2018 USNWR Rankings Forum

[Hikikomorist]

Based on a sampling of elite business/medical/law school placement and college outcomes, Williams/Amherst place quite well - on par with or better than the lower Ivies. Berkeley is ranked around #40 in both studies...
http://www.inside-higher-ed.com/wp-cont ... 092503.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliespo ... eges-2016/

Tbf, it's probably a lot harder to get a good job with a lib arts degree than it is to with a Wharton undergrad or MIT engineering or Berkeley CS degree, so it's not surprising that almost everybody who goes to those schools ends up applying to grad school. I wouldn't say that's necessarily a better outcome than become a banker/software engineer, though.

Berkeley is also fucking huge.

Other large elite schools did well. No excuses for Berkeley.

Yeah, I don't think Berkeley is elite for undergrad anyway, so we don't have any beef there

I meant more that LACs are overrated on that list relative to other top schools

Self selection: Why go to grad school when you can make $150k straight out of undergrad doing investment banking or CS?

That's why the Forbes ranking is the perfect counterpart.

I haven't looked into the methodology, but Forbes rankings still look too heavy on LACs

Also, lol at Notre Dame and Tufts T10 national universities (and BC #11)

I mean, I still prefer an input-heavy metric like USNWR, but looking at employment outcomes combined with prestigious graduate program placement is probably as good as it gets in terms of output-focused metrics. I'm betting, though, that Forbes dropped the ball in terms of granularity in measuring employment outcomes, which would explain how service academies rate so highly.

[BigZuck]

This is officially a Wiz/Hikko cage match now yes?

[wiz]

Based on a sampling of elite business/medical/law school placement and college outcomes, Williams/Amherst place quite well - on par with or better than the lower Ivies. Berkeley is ranked around #40 in both studies...
http://www.inside-higher-ed.com/wp-cont ... 092503.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliespo ... eges-2016/

Tbf, it's probably a lot harder to get a good job with a lib arts degree than it is to with a Wharton undergrad or MIT engineering or Berkeley CS degree, so it's not surprising that almost everybody who goes to those schools ends up applying to grad school. I wouldn't say that's necessarily a better outcome than become a banker/software engineer, though.

Berkeley is also fucking huge.

Other large elite schools did well. No excuses for Berkeley.

Yeah, I don't think Berkeley is elite for undergrad anyway, so we don't have any beef there

I meant more that LACs are overrated on that list relative to other top schools

Self selection: Why go to grad school when you can make $150k straight out of undergrad doing investment banking or CS?

That's why the Forbes ranking is the perfect counterpart.

I haven't looked into the methodology, but Forbes rankings still look too heavy on LACs

Also, lol at Notre Dame and Tufts T10 national universities (and BC #11)

I mean, I still prefer an input-heavy metric like USNWR, but looking at employment outcomes combined with prestigious graduate program placement is probably as good as it gets in terms of output-focused metrics. I'm betting, though, that Forbes dropped the ball in terms of granularity in measuring employment outcomes, which would explain how service academies rate so highly.

It's obviously hard to replicate LST at the undergrad level since there isn't a clean biglaw + fed clerkship track and there's such a diversity of (good) outcomes, but seeing where BB IBD and MBB recruit from might be a decent proxy.

I definitely don't think there's sufficient granularity there since I'm assuming they're lumping the undergrad equivalent of shitlaw with biglaw/clerking.

[Moneytrees]

The Forbes ranking is even worse than US News.

[wiz]

This is officially a Wiz/Hikko cage match now yes?

Aight I'm out

[Hikikomorist]

Tbf, it's probably a lot harder to get a good job with a lib arts degree than it is to with a Wharton undergrad or MIT engineering or Berkeley CS degree, so it's not surprising that almost everybody who goes to those schools ends up applying to grad school. I wouldn't say that's necessarily a better outcome than become a banker/software engineer, though.

Berkeley is also fucking huge.

Other large elite schools did well. No excuses for Berkeley.

Yeah, I don't think Berkeley is elite for undergrad anyway, so we don't have any beef there

I meant more that LACs are overrated on that list relative to other top schools

Self selection: Why go to grad school when you can make $150k straight out of undergrad doing investment banking or CS?

That's why the Forbes ranking is the perfect counterpart.

I haven't looked into the methodology, but Forbes rankings still look too heavy on LACs

Also, lol at Notre Dame and Tufts T10 national universities (and BC #11)

I mean, I still prefer an input-heavy metric like USNWR, but looking at employment outcomes combined with prestigious graduate program placement is probably as good as it gets in terms of output-focused metrics. I'm betting, though, that Forbes dropped the ball in terms of granularity in measuring employment outcomes, which would explain how service academies rate so highly.

