If you would look at the criteria you would know that not all of that info is included. BTW Reed does participate in rankings that it finds favorable, somewhat hypocritical.
I have looked at the criteria for US News – I don’t see objective criteria that are not included in the CDS or other public resources, such as NCES. Reed IS ranked by US News and always has been – and there’s nothing in the methodology itself that dings a college for not filling out the proprietery survey. Reed’s current #85 position is based on theability of US News to fill in all information needed for ranking If the data wasn’t available the school would end up in the “unranked” purgatory that Sarah Lawrence was subject do when it stopped reporting SAT data. See https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings
I understand Reed likes to maintain the fiction that it is somehow losing points by not fililng in the survey – but that’s all it is, a fiction by a school that is being ranked by the same criteria as others. Some points that might bring Reed down could be overall admit rate (31.3% in 2016*); high school class ranking (only 54% in top 10%) and 6 year graduation rate (78%) (US News adjusts the graduation rate to align with predictions based on proportion of students getting Pell grants, and the SAT scores & class rank – so I don’t really know whether the gradudation rate is better than projected base on studen body characteristics or no).
Just by way of comparison – Macalester (#26 US News ) had a higher admit rate (37%) but enrolling students had stronger high school grades (69% in top 10%) and stronger 6 year graduation rate (88%). (I pretty much picked Macalester at random … the main point is that different colleges have different numbers)
I agree that the rankings are stupid and I found them useful only to the extent that I could re-rank based on my own criteria … but really, Reed is where it is because of the numbers entered into the algorithm, not because of its choice to be one of the 8% of ranked college that didn’t fill out the US News forms. And I don’t doubt for a minute that if Reed thought that would be ranked higher by filling out extra data in the form.
And I am not trying to diss Reed. It is a good school. It’s just that the rankings are what they are – and to the extent that you want to rely on them, then other than the “reputation” scores it’s generally objective data being plugged in
*Current US News rankings based on 2016-2017 data set.
I would argue that there are parts of the USNWR ratings that aren’t useful.
The admit rate doesn’t take into account some self-selection bias. There are number of CTCL schools where the admit rate looks high but at least in part this is because there are some kids that don’t apply because the fit is wrong.
In this example, I’m thinking of places like Beloit and Juniata
It’s an arbitrary and flawed ranking. Nearly any individual would have completely different priorities, leading to completely different preferred colleges. One could make a valid critique of nearly all individual components of the ranking. For the purposes of this thread, the “prestige boost” often doesn’t follow USNWR rankings. Reputations in particular industries can be very different from USNWR rankings. As previously discussed, reputation in particular locations also differ. Individual employers also often have their own history with particular colleges, including alumni networks. If you want to work in a particular industry or at a particular company, some colleges will better facilitate that goal than others; but you should by no means assume higher USNWR rank means more of a boost.
The degree of that general prestige boost may be quite small, especially if looking for a general resume type boost, rather than looking at things like at which colleges the employer recruits and which colleges have special connections with the employer. In one survey, hundreds of employers were asked to rate the factors that were most important when evaluating resumes of new grads for hiring decisions. After averaging all the employer surveys, college reputation was ranked as the least influential factor, with the weightings listed below. The same survey found that as a whole employers rated graduates of flagships as slightly preferable to graduates of elite colleges for hiring decisions.
- Internships -- 23
- Employment During College -- 21
- College Major -- 13
- Volunteer Experience -- 12
- Extracurricular Activities -- 10
- Relevance of Coursework -- 8
- College GPA -- 8
- College Reputation -- 5
Do you have a link to the survey?
The survey used to be at http://www.maguireassoc.com/resource-items/employer-survey-results/ , which seems to be broken. . I found another copy at https://chronicle.com/items/biz/pdf/Employers Survey.pdf
Thanks — so key takeway is that the most important “boost” comes from internships and work experience. So prospective students might do well to focus more on the quality of the career services office, as well as to consider possible part-time employment and internship opportunities on the specific campus or in the local college community.
Ok. These are all great points. It would be great to start collecting specifics about how to evaluate a college outside of the rankings. So, for example, how to actually check out how good the employment and internship offices are? In my case, what questions to figure out how good they really are at getting kids into medical school, and who should answer those questions. The admissions office? The pre-med advisor? We’ve already covered things like making sure the courses and faculty are good in the department you are interest in. Should this be its own thread?
Volunteer Experience is 3 spots ahead of College GPA for recent grads? That’s certainly not true when I’m reviewing potential candidates.
To Data10’s point, we have a local inexpensive college here that’s generally ranked 150+. But the education in social services, teaching, the arts/performance, is top notch.
About med school. Nearly all colleges that tell will quote the number of med school applicants who got in (or into one of their top 3 choices.) What they don’t quote is how many freshmen started with med school dreams and got weeded out. There can be a 75% plus number weeded out. So you don’t vet based on that braggy figure.
In fact, many will tell you to choose the school that has a cooperative (vs competitive) approach and where the student can do well, get a good gpa, and the right experiences. And the MCAT score.
But again, my comment that, for the more competitive holistic colleges if you’re going to state premed or indicate med when answering the Common App future goals question, it helps to have some health delivery related experience. If not, it may be worth thinking about less competitive colleges or those just looking at stats.
^Thinking out loud, in the context of competitive (but not necessarily ultra-competitive) holistic admissions, when it comes to having at least some EC experiences that align with stated future goals, how does the undecided student approach both EC choices and the statement of future goals?
