Why U.S. News' college rankings hurt students

U.S. News & World Report released its college rankings at midnight and, as usual, there was no suspense in which university was crowned No. 1.

During this annual autumn rite, Harvard University sometimes grabs the No. 1 spot and in other years Princeton does. Last year both shared the title. For the 2014 rankings, Princeton came out on top.

In reaction to the criticism that mars this annual collegiate beauty pageant, U.S. News once again tinkered with its college rankings methodology. The rankings goliath gave less weight to class rank, which fewer high schools are reporting. On the other hand, U.S. News put more weight on ACT and SAT scores, which are correlated by family income.

Despite these cosmetic changes, here are five reasons why you should ignore this year's college rankings:

What do you want to bet that graduates of the top (say top 15-20) schools have landed decent jobs?

I would bet it depends a lot more on their major field of study than where they went to school.

It’s the middle of the road and (worse) diploma mill grads who have to worry about employment prospects

As if the Ivy's and other elite schools aren't diploma mills. The more likely reason is the networking opportunities available at elite schools, and not the quality of education received. Please don't tell me you think Michelle 0bama got a job as a "community affairs director" for $316,000 because of the quality of her work at Princeton. Or because she even graduated from Princeton, for that matter.

What the article writer fails to mention is that the “top” private schools (or most of them) do, in fact, cover with grants (not loans) all financial need of admitted students.

Really? Please tell me what those "top" schools are, because my kids with "top" SAT's and "top" grades at one of the highest ranked school districts in Pennsylvania could not find any private university that funded more than a nominal percentage.

The country is in sh!t-shape right now because our supposedly elite institutions are turning our worthless parasites [lawyers, bankers, politicians ...] while the "diploma mills" who produce most of our engineers, scientists and programmers [that is, people who actually work and support both the indolent upper and lower classes] are being deprecated.

I never have, and never would, hire an IT professional based on where he went to school. Never.

I thought I’d qualified that ‘top’ school comment to include those in the top 15-20. Maybe top 10, I don’t remember which schools, but several adopted a policy some years ago that if a student was admitted, the Univ would pay whatever $ the student needed. They didn’t want their grads encumbered with loan debt.

If a student wants NYU or any comparable school under the circumstances you outlined, s/he and/or the family would assume a “co-pay” of $30K/year, either through family assets or student loans. They would be gambling, big time, that their $120K investment would pay off.

If the student does well in a desirable major, the gamble would, I should think, pay off. Some schools also increase grants/scholarships after the student has shown strong academic performance, reducing the family/student liability.

OR they could also look to another, less costly but academically comparable school. I.e., there are a number of well ranked state schools. Maybe even save the assets/debt for graduate school?

It all comes down to what the student and his/her family value and are willing to spend/gamble on his/her education and career prospects.

Personally, I am delighted to be beyond all that now!!

What an absurd argument. Reductio ad absurdum, as it were. Take one noted person and throw that out as if it were a valid example of an entire class of similarly schooled people. You’d never hire an MIT or CalTech grad for your company’s IT? Have you ever had the opportunity to turn down one such applicant?

I don’t believe for one moment that Michelle Obama or her husband were admitted to Columbia/Princeton/Harvard because of their ACT/SAT scores or GPA’s. Nor, even as a Princeton/Harvard grad,(many years after graduation) did Ms. Obama snag a $300K job. One circumstance was fairly obviously affirmative action; the other political glad-handing.

That pathetic example doesn’t explain the ten and hundreds of thousands of Ivy grads who’ve fared well in the “real world.” I know it’s difficult to accept, but these schools are highly ranked because they offer a superior education. They have the resources to hire the best professors, they attract the best applicants. Just one big vicious cycle.

You might want to expand your search of different schools’ financial aid policies:

“Beginning with the class of 2016, families with incomes up to $150,000 will have an average expected parent contribution of 10 percent or less of their income...” Harvard for $15K a year or less. Such a deal!

“Since 2001, we have eliminated loans from our financial aid awards and replaced them with grant aid that students do not have to repay. Currently, the average financial aid grant covers 100 percent of Princeton’s tuition.”

or closer to (your) home

“The University of Pennsylvania today announced a far-reaching new financial aid initiative that will eliminate loans for financially eligible undergraduate students regardless of family income, making it possible for students from a broad range of economic backgrounds to graduate debt-free.”

You’d never hire an MIT or CalTech grad for your company’s IT?

Did not say that, said I would not consider the applicant's college. Ever. And I never have.

Have you ever had the opportunity to turn down one such applicant?

I have. And I did not turn him down. The applicant was me. I am self employed and a graduate of one of those schools.

I know it’s difficult to accept, but these schools are highly ranked because they offer a superior education.

Some of them do, in some majors, to some students. Many of them don't. Many of them are not in any way superior to the "diploma mills" you whine on about.

If Harvard was worth $15,000/year it would be a deal. But Harvard isn't. You seem to think by seriously over inflating their tuition costs and then offering steep discounts to some students they deem worthy (we don't actually know what their criteria are) these colleges are offering a great deal. They aren't. They're over-priced and since I've recently been through the drill I know their advertising is mostly baloney.

It's not a major research university. They are 82nd in the National Liberal Arts Colleges list. On the other hand, Annapolis and West Point do very well on that list.

What she says is true about the US News rankings, but the college rating game has been going on since long before they even came on the scene. The higher education business thrives on informal rankings but uses US News as a lightning rod or target for hostility: another example of their cunning and hypocrisy.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.