UConn ranked #58 in USNWR

[CL82]

I think that comment just takes common sense a bit too far. The basic point is that there is a value component to this that is too often discarded by parents in pursuit of prestige. It's become more about the credential than the education.

You look at departments, most parents don't have that information at all. Faculty is so variable. In some fields, maybe you want the geniuses teaching physics at MIT. But in other areas you have published experts who are crappy teachers, or you end up with grad students (I did for calculus at UConn, couldn't understand a word she said). Nobody is really giving that info to parents that lets them peel back the layers.

But the truth remains, if you or your child is taking out major loans for college, it's almost certainly a mistake. If you are smart enough and poor enough, the Ivy's are free. If you get in to an expensive private or top public and get no aid, it's better to go elsewhere than take out loans. If your family lacks the means to pay, and you don't get merit or significant financial aid, go to the cheapest school or community college and transfer.

This.

Of course, that pragmatic approach disregards the social and prestige aspects of college choice.

 

[upstater]

This x100. I got into Cornell. My parent’s couldn’t swing it and I didn’t want to be in debt forever. Even as an out-of-stater, Binghamton was vastly more affordable… and I did just fine. I’m not sure I would get into either of those schools 35 years later. As for the USNWR rankings, I know things change, but my friends and I would have laughed back then at a list ranking Binghamton (known then as “the public Ivy”) behind Rutgers, UMass and Stony Brook, and tied with Indiana and Tulane.

Rutgers has always been solid

 

[CL82]

I'll just throw this in here for what it's worth. Of my two most successful friends, one graduated from Monmouth and the other dropped out of college and started a business. Both came from working class families and have amassed a staggering amount of wealth. Both are also terrific guys without the least bit of pretense.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I'll just throw this in here for what it's worth. Of my two most successful friends, one graduated from Monmouth and the other dropped out of college and started a business. Both came from working class families and have amassed a staggering amount of wealth. Both are also terrific guys without the least bit of pretense.

Almost as if the man (or woman) makes the man, as opposed to the digits next to a college in a marketing publication.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I second the motion. I unignored the guy 2 minutes ago and already managed to get a migraine.

Do you have a list of generic Internet insults that you copy and paste, or did you actually write this one out?

 

[husky429]

Do you have a list of generic Internet insults that you copy and paste, or did you actually write this one out?

Your level of stupidity doesn't warrant an original insult. I save those for people capable of a single critical thought.

 

[ecasadoSBU]

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

Tied for 26th among public colleges with Stony Brook.

Tied for 3rd among public schools in northeast behind Rutgers and Maryland.

Nice to see both of my favorite schools UConn (wife's alma mater) and Stony Brook University (alma mater) tied at #58.

Stony Brook is climbing up the USWNR charts rapidly over the years. I think five year ago SBU was #99

 

[Excalibur]

Are McDonald's and the 4-star serving the same product?

Of course not. That’s my point. UConn, RU, Syracuse, and many hundreds of others are serving the same product. There is no discernible difference in quality, at least not to the people who matter (those of us doing the hiring).

 

[uconnfan68]

Their new formula seems to have really changed this year's rankings quite a lot.

The formula is colleges lie about everything. Some are better at it.

 

[upstater]

Of course not. That’s my point. UConn, RU, Syracuse, and many hundreds of others are serving the same product. There is no discernible difference in quality, at least not to the people who matter (those of us doing the hiring).

You just named 3 very solid schools. I'm saying Im seeing a bunch of them in the 100s that are NOT serving the same product. I've looked at it and it's shocking that staffs at schools that are supposedly good and highly ranked are not stocked with ANY permanent people but part-timers making minimum wage, making less than the people at McDonald's (and that's not an analogy).

 

[upstater]

Thought you all might be interested in this, which I'm sure you can't see because it's paywalled, but I'll quote the relative 10% of the article that keeps us under copyright:

Vanderbilt U. Says ‘U.S. News’ Emphasis on Social Mobility Is ‘Deeply Misleading’​

https://www.chronicle.com/article/vanderbilt-u-says-u-s-news-emphasis-on-social-mobility-is-deeply-misleading

In U.S. News & World Report’s latest college rankings, Vanderbilt University dropped five spots, from No. 13 to No. 18. One might think that’s an insignificant dip in a list that contains 435 institutions. Nevertheless, the university’s leaders on Monday sent impassioned emails to faculty members and alumni, defending Vanderbilt’s prowess in teaching and research.

The university’s argument essentially boils down to two issues. First, that the rankings’ new measures of social mobility, like graduates’ indebtedness, are “deeply misleading.” Second, that the rankings now do less to “measure faculty and student quality” because they’ve eliminated or reduced the weight of metrics such as the share of faculty with terminal degrees and the share of students whose GPAs were in the top 10 percent of their high schools.


