Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 11, 2013 11:30:21 GMT -5
I found an interesting article that critisizes the ranking system for colleges used by the U.S News and World Report.
www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-57602138/why-u.s-news-college-rankings-hurt-students/
The article states that:
1. College rankings hurt low and middle-income students. It notes that the amount of money offered in merit based scholarships has dramatically increased, and in the case of private schools, need based aide has actually decreased.
2. Rankings ignore job prospects.
3. The rankings don't care about learning outcomes.
4. U.S. News runs a beauty pageant. Basically this is saying that the opinons of college administrators of their peers carries heavy weight in the rankings. So by default, the oldest and most well known institutions get high ratings.
5. College rankings fuel ever greater college costs. The article notes that pretty campuses and up to date facilities are counted as factors in the rankings, but the cost of attending, and the amount of debt acumulated by it's alumni is not a factor that is considered.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 11, 2013 11:33:24 GMT -5
I was most surprised by the fact that a major factor in the rankings was how selective the schools were. It takes into account things like high school class ranking, GPA, and standardized test scores, while at the same time ignoring what happens once the students are actually there. To me, that's a major flaw.
I'm not sure I totally agree with point one however. I'm not opposed to colleges offering merit based scholarships to wealthy students. Poor students have the government to help pay for college as it is.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Sept 11, 2013 12:49:10 GMT -5
One of my law school professors told us that the NCAA Basketball Tournament had a disproportionate effect on college rankings. If a school won the tournament one year, the next year their ranking would go up.
I have no idea if it's true, but it was an interesting conversation.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,983
|
Post by haapai on Sept 11, 2013 14:07:11 GMT -5
There's an interesting article in Salon this week that might have some relevance to this thread. linkIf there was ever a time when public universities didn't play the rankings game, it's over. You might not like some of the results.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 11, 2013 14:17:07 GMT -5
I'm not opposed to colleges offering merit based scholarships to wealthy students
Like anything else this plays more into who you know. The Peter Kewitt scholarship reciever was smart, but his parents also serve on the PK board. I worked with some graduate students from Harvard who said the school will throw tons of money at a student if you make sure your name is on a building somewhere on campus.
Not saying these kids aren't smart, but like a lot of things being wealthy opens A LOT of doors for you via connections us mere mortals do not have.
If they're really getting it because they're the smartest more power too them but when his parents are on the board it it one of those things that makes you go hmm . . .
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 11, 2013 14:24:43 GMT -5
I've always wondered about the statement that merit based scholarships hurt low income people. The only way it hurts them is if low income people aren't good enough to get the merit based scholarships, but if the lower income students aren't "good" enough for merit scholarships does the need based put them in a better position in the college? Or is it merely slapping a bandaid on the problem - with the problem being why low income students are, as a whole, not "good" enough. If intelligence is on a normal bell curve then roughly the same amount of low income people should be as smart as the medium and high income people, so then it's not the nature of the low income people it's something caused by their low income that makes them not "good" enough. Which would point towards low income schools not being as good and causing the lower scores and lower merit scholarships. So giving them need based is more of a bandaid when the real solution is to make the low income schools better so low income students can compete on a merit based level.
But maybe I'm biased because I always thought those statements were quite insulting to essentially say because you're low income you're too dumb to get merit scholarships so we'll just hand you money while we pat you on the head.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Sept 11, 2013 14:33:22 GMT -5
I think they're saying that low income kids often don't score as well on tests since their parents don't have the money for the prep courses.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,617
|
Post by swamp on Sept 11, 2013 14:34:05 GMT -5
I'm not opposed to colleges offering merit based scholarships to wealthy students
Like anything else this plays more into who you know. The Peter Kewitt scholarship reciever was smart, but his parents also serve on the PK board. I worked with some graduate students from Harvard who said the school will throw tons of money at a student if you make sure your name is on a building somewhere on campus. Not saying these kids aren't smart, but like a lot of things being wealthy opens A LOT of doors for you via connections us mere mortals do not have. If they're really getting it because they're the smartest more power too them but when his parents are on the board it it one of those things that makes you go hmm . . . I went to college with kids who got in solely because a family member's name was on one of the buildings. Didn't mean they were smart.....................
