Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
CougarRed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,665
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 283
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #61
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
(09-12-2017 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The US News undergrad rankings, though, are based on undergrad *selectivity*. Note that selectivity isn't just acceptance rate (an overrated factor in the minds of the public and actually accounts for a fairly small percentage of the US News methodology), but the 25th/75th percentile SAT and ACT scores and how many freshmen were in the top 10% of their high school class (which count for much more). A lot of the non-flagship public universities from the largest states like California, Texas and Florida (e.g. NOT Berkeley or UT-Austin) actually have superficially low acceptance rates compared to flagship public universities in other states because of the sheer number of applicants, but on the flip side, they also have lower SAT/ACT scores and class rank metrics than those flagships, which is why they get dinged in the US News rankings. The schools with student bodies that have those higher test score and class rank metrics are considered to be more selective even if they might superficially have a lower acceptance rate... which actually makes sense in reality. Of course, the truly elite schools have BOTH those metrics AND low acceptance rates.

Selectivity is only 12.5% of the ranking. Subfactor acceptance rate itself is only 1.25%.

Graduation rates and "reputation" comprise about half the ranking.

Surprised you got this wrong.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-co...e-rankings
09-12-2017 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CougarRed Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,665
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 283
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #62
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
Even though selectivity is 1.25%, it doesn't stop cheaters like Texas Tech from gaming the system.

Texas Tech reports all applications which are started online, whether they are finished or not. In other words, they don't report an acceptance rate based on acceptances / (acceptances + rejections).

They report acceptances / (acceptances + rejections + unfinished applications) in order to make their acceptance rate smaller for USNWR. How do I know? Because state law requires them to provide their true acceptance rate to the state coordinating board on education.

Another thing Tech does: when kids take both the ACT and SAT, they only report the highest score. Most schools report both for purposes of their SAT and ACT averages. How do I know? Because when you add up the % of kids taking the SAT and ACT, they add up to 100% at Tech and 130%+ at other schools (who are reporting both scores for kids who took both tests).

Houston does neither of these things.
09-12-2017 05:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,725
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 474
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #63
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
(09-12-2017 05:22 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The US News undergrad rankings, though, are based on undergrad *selectivity*. Note that selectivity isn't just acceptance rate (an overrated factor in the minds of the public and actually accounts for a fairly small percentage of the US News methodology), but the 25th/75th percentile SAT and ACT scores and how many freshmen were in the top 10% of their high school class (which count for much more). A lot of the non-flagship public universities from the largest states like California, Texas and Florida (e.g. NOT Berkeley or UT-Austin) actually have superficially low acceptance rates compared to flagship public universities in other states because of the sheer number of applicants, but on the flip side, they also have lower SAT/ACT scores and class rank metrics than those flagships, which is why they get dinged in the US News rankings. The schools with student bodies that have those higher test score and class rank metrics are considered to be more selective even if they might superficially have a lower acceptance rate... which actually makes sense in reality. Of course, the truly elite schools have BOTH those metrics AND low acceptance rates.

Selectivity is only 12.5% of the ranking. Subfactor acceptance rate itself is only 1.25%.

Graduation rates and "reputation" comprise about half the ranking.

Surprised you got this wrong.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-co...e-rankings

I'll be honest - I didn't know grad rates factored as much into the rankings. That's good to know. That partially explains why public universities (even the best ones like Berkeley and Michigan) are at a disadvantage in the US News rankings because it's virtually impossible to beat a smaller private school that can focus on exclusivity in those metrics.

I knew that academic reputation factored in heavily, which is what I'd say reflects the perception of selectivity and prestige within academia of the various schools.
09-12-2017 07:03 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FlyingTiger2016 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,263
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 53
I Root For: Memphis/GaTech
Location:
Post: #64
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
(09-12-2017 07:03 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 05:22 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The US News undergrad rankings, though, are based on undergrad *selectivity*. Note that selectivity isn't just acceptance rate (an overrated factor in the minds of the public and actually accounts for a fairly small percentage of the US News methodology), but the 25th/75th percentile SAT and ACT scores and how many freshmen were in the top 10% of their high school class (which count for much more). A lot of the non-flagship public universities from the largest states like California, Texas and Florida (e.g. NOT Berkeley or UT-Austin) actually have superficially low acceptance rates compared to flagship public universities in other states because of the sheer number of applicants, but on the flip side, they also have lower SAT/ACT scores and class rank metrics than those flagships, which is why they get dinged in the US News rankings. The schools with student bodies that have those higher test score and class rank metrics are considered to be more selective even if they might superficially have a lower acceptance rate... which actually makes sense in reality. Of course, the truly elite schools have BOTH those metrics AND low acceptance rates.

Selectivity is only 12.5% of the ranking. Subfactor acceptance rate itself is only 1.25%.

Graduation rates and "reputation" comprise about half the ranking.

Surprised you got this wrong.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-co...e-rankings

I'll be honest - I didn't know grad rates factored as much into the rankings. That's good to know. That partially explains why public universities (even the best ones like Berkeley and Michigan) are at a disadvantage in the US News rankings because it's virtually impossible to beat a smaller private school that can focus on exclusivity in those metrics.

I knew that academic reputation factored in heavily, which is what I'd say reflects the perception of selectivity and prestige within academia of the various schools.

US News sends out a survey to faculty to gather the ratings based on reputation.

The main issue is that most professors know nothing about how good a school is outside of their specific field.

In the CS field, there are some people who have tried to come up with a better system based on conference publications.

http://projects.csail.mit.edu/dnd/ranking/
http://csrankings.org/

The results are interesting to say the least. University of Texas at Dallas is ranked in the top 50. I imagine US News doesn't rate them that high.
09-12-2017 07:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
M1T4 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,593
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #65
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
Dem Coogs....... He coming
09-12-2017 07:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Westhoff123 Offline
SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!
*

Posts: 7,218
Joined: Feb 2016
Reputation: 147
I Root For: UH
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #66
US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
(09-12-2017 07:43 PM)M1T4 Wrote:  Dem Coogs....... He coming

Still waiting lol....
09-12-2017 07:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Pony94 Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,265
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 485
I Root For: SMU
Location: Bee Cave, TX
Post: #67
US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
You have to say it three times like Beetlejuice
09-12-2017 08:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gostangs Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 568
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 19
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #68
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
(09-12-2017 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 11:10 AM)Kronke Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 10:06 AM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  http://www.usnews.com/education/best-glo...es&page=12
U.S. News - Best Global Universities Rankings 2016 112 368 United States

We're ahead of Syracuse globally, but 130+ spots behind them in the US? Interesting.