It's obviously hard to replicate LST at the undergrad level since there isn't a clean biglaw + fed clerkship track and there's such a diversity of (good) outcomes, but seeing where BB IBD and MBB recruit from might be a decent proxy.

I definitely don't think there's not enough granularity there since I'm assuming they're lumping the undergrad equivalent of shitlaw with biglaw/clerking.

Yeah, I still have no idea how prestigious TFA is supposed to be.

[jbagelboy]

Based on a sampling of elite business/medical/law school placement and college outcomes, Williams/Amherst place quite well - on par with or better than the lower Ivies. Berkeley is ranked around #40 in both studies...
http://www.inside-higher-ed.com/wp-cont ... 092503.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliespo ... eges-2016/

Tbf, it's probably a lot harder to get a good job with a lib arts degree than it is to with a Wharton undergrad or MIT engineering or Berkeley CS degree, so it's not surprising that almost everybody who goes to those schools ends up applying to grad school. I wouldn't say that's necessarily a better outcome than become a banker/software engineer, though.

Berkeley is also fucking huge.

Other large elite schools did well. No excuses for Berkeley.

Yeah, I don't think Berkeley is elite for undergrad anyway, so we don't have any beef there

I meant more that LACs are overrated on that list relative to other top schools

Self selection: Why go to grad school when you can make $150k straight out of undergrad doing investment banking or CS?

That's why the Forbes ranking is the perfect counterpart.

I haven't looked into the methodology, but Forbes rankings still look too heavy on LACs

Also, lol at Notre Dame and Tufts T10 national universities (and BC #11)

Williams and Pomona have each been #1 and #2 in Forbes over the past couple years. I don't think its overrated, just weighs things differently. It has its flaws. But they aren't as you state. Its a reflection of the value add per student as opposed to the institutional branding of large research universities that factors into US News. Forbes considers both graduate school and private sector employment. You're making a separate value judgment about earning power that's also subjective and arguably less meritorious since it ignores the long-term income advantages of graduate degrees. Going into CS or finance immediately after college is high earning in the short term but not the ultimate goal or best outcome for persons interested in other paths like academia, licensure based-professions like medicine and law, or those that enter public service or start companies. It's not objectively better for the person or the world to go work for a bank, nor is it more desirable. For example, WASP schools outperform many large universities in per capita Fulbrights, Watsons, Rhodes scholars, and other selective fellowships.

[Hikikomorist]

Based on a sampling of elite business/medical/law school placement and college outcomes, Williams/Amherst place quite well - on par with or better than the lower Ivies. Berkeley is ranked around #40 in both studies...
http://www.inside-higher-ed.com/wp-cont ... 092503.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliespo ... eges-2016/

Tbf, it's probably a lot harder to get a good job with a lib arts degree than it is to with a Wharton undergrad or MIT engineering or Berkeley CS degree, so it's not surprising that almost everybody who goes to those schools ends up applying to grad school. I wouldn't say that's necessarily a better outcome than become a banker/software engineer, though.

Berkeley is also fucking huge.

Other large elite schools did well. No excuses for Berkeley.

Yeah, I don't think Berkeley is elite for undergrad anyway, so we don't have any beef there

I meant more that LACs are overrated on that list relative to other top schools

Self selection: Why go to grad school when you can make $150k straight out of undergrad doing investment banking or CS?

That's why the Forbes ranking is the perfect counterpart.

I haven't looked into the methodology, but Forbes rankings still look too heavy on LACs

Also, lol at Notre Dame and Tufts T10 national universities (and BC #11)

Williams and Pomona have each been #1 and #2 in Forbes over the past couple years. I don't think its overrated, just weighs things differently. It has its flaws. But they aren't as you state. Its a reflection of the value add per student as opposed to the institutional branding of large research universities that factors into US News. Forbes considers both graduate school and private sector employment. You're making a separate value judgment about earning power that's also subjective and arguably less meritorious since it ignores the long-term income advantages of graduate degrees. Going into CS or finance immediately after college is high earning in the short term but not the ultimate goal or best outcome for persons interested in other paths like academia, licensure based-professions like medicine and law, or those that enter public service or start companies. It's not objectively better for the person or the world to go work for a bank, nor is it more desirable. For example, WASP schools outperform many large universities in per capita Fulbrights, Watsons, Rhodes scholars, and other selective fellowships.