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,070
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Sept 11, 2013 14:36:01 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure any of the Buffet grandkids would get a ton of money no matter what their merits considering the shitload of money the family has given to this campus. You don't want to bite the hand that feeds you.
|
|
Bob Ross
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:48:03 GMT -5
Posts: 5,883
|
Post by Bob Ross on Sept 11, 2013 14:40:54 GMT -5
One of my law school professors told us that the NCAA Basketball Tournament had a disproportionate effect on college rankings. If a school won the tournament one year, the next year their ranking would go up.
I have no idea if it's true, but it was an interesting conversation. Probably true. NCAA championship = more applications. More applications (for the same number of spots) = Lower acceptance rate. Lower acceptance rate = higher selectivity. Higher selectivity = higher ranking. My school had been notoriously sucky at football for decades until we had a Cinderella story my sophomore year. The following year, I heard that applications were up something like 40%. I might not have gotten in if I were a few years younger.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 11, 2013 14:41:13 GMT -5
I've always wondered about the statement that merit based scholarships hurt low income people. The only way it hurts them is if low income people aren't good enough to get the merit based scholarships, but if the lower income students aren't "good" enough for merit scholarships does the need based put them in a better position in the college? Or is it merely slapping a bandaid on the problem - with the problem being why low income students are, as a whole, not "good" enough. If intelligence is on a normal bell curve then roughly the same amount of low income people should be as smart as the medium and high income people, so then it's not the nature of the low income people it's something caused by their low income that makes them not "good" enough. Which would point towards low income schools not being as good and causing the lower scores and lower merit scholarships. So giving them need based is more of a bandaid when the real solution is to make the low income schools better so low income students can compete on a merit based level. But maybe I'm biased because I always thought those statements were quite insulting to essentially say because you're low income you're too dumb to get merit scholarships so we'll just hand you money while we pat you on the head. I don't think it's a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of acknowledging that coming from a wealthy family often corrolates to better standardized test scores, GPA, ect. Wealthy parents are likely to care more about their kid's education (on average) than poor parents. Furthermore, being wealthy means you can send your kids to the best schools, hire tutors if they're struggeling, pay for SAT prep classes ect. Also, as Drama pointed out, wealthy and successful people often associate with wealthy and successful people, which means there's a "who you know" factor to consider.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 11, 2013 14:44:17 GMT -5
I think they're saying that low income kids often don't score as well on tests since their parents don't have the money for the prep courses. Either the parents don't have the money, the high schools don't have the resources to teach students to the level needed, or the environment itself is (for various reasons) not conducive to scoring high enough to get the merit based scholarships. I think it'd be better to try and fix those problems as a whole if possible instead of basically saying because of how you grew up you can't do well enough to get a merit based scholarship but we'll throw some money at a select few individuals.
|
|
alabamagal
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 11:30:29 GMT -5
Posts: 8,146
|
Post by alabamagal on Sept 11, 2013 15:13:03 GMT -5
One of my law school professors told us that the NCAA Basketball Tournament had a disproportionate effect on college rankings. If a school won the tournament one year, the next year their ranking would go up.
I have no idea if it's true, but it was an interesting conversation. Probably true. NCAA championship = more applications. More applications (for the same number of spots) = Lower acceptance rate. Lower acceptance rate = higher selectivity. Higher selectivity = higher ranking. My school had been notoriously sucky at football for decades until we had a Cinderella story my sophomore year. The following year, I heard that applications were up something like 40%. I might not have gotten in if I were a few years younger. I have heard that it is true, especially for small private schools that make it to the NCAA tournament. You get your name out there, and get more applications.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Sept 11, 2013 15:56:10 GMT -5
I was most surprised by the fact that a major factor in the rankings was how selective the schools were. It takes into account things like high school class ranking, GPA, and standardized test scores, while at the same time ignoring what happens once the students are actually there. To me, that's a major flaw. I'm not sure I totally agree with point one however. I'm not opposed to colleges offering merit based scholarships to wealthy students. Poor students have the government to help pay for college as it is. Why is a college good because it takes in everybody? Wouldn't that mean county colleges should be at the top? I wanted my child to go to a college that was more selective and had a higher 4 year graduation rate.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,983
|
Post by haapai on Sept 11, 2013 17:19:47 GMT -5
I think what is missing from this thread is an acknowledgement of how public universities have lost their state subsidies and turned to out of state and international students as the solution to their budgetary woes.
