why the usnwr best college list is ridiculous

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's still the gold standard, whether you like it or not.

For what. This list does not guarantee outcomes. I attended a shi----y big midwestern University with no prestige. But you would not know it unless I told you. And there are many like me.

The problem is that the people who have verifiably the best financial outcomes all went to top schools (or dropped out of them). Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Altman, Schwarzman, Griffin, et al.

Nobody ever says what their own outcome actually is, nor names their friend/cousin/friend's cousin that supposedly also went to some no-name shitty university and is now super-successful.

So, if all anyone will offer on DCUM is anecdotes without being willing to provide any specifics...you won't persuade anyone.

OK but these are 1 out of millions. The odds of anyone ending up like them are supremely low. These people are also likely sociopaths as well.

I am not disputing they are 1 out of millions (though, I do dispute they are likely sociopaths).

My only point is that there are too many folks on DCUM that point to some supposed great outcome of them or someone they know, without indicating who that person is or what exactly their great outcome may be. Just "trust me, I or my best friend's third cousin is really successful even though they attended some no name school".

[Anonymous]

There is no "best school", there is only a best school for your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's still the gold standard, whether you like it or not.

For what. This list does not guarantee outcomes. I attended a shi----y big midwestern University with no prestige. But you would not know it unless I told you. And there are many like me.

The problem is that the people who have verifiably the best financial outcomes all went to top schools (or dropped out of them). Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Altman, Schwarzman, Griffin, et al.

Nobody ever says what their own outcome actually is, nor names their friend/cousin/friend's cousin that supposedly also went to some no-name shitty university and is now super-successful.

So, if all anyone will offer on DCUM is anecdotes without being willing to provide any specifics...you won't persuade anyone.

I went to Williams (#1 liberal arts) a few decades ago and have had a generally successful but entirely average career. I'm sure there are dozens if not hundreds of colleges that would have led me to the same path.

What's your point? Nobody said attending a top school guarantees you some amazing life. Only point is the people we actually know to be successful are clustered in a small group of schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely nothing merit-based (academics) in the rankings.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings

For schools that require scores there was a 5% weight factor--and for those w/out scores 0%.

That was it. 95% was just pure Bullsh*t

The most heavily weighted "peer assessment" 20% ha!

Student-faculty ratio (prob one of the most important factors for undergrads)...a mere 3%

nothing on gpa/selectivity, etc.

Absolutely. Its lame. I wish it would go back to mostly about the student and faculty quality, class size, ratios, and academic opportunities for undergraduates(which endowment only hints at)

They do use measures for each of the above (ratios, test scores, publications, academic expenditures, etc.) I like that they use cost of living adjusted faculty salary. This is particularly helpful in gauging top faculty pull if it’s an LAC focused on undergrad instruction and not grad research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely nothing merit-based (academics) in the rankings.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings

For schools that require scores there was a 5% weight factor--and for those w/out scores 0%.

That was it. 95% was just pure Bullsh*t

The most heavily weighted "peer assessment" 20% ha!

Student-faculty ratio (prob one of the most important factors for undergrads)...a mere 3%

nothing on gpa/selectivity, etc.

Absolutely. Its lame. I wish it would go back to mostly about the student and faculty quality, class size, ratios, and academic opportunities for undergraduates(which endowment only hints at)

They do use measures for each of the above (ratios, test scores, publications, academic expenditures, etc.) I like that they use cost of living adjusted faculty salary. This is particularly helpful in gauging top faculty pull if it’s an LAC focused on undergrad instruction and not grad research.

I will add they are the only ranking I’m aware of that use CoL adjusted faculty salary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Selectivity” is so game-able.

