WSJ/Times Higher Education: College Rankings for 2021

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Completely different methodology than US News, with student test scores and grades, admit rates and yields not included. The rankings are based on resources (like endowment), student engagement (by survey), outcomes (graduate salaries) and environment (measure of diversity). So naturally the wealthiest schools rise to the top. The pecking order we are used to based on selectivity gets shaken up here, after the top cluster at least.

+1

This WSJ list feels like a reactionary attempt by the upper middle class to return college rankings back to the good old days of being the gatekeepers of social status. The schools are ordered largely based on the wealth of the school and its students, along with vestigial “prestige.” It doesn’t say anything about the delta between the where the students start and where they end up, which should be the real measure of a school’s value.

USNews isn’t perfect, but I appreciate how they are attempting to measure the value that a school truly adds by considering the socioeconomic status of the students when judging their outcomes. If a school has a disproportionate percentage of affluent students, its not surprising that the student outcomes look good. I’m more impressed by less exalted schools that consistently deliver positive outcomes for less affluent students.

[Anonymous]

It’s difficult to compare military academies to “civilian” schools. They are selective and produce graduates who are both educated and disciplined. But the intended outcome is a commission and long-term commitment to military service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely different methodology than US News, with student test scores and grades, admit rates and yields not included. The rankings are based on resources (like endowment), student engagement (by survey), outcomes (graduate salaries) and environment (measure of diversity). So naturally the wealthiest schools rise to the top. The pecking order we are used to based on selectivity gets shaken up here, after the top cluster at least.

+1

This WSJ list feels like a reactionary attempt by the upper middle class to return college rankings back to the good old days of being the gatekeepers of social status. The schools are ordered largely based on the wealth of the school and its students, along with vestigial “prestige.” It doesn’t say anything about the delta between the where the students start and where they end up, which should be the real measure of a school’s value.

USNews isn’t perfect, but I appreciate how they are attempting to measure the value that a school truly adds by considering the socioeconomic status of the students when judging their outcomes. If a school has a disproportionate percentage of affluent students, its not surprising that the student outcomes look good. I’m more impressed by less exalted schools that consistently deliver positive outcomes for less affluent students.

US News ranking recently seems to be on steroid, with big spurious oscillations from year to year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I speak on good authority:
nobody chooses Northwestern over Ivies
nobody chooses Brown over Princeton
nobody chooses Chicago over Columbia
and Georgetown is 10 spots too low

So glad to know you have decided you have good authority, but Brown and Princeton are very different schools and there are plenty of people who would love to go to Brown and wouldn’t even apply to Princeton (and v.v. of course)

While this may seem hard to believe, it is absolutely true and my kid is one of them. It’s not a qualitative decision, many kids pick fit over prestige.

One of my Princeton graduate friends says many of his fellow alums agree “it’s a great place to have gone but not a great place to go“ Or something of that nature and probably with better grammar than I am using!

I do understand it is quite possibly the greatest academic institution in the country, for the record. Just not the right place for every kid no matter how smart.

[Anonymous]

Cornell ranked too high

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s difficult to compare military academies to “civilian” schools. They are selective and produce graduates who are both educated and disciplined. But the intended outcome is a commission and long-term commitment to military service.

The extreme politicization of all things including the military is not doing these schools any favors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I speak on good authority:
nobody chooses Northwestern over Ivies
nobody chooses Brown over Princeton
nobody chooses Chicago over Columbia
and Georgetown is 10 spots too low

So glad to know you have decided you have good authority, but Brown and Princeton are very different schools and there are plenty of people who would love to go to Brown and wouldn’t even apply to Princeton (and v.v. of course)

While this may seem hard to believe, it is absolutely true and my kid is one of them. It’s not a qualitative decision, many kids pick fit over prestige.

One of my Princeton graduate friends says many of his fellow alums agree “it’s a great place to have gone but not a great place to go“ Or something of that nature and probably with better grammar than I am using!

I do understand it is quite possibly the greatest academic institution in the country, for the record. Just not the right place for every kid no matter how smart.

I think the vast majority of cross-admits are going to choose Princeton over Brown.

[Anonymous]

" measure of diversity "

Very discouraging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:" measure of diversity "

Very discouraging.

Wrong website. You are looking for stormfront.

[Anonymous]

Many of us find value in that. If you don’t, you can set that slider to zero and it will re-rank for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many of us find value in that. If you don’t, you can set that slider to zero and it will re-rank for you.

NP. Do I have to register for an account to be able to do this? I don't see an option otherwise..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s difficult to compare military academies to “civilian” schools. They are selective and produce graduates who are both educated and disciplined. But the intended outcome is a commission and long-term commitment to military service.

The extreme politicization of all things including the military is not doing these schools any favors.

In going into the military, students have to be prepared to kill - or be killed. It's not just 4 years of free tuition, room, and board. That's a heavy price to pay for most people.

[Anonymous]

Even students willing to do that and possibly make the ultimate sacrifice may not be willing to be pawns in a political game.

[Anonymous]

Interesting.. my DD got into NYU (#27) but was rejected as in-state at the University of Washington (45).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting.. my DD got into NYU (#27) but was rejected as in-state at the University of Washington (45).

Both are fairly selective. I wonder if the situation in NYC is affecting applications.