These full-freight students care far more about college rankings than in-state students ever did.
The competition for such students is now incredibly fierce and beginning to affect the second and third-tier state schools.
|
|
muttleynfelix
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:32:52 GMT -5
Posts: 9,406
|
Post by muttleynfelix on Sept 11, 2013 20:58:13 GMT -5
I was most surprised by the fact that a major factor in the rankings was how selective the schools were. It takes into account things like high school class ranking, GPA, and standardized test scores, while at the same time ignoring what happens once the students are actually there. To me, that's a major flaw. I'm not sure I totally agree with point one however. I'm not opposed to colleges offering merit based scholarships to wealthy students. Poor students have the government to help pay for college as it is. Why is a college good because it takes in everybody? Wouldn't that mean county colleges should be at the top? I wanted my child to go to a college that was more selective and had a higher 4 year graduation rate. I applied to 2 schools that were very similar. They were both engineering centered. They have a fairly high acceptance rate because the kids that apply to them are kids going to go into engineering. Let's face it there aren't too many dumb kids that apply to go to engineering schools in the boondocks. They apply because they want a quality education. But that higher acceptance rate means they are both downgraded in the ratings. Those are two of the biggest flaws I noticed. The 2 schools i applied to have excellent industry reputations. Their US News reps, not so much. But they are both very good schools.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,763
|
Post by thyme4change on Sept 11, 2013 21:41:54 GMT -5
I have been doing a lot of research on schools lately - not colleges, but high schools. Our district school is problematic, and so we are trying to consider all of our options (even though high school is 4 years away.) I have learned a LOT about how schools can play with the rankings, and how the rankings measure some things in ways that may not be applicable. At the end of the day, education is so personal - it is really about how that particular student will function in that given atmosphere. Great people have come out of shitty schools, and shitty people have come out of great schools. All the rankings in the world won't measure that.
If they did measure post-graduate performance, that method would be flawed, too.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 12, 2013 0:38:55 GMT -5
I have been doing a lot of research on schools lately - not colleges, but high schools. Our district school is problematic, and so we are trying to consider all of our options (even though high school is 4 years away.) I have learned a LOT about how schools can play with the rankings, and how the rankings measure some things in ways that may not be applicable. At the end of the day, education is so personal - it is really about how that particular student will function in that given atmosphere. Great people have come out of shitty schools, and shitty people have come out of great schools. All the rankings in the world won't measure that. If they did measure post-graduate performance, that method would be flawed, too. I concur that post graduate employment is not necessarily a valid measurement either. It's only fairly recently that colleges have been treated as glorified job training programs. Tradtionally they were focused on academics. I also concur education is very personal and very difficult to quantify. I do think, however, that it's dishonest to sell the most selective schools as necessarily "the best." If it were up to me, I'd focus mostly on academic outcome. However, that is difficult to quantify.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Sept 12, 2013 8:35:17 GMT -5
I have been doing a lot of research on schools lately - not colleges, but high schools. Our district school is problematic, and so we are trying to consider all of our options (even though high school is 4 years away.) I have learned a LOT about how schools can play with the rankings, and how the rankings measure some things in ways that may not be applicable. At the end of the day, education is so personal - it is really about how that particular student will function in that given atmosphere. Great people have come out of shitty schools, and shitty people have come out of great schools. All the rankings in the world won't measure that. If they did measure post-graduate performance, that method would be flawed, too. I concur that post graduate employment is not necessarily a valid measurement either. It's only fairly recently that colleges have been treated as glorified job training programs. Tradtionally they were focused on academics. I also concur education is very personal and very difficult to quantify. I do think, however, that it's dishonest to sell the most selective schools as necessarily "the best." If it were up to me, I'd focus mostly on academic outcome. However, that is difficult to quantify. The reports do weight the 4 year graduation rate higher than they used to. Obviously it isn't the only thing that makes a college good but I have been looking at colleges for my DD who is a senior this year. I sure as heck have been pushing the school with an 86% 4 year graduation rate over the ones with rates in the 40's. While it isn't set in stone the ones I looked at that were more selective about who they accepted tended to have the higher graduation and rentntion rates. I'm not knocking county colleges. Both DH and I went to one. We both also saw a huge difference between prepared they were for the college level courses. And I discount the returning students. Of course someone going back to college 15 plus years after graduating HS is going to have to do a lot of catching up on everything they learned and forgot. The difference between the just out of HS students was night and day for the majority of them.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 12, 2013 8:50:56 GMT -5
Think of how the application rates went up for that fancy private college that Prince William went to!
