USNWR Rankings - Politico Article

[Anonymous]

There is another reason for the backlash too

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the subheading:

“Once ladders of social mobility, universities increasingly reinforce existing wealth, fueling a backlash that helped elect Donald Trump.”

LOL. There’s a connection between the rankings and Trump’s election? Who knew?

Obviously, it's not a direct connection. But it is fair to say that yes, there is hostility toward elite institutions that are no longer accessible to average people.

For example, it is very difficult for an average student from Ohio or Michigan or Texas to even gain admission to their state flagship. That is a marked change from 30 years ago when their parents were growing up -- and yes, it breeds class and economic resentment. Increasingly people feel that the system is rigged against them.

But one reason why it is harder to gain admission (aside from the general surge in college applications -- thanks, Common App!) is that flagship state universities increasingly turn to out-of-state, full pay tuition to make up for years of budget cuts by the state legislature. And who demands these cuts? Why loud taxpayers and their elected representatives to question the value of subsidizing state universities. This is true even in blue California. The result is a squeeze on taking as many in-state students at subsidized tuition rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the subheading:

“Once ladders of social mobility, universities increasingly reinforce existing wealth, fueling a backlash that helped elect Donald Trump.”

LOL. There’s a connection between the rankings and Trump’s election? Who knew?

Obviously, it's not a direct connection. But it is fair to say that yes, there is hostility toward elite institutions that are no longer accessible to average people.

For example, it is very difficult for an average student from Ohio or Michigan or Texas to even gain admission to their state flagship. That is a marked change from 30 years ago when their parents were growing up -- and yes, it breeds class and economic resentment. Increasingly people feel that the system is rigged against them.

But one reason why it is harder to gain admission (aside from the general surge in college applications -- thanks, Common App!) is that flagship state universities increasingly turn to out-of-state, full pay tuition to make up for years of budget cuts by the state legislature. And who demands these cuts? Why loud taxpayers and their elected representatives to question the value of subsidizing state universities. This is true even in blue California. The result is a squeeze on taking as many in-state students at subsidized tuition rates.

The "state funding cuts" mantra is a myth, and I wish people would stop perpetuating it. Investment in public higher education is vastly larger than it was 50 years ago - such spending has increased at a much higher rate than government spending in general. State legislative appropriations have risen significantly faster than inflation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/opinion/sunday/the-real-reason-college-tuition-costs-so-much.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Obviously, it's not a direct connection. But it is fair to say that yes, there is hostility toward elite institutions that are no longer accessible to average people.

For example, it is very difficult for an average student from Ohio or Michigan or Texas to even gain admission to their state flagship. That is a marked change from 30 years ago when their parents were growing up -- and yes, it breeds class and economic resentment. Increasingly people feel that the system is rigged against them."

Average people never got into elite institutions. Full Stop.

If people want average students to get into their state flagships like they used to, (or to have flagship quality educations) they have to vote for state legislators who support hugely increasing state support for those flagship schools.

People have been voting in EXACTLY the opposite manner, especially in Ohio, Michigan, Texas and Wisconsin. Every tax cut decreases the number of flagship seats and increases the number of community college seats.

The system isn't rigged against people, the system just needs to grow and the money needed to grow comes from raising taxes. The rich used to train workers and conduct research. Now they want state schools to do those things, no problem, just show them the money.

For you to paint this as a Democrat vs. Republican issue just shows your ignaorance and hyperpartisanship. Nothing more.

California’s higher education system is often considered in crisis: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/12/californias-higher-education-crisis/418293/

Illinois students are fleeing the state due to inability to get into University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and for many, even if they do, its serious budget woes (programs being cut, needing to rely on international students for funding, etc.) are extremely concerning: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-college-budget-crunch-met-20160331-story.html

It is more basic than that for Illinois students. There is little incentive to stay home and go to U of I because of the sticker price. In-state at U of I costs the same as out of state at University of Washington or University of Virginia or University of Texas for an Illinois resident. Which would you choose?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Obviously, it's not a direct connection. But it is fair to say that yes, there is hostility toward elite institutions that are no longer accessible to average people.

For example, it is very difficult for an average student from Ohio or Michigan or Texas to even gain admission to their state flagship. That is a marked change from 30 years ago when their parents were growing up -- and yes, it breeds class and economic resentment. Increasingly people feel that the system is rigged against them."

Average people never got into elite institutions. Full Stop.

If people want average students to get into their state flagships like they used to, (or to have flagship quality educations) they have to vote for state legislators who support hugely increasing state support for those flagship schools.