You can't game having full of 1500 SAT kids vs 1200 SAT kids

Of course you can when most of those kids are TO. Stop kidding yourself that all of the kids at a school have “1500 SATs.”
DP

Before TO, all the ivies (except Cornell and Brown) as well as MIT Stanford Duke Caltech Hopkins had median SAT at 1500-1510, which was 99th %ile at the time based on college board charts(those students took the tests in 2017-18). That is equivalent to 1520-30 today based on the current %ile charts for 2023&4 testers. When it goes back to test required the 25th %ile will be around 1500. So yes the majority of these schools will be 1500 +

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's still the gold standard, whether you like it or not.

For what. This list does not guarantee outcomes. I attended a shi----y big midwestern University with no prestige. But you would not know it unless I told you. And there are many like me.

The problem is that the people who have verifiably the best financial outcomes all went to top schools (or dropped out of them). Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Altman, Schwarzman, Griffin, et al.

Nobody ever says what their own outcome actually is, nor names their friend/cousin/friend's cousin that supposedly also went to some no-name shitty university and is now super-successful.

So, if all anyone will offer on DCUM is anecdotes without being willing to provide any specifics...you won't persuade anyone.

OK but these are 1 out of millions. The odds of anyone ending up like them are supremely low. These people are also likely sociopaths as well.

I am not disputing they are 1 out of millions (though, I do dispute they are likely sociopaths).

My only point is that there are too many folks on DCUM that point to some supposed great outcome of them or someone they know, without indicating who that person is or what exactly their great outcome may be. Just "trust me, I or my best friend's third cousin is really successful even though they attended some no name school".

When half of my top law school class came from ivy/plus schools and many of us that came from those top undergrads were above average and good testers but not some super genius summa cum laude kids, yet my high school pal who had the same Lsat went to UVA and had a higher gpa than me, it tells me that my school and other ivy+ get a big thumb on the scale with law admissions. Prestige matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's still the gold standard, whether you like it or not.

Rankings are not useful and the USNWR one is particularly useless.

“Art & Science Group, a higher education consultancy, found that some 40 percent of students do not use rankings at all when they are picking colleges and that only 3 percent turn to them through the whole of their college searches.”

What on earth is “Art & Science Group”? All the parents at our kids’ school talk about rankings and most definitely use USNWR. You’re kidding yourself by pretending otherwise.
DP[/quot

+1. Posters here reach for the strangest things when doing a google search to bolster their arguments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely nothing merit-based (academics) in the rankings.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings

For schools that require scores there was a 5% weight factor--and for those w/out scores 0%.

That was it. 95% was just pure Bullsh*t

The most heavily weighted "peer assessment" 20% ha!

Student-faculty ratio (prob one of the most important factors for undergrads)...a mere 3%

nothing on gpa/selectivity, etc.

Cheetos have zero nutritional benefit yet people buy and eat the crap out of them. Rankings make a subset of society "feel good" and people lap them up like fat kids in a candy store. Just shows you how clueless our society is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's still the gold standard, whether you like it or not.

For what. This list does not guarantee outcomes. I attended a shi----y big midwestern University with no prestige. But you would not know it unless I told you. And there are many like me.

The problem is that the people who have verifiably the best financial outcomes all went to top schools (or dropped out of them). Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Altman, Schwarzman, Griffin, et al.

Nobody ever says what their own outcome actually is, nor names their friend/cousin/friend's cousin that supposedly also went to some no-name shitty university and is now super-successful.

So, if all anyone will offer on DCUM is anecdotes without being willing to provide any specifics...you won't persuade anyone.

OK but these are 1 out of millions. The odds of anyone ending up like them are supremely low. These people are also likely sociopaths as well.

I am not disputing they are 1 out of millions (though, I do dispute they are likely sociopaths).

My only point is that there are too many folks on DCUM that point to some supposed great outcome of them or someone they know, without indicating who that person is or what exactly their great outcome may be. Just "trust me, I or my best friend's third cousin is really successful even though they attended some no name school".

When half of my top law school class came from ivy/plus schools and many of us that came from those top undergrads were above average and good testers but not some super genius summa cum laude kids, yet my high school pal who had the same Lsat went to UVA and had a higher gpa than me, it tells me that my school and other ivy+ get a big thumb on the scale with law admissions. Prestige matters.

but at my top law, the students from
non-Ivy schools were exactly that: summa, valedictorian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's still the gold standard, whether you like it or not.

