<p>serenityJane - I think you are from VA. There are 935 private schools in VA, 708 in NC, 4277 in CA, 671 in MN, 805 in GA, 1482 in NJ…Maybe it is not so regional.</p>
<p>You can’t break it down by state so much. NoVa and Va Beach are going to have more private schools and they might be different but here where I am there aren’t private schools that are worth much (I consider a religious school to be worth about as much as a bullet hole in the head).</p>
<p>I thought you said it is a regional thing, NE vs S vs W vs midwest, so I just pulled a sample of states from around the country.</p>
<p>xiggi wrote:
“I think you have made particularly clear that not only you do not know which schools are ranked 5 or 10 but also that you do not seem to know much about why they are ranked in such amanner, or how rankings work in general.”</p>
<p>On contrare. As an engineer, I’m always interested in how any “system” works. I’ve been interested in the college rankings since my son was a freshman in HS. It has been kind of a hobby ever since. The more I found out, the more I was appalled. I dare say I probably know more about the rankings, and their incredibly flawed foundations, than the vast majority on this discussion board.</p>
<p>Why not tell me where I’m wrong, rather than just hurl a cheap insult?</p>
<p>To me, region to me refers more to the region that shares the most in common rather than the region geographically. My region is Central Virginia. I’m not a NoVa brat and I’m not from “the 757” (as my LU peers keep referring to the Va Beach area). In my region, you just go to public school. Then you go to a public college/university unless you get a killer scholarship (or you want a law degree and get into Columbia undergrad to push yourself in that direction like my school’s val).</p>
<p>Look, we are a status and prestige obsessed society, and that is what the Ivy League of today caters to. That is obvious from so many on this board whose sole claim to fame is that they or their children have attended an elite school, as if it makes any true difference in their societal contributions or not. People don’t seem to think about the fact the Ivy League is a business like any other. They can call it non-profit all they want, their purpose for existence is to provide a certain quality of lifestyle to their faculty, administrators and management. A secondary purpose is to educate their students, but that is only secondary as the professors only begrudgingly actually teach as opposed to research in far off places of the world.</p>
<p>What is obvious from their output is that many of their graduates graduate with an incredible sense of entitlement. That is why our country is so screwed up. Everybody wants theirs and the hell with everybody else. This attitude starts at the top and works its way through society. That is why physicians believe they deserve mid six figure incomes, why the financial guys have no concern about screwing their own clients let alone the public, because after all . . . Caveat Emptor reverberates throughout society, so if a person is sucker punched . . . well its their fault. There is a reason why so many people in so many other countries laugh at us or dislike us. There is a reason why we are so low on the happiness quotient scale, as opposed to places like Denmark, where the people take care of their own. The parasites graduating from the Elite Schools and leading our great institutions want it all for themselves. Perhaps if the elite schools did a psychological exam before admitting its students, and excluded all Narcissists and Unethical, we would all be that much better off.</p>
<p>ucbalumnus and Pizzagirl,</p>
<p>You guys are screwing with context in an attempt to make your point. </p>
<p>The context of my statements has always been about colleges with the “elite” moniker versus very good colleges without that reputation, and how the popular ranking system perpetuates the status quo by obscuring the true value of these universities by basing the ranking system on nothing but subjective input.</p>
<p>It may suit your argument to throw in an example of some poor farm boy attending Podunk Community College, but it’s also a profound change from my context. And trying to claim 95% of our nation’s college bound students fall into that population is simply ridiculous. Not only are you significantly changing context to suit your argument, I believe you’re fabricating your statistics to support your argument.</p>
<p>And why does it matter what percentage of parents and children use (or don’t use) the ranking system? There are clearly huge number of families that do and those families are, IMHO, having an injustice done to them. They are putting faith in a rigged system.</p>
<p>I went to Yale - graduated in 1982. Most of my classmates are normal, everyday people. They may be doctors, lawyers, etc. but all are just regular people struggling with everyday lives and bills. I made the choice to get a Master’s degree after Yale and go into criminal justice working in the prison system. I have worked for the government for almost 30 years. Did I enjoy my time at Yale? Yes I did. Am I disappointed that I am not the first female president - no. However, Yale being on my resume did open up some doors in the beginning of my career. I worked for a politician who said of the hundreds of resumes he got, he called me because he had never met a Yalie. I got the job though I had never worked in politics.