Global rankings (whether from the US News, AWRU or Times Higher Education) are almost entirely based on graduate research activity and reputation. That actually levels the playing field a bit between private and public universities.

The US News undergrad rankings, though, are based on undergrad *selectivity*. Note that selectivity isn't just acceptance rate (an overrated factor in the minds of the public and actually accounts for a fairly small percentage of the US News methodology), but the 25th/75th percentile SAT and ACT scores and how many freshmen were in the top 10% of their high school class (which count for much more). A lot of the non-flagship public universities from the largest states like California, Texas and Florida (e.g. NOT Berkeley or UT-Austin) actually have superficially low acceptance rates compared to flagship public universities in other states because of the sheer number of applicants, but on the flip side, they also have lower SAT/ACT scores and class rank metrics than those flagships, which is why they get dinged in the US News rankings. The schools with student bodies that have those higher test score and class rank metrics are considered to be more selective even if they might superficially have a lower acceptance rate... which actually makes sense in reality. Of course, the truly elite schools have BOTH those metrics AND low acceptance rates.

Also, note that it's more difficult to get into virtually EVERY school in the top 100 or so of the US News rankings than it was 5 years ago. That's why every FBS school can probably truthfully and legitimately announce that they have the most academically talented freshman classes in their respective histories this year... but can still be stuck or even move down in the US News rankings. Virtually every school at a certain level is getting more competitive in terms of admissions than ever before, so even if a school is getting better students in an absolute manner, they actually aren't getting better in a *relative* manner to everyone else that are improving at the same or greater rate.

FWIW, there are certain elite professions where your undergrad school matters a ton (such as investment banking or top-level management consulting). Unless you get a job in those firms right out of school, it's VERY tough to break in afterwards unless you subsequently go to a super-elite grad school or you've got a direct nepotistic connection (so the populist belief that you can work your way into those jobs regardless of where you went to school generally doesn't apply). Where the elite education matters most is in the top Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood or DC jobs. Those are dream jobs for many people, so in those locales, I would never say that an elite education is underrated. (Even the famous college dropouts of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of *Harvard* and you're not getting hired at Microsoft or Facebook out of school without top educational credentials.) The value of those schools is in the alumni network -- to the extent that you don't have personal connections in those industries, your school *becomes* your personal connection (and that's essentially what you're paying for much more than what you're learning in the Econ 101 class that's effectively taught the same everywhere).

However, if your desire is to work in most other markets and industries in the US, then there are diminishing returns (e.g. if you want to become a CPA, there is ZERO reason for you to pay a single cent more than what you'd be paying for in-state tuition at a public university). The company that I work for hires a good-sized contingent of UH engineering and business grads in our Houston office every year and they perform very well next to their peers from UT, A&M and Texas Tech (or else we wouldn't keep hiring them). There's certainly more of an advantage if you went to UT or A&M in the sense that there's more leeway on GPA and we'll hire larger classes from there, but the best at virtually any school can compete with anyone else.


This is a good summary. The way to tell if your ranking is "off" or not is to just check the student quality of your university with those above or below you. The students with the highest standardized test scores have the most options as to where they go to school - so that factor basically answers the questions on prestige or acceptance rate. The market answers the question.

That is where UH and TT fall short (both mentioned above - not picking on anyone). They have a long way to go to get their average student quality up, relative to other in state schools in Texas like UT and A&M - and all the above are waaaaay below the Cal schools in that category (as is SMU).

You can rightfully say you don't have to have high standardized tests scores to be successful in life - but it does have an impact on education and subsequently reputation. Most university professors and counselors know who ranks where in student quality. That is why USNWR uses a very high percentage of reputation, counselor, and acceptance rates (taken in aggregate) - because those are all measures of student quality.

AAU measures mostly research - which over weights universities with ag schools and med schools. Research is important but achieving an education is the point of going to a university for the student -and only in some fields does that include conducting research.

You learn more around other bright people.
09-12-2017 09:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kronke Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,735
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation: 907
I Root For: Houston / AAC
Location: Texas
Post: #69
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
(09-12-2017 09:14 PM)gostangs Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 11:10 AM)Kronke Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 10:06 AM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  http://www.usnews.com/education/best-glo...es&page=12
U.S. News - Best Global Universities Rankings 2016 112 368 United States

We're ahead of Syracuse globally, but 130+ spots behind them in the US? Interesting.

Global rankings (whether from the US News, AWRU or Times Higher Education) are almost entirely based on graduate research activity and reputation. That actually levels the playing field a bit between private and public universities.

The US News undergrad rankings, though, are based on undergrad *selectivity*. Note that selectivity isn't just acceptance rate (an overrated factor in the minds of the public and actually accounts for a fairly small percentage of the US News methodology), but the 25th/75th percentile SAT and ACT scores and how many freshmen were in the top 10% of their high school class (which count for much more). A lot of the non-flagship public universities from the largest states like California, Texas and Florida (e.g. NOT Berkeley or UT-Austin) actually have superficially low acceptance rates compared to flagship public universities in other states because of the sheer number of applicants, but on the flip side, they also have lower SAT/ACT scores and class rank metrics than those flagships, which is why they get dinged in the US News rankings. The schools with student bodies that have those higher test score and class rank metrics are considered to be more selective even if they might superficially have a lower acceptance rate... which actually makes sense in reality. Of course, the truly elite schools have BOTH those metrics AND low acceptance rates.

Also, note that it's more difficult to get into virtually EVERY school in the top 100 or so of the US News rankings than it was 5 years ago. That's why every FBS school can probably truthfully and legitimately announce that they have the most academically talented freshman classes in their respective histories this year... but can still be stuck or even move down in the US News rankings. Virtually every school at a certain level is getting more competitive in terms of admissions than ever before, so even if a school is getting better students in an absolute manner, they actually aren't getting better in a *relative* manner to everyone else that are improving at the same or greater rate.