Let's rank selective fellowships by prestige!

[Moneytrees]

Based on a sampling of elite business/medical/law school placement and college outcomes, Williams/Amherst place quite well - on par with or better than the lower Ivies. Berkeley is ranked around #40 in both studies...
http://www.inside-higher-ed.com/wp-cont ... 092503.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliespo ... eges-2016/

Tbf, it's probably a lot harder to get a good job with a lib arts degree than it is to with a Wharton undergrad or MIT engineering or Berkeley CS degree, so it's not surprising that almost everybody who goes to those schools ends up applying to grad school. I wouldn't say that's necessarily a better outcome than become a banker/software engineer, though.

Berkeley is also fucking huge.

Other large elite schools did well. No excuses for Berkeley.

Yeah, I don't think Berkeley is elite for undergrad anyway, so we don't have any beef there

I meant more that LACs are overrated on that list relative to other top schools

Self selection: Why go to grad school when you can make $150k straight out of undergrad doing investment banking or CS?

That's why the Forbes ranking is the perfect counterpart.

I haven't looked into the methodology, but Forbes rankings still look too heavy on LACs

Also, lol at Notre Dame and Tufts T10 national universities (and BC #11)

Williams and Pomona have each been #1 and #2 in Forbes over the past couple years. I don't think its overrated, just weighs things differently. It has its flaws. But they aren't as you state. Its a reflection of the value add per student as opposed to the institutional branding of large research universities that factors into US News. Forbes considers both graduate school and private sector employment. You're making a separate value judgment about earning power that's also subjective and arguably less meritorious since it ignores the long-term income advantages of graduate degrees. Going into CS or finance immediately after college is high earning in the short term but not the ultimate goal or best outcome for persons interested in other paths like academia, licensure based-professions like medicine and law, or those that enter public service or start companies. It's not objectively better for the person or the world to go work for a bank, nor is it more desirable. For example, WASP schools outperform many large universities in per capita Fulbrights, Watsons, Rhodes scholars, and other selective fellowships.

Forbes ranks schools like Washington and Lee and Carlton College (?) far above schools like John Hopkins and Berkeley. Something if clearly in their formula.

[Hikikomorist]

Tbf, it's probably a lot harder to get a good job with a lib arts degree than it is to with a Wharton undergrad or MIT engineering or Berkeley CS degree, so it's not surprising that almost everybody who goes to those schools ends up applying to grad school. I wouldn't say that's necessarily a better outcome than become a banker/software engineer, though.

Berkeley is also fucking huge.

Other large elite schools did well. No excuses for Berkeley.

Yeah, I don't think Berkeley is elite for undergrad anyway, so we don't have any beef there

I meant more that LACs are overrated on that list relative to other top schools

Self selection: Why go to grad school when you can make $150k straight out of undergrad doing investment banking or CS?

That's why the Forbes ranking is the perfect counterpart.

I haven't looked into the methodology, but Forbes rankings still look too heavy on LACs

Also, lol at Notre Dame and Tufts T10 national universities (and BC #11)

Williams and Pomona have each been #1 and #2 in Forbes over the past couple years. I don't think its overrated, just weighs things differently. It has its flaws. But they aren't as you state. Its a reflection of the value add per student as opposed to the institutional branding of large research universities that factors into US News. Forbes considers both graduate school and private sector employment. You're making a separate value judgment about earning power that's also subjective and arguably less meritorious since it ignores the long-term income advantages of graduate degrees. Going into CS or finance immediately after college is high earning in the short term but not the ultimate goal or best outcome for persons interested in other paths like academia, licensure based-professions like medicine and law, or those that enter public service or start companies. It's not objectively better for the person or the world to go work for a bank, nor is it more desirable. For example, WASP schools outperform many large universities in per capita Fulbrights, Watsons, Rhodes scholars, and other selective fellowships.

Forbes ranks schools like Washington and Lee and Carlton College (?) far above schools like John Hopkins and Berkeley. Something if clearly in their formula.

I'd absolutely rank Carleton=JHU>Berkeley.

[dabigchina]

Big 4 is a great place to launch a career...much more respectable than "Social Media Assistant" at Refinery29.

Compared to working at Starbucks? yeah
Compared to MBB or IBD or just about any coding job? No

[Moneytrees]

Based on what? You've been discussing lay prestige for the past 50 pages of this thread. Are you willing to tell me Carlton college has more lay prestige than UC Berkeley and John Hopkins? Give me a break.

[jbagelboy]

I'm not endorsing the Forbes college ranking system, it's still way too weighted toward private sector outcomes.

