USNWR vs. Forbes

prezbucky
Wed, 04 Apr 2018 03:15:23 +0000

There are multiple problems with outcome/ROI-based methodology:

1. Variability in the cost of living (region vs. region, city vs. rural, etc.) gives some schools a leg up. The same job pays differently in different places. Outcome-based methodology favors schools in areas with a high cost of living.

2. Students choose their major, and that choice can affect thir job and salary. Outcome-based methodology favors schools with a lot of Engineering, CS and Business majors.

3. Per se, the real value of a school is its ability to educate and provide a great college experience. ROI does a pretty poor job of measuring that. If you're looking at output, you need to consider input too.

4. Regional job markets differ. Most kids get jobs fairly close to where they graduate. A kid could get an A+ Engineering education but if the jobs were scarce in their area, the graduate might have a hard time cashing in that great education.

5. With a nod to career placement services, it is the student who goes out and acquires the job. Again, that is largely up to personal choice.

USNews’ undergrad ranking at least tries to rank colleges based on academic quality and the quality of the experience. Leaning heavily on ROI to rank undergrad programs doesn’t really measure either.

There may be some value in using ROI to compare peer institutions with similar proportions of high-salary majors, in areas with a similar standard of living and job markets. You then would be ranking a school’s “connections” and career support.