This is just to say that I don’t think that the vast majority of Ivy League graduates think they are better than others (except those that come there already with that attitude), but when I went back for my 30 reunion I will still awe struck by the very fact that I was blessed to have gone to such a wonderful place. I would not trade those 4 years for the world. And, BTW - not one of my bosses in 30 years have been from the Ivies, though I have had a couple that went to state schools and community colleges - so go figure.</p>
<p>Well put, maikai.</p>
<p>maikai, I have no idea what you are complaining about. It’s you who are “screwing with context in an attempt to make your point.” The premise of your entire argument is that people overvalue “the rankings” and that “the rankings” are hopelessly unscientific and corrupt and thus are causing some sort of terrible harm to all the people who overvalue them.</p>
<p>The thing is, except for some quasi-demented teenagers on CC, no one I have met in real life overvalues any rankings. Pizzagirl and ucbalumnus have told you that from their Midwestern and West Coast perspectives, and I’ll say the same thing from my East Coast perspective. Sure, lots of people I meet care about prestige, but they have lots of sources of information about what constitutes “prestige,” most of them live and contextual, unlike ranking systems. And almost all of them understand perfectly that there isn’t any real universally acknowledged prestige hierarchy in the world, that small differences in prestige mean absolutely nothing, and that prestige itself is not the same thing as quality. (I say “almost all” because seven or eight years ago some friends of ours got all wound up because their daughter wanted to apply ED to Amherst, but USNWR had Williams as the #1 LAC. Ultimately a small group of adults sat down with them and told them that they looked foolish and no one could tell the difference between Williams and Amherst in the real world. So they backed off.)</p>
<p>And anyone who DOES actually care about rankings has lots of different rankings to choose from, and can actually read about the methodologies of each. Anyone who spends any time – like, 15 minutes or more – with any of the rankings will understand (a) they are opinion, not science, (b) they have nothing to do with economic outcomes (although a few attempt to measure value in some fashion), and (c) small differences mean practically nothing. Personally, I enjoy them, not because I think they are reliable, but because it’s interesting to see how each approaches a task that’s basically impossible, comparing and rank-ordering these extremely complex, unique institutions. It’s worth thinking about how you would do that – what matters and what doesn’t, whether there are objective measures for what you care about or not. In theory, a hypothetical clueless parent deserves some source of information about what other people (or some of them) see as “quality”, so it’s hard to say no one should ever attempt this impossible task. </p>
<p>And, in any event, if no one ever published rankings, what would happen is what happened before people started publishing rankings: Every community had its own implicit ranking system, and people relied on that. Those localized rankings were certainly no more accurate, objective or scientific than the publishers’ versions; indeed they were demonstrably less so. But no one knew any better, so who cared?</p>
<p>Your only other concrete point is that rankings would be better if they took into account some sort of economic outcomes data. That’s fine for you to argue, and I can’t say that you are wrong – I’d like to know that information too. But – as I argued at length above – not only does the information not exist in any reliable, comparable form for other than a handful of schools, but even if you had consistent, reliable data, it would still be really hard to draw conclusions about the quality of the colleges from it. There would be all kinds of noise based on the characteristics of the students, not to mention regionalism. (For example, a job in New York City, or in Fairbanks, Alaska, pays a lot more than the identical job in Little Rock, even though the person in Little Rock may actually have a better quality of life in many respects and more disposable income. So are you going to rank colleges whose graduates tend to work in New York City or Fairbanks systematically higher than those whose graduates work in Little Rock?)</p>
<p>You seem to believe that I am wrong, that the data exists and that it is useful. That makes me (and I think others) wonder whether you have any idea what you are talking about. (Also, for me, the fact that you consistently misread me as disagreeing with your contention that there’s no meaningful difference in economic outcomes for comparable students between Ivy-type colleges and whatever the next tier or two down are. I agree completely with that, but on faith, not data – and I challenge you to find data that could possibly prove it.) How about showing some specifics?</p>
<p>JHS,</p>
<p>When I accuse someone of changing context, I explain how I thought they did so. You seem to believe all you have to do is claim it. Please specifically identify how I’ve changed context. </p>
<p>OK, you agree with Pizzagirl and ucbalumnus with regards to the vast majority (95% according to Pizzagirl) of families DO NOT using rankings. Sorry, but I find that extremely difficult to believe. Show me the stats. With the skyrocketing costs of higher education, it’s difficult to believe most families don’t use rankings.<br>
…and I continue to scratch my head as to why this is important to you guys. </p>
<p>My conversation on rankings isn’t about prestige. It never was. It’s about families being able to navigate their kid to the best school for them. </p>
<p>Do you completely miss the irony of your writing? 
