Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This methodology definitely shows how state policies impact higher ed. It definitely favors California where state subsidizes higher ed, lots of aid for poverty, but good incomes for well-educated due to HCOL. 7 schools in CA are in the top 20 and 18 are in the top 100! Whereas TX is another large state and has none in the top 20, and only 3 in the top 100.VA has 6 schools--all public but 1- in the top 100 under this methodology--which is also a strong showing. (VA: UVA 30, W&M 51, W&L 63, VT 75, GMU 91, JMU 96.) Interestingly MA has 10 schools and PA has 7 schools in the top 100 but they are ALL private. These numbers basically show you though that many states don't even have 1 college/university, let alone 1 public university that falls in the top 100 of affordability/return on investment. (22 states don't have a single college or university that makes the top 100, and many more don't have a public college/university that does). So the idea that your in-state public provides the best return on investment/affordability REALLY depends on what state you are in.

I agree with this description.

It shows the importance of a state's investment in higher education and how it's a virtuous circle: invest in education & ensure low debt loads -> produce lots of high quality workers -> attract competitive companies -> high salaries & high consumer spending -> solid tax base -> reinvest in education.

The circle goes around and around.

California is losing population and has over 25% of the country's homeless population despite being only 12% of the country's population. California isn't an example of a virtuous cycle at present.

The world's 5th largest economy says we are doing fine, thank you very much.

Russia has a larger GDP than Switzerland. Where would you rather live? People are leaving due to cost of living. And where is Elon Musk now?

Anonymous wrote:Yale is only #2?

This ranking is a joke!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cal State Long Beach is ranked ahead of Harvey Mudd? Nope.

😳

Harvey Mudd has been sliding even with USNews. They used to be T10 in liberal arts - some 10 or more years ago. It’s now in mid-20 with other run-of-the mill above-average liberal arts schools.

Harvey Mudd, the engineering, math, and science school, used to be top 10 in...liberal arts? Pretty impressive since they don't offer majors in English, History, Philosophy, Sociology, Languages, Economics, Political Science, Music...

https://www.hmc.edu/academics/majors-at-harvey-mudd/

Also, your comment has nothing to do with Long Beach State being ranked ahead of Harvey Mudd.

I didn’t see where cal state Long Beach is ranked. You can’t compare Mudd with CalState Long Beach. You have to compare with STEM focused schools. And the Cal State system has its maritime academy that is just below Stanford - and ahead of Mudd and CalTech. And to think the cal State system has no pretension of educating the elites of the nation makes it all the more remarkable. It serves primarily blue collar residents of the state. It’s for Caltech, Mudd, UCBerkeley, UCLA, UC riverside rejects.

But it sounds like the CalState and CalPoly kids may be getting the last laugh. They are getting a quality education at rock bottom prices with minimal student loans and then going on to well-paying professional careers. They probably won't work at Goldman Sachs, but then again the vast majority of Ivy League kids paying $70K per year never go into banking and make that huge money.

I'm from Long Beach. CalState LB graduates a lot of CPAs who make really good money 10 years out of school. And they paid peanuts for their degree.

Looking at the Forbes data, the early career salary for Harvey Mudd is $162,500. For Long Beach State, it's $104,200. That $58k difference year after year adds up.

Cal state Long Beach is not a STEM focused school. Even Pomona college would trail Mudd. So compare MUdd with Cal State’s vocational school - its Maritime Academy - and you see its 10-yr ROI is significantly higher than Mudd at $265,000. Its 15-yr ROI is $592.000 - blowing Mudd out of water. Only by year 40 does Mudd catch up with Cal State. But by that time, Cal State alum will have retired from all the money that rolled in during the earlier years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This methodology definitely shows how state policies impact higher ed. It definitely favors California where state subsidizes higher ed, lots of aid for poverty, but good incomes for well-educated due to HCOL. 7 schools in CA are in the top 20 and 18 are in the top 100! Whereas TX is another large state and has none in the top 20, and only 3 in the top 100.VA has 6 schools--all public but 1- in the top 100 under this methodology--which is also a strong showing. (VA: UVA 30, W&M 51, W&L 63, VT 75, GMU 91, JMU 96.) Interestingly MA has 10 schools and PA has 7 schools in the top 100 but they are ALL private. These numbers basically show you though that many states don't even have 1 college/university, let alone 1 public university that falls in the top 100 of affordability/return on investment. (22 states don't have a single college or university that makes the top 100, and many more don't have a public college/university that does). So the idea that your in-state public provides the best return on investment/affordability REALLY depends on what state you are in.

I agree with this description.