|
|
gs11rmb
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:43:39 GMT -5
Posts: 3,365
|
Post by gs11rmb on Sept 12, 2013 11:17:27 GMT -5
Prince William went to St. Andrews, which is not private but is very selective. He's a year older than my sister and I told her to apply there and one day marry a prince! She did not take my advice .
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 7, 2024 4:29:54 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2013 13:51:02 GMT -5
Yeah, they can definitely game the system. I once listened to a NY Times podcast that talked baout how top law schools offered generous scholarships to top students so they'd appear selective (high average LSAT scores, etc.) but the students had to maintain impossibly good academic performance to keep them.
My own alma mater, a state U., had this big drive for everyone to donate $18.19 (it was founded in 1819) becauze that would increase the stats of % of alumni who donated. Somehow I just couldn't manage to come up with $18.19.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Sept 12, 2013 15:21:04 GMT -5
Yeah, they can definitely game the system. I once listened to a NY Times podcast that talked baout how top law schools offered generous scholarships to top students so they'd appear selective (high average LSAT scores, etc.) but the students had to maintain impossibly good academic performance to keep them. My own alma mater, a state U., had this big drive for everyone to donate $18.19 (it was founded in 1819) becauze that would increase the stats of % of alumni who donated. Somehow I just couldn't manage to come up with $18.19. I figure my parents and I gave enough money to my university. I don't need to donate more. Maybe I should found a college, and make it so selective no one will get in. Then it will be the most coveted college in the nation, and be ranked at the top.
|
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Sept 14, 2013 9:34:00 GMT -5
I went to a university that gets ranked at anywhere from 43-55 on a year to year basis. It always cracked me up that on the years we were IN the top 50, they were sensible and thorough. On the years we were out of the top 50, the rankings were inaccurate and didn't take <l> <m> and <n> into account, and should be ignored.
I get it though. If one of the criteria is "% of alumni who donate" then technically a donation of $1/pop is a donation, and counts. And if one of the criteria is "% of A students" then you can accomplish that by being generous with grades. And if one of the criteria is "% of faculty who is published" well I suppose without more strict guidelines, a blog post could be considered as "published". Since all of these things translate to more students coming in and more dollars and more prestige, there it is.
Education is a business. Do you accept one "A" student who needs a full ride? Or Two "B" students who can pay the tuition without aid? Is it worth "buying" that basketball star who is dumb as a brick and barely shows up for class; if it means that he leads the team to a title?
|
|
vonna
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 11, 2012 15:58:51 GMT -5
Posts: 1,249
|
Post by vonna on Sept 14, 2013 11:21:08 GMT -5
I have been doing a lot of research on schools lately - not colleges, but high schools. Our district school is problematic, and so we are trying to consider all of our options (even though high school is 4 years away.) I have learned a LOT about how schools can play with the rankings, and how the rankings measure some things in ways that may not be applicable. At the end of the day, education is so personal - it is really about how that particular student will function in that given atmosphere. Great people have come out of shitty schools, and shitty people have come out of great schools. All the rankings in the world won't measure that. If they did measure post-graduate performance, that method would be flawed, too. I concur that post graduate employment is not necessarily a valid measurement either. It's only fairly recently that colleges have been treated as glorified job training programs. Tradtionally they were focused on academics. I also concur education is very personal and very difficult to quantify. I do think, however, that it's dishonest to sell the most selective schools as necessarily "the best." If it were up to me, I'd focus mostly on academic outcome. However, that is difficult to quantify. Well, apparently there is now a "post-college SAT" that attempts to measure academic outcomes, critical thinking skills, etc . . .according to this WSJ article, 200 colleges are going to utilize this test in the spring. . . Just another standardized test . . . will it really have any true meaning? online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323980604579029143959843818.html <ETA: I can't get the original article to link! -- the one below is a shorter article with the link embedded to the original article, if anyone wants to read it> www.deseretnews.com/article/865585376/Post-college-SAT-aims-to-level-playing-field-in-crowded-job-market.html?pg=all
|
|
vonna
Well-Known Member
Joined: Aug 11, 2012 15:58:51 GMT -5
Posts: 1,249
|
Post by vonna on Sept 14, 2013 12:39:50 GMT -5
well - there's always been the GRE?Ruhk -- yes, I didn't do a good job explaining in my post, because I got caught up in trying to get the link to work. This test is designed for use by employers to determine employability, as opposed to use by colleges to determine academic ability for graduate school. From the WSJ article: "The test is part of a movement to find new ways to assess the skills of graduates. Employers say grades can be misleading and that they have grown skeptical of college credentials.