In one single paragraph you start off saying “…no one I have met in real life overvalues any rankings…” and end that same paragraph with a story of a child and parents who apparently needed an intervention by “a small group of adults” to realize there is no significant “difference between Williams and Amherst. So they backed off.” </p>
<p>You honestly believe most people will read about the ranking methodologies? Unless one finds interest in such things, like I do, people just take stuff like this at face value. Chalk up another point we disagree on.</p>
<p>One thing we agree on is a true ranking would be impossible. But you seem wishy washy on what to do. First, you imply if you can’t get 100%, then it shouldn’t be attempted. And then, almost in the same breath, you say “it’s hard to say no one should ever attempt this impossible task.” </p>
<p>So I’m confused about where you stand. I’m left with the impression you’d like to disagree with me, so you say I’m asking for the impossible. But then you concede a better system would be helpful. Then you remember you’re disagreeing with me so you say something else about when we didn’t have ranking systems and “But no one knew any better, so who cared?” </p>
<p>Then you reverse and say you’d like the extra payscale data too… then reverse again and claim it’s only available for a handful of schools (not true, BTW) and any data that is available is not comparable (for some unexplained reason you have kept to yourself).</p>
<p>It would be really good if you could just make up your mind. I got a little dizzy reading it all. :-)</p>
<p>My point has always been there is enough data on all of these schools to create a system that will actually be useful. A perfect system will always be out of reach, for many of the reasons you cited, but we certainly can have better than what we have now.</p>
<p>Finally, you suggest there is no data to support the idea that graduates of lesser schools might make nearly as much, if not more than, their “elite” counterparts. I can only assume you reject payscale.com’s data. That’s fine, you can go to just about any college website and find starting salary data on their most recent graduating class. In many cases, they’ll have several years of data available. I’ve looked at this data for many colleges in the northeast and randomly across the country. I have yet to find a college not offering this data. </p>
<p>Again, I’m not talking about comparing “Backwoods U” to Harvard. I’m talking about colleges that a reasonably bright college-track student and their parents, with sufficient financial means, would want to consider. And my point remains there is insufficient data (actually erroneous data) for these families to consider.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the disconnect.</p>
<p>Here on CC, most posters are (or are parents of) reasonably bright college-track students. They have some financial means. This population is considering four year schools, often without living at home.</p>
<p>But that is not the kind of college education that the vast majority of college students in the US receive. Most don’t have the financial means to go away to school. Many don’t have the qualifications to be accepted at the kinds of schools that make up the top 100 schools in whatever rankings system you choose. These aren’t students who are comparing, say, a SUNY campus versus Fordham. You’re looking at students who are constrained to live at home while going to whatever school is nearby and affordable. Rankings just don’t enter into that decision.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what many of us here want for our kids. One of the mantras of CC is about “fit, fit, fit”. I care more about my Ds being at schools where they are fully engaged then about payscale data for their schools, because I think the former is going to be a better measure of their eventual “success” than the latter. And you know what? It’s taken a LOT of work to be able to find those schools. It’s like when we were looking at elementary schools–we could just look at API scores, or we could go visit the schools, talk to friends/neighbors/coworkers about their experiences, and otherwise do due diligence. Even the best ranking should never be more than a starting point, because choosing a college isn’t like looking at Consumer Reports to pick out a fridge. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In California, there are about 3.5 million undergraduate students at public colleges and universities. About 3.3 million of them are at schools that would not show up in any “top N” ranking you choose (3 million at community colleges, 300,000 at CSUs other than the few like CPSLO that might be ranked somewhere). It also is not a given that all of the 180,000 students at UCs are ranking-focused.</p>