Obviously, the student will have interest-related ECs in the spirit of exploration, but suppose it is premature for the student to be able to envision what type of outcome they are hoping for post-college given the disparate nature of their interests, how they might or might not tie together, and not having yet had sufficient exposure to possible post-grad opportunities in one or more fields they might study.
For stem, I should have included ‘some math or sci school ECs.’ And if one can’t get health field experience (different than a “premed club” or some vocational class,) there are ways to vol in helping people, hands on.
The future goals question is less important for many/most kids. Most have yet to learn the possibilities. Where it can play (and maybe this is for the more competitive) is stem- the kids who do say “medicine” or “engineering,” coupled with a related major. When apps are read, the picture can need to make sense. If one says, “I want to be a doctor,” you can imagine the app being read in that light. Does the kid have the math and science background/courses and success, do they understand what it is, what it takes, what experiences and mind set get you there? It’s not a formula, but the same sort of reactions any of us can have, when a kid tells us goals.
Interests (as shown in ECs) don’t need to tie together (though many on CC insist you need one consistent picture.) Colleges that comb through their apps can like depth and breadth, not just unilateral. They like kids who can climb out of one box and explore. But if a school is competitive (or lots of kids want the same possible major,) you need to be able to show you have, indeed, done something toward it.
I agree with everything @lookingforward said, however, I think its important to reiterate that that is for highly competitive schools or majors. There are plenty of schools who will take a kid who wants pre-med but didn’t accumulate tons of med related ECs while in high school. For that kid college will be the time to explore the field, do the ECs and the internships and see if it sticks.
In my case my daughter has accumulated a good amount of applicable ECs because she has wanted medicine for years so they just developed naturally.
Again, it’s not the school, it’s the kid. I know at least a dozen kids who have applied to med school in the last couple of years and gotten accepted to none of them. One applied to 20. Think about what THAT cost.
Not all med-related (or med-adjacent) EC’s or interests or shadowing are created equal. Some schools do a bang up job with med school applicants because they have the tough talk with a student to tell them that they need to find another passion/career path. Some colleges take a “sink or swim” approach- here’s the process, here’s how you sign up for the MCAT’s. Some schools hold hands throughout.
And there’s no right or wrong answer. Just of my kids friends, I know an optometrist, nurse practitioner (in a highly competitive and lucrative sub- specialty), a dentist (now doing a fellowship in a specialty), a product development manager at a surgical devices company, and several genetic counselors (one with a doctorate who works in both a clinical and research setting).
All of them thought they were “pre med” at one point, and all of them are grateful to the various colleges who tracked them someplace else.
There are a lot of people who would have made great doctors in another era (i.e. they’d have gotten in to med school, succeeded, and become talented physicians). But right now- if a kid on the bubble is unwilling to go overseas, or work a few years post undergrad in a health/medical/scientific role, the best path forward is often not medical school. And the bubble is a complicated place to be. It can be an MCAT score which used to be good enough, but the GPA is just on the edge. Or the medical related EC’s aren’t robust enough. Or the recommendations are just this side of wishy washy.
@blossom All true. Its something I worry about all the time. But when a kid has a passion for something, she at least needs to give it her best shot. I think its the same with careers in theater or the arts. Few will make it, but its better to know that you tried your best then to accept the low odds and never try. Then you are certain to live with regret. So, thats what we are doing, focusing on giving her her best shot.
What rarely gets mentioned in these discussions is the value of the actual education (extremely bright peer group, excellent faculty/curriculum, great internships, UG research opportunities, etc) you get from top prestige schools over a 4 year period. IMO, these experiences help shape the type of professional and citizen the student will be later in his/her life.
However, if pursuing the passion trying to make it into a career without success closes off or limits other options, it may not be the best choice compared to pursuing something else that one likes but is more realistic to make a career out of, while doing the passion more recreationally.
For example, I know many people who do sports or performing arts as an “extracurricular” while doing something else as a career. Very few will succeed enough in sports or performing arts to make careers out of that. But many more will pursue their passions in those areas recreationally.
@ucbalumnus First of all, I don’t think too many doors are actually closed off. People can switch majors, go back to school, get a masters in a different field, etc.
But I’m actually not sure what you are suggesting here. Are you suggesting that students who want to be doctors don’t even try?
@socaldad2002 @gallentjill Yes! I agree it is not just about the prestige (reputation) of a school–it’s that the students there are successful and confident enough to choose a competitive environment. (Obviously many other factors too.) It’s the actual peer group that a student surrounds themselves with and what the faculty expects from them that is the biggest issue. It can shape a students future and and how they perceive themselves and are perceived by others.
I would especially be concerned with whether a student is challenged as an undergraduate student if the student’s goal is pursuing a highly competitive field like medicine.
I would be thrilled to have a student attend Hofstra’s 4 + 4 med program, but way less inclined to have a student go to Hofstra as an undergrad intending to apply to med school later. I’m sure the profile of the two student groups are very different and I’m sure that the dual degree candidates become a cohesive group, which adds another level to how a student is perceived by others and how they perceive themselves.
Based on that, a school like Muhlenberg would probably be a better option to pursue med school if not going a dual program route.
@uskoolfish A very useful observation about the duel degree programs and the stratification that it might produce. My duaghter will be looking at duel degree programs, however, we will certainly keep that in mind for schools that offer them if she will not be participating.