The new test "has the potential to be a very powerful tool for employers," said Ronald Gidwitz, a board member of the Council for Aid to Education, the group behind the test, and a retired chief executive of Helene Curtis, a Chicago-based hair-care company that was bought by Unilever in 1996.
The CLA + will be open to anyone—whether they are graduating from a four-year university or have taken just a series of MOOCs—and students will be allowed to show their scores to prospective employees. The test costs $35, but most schools are picking up the fee. Among schools that will use CLA + are the University of Texas system, Flagler College in Florida and Marshall University in West Virginia. "
Anyway, if this takes off, it is sure to add to the "college rankings"
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,161
|
Post by teen persuasion on Sept 14, 2013 12:51:32 GMT -5
I think what is missing from this thread is an acknowledgement of how public universities have lost their state subsidies and turned to out of state and international students as the solution to their budgetary woes. These full-freight students care far more about college rankings than in-state students ever did. The competition for such students is now incredibly fierce and beginning to affect the second and third-tier state schools. This morning the top story on the local news was that UB hit a record in enrollment: 29,937. International students were 17% or 5200, up 440 from last year. When the station interviewed some international students as to why UB, they all cited rankings by a number of sources, and cost . The station went on to mention that in-state tuition was $8k vs. $20k for the international and out-of-state students.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Sept 14, 2013 14:02:09 GMT -5
If intelligence is on a normal bell curve then roughly the same amount of low income people should be as smart as the medium and high income people, so then it's not the nature of the low income people it's something caused by their low income that makes them not "good" enough. This assumption (that there are an equal percentage of highly intelligent low income people as high income people) would only be true if intelligence is spread equally throughout all income levels. I've never seen a study that shows this. A more reasonable assumption might be that intelligence is skewed towards the higher income levels because people who are highly intelligent are more likely to do the types of work that results in a high income and people who are less intelligent may not be able to do the types of work that result in a high income. That does not mean there are no highly intelligent people with low incomes, just that it's incorrect to assume the normal bell curve of intelligence across all income levels.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Sept 14, 2013 17:02:47 GMT -5
If intelligence is on a normal bell curve then roughly the same amount of low income people should be as smart as the medium and high income people, so then it's not the nature of the low income people it's something caused by their low income that makes them not "good" enough. This assumption (that there are an equal percentage of highly intelligent low income people as high income people) would only be true if intelligence is spread equally throughout all income levels. I've never seen a study that shows this. A more reasonable assumption might be that intelligence is skewed towards the higher income levels because people who are highly intelligent are more likely to do the types of work that results in a high income and people who are less intelligent may not be able to do the types of work that result in a high income. That does not mean there are no highly intelligent people with low incomes, just that it's incorrect to assume the normal bell curve of intelligence across all income levels. I was referring to the children not the parents (as it's the children getting the scholarships out of high school, not the parents that are earning the income) as I'm not aware of intelligence being directly linked to genetics, but I could have missed something that says it is.
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Sept 14, 2013 17:07:04 GMT -5
Intelligence has a strong genetic and heritable link. Google it and you'll see a list of studies showing that link.
It's not 100% genetic, but the link is statistically significant. So intelligent parents have - on the whole - intelligent children.
|
|