FWIW, there are certain elite professions where your undergrad school matters a ton (such as investment banking or top-level management consulting). Unless you get a job in those firms right out of school, it's VERY tough to break in afterwards unless you subsequently go to a super-elite grad school or you've got a direct nepotistic connection (so the populist belief that you can work your way into those jobs regardless of where you went to school generally doesn't apply). Where the elite education matters most is in the top Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood or DC jobs. Those are dream jobs for many people, so in those locales, I would never say that an elite education is underrated. (Even the famous college dropouts of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of *Harvard* and you're not getting hired at Microsoft or Facebook out of school without top educational credentials.) The value of those schools is in the alumni network -- to the extent that you don't have personal connections in those industries, your school *becomes* your personal connection (and that's essentially what you're paying for much more than what you're learning in the Econ 101 class that's effectively taught the same everywhere).

However, if your desire is to work in most other markets and industries in the US, then there are diminishing returns (e.g. if you want to become a CPA, there is ZERO reason for you to pay a single cent more than what you'd be paying for in-state tuition at a public university). The company that I work for hires a good-sized contingent of UH engineering and business grads in our Houston office every year and they perform very well next to their peers from UT, A&M and Texas Tech (or else we wouldn't keep hiring them). There's certainly more of an advantage if you went to UT or A&M in the sense that there's more leeway on GPA and we'll hire larger classes from there, but the best at virtually any school can compete with anyone else.


This is a good summary. The way to tell if your ranking is "off" or not is to just check the student quality of your university with those above or below you. The students with the highest standardized test scores have the most options as to where they go to school - so that factor basically answers the questions on prestige or acceptance rate. The market answers the question.

That is where UH and TT fall short (both mentioned above - not picking on anyone). They have a long way to go to get their average student quality up, relative to other in state schools in Texas like UT and A&M -

If by "long way to go", you mean that the 25th percentile is exactly the same, and the 75th percentile is 40 points behind A&M, then sure, we have a long way to go.

A&M: 1130-1360, avg: 1250
UH: 1130-1320, avg: 1220
Tech: 1090-1280, avg: 1180

http://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/college...scores-GPA
http://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/college...quirements
http://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/college...quirements
(This post was last modified: 09-12-2017 09:27 PM by Kronke.)
09-12-2017 09:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FlyingTiger2016 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,263
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 53
I Root For: Memphis/GaTech
Location:
Post: #70
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
(09-12-2017 09:14 PM)gostangs Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 11:10 AM)Kronke Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 10:06 AM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  http://www.usnews.com/education/best-glo...es&page=12
U.S. News - Best Global Universities Rankings 2016 112 368 United States

We're ahead of Syracuse globally, but 130+ spots behind them in the US? Interesting.

Global rankings (whether from the US News, AWRU or Times Higher Education) are almost entirely based on graduate research activity and reputation. That actually levels the playing field a bit between private and public universities.

The US News undergrad rankings, though, are based on undergrad *selectivity*. Note that selectivity isn't just acceptance rate (an overrated factor in the minds of the public and actually accounts for a fairly small percentage of the US News methodology), but the 25th/75th percentile SAT and ACT scores and how many freshmen were in the top 10% of their high school class (which count for much more). A lot of the non-flagship public universities from the largest states like California, Texas and Florida (e.g. NOT Berkeley or UT-Austin) actually have superficially low acceptance rates compared to flagship public universities in other states because of the sheer number of applicants, but on the flip side, they also have lower SAT/ACT scores and class rank metrics than those flagships, which is why they get dinged in the US News rankings. The schools with student bodies that have those higher test score and class rank metrics are considered to be more selective even if they might superficially have a lower acceptance rate... which actually makes sense in reality. Of course, the truly elite schools have BOTH those metrics AND low acceptance rates.

Also, note that it's more difficult to get into virtually EVERY school in the top 100 or so of the US News rankings than it was 5 years ago. That's why every FBS school can probably truthfully and legitimately announce that they have the most academically talented freshman classes in their respective histories this year... but can still be stuck or even move down in the US News rankings. Virtually every school at a certain level is getting more competitive in terms of admissions than ever before, so even if a school is getting better students in an absolute manner, they actually aren't getting better in a *relative* manner to everyone else that are improving at the same or greater rate.

FWIW, there are certain elite professions where your undergrad school matters a ton (such as investment banking or top-level management consulting). Unless you get a job in those firms right out of school, it's VERY tough to break in afterwards unless you subsequently go to a super-elite grad school or you've got a direct nepotistic connection (so the populist belief that you can work your way into those jobs regardless of where you went to school generally doesn't apply). Where the elite education matters most is in the top Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood or DC jobs. Those are dream jobs for many people, so in those locales, I would never say that an elite education is underrated. (Even the famous college dropouts of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of *Harvard* and you're not getting hired at Microsoft or Facebook out of school without top educational credentials.) The value of those schools is in the alumni network -- to the extent that you don't have personal connections in those industries, your school *becomes* your personal connection (and that's essentially what you're paying for much more than what you're learning in the Econ 101 class that's effectively taught the same everywhere).

However, if your desire is to work in most other markets and industries in the US, then there are diminishing returns (e.g. if you want to become a CPA, there is ZERO reason for you to pay a single cent more than what you'd be paying for in-state tuition at a public university). The company that I work for hires a good-sized contingent of UH engineering and business grads in our Houston office every year and they perform very well next to their peers from UT, A&M and Texas Tech (or else we wouldn't keep hiring them). There's certainly more of an advantage if you went to UT or A&M in the sense that there's more leeway on GPA and we'll hire larger classes from there, but the best at virtually any school can compete with anyone else.


This is a good summary. The way to tell if your ranking is "off" or not is to just check the student quality of your university with those above or below you. The students with the highest standardized test scores have the most options as to where they go to school - so that factor basically answers the questions on prestige or acceptance rate. The market answers the question.

That is where UH and TT fall short (both mentioned above - not picking on anyone). They have a long way to go to get their average student quality up, relative to other in state schools in Texas like UT and A&M - and all the above are waaaaay below the Cal schools in that category (as is SMU).

You can rightfully say you don't have to have high standardized tests scores to be successful in life - but it does have an impact on education and subsequently reputation. Most university professors and counselors know who ranks where in student quality. That is why USNWR uses a very high percentage of reputation, counselor, and acceptance rates (taken in aggregate) - because those are all measures of student quality.

AAU measures mostly research - which over weights universities with ag schools and med schools. Research is important but achieving an education is the point of going to a university for the student -and only in some fields does that include conducting research.

You learn more around other bright people.

There's so much wrong with this.