People have been voting in EXACTLY the opposite manner, especially in Ohio, Michigan, Texas and Wisconsin. Every tax cut decreases the number of flagship seats and increases the number of community college seats.

The system isn't rigged against people, the system just needs to grow and the money needed to grow comes from raising taxes. The rich used to train workers and conduct research. Now they want state schools to do those things, no problem, just show them the money.

For you to paint this as a Democrat vs. Republican issue just shows your ignaorance and hyperpartisanship. Nothing more.

California’s higher education system is often considered in crisis: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/12/californias-higher-education-crisis/418293/

Illinois students are fleeing the state due to inability to get into University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and for many, even if they do, its serious budget woes (programs being cut, needing to rely on international students for funding, etc.) are extremely concerning: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-college-budget-crunch-met-20160331-story.html

It is more basic than that for Illinois students. There is little incentive to stay home and go to U of I because of the sticker price. In-state at U of I costs the same as out of state at University of Washington or University of Virginia or University of Texas for an Illinois resident. Which would you choose?

Huh? What on Earth are you talking about?
Instate COA at UIUC: $31-$36K https://admissions.illinois.edu/Invest/tuition
Out of state COA at UVA- $61-$63K https://sfs.virginia.edu/cost/17-18
Out of state COA at UT-Austin - $50K https://admissions.utexas.edu/tuition/cost-of-attendance
Out of state COA at Washington - $55K https://www.washington.edu/financialaid/getting-started/student-budgets/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People bitch about state schools taking full-pay out of state and international students but then don't connect it to their own actions in voting for legislators who cut taxes and prioritize corporate welfare over a well-educated population. If you want nice things, you have to pay for them.

That is working really well for residents in California and Illinois! /s

(See 17:41)

6-7 years ago, the UCs started really recruiting OOS to bring in tuition money. Residents complained and the legislature froze their numbers on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the biggest flaws of USNews rankings is that they dont measure outcomes at all, such as employment statistics and salaries, which is absolutely ridiculous.

It's probably good that they don't since cost-of-living varies depending on the area. And most non-rich/elite students tend to go to schools close to home. Including salaries would just distort the rankings in favor of northeastern and California schools, which are already highly ranked as it is.

Actually, the only study I've seen that ranked schools this way had Georgia Tech as the #1 school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the subheading:

“Once ladders of social mobility, universities increasingly reinforce existing wealth, fueling a backlash that helped elect Donald Trump.”

LOL. There’s a connection between the rankings and Trump’s election? Who knew?

Obviously, it's not a direct connection. But it is fair to say that yes, there is hostility toward elite institutions that are no longer accessible to average people.

For example, it is very difficult for an average student from Ohio or Michigan or Texas to even gain admission to their state flagship. That is a marked change from 30 years ago when their parents were growing up -- and yes, it breeds class and economic resentment. Increasingly people feel that the system is rigged against them.

But one reason why it is harder to gain admission (aside from the general surge in college applications -- thanks, Common App!) is that flagship state universities increasingly turn to out-of-state, full pay tuition to make up for years of budget cuts by the state legislature. And who demands these cuts? Why loud taxpayers and their elected representatives to question the value of subsidizing state universities. This is true even in blue California. The result is a squeeze on taking as many in-state students at subsidized tuition rates.

This is not true of the University of Texas. By law, the University may only accept 10% of the student body from out of state. The administration has asked for that to be raised to 15%, but it has not been, as far as I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the subheading:

“Once ladders of social mobility, universities increasingly reinforce existing wealth, fueling a backlash that helped elect Donald Trump.”

LOL. There’s a connection between the rankings and Trump’s election? Who knew?

Obviously, it's not a direct connection. But it is fair to say that yes, there is hostility toward elite institutions that are no longer accessible to average people.

For example, it is very difficult for an average student from Ohio or Michigan or Texas to even gain admission to their state flagship. That is a marked change from 30 years ago when their parents were growing up -- and yes, it breeds class and economic resentment. Increasingly people feel that the system is rigged against them.

Don't think that is true for Texas. Much easier to get into UT-Austin in-state.

It's easier than it is from out of state but it is still far from easy (and more difficult than it used to be). In-state students in the top 10% of their high school classes used to be guaranteed admission but now only the top 7% have that guarantee. This means a lot of strong students from more competitive high schools are denied admission. Many attend a satellite/less competitive UT campus freshman year & then are able to transfer to the Austin campus the next year but that is far from ideal (& not something students of a similiar caliber would have had to do a generation ago).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the subheading:

“Once ladders of social mobility, universities increasingly reinforce existing wealth, fueling a backlash that helped elect Donald Trump.”

LOL. There’s a connection between the rankings and Trump’s election? Who knew?

