Why rankings are bunk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serously doubt you went to Princeton OP. If you did, you wouldn't dispute rankings. You'd applaud them.

OP again. Yes I went to Princeton, before anyone even talking about rankings. I'm not sure they existed in the early 80s. I didn't care about Harvard or Yale or whatever and i certainly don't get my self-esteem from US News.

I am going through the process now with a DC who is curious, has intellectual passions, and is very self-motivated. He could care less about what some corporation thinks about colleges, he's going to decide for himself. This isn't a game where you are trying to "win" by getting the highest number of points (or rank). Its my DC's future. I've glad he's thinking for himself.

And I certainly don't applaud rankings as they corrupt the process. Did you know that at Wash. U in St/ Louis they have students taking tours fill out a "preliminary application" so that they can inflate their application numbers? And how about the way some schools offer January admissions? This didn't use to happen as much and they do it so those applicants scores don't have to go in the database for rankings.

So THAT explains Wash U!

Read "The Overachievers" -- there is a great amount of reporting on how corrupt & flawed USNWR actually is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Read "The Overachievers" -- there is a great amount of reporting on how corrupt & flawed USNWR actually is.

It doesn't change the fact that rankings -- these rankings, in particular -- matter, and that graduate programs and employers are influenced by them. I've made this point on other threads before, but it bears making again -- if it didn't matter, kids wouldn't be applying in droves to these schools and acceptance rates wouldn't be sub-10%. Think about how insane that is; while some of you are crowing about how you care nothing about the eliteness of a school, all of your kids (or everyone else's kids) are applying. So these schools are clearly not suffering from whatever grand delusions you think they have, or US News perpetuates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Read "The Overachievers" -- there is a great amount of reporting on how corrupt & flawed USNWR actually is.

It doesn't change the fact that rankings -- these rankings, in particular -- matter, and that graduate programs and employers are influenced by them. I've made this point on other threads before, but it bears making again -- if it didn't matter, kids wouldn't be applying in droves to these schools and acceptance rates wouldn't be sub-10%. Think about how insane that is; while some of you are crowing about how you care nothing about the eliteness of a school, all of your kids (or everyone else's kids) are applying. So these schools are clearly not suffering from whatever grand delusions you think they have, or US News perpetuates.

I actually don't think employers and grad schools care so much. They may be drawn to schools considered more elite or competitive, but you don't need rankings to tell you which those are. Are they really going to hire someone from Notre Dame over someone form U of Michigan because it ranks higher? Why would employers farm their own judgment out to the corrupt ranking process of some other company? The fact that kids apply in droves means nothing. They could be drawn to the same ridiculous superficiality that so many folks here are when they worship the rankings. or they could be drawn independently of the rankings. I'm pretty sure that tons of kids would apply to Yale even if the rankings didn't exist.

Of course they "mean" something. They distort the process for many schools, so they clearly have an effect. But its not a good effect and it doesn't mean they aren't bunk. They are bunk.

[Anonymous]

DD is going to Yale not because of the ranking but because of the social and intellectual atmosphere -- watch this... it's inspiring!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGn3-RW8Ajk

[Anonymous]

I know elite law firms typically restrict their recruiting to "top 20" schools. There might be 25 or so schools that can claim top 20 status, but other than those schools, forget about it.

[Anonymous]

There are very few schools that are universally recognized as elite. Rankings help separate Washington University from the University of Washington and provide insight into why Wisconsin is a better school than Indiana or Ohio State.

The rankings are best used as a starting point for sifting through the hundreds of options out there. No one has personal knowledge of every school ranked by USNews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know elite law firms typically restrict their recruiting to "top 20" schools. There might be 25 or so schools that can claim top 20 status, but other than those schools, forget about it.

Thats law schools, not undergrad. And because the field is a smaller universe you don't need outside rankings to know which schools they refer to.

And I actually think this is not the case. A student who does well at a state law school and gets a competitive clerkship would probably be very attractive to these firms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reason the US News rankings gained such traction is that they are generally consistent with what most people think based on what they know - so they assume they are accurate in other respects. So, for example, when I see the comparative rankings of Princeton, Duke, Georgetown and UVA, I say "that seems about right" and I trust the other rankings.

The methodology is subject to question, but the results seem right.

Trust me, as someone who has worked at three universities - you don't know anything. Really, you don't. People base their decisions on a lot of superficial BS instead of on the quality of the professors, which is what should matter. Then they bitch about the cost of the superficial BS when it is they who have made irrational, uninformed decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are very few schools that are universally recognized as elite. Rankings help separate Washington University from the University of Washington and provide insight into why Wisconsin is a better school than Indiana or Ohio State.

The rankings are best used as a starting point for sifting through the hundreds of options out there. No one has personal knowledge of every school ranked by USNews.

Bingo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know elite law firms typically restrict their recruiting to "top 20" schools. There might be 25 or so schools that can claim top 20 status, but other than those schools, forget about it.

Thats law schools, not undergrad. And because the field is a smaller universe you don't need outside rankings to know which schools they refer to.

And I actually think this is not the case. A student who does well at a state law school and gets a competitive clerkship would probably be very attractive to these firms.

Actually, you say you "think" this is not the case. I'm not the previous poster who stated this, but I know -- not "think" -- the previous poster is right, having recruited at these law schools. The top firms in the country actually have a list -- it's not a secret list, it's an openly known list of the elite schools from which they recruit. Think top 10 + a few local schools in whatever the city is. Yes, this is a graduate school issue, but not surprisingly, consulting firms and investment banks have the same list for undergraduate schools. McKinsey doesn't show up to Rutgers to recruit; they do show up to the top ten US News schools, though.

For me, what this comes down to is opportunities -- there are plenty of smart kids at lesser schools, and probably plenty of not-so-brilliant kids at the elite schools. But if I want doors and connections open for my kids like they were for me, I want them to go the best school possible. It's a very small circle, and it's hard to break into from the outside. Life is much easier when you don't feel like you have to claw your way to the top.

[Anonymous]

Fine, if your DC wants to be an investment banker. Mine most assuredly does not. He most likely will be an academic and therefore is looking at schools that are an ends in themselves and not a means to an end.

And, again, "best school possible" means nothing unless you ask "for what?" Not everyone wants to be an investment banker, I can assure you. And there ways to determine what schools are the best for you without outsourcing your list to a sketchy approach.

The entities with the top 10 list that you refer to -- does it track exactly the US News top 10? Probably not, because they developed it on their own, I'm sure. I'm sure there's much overlap, but I don't think they need US news to come up with their list.

In my and my husband's field there are many very successful people who did not go to a top 10 school.

[Anonymous]

Can't we all just agree that the US news rankings are flawed but also influential and leave it at that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can't we all just agree that the US news rankings are flawed but also influential and leave it at that?

Seems reasonable. We all know they aren't perfect, and some of us can even pick out specific flaws in the methodology. But lots of kids and some employers pay attention to them, so we can't pretend they don't exist.

[Anonymous]

I don't believe employers read them. I think they may have their own rankings, which may be similar, but I don't believe they actually consult US News.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe employers read them. I think they may have their own rankings, which may be similar, but I don't believe they actually consult US News.

Nope. They just remember what colleges were prestigious when they were in school and go off of that.