As Vanderbilt sees it, the retooled rankings wrongly conflate social mobility, a “policy concern,” with “education quality.”

The result was a “dramatic movement in the rankings,” officials write, “disadvantaging many private research universities while privileging large public institutions.”

Vanderbilt’s leaders’ consternation over a relatively small drop in rankings points to how important the lists remain for some institutions. But as the arguments they made butt up against more recent reckonings over whether rankings harm higher education as a whole, the university’s emails quickly circulated, drawing criticism from academics across the country.

ADVERTISEMENT

“This email is astounding to me both generally as a higher-ed-policy scholar but also as a graduate of Vanderbilt,” said Dominique J. Baker, an associate professor at Southern Methodist University who studies underrepresented students’ access to college. Baker received her doctorate at Vanderbilt.

2 things are at work here. USNews is now measuring for expense and debt upon leaving an institution and dinging more expensive schools without extensive financial aid. This is why U. Chicago and Vanderbilt got hit. Vandy argues that this has nothing to do with the quality of education which is what USNWR is supposed to be ranking. I buy Vandy's argument, but USNWR is trying to provide a service to parents. That being said, I always see lists like, "The BEST VALUE for your money" and they are invariably wrongheaded listings with AAU schools that are very cheap not mentioned while schools with skeleton crews charging more than very cheap public AAUs are called "Great deals." USNWR has to be very careful as to where this is going.

The next thing that is knocking Vandy way down is the fact that it admits relatively fewer first-generation and pell grant students. It's much easier to jack up your scores when you're serving an exclusive clientele, so Vandy is in effect gaming the system by excluding people who can't effectively game the whole scoring process (i.e kids can get higher scores through consultants, test prep, coaches etc.). I have much less sympathy for Vandy here than I do with the complaint about expense.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Thought you all might be interested in this, which I'm sure you can't see because it's paywalled, but I'll quote the relative 10% of the article that keeps us under copyright:

Vanderbilt U. Says ‘U.S. News’ Emphasis on Social Mobility Is ‘Deeply Misleading’​

https://www.chronicle.com/article/vanderbilt-u-says-u-s-news-emphasis-on-social-mobility-is-deeply-misleading

2 things are at work here. USNews is now measuring for expense and debt upon leaving an institution and dinging more expensive schools without extensive financial aid. This is why U. Chicago and Vanderbilt got hit. Vandy argues that this has nothing to do with the quality of education which is what USNWR is supposed to be ranking. I buy Vandy's argument, but USNWR is trying to provide a service to parents. That being said, I always see lists like, "The BEST VALUE for your money" and they are invariably wrongheaded listings with AAU schools that are very cheap not mentioned while schools with skeleton crews charging more than very cheap public AAUs are called "Great deals." USNWR has to be very careful as to where this is going.

The next thing that is knocking Vandy way down is the fact that it admits relatively fewer first-generation and pell grant students. It's much easier to jack up your scores when you're serving an exclusive clientele, so Vandy is in effect gaming the system by excluding people who can't effectively game the whole scoring process (i.e kids can get higher scores through consultants, test prep, coaches etc.). I have much less sympathy for Vandy here than I do with the complaint about expense.

MSN

www.msn.com

Even Vanderbilt's own students think their President's response is ridiculous.

"Starting off strong by talking about how disadvantaged we are as a private research university," Jen jokingly says in her video. "With a—what—$8 billion endowment? We are the real victims here, I hope you keep us in your prayers."

Vanderbilt student and TikToker Jen says the university leaders are "really angry over the fact that they can no longer take credit for [nepotism] babies who would be running their dad's accounting firm regardless of what school they go to."

 

[nelsonmuntz]

A lot of these "elite" schools, and U Chicago and Brown are among the worst, accept so many rich kids that they must be pulling credit checks on the parents during the admissions process.

It is weird that Upstater is so anti-changes to the rankings. The changing rankings are an existential threat to the prestige privates, but are actually a good outcome for many other universities, and most importantly, many more kids. The traditional university ranking system was designed to tell rich kids how smart they were for having rich parents. Any change to that system is welcome.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

A lot of these "elite" schools, and U Chicago and Brown are among the worst, accept so many rich kids that they must be pulling credit checks on the parents during the admissions process.

It is weird that Upstater is so anti-changes to the rankings. The changing rankings are an existential threat to the prestige privates, but are actually a good outcome for many other universities, and most importantly, many more kids. The traditional university ranking system was designed to tell rich kids how smart they were for having rich parents. Any change to that system is welcome.

I'm pretty sure nobody outside of academia actually cares about pretty much any of this.

 

[Chuck]

A lot of these "elite" schools, and U Chicago and Brown are among the worst, accept so many rich kids that they must be pulling credit checks on the parents during the admissions process.