Obviously, it's not a direct connection. But it is fair to say that yes, there is hostility toward elite institutions that are no longer accessible to average people.

For example, it is very difficult for an average student from Ohio or Michigan or Texas to even gain admission to their state flagship. That is a marked change from 30 years ago when their parents were growing up -- and yes, it breeds class and economic resentment. Increasingly people feel that the system is rigged against them.

Don't think that is true for Texas. Much easier to get into UT-Austin in-state.

It's easier than it is from out of state but it is still far from easy (and more difficult than it used to be). In-state students in the top 10% of their high school classes used to be guaranteed admission but now only the top 7% have that guarantee. This means a lot of strong students from more competitive high schools are denied admission. Many attend a satellite/less competitive UT campus freshman year & then are able to transfer to the Austin campus the next year but that is far from ideal (& not something students of a similiar caliber would have had to do a generation ago).

^The increased inaccessibility of private university is obviously a large reason for this, btw. In the past, the school could guarantee admission to the top 10% knowing that many of these top students would attend Ivies & elite SLACs instead. Nowadays the top students are no longer all but guaranteed to get into an Ivy & far fewer students can afford an out-of-state/private option even if they are admitted. This means that far more of the very top students are choosing UT-Austin , taking slots that until recently would have gone to good (but not quite top) students, & far more middle class (& even UMC) students need to take advantage of the in-state merit scholarships that would have gone to mostly lower income & working class students in the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the subheading:

“Once ladders of social mobility, universities increasingly reinforce existing wealth, fueling a backlash that helped elect Donald Trump.”

LOL. There’s a connection between the rankings and Trump’s election? Who knew?

Obviously, it's not a direct connection. But it is fair to say that yes, there is hostility toward elite institutions that are no longer accessible to average people.

For example, it is very difficult for an average student from Ohio or Michigan or Texas to even gain admission to their state flagship. That is a marked change from 30 years ago when their parents were growing up -- and yes, it breeds class and economic resentment. Increasingly people feel that the system is rigged against them.

I grew up in Michigan. Way back when, UMich was “loyal” to the state and accepted mostly Michigan kids and was accessible for good students from Michigan high schools. It was a STATE school to educated Michigan’s future leaders and doctors and business people, etc. Along the way that changed and it’s now a school filled with mind bogglingly rich international students who pretty much do their own thing, similarly wealthy kids from the Northeast and Chicago for whom Michigan is a consolation prize for higher ranked private schools and who surround themselves pretty much with other wealthy people, kids from wealthy places in MI like Grosse Pointe. No longer are there large numbers of the middle class Michiganders....

They had to do that because the state stopped giving them money. They had bills to pay.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely it is due to states not funding state schools.

And the spillover effect this has on social and income inequality is also true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the subheading:

“Once ladders of social mobility, universities increasingly reinforce existing wealth, fueling a backlash that helped elect Donald Trump.”

LOL. There’s a connection between the rankings and Trump’s election? Who knew?

Obviously, it's not a direct connection. But it is fair to say that yes, there is hostility toward elite institutions that are no longer accessible to average people.

For example, it is very difficult for an average student from Ohio or Michigan or Texas to even gain admission to their state flagship. That is a marked change from 30 years ago when their parents were growing up -- and yes, it breeds class and economic resentment. Increasingly people feel that the system is rigged against them.

Texas accepts the top 10 percent of every high school in the state with guaranteed admission.

Not a good example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People bitch about state schools taking full-pay out of state and international students but then don't connect it to their own actions in voting for legislators who cut taxes and prioritize corporate welfare over a well-educated population. If you want nice things, you have to pay for them.

They are not using that money to pay professors.

They are using it to pay deans, fancy conference rooms and state of the art gyms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From the subheading:

“Once ladders of social mobility, universities increasingly reinforce existing wealth, fueling a backlash that helped elect Donald Trump.”

LOL. There’s a connection between the rankings and Trump’s election? Who knew?

Obviously, it's not a direct connection. But it is fair to say that yes, there is hostility toward elite institutions that are no longer accessible to average people.

For example, it is very difficult for an average student from Ohio or Michigan or Texas to even gain admission to their state flagship. That is a marked change from 30 years ago when their parents were growing up -- and yes, it breeds class and economic resentment. Increasingly people feel that the system is rigged against them.

Texas accepts the top 10 percent of every high school in the state with guaranteed admission.

Not a good example.

They now only automatically admit the top 7% &, starting next year, it will only be the top 6%.

Fwiw, the drop from automatically accepting the top 10% to only automatically accepting the top 6% will have happened in less than a decade.