1. Most university professors and counselors know who ranks where in student quality.

University Professors hardly interact with students outside of their own department. The majority of students that they do actually interact with are graduate students. The majority of which come from China and India. I don't know why you think a professor at Houston knows anything about the quality of Students at Memphis. So no. This statement is 100% false.

2. You can rightfully say you don't have to have high standardized tests scores to be successful in life - but it does have an impact on education and subsequently reputation.

Test scores have very little value in predicting how a student will do in college. High School GPA might be a bit better. At least in Engineering school, a student's success is mostly determine by his or her effort. A test score won't show that. Also, anyone can score high on a standardized test with practice. It more of a measure of how rich your parents are.

Research Output is the only valuable metric. The Carnegie Classification should be the only metric we care about. Not how many kids from the rich prep schools attend.
09-12-2017 10:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CornellCoog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,233
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 78
I Root For: UH and Cornell
Location:
Post: #71
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
Kronke dropping a truth bomb.

In 10-15 years, I fully expect incoming test scores will be higher at UH than A&M. Changing state demographics helps UH in this matter. It's a big reason we've caught up so quickly.

Lots of bright Vietnamese, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Black, etc... kids aren't attracted by the "Spirit of Aggieland." Chili Fest vs. FPSF. Dixie Chicken vs. Spire. Northgate vs. Midtown.
09-12-2017 11:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gostangs Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 568
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 19
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #72
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
(09-12-2017 09:20 PM)Kronke Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 09:14 PM)gostangs Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 11:10 AM)Kronke Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 10:06 AM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  http://www.usnews.com/education/best-glo...es&page=12
U.S. News - Best Global Universities Rankings 2016 112 368 United States

We're ahead of Syracuse globally, but 130+ spots behind them in the US? Interesting.

Global rankings (whether from the US News, AWRU or Times Higher Education) are almost entirely based on graduate research activity and reputation. That actually levels the playing field a bit between private and public universities.

The US News undergrad rankings, though, are based on undergrad *selectivity*. Note that selectivity isn't just acceptance rate (an overrated factor in the minds of the public and actually accounts for a fairly small percentage of the US News methodology), but the 25th/75th percentile SAT and ACT scores and how many freshmen were in the top 10% of their high school class (which count for much more). A lot of the non-flagship public universities from the largest states like California, Texas and Florida (e.g. NOT Berkeley or UT-Austin) actually have superficially low acceptance rates compared to flagship public universities in other states because of the sheer number of applicants, but on the flip side, they also have lower SAT/ACT scores and class rank metrics than those flagships, which is why they get dinged in the US News rankings. The schools with student bodies that have those higher test score and class rank metrics are considered to be more selective even if they might superficially have a lower acceptance rate... which actually makes sense in reality. Of course, the truly elite schools have BOTH those metrics AND low acceptance rates.

Also, note that it's more difficult to get into virtually EVERY school in the top 100 or so of the US News rankings than it was 5 years ago. That's why every FBS school can probably truthfully and legitimately announce that they have the most academically talented freshman classes in their respective histories this year... but can still be stuck or even move down in the US News rankings. Virtually every school at a certain level is getting more competitive in terms of admissions than ever before, so even if a school is getting better students in an absolute manner, they actually aren't getting better in a *relative* manner to everyone else that are improving at the same or greater rate.

FWIW, there are certain elite professions where your undergrad school matters a ton (such as investment banking or top-level management consulting). Unless you get a job in those firms right out of school, it's VERY tough to break in afterwards unless you subsequently go to a super-elite grad school or you've got a direct nepotistic connection (so the populist belief that you can work your way into those jobs regardless of where you went to school generally doesn't apply). Where the elite education matters most is in the top Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood or DC jobs. Those are dream jobs for many people, so in those locales, I would never say that an elite education is underrated. (Even the famous college dropouts of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of *Harvard* and you're not getting hired at Microsoft or Facebook out of school without top educational credentials.) The value of those schools is in the alumni network -- to the extent that you don't have personal connections in those industries, your school *becomes* your personal connection (and that's essentially what you're paying for much more than what you're learning in the Econ 101 class that's effectively taught the same everywhere).

However, if your desire is to work in most other markets and industries in the US, then there are diminishing returns (e.g. if you want to become a CPA, there is ZERO reason for you to pay a single cent more than what you'd be paying for in-state tuition at a public university). The company that I work for hires a good-sized contingent of UH engineering and business grads in our Houston office every year and they perform very well next to their peers from UT, A&M and Texas Tech (or else we wouldn't keep hiring them). There's certainly more of an advantage if you went to UT or A&M in the sense that there's more leeway on GPA and we'll hire larger classes from there, but the best at virtually any school can compete with anyone else.


This is a good summary. The way to tell if your ranking is "off" or not is to just check the student quality of your university with those above or below you. The students with the highest standardized test scores have the most options as to where they go to school - so that factor basically answers the questions on prestige or acceptance rate. The market answers the question.

That is where UH and TT fall short (both mentioned above - not picking on anyone). They have a long way to go to get their average student quality up, relative to other in state schools in Texas like UT and A&M -

If by "long way to go", you mean that the 25th percentile is exactly the same, and the 75th percentile is 40 points behind A&M, then sure, we have a long way to go.

A&M: 1130-1360, avg: 1250
UH: 1130-1320, avg: 1220
Tech: 1090-1280, avg: 1180

http://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/college...scores-GPA
http://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/college...quirements
http://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/college...quirements

Given how hard it is to move these numbers at a large school - 40 points is indeed a long way to go. Not saying UH wont get there - they have definitely closed the gap.
09-13-2017 09:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gostangs Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 568
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 19
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #73
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
(09-12-2017 10:24 PM)FlyingTiger2016 Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 09:14 PM)gostangs Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 11:10 AM)Kronke Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 10:06 AM)HoustonRocks Wrote:  http://www.usnews.com/education/best-glo...es&page=12
U.S. News - Best Global Universities Rankings 2016 112 368 United States

We're ahead of Syracuse globally, but 130+ spots behind them in the US? Interesting.

Global rankings (whether from the US News, AWRU or Times Higher Education) are almost entirely based on graduate research activity and reputation. That actually levels the playing field a bit between private and public universities.

