And then there’s this, which has some thought provoking aspects to its methodology. It attempts to answer 3 questions?
It also is very frank in stating the limits of its rankings and identifying specific shortcomings.
1 can be very individual to each student and family. 2 and 3 are things that many college rankings attempt to measure or proxy in different ways, and also can differ based on the student (e.g. major selection and intended goals).
One of the things I thought that was revelatory about the Money list was “east. Cost with average aid”.
However, a specific student is unlikely to get average aid at every school.
What would be useful is if these ranking services put down estimated net cost based on typical assets (pick a number) at given family incomes, say $50k, $100k, $150k and $200k, if the point is to give an idea of affordability (and FA generosity).
Yes, of course the devil is in the details.
But it’s still useful information to get a general sense of how much any given college discounts its sticker price. Without that, all anyone has to go by is the sticker price itself, which leads to the wild claims that college costs are out of control. The reality is that colleges are collecting a lot less in tuition and other payments than what the sticker price leads anyone to think.
Their methodology is given at Best Colleges Methodology | Money
It still overemphasizes raw graduation and outcome measures compared to what they call “value added” measures and outcome measures adjusted for majors.
But then the use of raw graduation and outcome measures may have been kept in order to keep some of the well known highly selective private universities near the top of the rankings, in order to give the rankings popular credibility.
it still overemphasizes raw graduation and outcome measures.
Of course it does. And they tell you that! This is the only ranking I’ve seen which is self-critical in that way and is transparent about its shortcomings.
The major flaw in all of these rankings is that they reduce everything to statistics, purporting to therefore be “objective”. Numbers don’t lie . . . Or do they? In the words of Mark Twain, “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
You know what rankings do - create discussion by people, often with no skin in the game - but they’re fun.
Who’s the best football player ever? Baseball? Basketball.
Anytime there’s a ranking of anything - there’s bound to be debate and disagreement.
It’s a “guy thing”. (See the movie, Tin Men. Hilarious.)
I like these rankings in the sense that once you start really thinking about the problems with these rankings, you might realize all generic rankings are flawed in the sense they cannot possibly take into account various individual variables that are often quite important.
And I don’t mean that snarkily, I think it can be helpful for people who start off thinking there is a lot of utility in some other generic ranking.
In some ways, rankings are dangerous.
Kids and parents are ready to wreck their entire financial futures due to a rank.
Yeah, I am not too concerned about kids ending up at the “wrong” college as I think most kids are pretty adaptable. Sometimes maybe they could have had a better college experience, and rarely they might actually have to transfer, but I think in most cases it will be fine.
However, kids and families who end up with a lot of loans, and the kid feels like they can’t consider various educational and career options, and then regrets still having those loans to pay even if it does work out?
I think that happens quite a bit, and to the extent generic rankings contribute–dangerous is a good word.
I agree that kids are adaptable. Heck, when else in your adult life are you living and working with people your same age all doing the same thing albeit with different disciplines. And I agree with the issue of being strapped with loans that are burdensome and an impediment to getting off to a good start in life.
I do see a distinction between colleges with a big name but without a qualitatively better educational experience, where you still have the large lecture halls and limited access to professors. In contrast, my granddaughter at Harvard spent a summer studying in Italy at no extra cost. Another granddaughter at Rice studied at London School of Economics one summer at no extra cost. A friend’s son became turned on to learning because every course in his liberal arts studies at Columbia was a seminar with small classes and lots of discussion. Same thing for another friend’s daughter at Dickinson. At Williams College, students have the opportunity to opt for tutorials with just one other student and the professor. And while these colleges are more expensive unless a student has financial aid, the educational experience is qualitatively different. Students at these schools are not just buying prestige, they are paying for something which they believe is better than what they would itherwise experience.
7 posts were split to a new thread: William College Money Ranking
My two cents is in many cases, this fades as a huge concern after the first couple years, when you start getting into the advanced classes which are typically much smaller, both students and instructors may be more engaged on average, and so on.
And then sometimes, honors programs can help at least somewhat with the first couple years. Sometimes.
That being said, even if all that is true, if you can comfortably afford the educational experience you want at a smaller or midsize college, either with aid or just because you family has the means, then that is obviously fine.
I just think with all these things, there is more than one path you can potentially take, and at least get a lot of what you want.
For high achieving students, what you cannot put an ROI to is attending a school where all of a sudden you are not the smartest (or top 3) smartest kid in the class, in fact you may be below average. While some kids may crumble, others will learn some humility, strive harder and even learn something from their classmates.
I think this is an important fit factor that students and families don’t think about enough. For some kids, the challenge of those high achieving peers is a huge benefit and just what they need. That said, for some others, there may be more benefit to going somewhere where they will be near the top instead of middle to bottom of the pack. It can do wonders for a kid who has been at an intense school and struggling to stand out to suddenly be somewhere where they are seen as highly capable. It can up confidence, give more opportunities, etc.
These things are so individual, and not one size fits all. And rankings cannot answer this question for a family or student.
Yes, big fish in a small pond.
Well, basketball was Michael Jordan, because that was our generation. It’s important to let your kids’ generation know that they are wrong because we are always right. 