Texas Colleges on top 20 list (Houston, Austin: low income, private schools, income)

[UnfairPark]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

Unfortunately, our previous governor’s agenda has turned Texas A&M into a trade school, but luckily the University of Texas successfully fought .

I don’t know if by distributing engineering degrees in wholesale by easy admission and graduation, they are doing a service or disservice to their graduates, especially ones who are bright and competitive, bad reputation would effect their credibility as well. We have already ruined value of a law degree by giving those away as peanuts.

[grad_student200]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Eh, while that list is an overall good indicator, it isn't the end-all/be-all.

To nit-pick a little:

40% of the ranking is based on 'Outcomes', which includes:
Graduation rate (11%)
Value added to graduate salary (12%)
Value added to loan default (7%)
Academic reputation (10%)

Public/state schools will almost always include students more at risk of not graduating than private schools. I.e., the 'top X percent' automatically admitted in Texas will include students that would not qualify at some other top schools. You will see a correspondingly higher drop-out rate.

And academic reputation is likely somewhat self-fulfilling.

Under other sections, schools get 'bonus' points for diversity (economic and racial), even if that doesn't reflect a individual's personal results. And if a school spends more money per student, then they get a boost for that, even if it doesn't show up in better teaching ratios, or better 'outcomes'.

The 'score' can also change greatly if you assume a person has to pay out-of-state at one school versus in-state at another.

Finally, a specific degree will almost always result in a school choice that is based on a subset of colleges. Looking at chemical engineering, you get the following 'top six' schools (different list, since this one did not let you filter by degree ranking):
1. MIT ($60k) (3)
2. UC-Berkeley ($54k) (40)
3. GaTech ($43k)(53)
4. Standford ($60k) (3)
5. Univ Wisc - Madison ($38k) (71)
6. Univ Texas - Austin ($46k) (56)

The dollar amount is the annual estimated tuition/fees/room/board, and the following number is their overall ranking in the survey.

So, in short, if you want to be a chemical engineer, skip Harvard, Columbia, Duke, or Yale. If you can get into (and afford) MIT, UC-Berkeley, or Standford, go there - but big IFs. GaTech is awesome, but getting in is the issue.

All that said, many people will end up at UTAustin or UWMadison based on cost, ability to get in, and quality of education returned.

Texas is a "Public Ivy" - very prestigious in my opinion. The problem with schools ike MIT, Georgia Tech, and similar tech schools is that they tend to be one-dimensional. The social scene is often described by women pejoratively as "the odds are good but the goods are odd." The gender ratio is typically horrible - mostly male. The social impediments do not allow effective growth in interactive skills for the work environment. So, Texas would be great if costs are factored in. Stanford is elite but is in the Bay Area which isn't for everyone. The Bay Area generally suffers from the fact that men outnumber women by far - a typical party in nearby Silicon Valley is mostly male with a ratio of 5 to 1 or 10 to 1 not unheard of. Texas would not be like that (LOL). Just hang out on Congress St. downtown for the many options of the club scene or jog around the town lake. Austin is a fun place.

[UnfairPark]

LOL. I suppose if finding a bigger dating pool with lower intelligence quotient and better party/social quotient is the goal of attending a college then probably smaller and selective schools are not the right place for such person.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by UnfairPark

LOL. I suppose if finding a bigger dating pool with lower intelligence quotient and better party/social quotient is the goal of attending a college then probably smaller and selective schools are not the right place for such person.

Social learning is important, as well, though. I knew a Colorado School of Mines grad that really had almost no idea on how to interact with women, it was quite odd. That was some years ago, though, an many of those schools are working hard to have a more 'normal' distribution and it really isn't nearly as much of a consideration as it used to be.

Currently:
CSM: 29% female
GT: 38% female
MIT: 47% female

and those are likely some of the outliers now days.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

Unfortunately, our previous governor’s agenda has turned Texas A&M into a trade school, but luckily the University of Texas successfully fought his attempts to do the same with the state flagship campus in Austin.

What are you talking about? A&M has several top notch programs.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by UnfairPark

I don’t know if by distributing engineering degrees in wholesale by easy admission and graduation, they are doing a service or disservice to their graduates, especially ones who are bright and competitive, bad reputation would effect their credibility as well. We have already ruined value of a law degree by giving those away as peanuts.

That does not happen anywhere.

[centralaustinite]

Originally Posted by grad_student200

Texas is a "Public Ivy" - very prestigious in my opinion. The problem with schools ike MIT, Georgia Tech, and similar tech schools is that they tend to be one-dimensional. The social scene is often described by women pejoratively as "the odds are good but the goods are odd." The gender ratio is typically horrible - mostly male. The social impediments do not allow effective growth in interactive skills for the work environment. So, Texas would be great if costs are factored in. Stanford is elite but is in the Bay Area which isn't for everyone. The Bay Area generally suffers from the fact that men outnumber women by far - a typical party in nearby Silicon Valley is mostly male with a ratio of 5 to 1 or 10 to 1 not unheard of. Texas would not be like that (LOL). Just hang out on Congress St. downtown for the many options of the club scene or jog around the town lake. Austin is a fun place.

Pretty sure you haven't been to MIT or Georgia Tech or even UT engineering recently! I was at all three this summer. MIT is essentially 50/50 men and women and the admission filter for "knidness" is set high. Male and female, sweet and geeky is what they are looking for. The social scene is active. GT and UT have a lower number of women in the engineering program but both have tremendous resources to support women. Stanford suffers a bit from a "bro" culture reputation, same as Caltech.

[6oo9]

I know some of the Texas universities produced Nobel prize winners. Nobel laureates number is a key indicator of science academic reputation.

[Austinite101]

Rice is so overhyped. It's an expensive niche school for most, but still not anywhere in league with real ivy league school caliber institutions. It's a good school, but it won't surpass institutions like UT or A&M where it actually matters.

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Ermergerd

ROFL. Wash U has been ranked ahead of Rice for decades. Rice is garbage in comparison. Wash U has a top tier med school and known through the country for it's academics.
You obviously know dick all about higher education. Why even bother talking?

I'd stow the vitriol. Both are great schools. Ranked near identically in terms of inbound student quality metrics and overall rankings. Both have long, deep and impressive commitments to myriad types of research.

And it's true Wash U. has a its own medical school and it's one of the best we have and the med. school is strongly tied to Barnes-Jewish, St. Louis Children's, Shriners etc. However, Rice is at least as strong in pre-medical related degree paths and its affiliations with Baylor Medical School, UT Health Science Center Houston, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston Methodist and many more trump Wash U's.