The US News undergrad rankings, though, are based on undergrad *selectivity*. Note that selectivity isn't just acceptance rate (an overrated factor in the minds of the public and actually accounts for a fairly small percentage of the US News methodology), but the 25th/75th percentile SAT and ACT scores and how many freshmen were in the top 10% of their high school class (which count for much more). A lot of the non-flagship public universities from the largest states like California, Texas and Florida (e.g. NOT Berkeley or UT-Austin) actually have superficially low acceptance rates compared to flagship public universities in other states because of the sheer number of applicants, but on the flip side, they also have lower SAT/ACT scores and class rank metrics than those flagships, which is why they get dinged in the US News rankings. The schools with student bodies that have those higher test score and class rank metrics are considered to be more selective even if they might superficially have a lower acceptance rate... which actually makes sense in reality. Of course, the truly elite schools have BOTH those metrics AND low acceptance rates.

Also, note that it's more difficult to get into virtually EVERY school in the top 100 or so of the US News rankings than it was 5 years ago. That's why every FBS school can probably truthfully and legitimately announce that they have the most academically talented freshman classes in their respective histories this year... but can still be stuck or even move down in the US News rankings. Virtually every school at a certain level is getting more competitive in terms of admissions than ever before, so even if a school is getting better students in an absolute manner, they actually aren't getting better in a *relative* manner to everyone else that are improving at the same or greater rate.

FWIW, there are certain elite professions where your undergrad school matters a ton (such as investment banking or top-level management consulting). Unless you get a job in those firms right out of school, it's VERY tough to break in afterwards unless you subsequently go to a super-elite grad school or you've got a direct nepotistic connection (so the populist belief that you can work your way into those jobs regardless of where you went to school generally doesn't apply). Where the elite education matters most is in the top Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood or DC jobs. Those are dream jobs for many people, so in those locales, I would never say that an elite education is underrated. (Even the famous college dropouts of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of *Harvard* and you're not getting hired at Microsoft or Facebook out of school without top educational credentials.) The value of those schools is in the alumni network -- to the extent that you don't have personal connections in those industries, your school *becomes* your personal connection (and that's essentially what you're paying for much more than what you're learning in the Econ 101 class that's effectively taught the same everywhere).

However, if your desire is to work in most other markets and industries in the US, then there are diminishing returns (e.g. if you want to become a CPA, there is ZERO reason for you to pay a single cent more than what you'd be paying for in-state tuition at a public university). The company that I work for hires a good-sized contingent of UH engineering and business grads in our Houston office every year and they perform very well next to their peers from UT, A&M and Texas Tech (or else we wouldn't keep hiring them). There's certainly more of an advantage if you went to UT or A&M in the sense that there's more leeway on GPA and we'll hire larger classes from there, but the best at virtually any school can compete with anyone else.


This is a good summary. The way to tell if your ranking is "off" or not is to just check the student quality of your university with those above or below you. The students with the highest standardized test scores have the most options as to where they go to school - so that factor basically answers the questions on prestige or acceptance rate. The market answers the question.

That is where UH and TT fall short (both mentioned above - not picking on anyone). They have a long way to go to get their average student quality up, relative to other in state schools in Texas like UT and A&M - and all the above are waaaaay below the Cal schools in that category (as is SMU).

You can rightfully say you don't have to have high standardized tests scores to be successful in life - but it does have an impact on education and subsequently reputation. Most university professors and counselors know who ranks where in student quality. That is why USNWR uses a very high percentage of reputation, counselor, and acceptance rates (taken in aggregate) - because those are all measures of student quality.

AAU measures mostly research - which over weights universities with ag schools and med schools. Research is important but achieving an education is the point of going to a university for the student -and only in some fields does that include conducting research.

You learn more around other bright people.

There's so much wrong with this.


1. Most university professors and counselors know who ranks where in student quality.

University Professors hardly interact with students outside of their own department. The majority of students that they do actually interact with are graduate students. The majority of which come from China and India. I don't know why you think a professor at Houston knows anything about the quality of Students at Memphis. So no. This statement is 100% false.

2. You can rightfully say you don't have to have high standardized tests scores to be successful in life - but it does have an impact on education and subsequently reputation.

Test scores have very little value in predicting how a student will do in college. High School GPA might be a bit better. At least in Engineering school, a student's success is mostly determine by his or her effort. A test score won't show that. Also, anyone can score high on a standardized test with practice. It more of a measure of how rich your parents are.

Research Output is the only valuable metric. The Carnegie Classification should be the only metric we care about. Not how many kids from the rich prep schools attend.

You are incorrect on a couple of items here.

Professors that are even somewhat in the loop get reports from their own admissions departments about where the new class is relative to other universities in standardized testing. Professors like to be at schools where the students want to learn and are bright.

Research output is the only valuable measure? That is a ridiculous statement. You can argue all day about the merits of standardized testing, but in general student bodies that test high on standardized tests are perceived to be better in quality - and the quality of the student body matters a great deal. Ask Stanford or any Ivy about what they value. Research is important but not at all close to the only thing. High performance for incoming students on standardized tests is a critical metric for any university that is striving for quality. Trust me, Georgia tech cares about it also. Memphis probably not so much.
09-13-2017 09:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aTxTIGER Online
Carrot Dude Gave Me 10% Warning
*

Posts: 33,153
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 764
I Root For: Fire 'Arry!!!!!
Location: Memphis, TN

Donators
Post: #74
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
We don't read so good....but we do other stuff good.
09-13-2017 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wavefan12 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,619
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Tulane
Location:
Post: #75
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
IMO, many large urban public schools should never be ranked too high based on US News criteria as then they would not be serving their mission. It is one thing if you are a UCLA, where local students have other options close by to fulfill their academic needs, but for a Houston or even UCF, locals depend on those schools to provide them an education either part time or for those students who are battling to reach their dream of a diploma. If those schools become too selective, then they will be turning away locals who could gain an education and contribute to the local economy and push their children to pursue higher education. It's a tough deal as many think these rankings are the end all, but these rankings have become so screwed to private schools and flagships.
09-13-2017 09:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
FlyingTiger2016 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,263
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation: 53
I Root For: Memphis/GaTech
Location:
Post: #76
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
(09-13-2017 09:48 AM)gostangs Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 10:24 PM)FlyingTiger2016 Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 09:14 PM)gostangs Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 11:10 AM)Kronke Wrote:  We're ahead of Syracuse globally, but 130+ spots behind them in the US? Interesting.

Global rankings (whether from the US News, AWRU or Times Higher Education) are almost entirely based on graduate research activity and reputation. That actually levels the playing field a bit between private and public universities.

