie Mellon #63
$69.2 JHU #66
$76.8 Lehigh #76
$67.0 Case Western Reserve #109

These 8 schools are ranked #57 on average, and the median income of grads from these STEM weighted schools is $72,000.

The LACs are, on average, ranked 44 places higher than these U’s, but the grads from these U’s are out-earning the grads from the LACs by over 30% on average. The highest LAC is #25 Davidson at a median salary of $58.5 and the lowest U median salary is #109 Case Western at a median salary of $67.0, 15% higher than Davidson.

I have been told, and I believe, that a significant portion of this disparity can be explained by the lower percentage of students in high demand STEM majors at LACs. However, you are now telling me that that is not true, so why do you think it is?

124

The comment I replied to was not understanding why many engineers at non-flagship state U’s need 5 years to graduate, when ~80% of students at MIT do it in 4. This is a different issue from whether MIT is a better school than directional states. That said, there are different schools of thought about the definition of what makes a better college. Some focus on being highly selective and admitting the best students. Some focus on what the college does with the students while attending and after graduating. My personal definition of a better college would focus more on the latter, including favoring colleges that make it easy for engineering students to do optional coops or a combined BS+MS, even if it pulls down the 4-year grad rates that are used in various rankings.

125

@Much2learn Perhaps it reflects the percentage of those students who choose to go on to grad school vis a vis those who choose to go directly into the business of making money?

Over 80 percent of students at places like Amherst, Williams and Swarthmore go on to grad school, and many end up in academia, government and public interest rather than business. Their earnings naturally will be less, even if the competition for those jobs is extremely high.

Looking at the Economist list, nearly all of the top schools either have a strong undergraduate business focus, or are technical (which for earning purposes means essentially the same thing). Statistically, that is going to make a huge different in the salary of the average graduate.

126

I stopped paying attention to Forbes’s rankings when they listed Palo Alto as a top 10 college sports town while leaving Columbus, Ohio out.

Then they listed Tokyo, New York and London in the worlds top 10 most beautiful cities list. Sheesh. Tokyo and New York are probably the two most overbuilt cities anywhere.

127

Where’d you find data about percentage of students in STEM (or, for many LACs, “STM”) majors? Genuinely curious, because I know STM are very popular majors at Williams, for instance, which produces many, many pre-meds and a boasts very popular and acclaimed math department.

128

@ marvin100, In the Common Data Set for each school , Section J lists the percentage of undergraduate degrees conferred by broad subject area. To get the percentage of STEM majors, you need to add computer science + engineering + biological sciences + math + physical sciences. For Williams it’s 4.0% computer science, 7.9% biological sciences, 7.8% math and statistics, and 9.7% physical sciences, for a total of 29.4% STEM (2015-16 CDS). Like most LACs, Williams doesn’t offer engineering.

@ Much2learn, I’d say a couple of things. First, LACs don’t produce many engineers; most produce none at all. But engineering is only part of STEM. They do produce large numbers of bio, math, and physical science majors, and at some LACs non-trivial numbers of computer science majors. Engineers generally make more money with just a bachelor’s degree than other STEM majors. Bachelor’s-level bio majors, especially, are not in high demand. But as ThankYouForHelp correctly notes, 80%+ of the grads of top LACs go on to grad school—a much higher percentage than at most research universities. For a bio major going on to med school, 10 years after first enrolling as an undergrad is not exactly going to be peak earning years, especially if they take a year or two between undergrad and medical school, as many do. That would have them just finishing up medical school or in an internship or relatively low-paying residency in year 10. Similarly for those pursuing Ph.D.s; they may still be finishing their dissertation or in a low-paying post-doc position in year 10, or stringing together low-paying adjunct positions while trying to get on the tenure track somewhere, or in the best of all worlds, in the first or second year as a tenure-track assistant professor, not exactly raking in the big bucks. STEM isn’t all engineering, and not all STEM careers are equally financially rewarding, especially 10 years out from entering college. But financial earnings have little to do with the rigor of an undergraduate education.

129

Not a fan of that ranking at all.

130

My sample size is small but I crunched the numbers for Williams College which, as pointed out for most LACs, does not offer a degree in engineering.

With that said, 53.345% of students in the Class of 2016 at Williams College received their degrees in STEM.

131

@bclintonk - The school Williams was compared to by @Much2learn was Duke, which appears not to release Common Data Set info anymore. I did find the 09-10 CDS, though, and got this:

1.3% Comp Sci
9.2% Bio Sci
1.8% Math
4.1% Physical Sci

Hmm…

132

@simba9 Overbuilt but gorgeous because of it, in NYC’s case at least. Skyscrapers were made to fit Manhattan thanks to the invention of elevator safety mechanisms. If the city weren’t overbuilt we wouldn’t have the skyline, glittering like the Emerald City, beckoning people to come, be accepted whoever you are, and strive for your dreams.

