Published Wednesday (July 6): http://www.forbes.com/colleges/rice-university/

Here's a link to the full list: http://www.forbes.com/top-colleges/list/#tab:rank

Forbes Wrote:This is the ninth annual FORBES ranking of the best colleges and universities in the country. It is our answer to the debate over whether higher education is worth it: For these outstanding institutions, we give a resounding yes. It is our definitive guide to the top 660 schools.

This list of 660 schools distinguishes itself from competitors by our belief in “output” over “input.” Meaning, we’re not interested in what gets a student into college, like our peers who focus heavily on selectivity metrics such as high school class rank, SAT scores and the like. Our sights are set directly on ROI: What are students getting out of college?

College has become one of the biggest financial decisions students and their families make. They deserve all the information they can get on the questions that directly concern them: Are current undergrads satisfied? Is it likely I’ll graduate on time or incur a ton of student debt? Will I get a good job and be a leader in my chosen profession?

Again partnering with the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, lead by Richard Vedder, our math comes directly from the Department of Education, Payscale, and the America’s Leaders list, our curated tally of alumni success. We pointedly ignore any metrics that would encourage schools to engage in wasteful spending.

Methodology: "Post-graduate success" (alumni salaries from Payscale and Dept of Education's "College Scorecard") is emphasized: 32.5% of the score. Student debt and student satisfaction are 25% each, with academic success (fellowships/PhDs) at 10% and 4-year graduation rate at 7.5% (actual/5% and "vs. predicted"/2.5%). Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehowa...thodology/

There's a nice, big gulf between Rice and the rest of the state. UT comes in at #93, Trinity at #96, SMU #116, and A&M #142.

(07-07-2016 09:56 AM)franklyconfused Wrote:  There's a nice, big gulf between Rice and the rest of the state. UT comes in at #93, Trinity at #96, SMU #116, and A&M #142.

TCU, UH, TTech, Baylor?

Baylor 185, tcu 210

UH 342

TTech 380

Considering how the rankings prioritize post-grad salaries, this list should inevitably skew towards California + northeastern US schools where the starting salaries have to keep up with local cost of living. One would think that by the ninth edition, they would actually start factoring this.

(07-07-2016 11:10 AM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  Considering how the rankings prioritize post-grad salaries, this list should inevitably skew towards California + northeastern US schools where the starting salaries have to keep up with local cost of living. One would think that by the ninth edition, they would actually start factoring this.

I always assumed it was normalized. That's basic rankings/stat 101

(07-07-2016 11:55 AM)Antarius Wrote:  

(07-07-2016 11:10 AM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  Considering how the rankings prioritize post-grad salaries, this list should inevitably skew towards California + northeastern US schools where the starting salaries have to keep up with local cost of living. One would think that by the ninth edition, they would actually start factoring this.

I always assumed it was normalized. That's basic rankings/stat 101

The goal isn't to rank. The goal is to sell magazines.
Flawed methodology just creates more "buzz."

$0.02,
Chuck

(07-07-2016 11:10 AM)MartelOwl_08 Wrote:  Considering how the rankings prioritize post-grad salaries, this list should inevitably skew towards California + northeastern US schools where the starting salaries have to keep up with local cost of living. One would think that by the ninth edition, they would actually start factoring this.

Interesting point. It says we're #4 in the "South". All four are very closely grouped -- Davidson #25, Duke #26, Washington & Lee #28, Rice #30.

Caltech at #39?? Please.

(07-07-2016 06:47 PM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  Caltech at #39?? Please.

And Cal-Berkeley at #40.

Well they must be obviously biased against strong engineering schools. Or maybe we're biased toward strong ones for some reason.

They're obviously wrong. I'm buying the magazine to protest.

(07-08-2016 06:37 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  Well they must be obviously biased against strong engineering schools. Or maybe we're biased toward strong ones for some reason.

They're obviously wrong. I'm buying the magazine to protest.

Garbage in, garbage out. Putting such a high emphasis (almost 33%) in one's rankings on post-graduate salary is an absurd way of ranking undergraduate schools. Makes absolutely no sense. Under such a criteria, obviously tech schools will suffer in the rankings as a much higher proportion of their grads go on into teaching and research positions, which tend to be on the low end of the salary scale.

Well, it did say that they were looking at ROI. 30th out of 660 isn't that bad.

When I had my personal interview with Dean McEnany as part of my application to Rice, he asked me if I thought education had an intrinsic value. I had to ask the definition of "intrinsic". I guess, in a way, these guys are asking the same question.

(07-08-2016 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, it did say that they were looking at ROI. 30th out of 660 isn't that bad.

When I had my personal interview with Dean McEnany as part of my application to Rice, he asked me if I thought education had an intrinsic value. I had to ask the definition of "intrinsic". I guess, in a way, these guys are asking the same question.

Understood, Buddy, but one goes to college to get an "education" in the broadest sense of the word (including personal growth and maturity), and that has value far beyond that measured in dollars and cents.

(07-08-2016 09:58 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-08-2016 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, it did say that they were looking at ROI. 30th out of 660 isn't that bad.

When I had my personal interview with Dean McEnany as part of my application to Rice, he asked me if I thought education had an intrinsic value. I had to ask the definition of "intrinsic". I guess, in a way, these guys are asking the same question.

Understood, Buddy, but one goes to college to get an "education" in the broadest sense of the word (including personal growth and maturity), and that has value far beyond that measured in dollars and cents.

I agree. My answer to his question, once I understood it, was "yes".

But the story fed to our populace is to go to college to prepare oneself for a good job. That is why so many have a lot of debt and no job. So a listing that tells ones interested in a good job the best places to gofor ROI seems apropos.

(07-08-2016 07:09 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Garbage in, garbage out. Putting such a high emphasis (almost 33%) in one's rankings on post-graduate salary is an absurd way of ranking undergraduate schools. Makes absolutely no sense. Under such a criteria, obviously tech schools will suffer in the rankings as a much higher proportion of their grads go on into teaching and research positions, which tend to be on the low end of the salary scale.

the emphasis might be too high, but I don't think that arguing that spending $100k for a job that pays $50k as opposed to spending $50k for one that pays $100 is absurd. Of course, you can value things other than money... but in that event, ROI (measured in this case in dollars in and out) wouldn't be part of that equation at all.

Of course college has a value beyond dollars and cents, but it is not measurable. If you ask each college in the 660 to rate the intrinsic value they impart to their graduates, there would be a 660 way tie for first place in the study. I am actually surprised Rice is this low, by the metrics they use. My impression of Rice undergrads is a group of very smart and ambitious young people, many of whom will make gobs of money, because they choose to do so, and they will attain what they choose. There will people who choose another life course, but it is not a school that attracts a lot of those sorts.

(07-08-2016 01:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-08-2016 09:58 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-08-2016 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, it did say that they were looking at ROI. 30th out of 660 isn't that bad.
When I had my personal interview with Dean McEnany as part of my application to Rice, he asked me if I thought education had an intrinsic value. I had to ask the definition of "intrinsic". I guess, in a way, these guys are asking the same question.

Understood, Buddy, but one goes to college to get an "education" in the broadest sense of the word (including personal growth and maturity), and that has value far beyond that measured in dollars and cents.

I agree. My answer to his question, once I understood it, was "yes".
But the story fed to our populace is to go to college to prepare oneself for a good job. That is why so many have a lot of debt and no job. So a listing that tells ones interested in a good job the best places to go for ROI seems apropos.

The source is Forbes. Their audience probably is more concerned about ROI than most. Therefore, giving ROI great weight in rankings prepared for that audience seems more than just apropos, more like the only approach that makes sense.