Texas Colleges on top 20 list (Houston, Austin: public schools, university, living)

[UnfairPark]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

...and possibly leading to a disconnect from the large majority of the people that make up this country (or world, for that matter). The 'best universities' may be failing under your heading of 'personal evolution', even.

That’s not true, these colleges offer generous need based financial aid, better than state schools, give a significant edge to underprivileged families in admissions, value diversity and teach compassion. They connect wealthy with poor to bridge the gap. Only group they shun is top tier of upper middle class..

[EDS_]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Well, not necessarily bogus based on the system it ranks them. For one thing (and probably a good thing), it essentially does some sort of ROI based on your future earnings vs. degree cost. SMU costs more than MIT and Stanford, and significantly more than Trinity. The scores are almost identical, with Trinity getting a boost for 'resources' (faculty per student, finance per student, and research papers per faculty). SMU gets a boost with 'outcomes' (basically, higher average salary when you graduate, but also a better 'reputation').

I am not familiar enough with Pomona or UW St. Louis, but I suspect that they actually graduate a lot of people who make decent money without going into overwhelming debt. Swarthmore appears to have a terrible 'average salary after 10 years' - $39k. That puts it below West Texas A and M and on-par with UTEP! Swarthmore has a lot of reasons for going there, but earnings potential (which is part of these rankings) is not one of them.

I've been an on and off professor for a long time ergo I'm very interested in higher education. For the record Wash U. in St. Louis is one of the best universities in the world. For example Wash U. has a very highly rated medical school.

Cal Poly Pomona is a solid school but should not be on the list vis a vis academics.

[EDS_]

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.

Good post. Especially the portion about specific degrees.
We are lucky enough to have a high-school-senior-nephew who is brilliant in the literal sense. His plan is study/triple major in physics, math and computational linguistics or maybe linguistics and a language. As it happens there are several oddball schools and some name places that are good to great at all of that. UT Austin being probably the best. As he is a lock for medical school, a medical or math/physics related Ph.D in the future he does not care much at all about name undergraduate opportunities.

Vis a vis rankings and the bald faced stupidity of most well known US rankings. UTSW medical is usually ranked by US News and NewsWeek between 21-26 or so among US medical schools. The rankings rely on two key things - inbound student academic metrics (grades, MCAT etc.) and commitment to and ranking of each schools family medicine programs.
On the other hand something called The Academic Rankings of World Universities out of China which uses objective measures almost exclusively ranks UTSW #11 in the WORLD in medical research and #22 (might be 21 or 23) in clinical medicine in the WORLD. The Journal Nature has UTSW ranked #5 in impactful research.

IMO a grain of salt isn't enough for the popular US rankings - a 50 pound salt lick or utter rejection is more like it.

[War Beagle]

Originally Posted by UnfairPark

There is no denying that selective colleges with big endowments have ability to provide better nourishment for mind with quality peers, engaged faculty, accomplished alumni and plentiful resources. I’m in no way saying that you are doomed if you attend a lower ranking college.

A few points about this.

1) in most majors is really doesn't matter how great the school is. If you want to be a nurse or a teacher, going ivy league is a waste of money

2) the more prestigious the university, the less importance will be placed on teaching. All that matters is the research and getting the professor and university seen in big peer reviewed journals.

3) the people going to the best schools aren't necessarily the best and brightest. Lots of legacies are admitted. And if mommy or daddy happens to have a recognizable name or a big bank account, they get in. Are we to believe that pretty much every high level federal politician's kids are geniuses? Please.

4) the best and brightest who go to these schools sure mess things up when they get out of college. Awful politicians, bureaucrats that sell us out every chance they get, financiers who crash the economy, CEOs who ruin companies. The people that create the things that are good about the US generally go to state universities or vocational schools.

[UnfairPark]

Well, no contest about some low achievers at top ranking selective colleges and some high achievers at lower ranking colleges. Not everyone gets loads of financial aid or rare merit scholarships to to be able to afford these colleges, among other reasons to go to state colleges, like proximity, friends, teams, good department for their major etc. Its just about improving kid's odds, otherwise anything can happen anywhere. One should always hope for the best.

[UnfairPark]

It would add value to this discussion if someone can add 4 year graduation rates for Texas colleges. I would like to know if college ranking and selectivity helps students stay on track and graduate early or on time. Most lists i saw are for 6 year graduation rates.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by UnfairPark

It would add value to this discussion if someone can add 4 year graduation rates for Texas colleges. I would like to know if college ranking and selectivity helps students stay on track and graduate early or on time. Most lists i saw are for 6 year graduation rates.

Very generally true - but wealthier students are going to more often graduate in four years than less wealthy students. Also, some programs, such as co-op programs for engineers, add at least 1/2 year (if not a full year) to the graduation date, but add invaluable experience as well as a noticeable bit of income.

I think most of the graduation rates also include some interesting parameters, like you graduated within four years, but from a different university. It makes sense - you obviously did not 'fail' the student if they transferred after two years but still graduated on-time; however, I am not sure how it handles students that transfer in - does it credit you at all, or does it count from when the first started school? Many of the big state universities have a ton of transfer students, especially compared to the ivy-league or private schools.

[UnfairPark]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Very generally true - but wealthier students are going to more often graduate in four years than less wealthy students. Also, some programs, such as co-op programs for engineers, add at least 1/2 year (if not a full year) to the graduation date, but add invaluable experience as well as a noticeable bit of income.

I think most of the graduation rates also include some interesting parameters, like you graduated within four years, but from a different university. It makes sense - you obviously did not 'fail' the student if they transferred after two years but still graduated on-time; however, I am not sure how it handles students that transfer in - does it credit you at all, or does it count from when the first started school? Many of the big state universities have a ton of transfer students, especially compared to the ivy-league or private schools.

Mostly true though opportunity is not limited to wealthy, students on full financial aid, full merit ride, military bill and a combo of aid, loans, scholarship, work-study, work, paid internships, grants and parental support can graduate in 4 years as well, some even earlier if they went with enough AP/IB/community college/dual credits. Obviously, in some cases its justified but overall it's a good indicator to gauge student population. Here is one article mentioning both 4 and 6 year rates, college acceptance rates and graduation rates are closely related as expected. Another noticeable point, smaller schools tend to do better than larger ones.

http://brandcollegeconsulting.com/gr...exas-colleges/

[Trainwreck20]

Well, there are a bunch of different ways to argue for or against a specific ranking or where a college should be in the rankings, but at the end of the day that will not be how many people chose a college. We will be choosing college(s) sometime in the not so distant future and our informal process will likely be something more like this:
- Look at the grades/test scores and cross off ones that are just not the likely to accept the student. This may eliminate none or a bunch.
- Determine what the students would like to study. Initially focus on the schools that are well regarded in that particular field.
- If they are not completely gung-ho, over-the-top committed to the field of study, under-weight the specialized colleges (i.e. Colorado School of Mines or Georgia Tech are likely not a good fit for someone who thinks they might want to be an engineer/engineering related field) and focused on broad spectrum institutions.
- Identify personal wants - do you want to go to school in the PNW or the NE? Do you want to stay closer to home? Issues with large schools or dislike for small schools?
- Affordable (assuming no financial aid)?

Or something like that. In any case, it won't start (or likely end) with a ranking.

[War Beagle]

Our society over-thinks college too much. The only question that matters is can a degree from a particular college get them a job that pays the bills in a field they like (or at least don't hate). If yes, then the college is fine.

It not as if if someone goes to the college ranked 73rd instead of 36th they are going to end up living in a gutter. For most students there dozens or hundreds of colleges that would be fine for their needs.