For what. This list does not guarantee outcomes. I attended a shi----y big midwestern University with no prestige. But you would not know it unless I told you. And there are many like me.

The problem is that the people who have verifiably the best financial outcomes all went to top schools (or dropped out of them). Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Altman, Schwarzman, Griffin, et al.

Nobody ever says what their own outcome actually is, nor names their friend/cousin/friend's cousin that supposedly also went to some no-name shitty university and is now super-successful.

So, if all anyone will offer on DCUM is anecdotes without being willing to provide any specifics...you won't persuade anyone.

OK but these are 1 out of millions. The odds of anyone ending up like them are supremely low. These people are also likely sociopaths as well.

I am not disputing they are 1 out of millions (though, I do dispute they are likely sociopaths).

My only point is that there are too many folks on DCUM that point to some supposed great outcome of them or someone they know, without indicating who that person is or what exactly their great outcome may be. Just "trust me, I or my best friend's third cousin is really successful even though they attended some no name school".

When half of my top law school class came from ivy/plus schools and many of us that came from those top undergrads were above average and good testers but not some super genius summa cum laude kids, yet my high school pal who had the same Lsat went to UVA and had a higher gpa than me, it tells me that my school and other ivy+ get a big thumb on the scale with law admissions. Prestige matters.

but at my top law, the students from
non-Ivy schools were exactly that: summa, valedictorian

You are proving PP's point. That the Ivy undergrads didn't have to be that...but I guess you are saying the non-Ivy undergrads did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's most ridiculous is the premise that there can be any objective ranking of colleges.

It's like ranking the best places to live in America. Online dorks may argue about median earnings, [b]crime rates, etc. But, at the end of the day, it really doesn't make one city any better for any individual than another. BTW, USNWR does just this. Are you dorks packing your bags for Naples, FL or Boise, ID?
https://realestate.usnews.com/places/rankings/best-places-to-live

This. And fwiw US news failed at its primary business and hangs onto this desperately bc otherwise it would be bankrupt

[b]


Not true. USNWR "failed", as you say, because print journalism ended. It's true for all if the business magazines I used to read. The college rankings continued because it was a money maker. That's why there are so many copycats that were once print publications like Forbes and Money Magazine rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely nothing merit-based (academics) in the rankings.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings

For schools that require scores there was a 5% weight factor--and for those w/out scores 0%.

That was it. 95% was just pure Bullsh*t

The most heavily weighted "peer assessment" 20% ha!

Student-faculty ratio (prob one of the most important factors for undergrads)...a mere 3%

nothing on gpa/selectivity, etc.

The list became a joke over the years.

But the joke is on us. Most people still reference it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's still the gold standard, whether you like it or not.

For what. This list does not guarantee outcomes. I attended a shi----y big midwestern University with no prestige. But you would not know it unless I told you. And there are many like me.

DP. That’s why I like the WSJ rankings, which are based on outcomes.

Over half the USNWR weighting goes to outcome factors including graduation rates, debt, and income.

The six graduation rates used by US News are pretty useless but a good number of the public schools would drop like rocks if four year rates were used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's still the gold standard, whether you like it or not.

Rankings are not useful and the USNWR one is particularly useless.

“Art & Science Group, a higher education consultancy, found that some 40 percent of students do not use rankings at all when they are picking colleges and that only 3 percent turn to them through the whole of their college searches.”

It's still the gold standard. Colleges fight tooth and nail over it. All college counselors read USNWR. All schools brag about their position on USNWR unless they have something to hide. Wiki posts the rankings on individual
college pages. And, of great importance, the full-pay international students (which all schools want because international students inflate diversity figures and are usually full-pay) and their counselors treat it like the Bible

That's like saying a particular form of crack is the gold standard for crack.