This ranking is heavily impacted by salary, which is a terrible measure if done poorly. Schools that rank well tend to have a lot of STEM graduates or students who get jobs in big and expensive (think coastal) cities. To do salaries right, compare an English major from Harvard and one from the University of Cincinnati both living in Cincinnati and working as teachers. Will there be much of a difference? HR will ensure not. Alternatively, it would be interesting to have a “coveted job” index, like the proportion of undergrads that get jobs in investment banking, VC, PE, hedge funds, and strategy consulting. Or, the percent of CS majors who gets jobs at FANG. |
The ranking also heavily favors colleges with lots of Pell/poor students. 27% of Berkeley students are poor. At Harvard, it’s 12%. Berkeley gets the award for more handouts. I’m not sure how that’s related to the quality of academics. |
My guess is that Harvard would have higher average amount of handouts than Berkeley. Also, I thought DCUM concluded it is far more impressive to educate poor students than wealthier students. |
Certainly higher average $ but not higher number of students. The ranking looks at the number of students. I’m not sure it’s more impressive to educate poor students, assuming admission standards are met. It’s more that a public school’s mission is to educate its public. The mission for privates are a combination of academics and social pedigree. Harvard definitely beats Berkeley for pedigree. Also, the salary data is limited to those who received financial aid. Some of Harvard’s best outcomes won’t have taken financial aid. In sum, thus if this ranking as a poor student’s ranking. If you’re poor and get into Berkeley, you’ll have a good outcome. |
Ranking is based on "AV. GRANT AID. AV. DEBT. MEDIAN 10-YEAR SALARY" not number of students receiving aid. |
| The much-hyped JHU at 37! This ranking is soooo credible. NOT! |
That is what they are showing you, but not what is being used to compute the rankings. Go read the methodology document. |
|
This is a ranking created by aggregating 10 domestic/UG rankings:
1. MIT 2. Harvard 3. Stanford 4. Princeton 5. Yale 6. Duke 7. Penn 8. Northwestern 9. Columbia 10. Dartmouth 11. Rice 12. Brown 13. UChicago 14. Caltech 15.Vanderbilt 16. Cornell 17. JHU 18. WashU 19. UMich 20. Notre Dame 21. UCLA 22. Georgetown 23. Berkeley 24. USC 25. UNC 26. UVA 27. Emory 28. CMU 29. Tufts 30. UF Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/ApplyingToCollege/comments/w38g7z/the_supreme_t50_college_ranking_aggregating_the/ |
This is simply not true. Everyone knows that the US News ranking is the granddaddy of them all. No one really cares about Forbes, and I say this as someone whose school ranks quite highly on the Forbes list. |
|
Everyone knows Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona are qualitative on a different league, and higher, than UF.
And who the hell is UF? |
UF is Florida. While Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona are good schools, they are assessed separately from full-fledged universities. |
That shows there's something fundamentally wrong with the list. I'd seriously question why X college is is ranked Y and not Z. It's too random. Garbage in, garbage out. More garbage in, more garbage out. |
You're not making any sense. It is perfectly normal for LACs to be assessed separately from universities. |
This is a ranking that somewhat makes sense. |
No one cares. — MIT grad |