The US News undergrad rankings, though, are based on undergrad *selectivity*. Note that selectivity isn't just acceptance rate (an overrated factor in the minds of the public and actually accounts for a fairly small percentage of the US News methodology), but the 25th/75th percentile SAT and ACT scores and how many freshmen were in the top 10% of their high school class (which count for much more). A lot of the non-flagship public universities from the largest states like California, Texas and Florida (e.g. NOT Berkeley or UT-Austin) actually have superficially low acceptance rates compared to flagship public universities in other states because of the sheer number of applicants, but on the flip side, they also have lower SAT/ACT scores and class rank metrics than those flagships, which is why they get dinged in the US News rankings. The schools with student bodies that have those higher test score and class rank metrics are considered to be more selective even if they might superficially have a lower acceptance rate... which actually makes sense in reality. Of course, the truly elite schools have BOTH those metrics AND low acceptance rates.

Also, note that it's more difficult to get into virtually EVERY school in the top 100 or so of the US News rankings than it was 5 years ago. That's why every FBS school can probably truthfully and legitimately announce that they have the most academically talented freshman classes in their respective histories this year... but can still be stuck or even move down in the US News rankings. Virtually every school at a certain level is getting more competitive in terms of admissions than ever before, so even if a school is getting better students in an absolute manner, they actually aren't getting better in a *relative* manner to everyone else that are improving at the same or greater rate.

FWIW, there are certain elite professions where your undergrad school matters a ton (such as investment banking or top-level management consulting). Unless you get a job in those firms right out of school, it's VERY tough to break in afterwards unless you subsequently go to a super-elite grad school or you've got a direct nepotistic connection (so the populist belief that you can work your way into those jobs regardless of where you went to school generally doesn't apply). Where the elite education matters most is in the top Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood or DC jobs. Those are dream jobs for many people, so in those locales, I would never say that an elite education is underrated. (Even the famous college dropouts of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of *Harvard* and you're not getting hired at Microsoft or Facebook out of school without top educational credentials.) The value of those schools is in the alumni network -- to the extent that you don't have personal connections in those industries, your school *becomes* your personal connection (and that's essentially what you're paying for much more than what you're learning in the Econ 101 class that's effectively taught the same everywhere).

However, if your desire is to work in most other markets and industries in the US, then there are diminishing returns (e.g. if you want to become a CPA, there is ZERO reason for you to pay a single cent more than what you'd be paying for in-state tuition at a public university). The company that I work for hires a good-sized contingent of UH engineering and business grads in our Houston office every year and they perform very well next to their peers from UT, A&M and Texas Tech (or else we wouldn't keep hiring them). There's certainly more of an advantage if you went to UT or A&M in the sense that there's more leeway on GPA and we'll hire larger classes from there, but the best at virtually any school can compete with anyone else.


This is a good summary. The way to tell if your ranking is "off" or not is to just check the student quality of your university with those above or below you. The students with the highest standardized test scores have the most options as to where they go to school - so that factor basically answers the questions on prestige or acceptance rate. The market answers the question.

That is where UH and TT fall short (both mentioned above - not picking on anyone). They have a long way to go to get their average student quality up, relative to other in state schools in Texas like UT and A&M - and all the above are waaaaay below the Cal schools in that category (as is SMU).

You can rightfully say you don't have to have high standardized tests scores to be successful in life - but it does have an impact on education and subsequently reputation. Most university professors and counselors know who ranks where in student quality. That is why USNWR uses a very high percentage of reputation, counselor, and acceptance rates (taken in aggregate) - because those are all measures of student quality.

AAU measures mostly research - which over weights universities with ag schools and med schools. Research is important but achieving an education is the point of going to a university for the student -and only in some fields does that include conducting research.

You learn more around other bright people.

There's so much wrong with this.


1. Most university professors and counselors know who ranks where in student quality.

University Professors hardly interact with students outside of their own department. The majority of students that they do actually interact with are graduate students. The majority of which come from China and India. I don't know why you think a professor at Houston knows anything about the quality of Students at Memphis. So no. This statement is 100% false.

2. You can rightfully say you don't have to have high standardized tests scores to be successful in life - but it does have an impact on education and subsequently reputation.

Test scores have very little value in predicting how a student will do in college. High School GPA might be a bit better. At least in Engineering school, a student's success is mostly determine by his or her effort. A test score won't show that. Also, anyone can score high on a standardized test with practice. It more of a measure of how rich your parents are.

Research Output is the only valuable metric. The Carnegie Classification should be the only metric we care about. Not how many kids from the rich prep schools attend.

You are incorrect on a couple of items here.

Professors that are even somewhat in the loop get reports from their own admissions departments about where the new class is relative to other universities in standardized testing. Professors like to be at schools where the students want to learn and are bright.

Research output is the only valuable measure? That is a ridiculous statement. You can argue all day about the merits of standardized testing, but in general student bodies that test high on standardized tests are perceived to be better in quality - and the quality of the student body matters a great deal. Ask Stanford or any Ivy about what they value. Research is important but not at all close to the only thing. High performance for incoming students on standardized tests is a critical metric for any university that is striving for quality. Trust me, Georgia tech cares about it also. Memphis probably not so much.

Don't act like you have any idea what you are talking about.

I have had dean's at Georgia Tech personally tell me that they could accept 2/3 of their applicants and have a reasonable expectations of those students doing well. You know, graduating with a decent GPA. Sure they have minimum standards but honestly, they can't predict student performance from incoming GPAs or test scores. They have looked at the data. There's no correlation. Again, you can't predict effort. Georgia Tech isn't a place you can just be smart and get by. And again, there are tons of really smart people out there.

Honestly, my previous statements are just rehashing what he told me. I'm sorry if that offends you. But undergraduate admissions aren't the top priority of most professors at a research university. The top researchers at Memphis hardly interact with undergraduates because you know that's not their job. Their job is to get published.

Look Georgia Tech is like most Ivy league schools. They are flooded with applications from students with perfect GPAs and high test scores. They could randomly select a cohort of students from their application pool and they probably wouldn't know the difference. And at least at the Ivy Leagues, it appears they care more now about your political preference than your GPA. You know cause everyone has a high GPA.