<p>Yes, there are California students at private colleges and universites, but most of those schools are pretty small compared to the public ones (and most of them would not show up in any “top N” ranking you choose).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>they are already outbidding other schools for basketball players, so they are on the right track. Easier to keep the basketball quiet though, since they only need a couple guys a year.</p>
<p>ucbalumnus,</p>
<p>SlitheyTove was correct in identifying the disconnect between us. You guys chose an appropriate context so we’re not on the same page at all. I have repeatedly stated I am not comparing/considering community colleges and such against the Ivies and other “elite” colleges. Go back and count how many times I’ve said that. I don’t know how to be more clear.</p>
<p>Consider this for a moment…
Let’s say you were talking about the rating system for doctors. Of course I would assume you must be speaking in the context of people who have the option of picking their doctors. The conversation would not make sense otherwise. I couldn’t chose a broader/different context… one that would include indigents, for example… because your comments simply and obviously would not apply. </p>
<p>Your choice of context only makes sense if you set out to disagree and using an inappropriate context is the way you could do it.</p>
<p>And seriously, I still can’t figure out how we got on this track anyway. How does the percentage of the population matter? Tons of people use the ranking system. Are you guys suggesting because they are a minority they don’t count? …that they somehow don’t deserve a decent ranking system? 95% don’t use the ranking system so screw the other 5% that do? </p>
<p>I fail to see the relevance of this percentage argument. What statement are you trying to make against my desire for a better ranking system? Again, how do the population percentages matter?</p>
<p>Maikai, the expression is au contraire. Might come in handy to someone who visibly wants to be a contrarian. Carry on.</p>
<p>I would love to see less of a gap in income equality. One of the ways that can happen is if more students from state colleges and universities become captains of industry or end up at the top of their fields. However, these people are the exception to the rule. It is intellectually dishonest to accept the exception of any rule as said rules new paradigm. Just my two cents, then again… I was just accepted to an Ivy league from a community college. Sound great? I thought so until I realized I will need a miracle (or a co-signer willing to bank their financial future on me) to attend.</p>
<p>It shouldn’t shock anyone that the highest achieving high school students also become the highest achieving adults (speaking generally). It is not like the top schools take average students and turn them into amazing students… they are handed the top 18 year olds in the country.</p>
<p>xiggi,</p>
<p>Oh puh-leeze. I misspelled a term. Who gives a hoot? I think that’s the fist time I’ve ever used the term in writing. </p>
<p>But if you actually meant that to be helpful, it would have been a personal message. You say it in the public thread in a cheap attempt to embarrass or otherwise cut me down.</p>
<p>What you don’t realize is it says far more about you, than I.</p>
<p>I’ve read through all 11 (at least there have been 11 so far) pages of this thread, and I’m confused on one point still: how are these rankings baseless? Let’s take it back to the original issue, a career in business/finance. I don’t understand how anyone can say that for an MBA, for instance, there is a better school than Harvard Business School. And this is the kid going to Wharton at the Univ. of Penn, another Ivy League school. It is pretty much industry accepted that Harvard Business School is the best in our nation; even the people I talk to at the typical grocery store or gas station view Harvard Business School as our nation’s best (so again, it’s not a view just by the 1%). I’d be even willing to admit that Wharton probably isn’t as top-notch as Harvard Business School (at least from what I’ve seen so far). </p>
<p>So, back to my original question: How can you claim rankings are baseless? Perhaps who is #2, #3, #4, etc…but Harvard Business School is the best in our nation. Period. I can’t think of any evidence to dispute this claim, and from what I’ve witnessed, you don’t need to read a US News Ranking list to know that HBS is number one.</p>