It is weird that Upstater is so anti-changes to the rankings. The changing rankings are an existential threat to the prestige privates, but are actually a good outcome for many other universities, and most importantly, many more kids. The traditional university ranking system was designed to tell rich kids how smart they were for having rich parents. Any change to that system is welcome.

What I think I hate the most is the feeder school situation. I have a friend whose son just graduated from a prestigious high school. He shared the college process with me. They have two "guidance counselors." One is just to get them into college and it starts by end of sophomore year. The school has been complaining that they aren't getting as many kids into some of the elite schools anymore, so now they are trying to steer kids to only applying to a couple top schools. Basically, telling kids not to apply to Notre Dame if they are applying to Georgetown so they don't take an ND spot for another classmate. The parents are telling them to pound sand.

I'm in a strong school district. You can see the respect for the school from certain schools compared to the other disdain from others. I think in 20 years, the school has gotten one kid accepted to Vandy. But that friend above's school puts like 5 per year there.

I have a friend who is livid about the huge drop his freshman kid's school took. We all told him that the school quality didn't change and the kid is still at a school with lots of advantages. He's convinced this will hurt his kid when trying to get a job and US News should have to announce changes five years in advance. Craziness.

I do think, however, that there is a difference between getting the best education vs. the best return on investment or the best well rounded socio economic experience. I'm still not sure who pressured US News into making the changes. They should only care about eyeballs/advertising. The top schools started to bail (or threaten to bail) on their graduate ratings. Maybe this is a case of "careful what you wish for?" The Ivies came out fine, but almost all other prestigious schools dropped.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I'm pretty sure nobody outside of academia actually cares about pretty much any of this.

Do you have kids in high school? These rankings are life and death for kids and their parents applying to schools. These rankings are also literally life and death for the prestige privates who sell "exclusivity" to desperate achievers. The point where that patina of exclusivity wears off, many of these schools are dead, because without it, no one would pay $80,000 a year for a recycled curriculum from the 1960's.

 

[husky429]

I'm pretty sure nobody outside of academia actually cares about pretty much any of this.

No one in academia does either. It's basically a ranking made to make rich parents feel better about themselves when they spend 300k for their kid to get an art history degree.

Every field has its own rankings, and honestly, that doesn't matter half the time anyway. People are looking for grad schools or for jobs in academia based on the specific research and faculty at the school.

If you're doing the college search right (like @upstater ), you're looking into class sizes, % of full-time faculty, job outcomes, etc.

 

[superjohn]

A lot of these "elite" schools, and U Chicago and Brown are among the worst, accept so many rich kids that they must be pulling credit checks on the parents during the admissions process.

It is weird that Upstater is so anti-changes to the rankings. The changing rankings are an existential threat to the prestige privates, but are actually a good outcome for many other universities, and most importantly, many more kids. The traditional university ranking system was designed to tell rich kids how smart they were for having rich parents. Any change to that system is welcome.

There's a whole lot of kids who don't belong at the "elite" schools. Some are kids with rich daddies, some are the right skin color. They simply aren't getting the best of the best, it's a club and it doesn't seem to matter what they do.

It's even like that getting into the high schools out where I live. It simply doesn't matter what your grades and scores are for some kids.

 

[BlueMAB]

Comm college is the hack to all of this. I know a kid who went to CCRI, URI, and then to Brown for Medical school--just enrolled this year. If you put in the work anywhere, the opportunities are abundant.

I expect over the next 30 years, we'll see comm college enrollment skyrocket. People are way more aware of the financial risk of student loans now than they were even 10 years ago.

This is the way.

 

[StllH8L8ner]

Comm college is the hack to all of this. I know a kid who went to CCRI, URI, and then to Brown for Medical school--just enrolled this year. If you put in the work anywhere, the opportunities are abundant.

I expect over the next 30 years, we'll see comm college enrollment skyrocket. People are way more aware of the financial risk of student loans now than they were even 10 years ago.

100%. If my kids want to go to college but aren’t great students, community college for two years will be my answer, then transfer and graduate from somewhere better in two years assuming they have the grades. Lower cost and Naugatuck Valley Community College won’t be anywhere on the resume.

 

[BigTenFan]

It's all about the outcome v investment. Doesn't matter if you attend school #5 or #500. If your kid comes out with a marketable degree that doesn't bankrupt the family it's a huge win!

I love college sports as much as anyone on this board and support Uconn and my alma mater....but at the end of the day- I have to justify the dollars I spend for my kids to get a degree that makes sense in this crazy world

 

[Scrutineer]

No, that's not why it happened. It happened because of the decisions by administrators to prostate themselves to USNWR were causing damage to the schools. And it happened not in the Liebral Arts or the Scienvces, but in the professional schools.