Look schools like Memphis will always have a different academic mission that the small private mostly upper class schools. Memphis will get hurt in these ranking systems. But honestly, those ranking systems are a mostly meaningless marketing systems designed to funnel rich kids into subpar schools.
09-13-2017 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CornellCoog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,233
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 78
I Root For: UH and Cornell
Location:
Post: #77
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
(09-13-2017 09:52 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  IMO, many large urban public schools should never be ranked too high based on US News criteria as then they would not be serving their mission. It is one thing if you are a UCLA, where local students have other options close by to fulfill their academic needs, but for a Houston or even UCF, locals depend on those schools to provide them an education either part time or for those students who are battling to reach their dream of a diploma. If those schools become too selective, then they will be turning away locals who could gain an education and contribute to the local economy and push their children to pursue higher education. It's a tough deal as many think these rankings are the end all, but these rankings have become so screwed to private schools and flagships.

When UH was first created, the only other university in the metro region was Rice. However, today that has changed. As the area has grown, so have the options. Here's what exists in the greater Houston area today offering BA/BS;

Rice University
University of Houston
University of Houston Downtown (open enrollment)
University of Houston Clear Lake
University of Houston Katy
Texas Southern University
Prairie View A&M University
Sam Houston State University
Texas Woman's University Health Center
St. Thomas University
Houston Baptist University

Heck, for the far Northwestern suburbs, it's easier to get to Texas A&M than it is U of H.

This is why UH Central has bigger dreams now. Our region needs UH to become more like Pitt and less like FIU.
09-13-2017 10:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
geef Offline
Shocka Con
*

Posts: 1,843
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 85
I Root For: Cedric Glover
Location: Cascadia
Post: #78
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
(09-13-2017 10:44 AM)CornellCoog Wrote:  
(09-13-2017 09:52 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  IMO, many large urban public schools should never be ranked too high based on US News criteria as then they would not be serving their mission. It is one thing if you are a UCLA, where local students have other options close by to fulfill their academic needs, but for a Houston or even UCF, locals depend on those schools to provide them an education either part time or for those students who are battling to reach their dream of a diploma. If those schools become too selective, then they will be turning away locals who could gain an education and contribute to the local economy and push their children to pursue higher education. It's a tough deal as many think these rankings are the end all, but these rankings have become so screwed to private schools and flagships.

When UH was first created, the only other university in the metro region was Rice. However, today that has changed. As the area has grown, so have the options. Here's what exists in the greater Houston area today offering BA/BS;

Rice University
University of Houston
University of Houston Downtown (open enrollment)
University of Houston Clear Lake
University of Houston Katy
Texas Southern University
Prairie View A&M University
Sam Houston State University
Texas Woman's University Health Center
St. Thomas University
Houston Baptist University

Heck, for the far Northwestern suburbs, it's easier to get to Texas A&M than it is U of H.

This is why UH Central has bigger dreams now. Our region needs UH to become more like Pitt and less like FIU.

And, honestly, having the additional options is going to help Houston move even more quickly in that direction. The gulf between Houston and some of the other large, growing public institutions in that area is wide. Similarly, the rapid growth of universities like Northern Kentucky and Wright State have allowed Cincinnati to greatly differentiate ourselves.
09-13-2017 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Attackcoog Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 24,382
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Houston
Location:
Post: #79
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
(09-13-2017 10:44 AM)CornellCoog Wrote:  
(09-13-2017 09:52 AM)wavefan12 Wrote:  IMO, many large urban public schools should never be ranked too high based on US News criteria as then they would not be serving their mission. It is one thing if you are a UCLA, where local students have other options close by to fulfill their academic needs, but for a Houston or even UCF, locals depend on those schools to provide them an education either part time or for those students who are battling to reach their dream of a diploma. If those schools become too selective, then they will be turning away locals who could gain an education and contribute to the local economy and push their children to pursue higher education. It's a tough deal as many think these rankings are the end all, but these rankings have become so screwed to private schools and flagships.

When UH was first created, the only other university in the metro region was Rice. However, today that has changed. As the area has grown, so have the options. Here's what exists in the greater Houston area today offering BA/BS;

Rice University
University of Houston
University of Houston Downtown (open enrollment)
University of Houston Clear Lake
University of Houston Katy
Texas Southern University
Prairie View A&M University
Sam Houston State University
Texas Woman's University Health Center
St. Thomas University
Houston Baptist University

Heck, for the far Northwestern suburbs, it's easier to get to Texas A&M than it is U of H.

This is why UH Central has bigger dreams now. Our region needs UH to become more like Pitt and less like FIU.

Exactly---and that doesnt even include other options like the massive Lone Star Community College System---which through cooperative ventures with other state universities, allows students to obtain full 4-year degrees without leaving the Lone Star Campus. These other student options have freed UH to become a more elite high end public option for the area.
(This post was last modified: 09-13-2017 01:23 PM by Attackcoog.)
09-13-2017 01:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
gostangs Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 568
Joined: Nov 2003
Reputation: 19
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #80
RE: US News Rankings (or unrankings for some), AAC edition
(09-13-2017 10:25 AM)FlyingTiger2016 Wrote:  
(09-13-2017 09:48 AM)gostangs Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 10:24 PM)FlyingTiger2016 Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 09:14 PM)gostangs Wrote:  
(09-12-2017 02:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Global rankings (whether from the US News, AWRU or Times Higher Education) are almost entirely based on graduate research activity and reputation. That actually levels the playing field a bit between private and public universities.

The US News undergrad rankings, though, are based on undergrad *selectivity*. Note that selectivity isn't just acceptance rate (an overrated factor in the minds of the public and actually accounts for a fairly small percentage of the US News methodology), but the 25th/75th percentile SAT and ACT scores and how many freshmen were in the top 10% of their high school class (which count for much more). A lot of the non-flagship public universities from the largest states like California, Texas and Florida (e.g. NOT Berkeley or UT-Austin) actually have superficially low acceptance rates compared to flagship public universities in other states because of the sheer number of applicants, but on the flip side, they also have lower SAT/ACT scores and class rank metrics than those flagships, which is why they get dinged in the US News rankings. The schools with student bodies that have those higher test score and class rank metrics are considered to be more selective even if they might superficially have a lower acceptance rate... which actually makes sense in reality. Of course, the truly elite schools have BOTH those metrics AND low acceptance rates.