It shows the importance of a state's investment in higher education and how it's a virtuous circle: invest in education & ensure low debt loads -> produce lots of high quality workers -> attract competitive companies -> high salaries & high consumer spending -> solid tax base -> reinvest in education.

The circle goes around and around.

California is losing population and has over 25% of the country's homeless population despite being only 12% of the country's population. California isn't an example of a virtuous cycle at present.

The world's 5th largest economy says we are doing fine, thank you very much.

Russia has a larger GDP than Switzerland. Where would you rather live? People are leaving due to cost of living. And where is Elon Musk now?

Musk is an ahole. I would not judge anything by him.

That said, why do you think CA col is super high? HINT: supply/demand

-DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This methodology definitely shows how state policies impact higher ed. It definitely favors California where state subsidizes higher ed, lots of aid for poverty, but good incomes for well-educated due to HCOL. 7 schools in CA are in the top 20 and 18 are in the top 100! Whereas TX is another large state and has none in the top 20, and only 3 in the top 100.VA has 6 schools--all public but 1- in the top 100 under this methodology--which is also a strong showing. (VA: UVA 30, W&M 51, W&L 63, VT 75, GMU 91, JMU 96.) Interestingly MA has 10 schools and PA has 7 schools in the top 100 but they are ALL private. These numbers basically show you though that many states don't even have 1 college/university, let alone 1 public university that falls in the top 100 of affordability/return on investment. (22 states don't have a single college or university that makes the top 100, and many more don't have a public college/university that does). So the idea that your in-state public provides the best return on investment/affordability REALLY depends on what state you are in.

I agree with this description.

It shows the importance of a state's investment in higher education and how it's a virtuous circle: invest in education & ensure low debt loads -> produce lots of high quality workers -> attract competitive companies -> high salaries & high consumer spending -> solid tax base -> reinvest in education.

The circle goes around and around.

California is losing population and has over 25% of the country's homeless population despite being only 12% of the country's population. California isn't an example of a virtuous cycle at present.

The world's 5th largest economy says we are doing fine, thank you very much.

Russia has a larger GDP than Switzerland. Where would you rather live? People are leaving due to cost of living. And where is Elon Musk now?

Musk is an ahole. I would not judge anything by him.

That said, why do you think CA col is super high? HINT: supply/demand

-DP

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This methodology definitely shows how state policies impact higher ed. It definitely favors California where state subsidizes higher ed, lots of aid for poverty, but good incomes for well-educated due to HCOL. 7 schools in CA are in the top 20 and 18 are in the top 100! Whereas TX is another large state and has none in the top 20, and only 3 in the top 100.VA has 6 schools--all public but 1- in the top 100 under this methodology--which is also a strong showing. (VA: UVA 30, W&M 51, W&L 63, VT 75, GMU 91, JMU 96.) Interestingly MA has 10 schools and PA has 7 schools in the top 100 but they are ALL private. These numbers basically show you though that many states don't even have 1 college/university, let alone 1 public university that falls in the top 100 of affordability/return on investment. (22 states don't have a single college or university that makes the top 100, and many more don't have a public college/university that does). So the idea that your in-state public provides the best return on investment/affordability REALLY depends on what state you are in.

I agree with this description.

It shows the importance of a state's investment in higher education and how it's a virtuous circle: invest in education & ensure low debt loads -> produce lots of high quality workers -> attract competitive companies -> high salaries & high consumer spending -> solid tax base -> reinvest in education.

The circle goes around and around.

California is losing population and has over 25% of the country's homeless population despite being only 12% of the country's population. California isn't an example of a virtuous cycle at present.

The world's 5th largest economy says we are doing fine, thank you very much.

Russia has a larger GDP than Switzerland. Where would you rather live? People are leaving due to cost of living. And where is Elon Musk now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This methodology definitely shows how state policies impact higher ed. It definitely favors California where state subsidizes higher ed, lots of aid for poverty, but good incomes for well-educated due to HCOL. 7 schools in CA are in the top 20 and 18 are in the top 100! Whereas TX is another large state and has none in the top 20, and only 3 in the top 100.VA has 6 schools--all public but 1- in the top 100 under this methodology--which is also a strong showing. (VA: UVA 30, W&M 51, W&L 63, VT 75, GMU 91, JMU 96.) Interestingly MA has 10 schools and PA has 7 schools in the top 100 but they are ALL private. These numbers basically show you though that many states don't even have 1 college/university, let alone 1 public university that falls in the top 100 of affordability/return on investment. (22 states don't have a single college or university that makes the top 100, and many more don't have a public college/university that does). So the idea that your in-state public provides the best return on investment/affordability REALLY depends on what state you are in.

I agree with this description.

