A lot of the elite privates are sharply divided with the rich, connected legacy students there to make sure the coffers stay full and the poor as dirt smart kids on scholarship to look good.

What you don't find much of any at these schools are your average middle class American kid

First, Third Way did not publish any official "rankings" per se. They acknowledged several flaws in their underlying data, and simply published a spreadsheet (using the flawed data) as an Exhibit to a lengthy article. For just one example, the data used is from 2011-13.

However, Washington Monthly officially ranks colleges based on metrics similar to Third Way in terms pf price, Pell and debt. You also see branch campuses (UTEP Top 10) at the top of their rankings. Washington Monthly is widely cited now as an alternative to USNWR. Money also publishes rankings that focus on debt and student outcomes.

Interestingly, UTEP is 317 in the Third Way spreadsheet vs 10 in Washington Monthly, so clearly there are some pretty big differences between Third Way and Washington Monthly too.

(08-23-2016 02:11 PM)goofus Wrote:  One other note.

Looking at Big Ten rankings, the whole idea that Michigan and Illinois are the top schools for low-income students is ridiculous. You help low-income students by keeping tuition low, not by giving them tons of debt.

What it is likely catching is the TSUN and Illinois are good for middle class and below students who can get merit scholarships to afford to go.

Not only are branch campuses often a better deal, particularly for students who can live at home, it is often a better education to take the first two years of a big university degree program at a branch campus, getting classes from professors primarily chosen fro teaching, rather than from inexperienced TA's, primarily chosen for research potential.

(08-23-2016 09:26 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  A lot of the elite privates are sharply divided with the rich, connected legacy students there to make sure the coffers stay full and the poor as dirt smart kids on scholarship to look good.

What you don't find much of any at these schools are your average middle class American kid

True enough. Although having the "poor kids" isn't to look good, that's just an added benefit. It's to make sure they have the best possible alumni. Which is the lifeblood of a private institution. If you're smart enough to succeed they want to be at their school. So when you do you bring prestige to the university, give back, and have rich legacy kids who will pay full sticker.

There are certainly plenty of kids who's parents make just a little too much to qualify for need aid, but not enough to actually pay the tuition. But most of the academic scholarship kids are middle class background. I know because I was one. So the divide is really rich legacy kids paying the bills, disadvantaged poor kids on full need aid, and smart middle class kids on academic aid.