Also, note that it's more difficult to get into virtually EVERY school in the top 100 or so of the US News rankings than it was 5 years ago. That's why every FBS school can probably truthfully and legitimately announce that they have the most academically talented freshman classes in their respective histories this year... but can still be stuck or even move down in the US News rankings. Virtually every school at a certain level is getting more competitive in terms of admissions than ever before, so even if a school is getting better students in an absolute manner, they actually aren't getting better in a *relative* manner to everyone else that are improving at the same or greater rate.

FWIW, there are certain elite professions where your undergrad school matters a ton (such as investment banking or top-level management consulting). Unless you get a job in those firms right out of school, it's VERY tough to break in afterwards unless you subsequently go to a super-elite grad school or you've got a direct nepotistic connection (so the populist belief that you can work your way into those jobs regardless of where you went to school generally doesn't apply). Where the elite education matters most is in the top Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood or DC jobs. Those are dream jobs for many people, so in those locales, I would never say that an elite education is underrated. (Even the famous college dropouts of Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of *Harvard* and you're not getting hired at Microsoft or Facebook out of school without top educational credentials.) The value of those schools is in the alumni network -- to the extent that you don't have personal connections in those industries, your school *becomes* your personal connection (and that's essentially what you're paying for much more than what you're learning in the Econ 101 class that's effectively taught the same everywhere).

However, if your desire is to work in most other markets and industries in the US, then there are diminishing returns (e.g. if you want to become a CPA, there is ZERO reason for you to pay a single cent more than what you'd be paying for in-state tuition at a public university). The company that I work for hires a good-sized contingent of UH engineering and business grads in our Houston office every year and they perform very well next to their peers from UT, A&M and Texas Tech (or else we wouldn't keep hiring them). There's certainly more of an advantage if you went to UT or A&M in the sense that there's more leeway on GPA and we'll hire larger classes from there, but the best at virtually any school can compete with anyone else.


This is a good summary. The way to tell if your ranking is "off" or not is to just check the student quality of your university with those above or below you. The students with the highest standardized test scores have the most options as to where they go to school - so that factor basically answers the questions on prestige or acceptance rate. The market answers the question.

That is where UH and TT fall short (both mentioned above - not picking on anyone). They have a long way to go to get their average student quality up, relative to other in state schools in Texas like UT and A&M - and all the above are waaaaay below the Cal schools in that category (as is SMU).

You can rightfully say you don't have to have high standardized tests scores to be successful in life - but it does have an impact on education and subsequently reputation. Most university professors and counselors know who ranks where in student quality. That is why USNWR uses a very high percentage of reputation, counselor, and acceptance rates (taken in aggregate) - because those are all measures of student quality.

AAU measures mostly research - which over weights universities with ag schools and med schools. Research is important but achieving an education is the point of going to a university for the student -and only in some fields does that include conducting research.

You learn more around other bright people.

There's so much wrong with this.


1. Most university professors and counselors know who ranks where in student quality.

University Professors hardly interact with students outside of their own department. The majority of students that they do actually interact with are graduate students. The majority of which come from China and India. I don't know why you think a professor at Houston knows anything about the quality of Students at Memphis. So no. This statement is 100% false.

2. You can rightfully say you don't have to have high standardized tests scores to be successful in life - but it does have an impact on education and subsequently reputation.

Test scores have very little value in predicting how a student will do in college. High School GPA might be a bit better. At least in Engineering school, a student's success is mostly determine by his or her effort. A test score won't show that. Also, anyone can score high on a standardized test with practice. It more of a measure of how rich your parents are.

Research Output is the only valuable metric. The Carnegie Classification should be the only metric we care about. Not how many kids from the rich prep schools attend.

You are incorrect on a couple of items here.

Professors that are even somewhat in the loop get reports from their own admissions departments about where the new class is relative to other universities in standardized testing. Professors like to be at schools where the students want to learn and are bright.

Research output is the only valuable measure? That is a ridiculous statement. You can argue all day about the merits of standardized testing, but in general student bodies that test high on standardized tests are perceived to be better in quality - and the quality of the student body matters a great deal. Ask Stanford or any Ivy about what they value. Research is important but not at all close to the only thing. High performance for incoming students on standardized tests is a critical metric for any university that is striving for quality. Trust me, Georgia tech cares about it also. Memphis probably not so much.

Don't act like you have any idea what you are talking about.

I have had dean's at Georgia Tech personally tell me that they could accept 2/3 of their applicants and have a reasonable expectations of those students doing well. You know, graduating with a decent GPA. Sure they have minimum standards but honestly, they can't predict student performance from incoming GPAs or test scores. They have looked at the data. There's no correlation. Again, you can't predict effort. Georgia Tech isn't a place you can just be smart and get by. And again, there are tons of really smart people out there.

Honestly, my previous statements are just rehashing what he told me. I'm sorry if that offends you. But undergraduate admissions aren't the top priority of most professors at a research university. The top researchers at Memphis hardly interact with undergraduates because you know that's not their job. Their job is to get published.

Look Georgia Tech is like most Ivy league schools. They are flooded with applications from students with perfect GPAs and high test scores. They could randomly select a cohort of students from their application pool and they probably wouldn't know the difference. And at least at the Ivy Leagues, it appears they care more now about your political preference than your GPA. You know cause everyone has a high GPA.

Look schools like Memphis will always have a different academic mission that the small private mostly upper class schools. Memphis will get hurt in these ranking systems. But honestly, those ranking systems are a mostly meaningless marketing systems designed to funnel rich kids into subpar schools.



Honestly, my previous statements are just rehashing what he told me. - so you are basing your opinion on one guy - got it.

I'm sorry if that offends you. - it doesn't offend me that you are incorrect

But undergraduate admissions aren't the top priority of most professors at a research university. Never sad anything of the sort - knowing what the student quality is and having it as a top priority is not the same thing.

The top researchers at Memphis hardly interact with undergraduates because you know that's not their job. Their job is to get published - I understand that - and never disagreed.

I think you are arguing a different point. My point is that ranking the quality of the student body through the use of standardized tests is a perfectly rational metric for quality. Whether a lower group of students would do well in that school is not even the question. I get that research is important - particularly to PHD's - but that is a different argument. Ranking schools with research as a compnant would be totally rational - doing so only by research output would be just dumb.

The ranking systems rank what they tell you they rank - it is all right there in black and white. That you don't think it is important doesn't make it so - in fact much of higher education is very concerned about it because it generally does reflect quality.

09-13-2017 03:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.