It does have a lot of green space, the most famous part of which is Central Park. There are larger parks than Central Park, though. There are also hiking trails, overnight camping in some places, over 500 miles of coastline, more than a million trees, wildlife including wild Bald Eagles, and the purest drinking water pretty much in existence. It comes straight from the mountains.

133

As much as I love New York City, I can’t let this bit of urban legend go uncorrected. Yes, NYC’s water comes “from the mountains,” more specifically from a network of reservoirs in the Delaware and Catskills watersheds. But the water in those reservoirs isn’t all that pristine. It has a high level of turbidity or “cloudiness” from suspended particles in the water column. There’s also a lot of dairy farming around some of the reservoirs, and concerns about pathogens and nutrients from polluted runoff from manure-laden pastures. Many of the small towns (“hamlets,” New Yorkers call them) in the watersheds don’t have adequate sewage systems, so they’re another big source of pollution…The situation was sufficiently dire that the federal EPA was on the verge of requiring NYC to build an $8 billion water filtration system, but with EPA’s approval the city opted instead to invest $2 billion in essentially paying upstate polluters not to pollute (e.g., investing in manure management systems on upstate dairy farms, building modern sewage treatment systems in the watersheds,and purchasing streamside land to buffer against non-point source pollution, all at the expense of NYC water customers). NYC also built the world’s largest ultraviolet (UV) water treatment plant in Westchester County where water coming in from the Delaware and Catskills watersheds is disinfected with chlorine and UV radiation before making its way to your tap. NYC’s water is renowned for its taste, and it does meet all federal and state drinking water quality standards, but it’s not quite the “pure because it comes straight from the mountains” story some New Yorkers like to tell.

134

NYC and LA look beautiful in TV and movies but reality, I think, is a bit different.

135

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Sure, NYC doesn’t look as cool as the color-processed sky-view pans you see in movie establishing shows, any more than Miami and Vegas aren’t as amazing as similar shots look in CSI shows, etc. But plenty of people who do live and work here absolutely love it, both visually and atmospherically. Then there is my wife and oldest son who live an hour outside the city and can’t stand to come in – they hate the skyline, the smells, the noise, the crowds the omnipresent concrete, etc. It takes something like seeing Hamilton to get them to venture in. So much so that my son refused to even tour any urban schools.

I’ve had fun, spirited debates with some of my city dwelling friends who have the misconception that people only live in the suburbs because of the standard of living (i.e. more house, better public schools, etc.) but that no one in their right mind would voluntarily live outside the City if they had all the money to live in style in it. I tell them that if I was a billionaire I would still live outside the city and they simply refuse to believe I am sincere. Just totally different prioritizes and mindsets. But I will say this – the city is full of young people living with 3+ roommates in extremely modest housing because they love being there so much. LA was similar when we lived there, though it’s a totally different beast since it’s equivalent to downtown isn’t really the center of gravity and it’s really just a massive collection of suburbs pressed together into a city.

136

My uncle loved the taste of New York City water so much he used to bottle it at work and bring it home with him after he moved to the suburbs in the 1960s.

137

Yes, it is true NYCs water sources are the best in the USA.

But that doesn’t mean squat about the pipes in your 120 year old apartment building! When you can’t tell the water from the weak tea…

(I am alive thanks to the poland spring man!) :wink:

138

Forbes college rankings is as bad as it gets. Having lived in the Lehigh Valley area for 22 years and raised 2 kids thru high school there, I shudder to see that Lafayette (#55)and Bucknell (#49) are ranked above Lehigh (#76) and CMU (#63). And Muhlenberg (#128) over Pitt (#204) and Penn State (#164)…yuckkk!

139

^ Not being from PA, while I think highly of CMU CS and Pitt philosophy (and evidently CMU design and Pitt nursing are highly regarded as well), I don’t see why such a ranking would be considered extremely out of place or trigger revulsion.

140

When we looked at both Lafayette and Lehigh as safeties for our son, Lafayette seemed better from just about every criteria (that mattered to our son, that is – everyone’s prioritizes are different of course). Liked the campus more, liked that it had a smaller student population and was exclusively undergrad focused. Better endowment rate per-student. Comparable post-graduate salaries (for comparable degrees). Liked that Lafayette had a reputation for a great externship/internship program. And liked that Lafayette had less of a reputation as a frat-centric party school than Lehigh. Of course sports was of zero significance to him, so that wasn’t weighed at all.

Why do you have a problem with it ranking a little higher than Lehigh? I get why they are compared since they are so geographically close and both are comparably difficult to get into, but that’s about where the similarity end. They seem pretty apples-to-oranges since one is an LAC and the other a university with 3x the student population and more of a STEM focus.