Texas Colleges on top 20 list (San Antonio, Austin: loan, top schools, universities)

[UnfairPark]

It’s sad, only one Texas college qualifies for these lists.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com...asc/cols/stats

[WestTex1984]

Rice, UT, A&M are top 100 at least.

[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.

[turf3]

You know that a ranking list that puts Washington U in St. Louis ahead of Rice is bogus.


Pomona ahead of Wellesley, NYU, Swarthmore, Georgetown, Tufts? Bogus.


Trinity (San Antonio) ahead of SMU? Bogus.


Brandeis and RPI at #87? Bogus.

[turf3]

Originally Posted by UnfairPark

It’s sad, only one Texas college qualifies for these lists.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com...asc/cols/stats

Why is it "sad"? There are 50 states. There are 15 or so large-population states. TX being one of the 15 largest population states and having one institution in the top 20 seems reasonable especially in view of NY and Mass.


That, even though I think the specific ranking list is bogus and that most such lists are bogus.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by turf3

You know that a ranking list that puts Washington U in St. Louis ahead of Rice is bogus.


Pomona ahead of Wellesley, NYU, Swarthmore, Georgetown, Tufts? Bogus.


Trinity (San Antonio) ahead of SMU? Bogus.


Brandeis and RPI at #87? Bogus.

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.

[UnfairPark]

There is more to a college than earning potential, undergrad education is for breadth of education and personal evolution, graduate for finding trade and depth of learning.

[centralaustinite]

Originally Posted by UnfairPark

There is more to a college than earning potential, undergrad education is for breadth of education and personal evolution, graduate for finding trade and depth of learning.

Then why did you post a ranking that only values those limited qualities? No one is out there ranking schools for breadth and depth of learning. They are nearly all just a slightly more useful version of clickbait.

[UnfairPark]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

Then why did you post a ranking that only values those limited qualities? No one is out there ranking schools for breadth and depth of learning. They are nearly all just a slightly more useful version of clickbait.

You just have to take these lists with few grains of salt but they do provide some value. It would be silly to fuss over differences between #1 & #10 but you can be sure of significant difference #1 & #50th. 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.

[Trainwreck20]

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. [...]

...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.