It was Medicine, Business and especially Law that objected to USNWR and opted out.

That's where the changes came in. The things USNWR valued were upending the functioning of Law schools.

I know it's just a typo, but it made me laugh to visualize "administrators prostating themselves". Hopefully all were men.

Also, the name on the diploma helps with the first job but after that the only thing that really matters is what you bring to the job in the forms of experience and accomplishments.

 

[Punkbo]

A lot of these "elite" schools, and U Chicago and Brown are among the worst, accept so many rich kids that they must be pulling credit checks on the parents during the admissions process.

It is weird that Upstater is so anti-changes to the rankings. The changing rankings are an existential threat to the prestige privates, but are actually a good outcome for many other universities, and most importantly, many more kids. The traditional university ranking system was designed to tell rich kids how smart they were for having rich parents. Any change to that system is welcome.

Wow. Lay off the drugs dude. What’s your point? I understand that some schools, like U of Chicago, moved down in the rankings, but Brown moved up from 13 to 9. Please make your arguments coherent if you want any semblance of credibility.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Do you have kids in high school? These rankings are life and death for kids and their parents applying to schools. These rankings are also literally life and death for the prestige privates who sell "exclusivity" to desperate achievers. The point where that patina of exclusivity wears off, many of these schools are dead, because without it, no one would pay $80,000 a year for a recycled curriculum from the 1960's.

No, my kids are 3 and 1, lol. I think by the time they are potentially going to college things are going to look quite differently than they do now.

These schools should be dead, selling $80K a year educations with no stipulations or commitments from the school beyond assigning out credit hours.

 

[superjohn]

Do you have kids in high school? These rankings are life and death for kids and their parents applying to schools. These rankings are also literally life and death for the prestige privates who sell "exclusivity" to desperate achievers. The point where that patina of exclusivity wears off, many of these schools are dead, because without it, no one would pay $80,000 a year for a recycled curriculum from the 1960's.

If this is life or death to anyone the parents really need to reevaluate and get a life. It's really not that important and it's incredibly unhealthy for kids to have that pressure on them.

 

[upstater]

A lot of these "elite" schools, and U Chicago and Brown are among the worst, accept so many rich kids that they must be pulling credit checks on the parents during the admissions process.

It is weird that Upstater is so anti-changes to the rankings. The changing rankings are an existential threat to the prestige privates, but are actually a good outcome for many other universities, and most importantly, many more kids. The traditional university ranking system was designed to tell rich kids how smart they were for having rich parents. Any change to that system is welcome.

Have no idea where you get that stuff about me from. I think you made it up somehow. I'm against USNWR in total because they don't measure academic quality; and the middle managers that try to play a never ending game of catch up with the rankings inevitably end up wasting dollars to the detriment of academic quality.

 

[upstater]

I'm pretty sure nobody outside of academia actually cares about pretty much any of this.

I wish it were true about these rankings, but apparently not. Parents and students think they are the be-all and end-all.

It is much harder to get into Northeastern than it is to get into Boston College.

Why?

 

[upstater]

No one in academia does either. It's basically a ranking made to make rich parents feel better about themselves when they spend 300k for their kid to get an art history degree.

Every field has its own rankings, and honestly, that doesn't matter half the time anyway. People are looking for grad schools or for jobs in academia based on the specific research and faculty at the school.

If you're doing the college search right (like @upstater ), you're looking into class sizes, % of full-time faculty, job outcomes, etc.

Also DOE data on who actually funds sophomores with financial aid. Watch out for your bait-and-switch my friends--can't believe I'm talking about universities and bait and switch.

Simple math: take total grant in aid for freshman, then divide by number of freshman. Then take total grant in aid for sophomores and divide by number of sophomores.

The data is in those tables. GOOOOODDDD LUCK!

 

[Excalibur]

I wish it were true about these rankings, but apparently not. Parents and students think they are the be-all and end-all.

It is much harder to get into Northeastern than it is to get into Boston College.

Why?

It's important before you get there, but not at all once you are done.

I guess that is the overall point. Parents and students are willingly wasting money by paying more for the commodity that is undergraduate education.

 

[upstater]

100%. If my kids want to go to college but aren’t great students, community college for two years will be my answer, then transfer and graduate from somewhere better in two years assuming they have the grades. Lower cost and Naugatuck Valley Community College won’t be anywhere on the resume.

If you can get a good financial deal at the 4 yr institution, try that instead. We have so many CC transfers behind the 8-ball. As a director of programs I deal with transfer credits all the time. It's not an arbitrary decision anymore since we have technical / digital systems that require us to check boxes for skills assessments, and if the previous class at a CC or some other school doesn't have them, they don't get taken.