It shows the importance of a state's investment in higher education and how it's a virtuous circle: invest in education & ensure low debt loads -> produce lots of high quality workers -> attract competitive companies -> high salaries & high consumer spending -> solid tax base -> reinvest in education.

The circle goes around and around.

California is losing population and has over 25% of the country's homeless population despite being only 12% of the country's population. California isn't an example of a virtuous cycle at present.

The world's 5th largest economy says we are doing fine, thank you very much.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This methodology definitely shows how state policies impact higher ed. It definitely favors California where state subsidizes higher ed, lots of aid for poverty, but good incomes for well-educated due to HCOL. 7 schools in CA are in the top 20 and 18 are in the top 100! Whereas TX is another large state and has none in the top 20, and only 3 in the top 100.VA has 6 schools--all public but 1- in the top 100 under this methodology--which is also a strong showing. (VA: UVA 30, W&M 51, W&L 63, VT 75, GMU 91, JMU 96.) Interestingly MA has 10 schools and PA has 7 schools in the top 100 but they are ALL private. These numbers basically show you though that many states don't even have 1 college/university, let alone 1 public university that falls in the top 100 of affordability/return on investment. (22 states don't have a single college or university that makes the top 100, and many more don't have a public college/university that does). So the idea that your in-state public provides the best return on investment/affordability REALLY depends on what state you are in.

I agree with this description.

It shows the importance of a state's investment in higher education and how it's a virtuous circle: invest in education & ensure low debt loads -> produce lots of high quality workers -> attract competitive companies -> high salaries & high consumer spending -> solid tax base -> reinvest in education.

The circle goes around and around.

California is losing population and has over 25% of the country's homeless population despite being only 12% of the country's population. California isn't an example of a virtuous cycle at present.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This methodology definitely shows how state policies impact higher ed. It definitely favors California where state subsidizes higher ed, lots of aid for poverty, but good incomes for well-educated due to HCOL. 7 schools in CA are in the top 20 and 18 are in the top 100! Whereas TX is another large state and has none in the top 20, and only 3 in the top 100.VA has 6 schools--all public but 1- in the top 100 under this methodology--which is also a strong showing. (VA: UVA 30, W&M 51, W&L 63, VT 75, GMU 91, JMU 96.) Interestingly MA has 10 schools and PA has 7 schools in the top 100 but they are ALL private. These numbers basically show you though that many states don't even have 1 college/university, let alone 1 public university that falls in the top 100 of affordability/return on investment. (22 states don't have a single college or university that makes the top 100, and many more don't have a public college/university that does). So the idea that your in-state public provides the best return on investment/affordability REALLY depends on what state you are in.

I agree with this description.

It shows the importance of a state's investment in higher education and how it's a virtuous circle: invest in education & ensure low debt loads -> produce lots of high quality workers -> attract competitive companies -> high salaries & high consumer spending -> solid tax base -> reinvest in education.

The circle goes around and around.

Anonymous wrote:University of Florida ahead of UNC and UVA!

Chomp Chomp

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/

This ranking is a joke!

Translation: "My school didn't do so well."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cal State Long Beach is ranked ahead of Harvey Mudd? Nope.

😳

Harvey Mudd has been sliding even with USNews. They used to be T10 in liberal arts - some 10 or more years ago. It’s now in mid-20 with other run-of-the mill above-average liberal arts schools.

Harvey Mudd, the engineering, math, and science school, used to be top 10 in...liberal arts? Pretty impressive since they don't offer majors in English, History, Philosophy, Sociology, Languages, Economics, Political Science, Music...

https://www.hmc.edu/academics/majors-at-harvey-mudd/

Also, your comment has nothing to do with Long Beach State being ranked ahead of Harvey Mudd.

I didn’t see where cal state Long Beach is ranked. You can’t compare Mudd with CalState Long Beach. You have to compare with STEM focused schools. And the Cal State system has its maritime academy that is just below Stanford - and ahead of Mudd and CalTech. And to think the cal State system has no pretension of educating the elites of the nation makes it all the more remarkable. It serves primarily blue collar residents of the state. It’s for Caltech, Mudd, UCBerkeley, UCLA, UC riverside rejects.

But it sounds like the CalState and CalPoly kids may be getting the last laugh. They are getting a quality education at rock bottom prices with minimal student loans and then going on to well-paying professional careers. They probably won't work at Goldman Sachs, but then again the vast majority of Ivy League kids paying $70K per year never go into banking and make that huge money.

I'm from Long Beach. CalState LB graduates a lot of CPAs who make really good money 10 years out of school. And they paid peanuts for their degree.

Looking at the Forbes data, the early career salary for Harvey Mudd is $162,500. For Long Beach State, it's $104,200. That $58k difference year after year adds up.