But yes, Carleton is a more elite college than Berkeley.

[jbagelboy]

Based on what? You've been discussing lay prestige for the past 50 pages of this thread. Are you willing to tell me Carlton college has more lay prestige than UC Berkeley and John Hopkins? Give me a break.

I don't think we're talking about lay prestige anymore. Forbes is nt measuring lay prestige. It's measuring outcomes and institutional quality. Those often have little relation to lay prrstige.

[Hikikomorist]

Based on what? You've been discussing lay prestige for the past 50 pages of this thread. Are you willing to tell me Carlton college has more lay prestige than UC Berkeley and John Hopkins? Give me a break.

I think PSYCHM+lower/quasi-Ivy+PAWS enrollees view Carleton more favorably than Berkeley, though more are probably familiar with Berkeley.

[Hikikomorist]

Based on what? You've been discussing lay prestige for the past 50 pages of this thread. Are you willing to tell me Carlton college has more lay prestige than UC Berkeley and John Hopkins? Give me a break.

I don't think we're talking about lay prestige anymore. Forbes is nt measuring lay prestige. It's measuring outcomes and institutional quality. Those often have little relation to lay prrstige.

Yep.

[Moneytrees]

Based on what? You've been discussing lay prestige for the past 50 pages of this thread. Are you willing to tell me Carlton college has more lay prestige than UC Berkeley and John Hopkins? Give me a break.

I don't think we're talking about lay prestige anymore. Forbes is nt measuring lay prestige. It's measuring outcomes and institutional quality. Those often have little relation to lay prrstige.

How is it more elite? It's got a substantially higher acceptance rate and it's basically a no name school with absolutely no lay prestige or research to speak of. Not trying to shit on Carlton college, but we arent talking about the Claremont-McKenna schools here.

Here's another amazing pearl of wisdom from Forbes: a school called Colorado College is more prestigious than Wash U, John Hopkins, and Emory.

[Hikikomorist]

Based on what? You've been discussing lay prestige for the past 50 pages of this thread. Are you willing to tell me Carlton college has more lay prestige than UC Berkeley and John Hopkins? Give me a break.

I don't think we're talking about lay prestige anymore. Forbes is nt measuring lay prestige. It's measuring outcomes and institutional quality. Those often have little relation to lay prrstige.

How is it more elite? It's got a substantially higher acceptance rate and it's basically a no name school with absolutely no lay prestige or research to speak of. Not trying to shit on Carlton college, but we arent talking about the Claremont-McKenna schools here.

Here's another amazing pearl of wisdom from Forbes: a school called Colorado College is more prestigious than Wash U, John Hopkins, and Emory.

Yeah, Colorado Mines has no lay prestige, but it places a ton of people into petroleum engineering jobs, which are pretty sweet.

[jbagelboy]

Based on what? You've been discussing lay prestige for the past 50 pages of this thread. Are you willing to tell me Carlton college has more lay prestige than UC Berkeley and John Hopkins? Give me a break.

I don't think we're talking about lay prestige anymore. Forbes is nt measuring lay prestige. It's measuring outcomes and institutional quality. Those often have little relation to lay prrstige.

How is it more elite? It's got a substantially higher acceptance rate and it's basically a no name school with absolutely no lay prestige or research to speak of. Not trying to shit on Carlton college, but we arent talking about the Claremont-McKenna schools here.

Here's another amazing pearl of wisdom from Forbes: a school called Colorado College is more prestigious than Wash U, John Hopkins, and Emory.

Again: Forbes isn't measuring prestige.

Carleton isn't WASP, but its average student quality, student academic experience, and median outcome likely outpaces Cal.

[dabigchina]

Who doesn't consider a job at PwC prestigious? You're in the minority there thinking that the Big4 aren't prestigious.

Oh yeah, I forgot how preftigious making 59k a year while billing 1800-2000 hours was.

At most serious feeder schools for MBB and IBD, working at the big4 is not considered a good outcome.

[Moneytrees]

Based on what? You've been discussing lay prestige for the past 50 pages of this thread. Are you willing to tell me Carlton college has more lay prestige than UC Berkeley and John Hopkins? Give me a break.

I don't think we're talking about lay prestige anymore. Forbes is nt measuring lay prestige. It's measuring outcomes and institutional quality. Those often have little relation to lay prrstige.

How is it more elite? It's got a substantially higher acceptance rate and it's basically a no name school with absolutely no lay prestige or research to speak of. Not trying to shit on Carlton college, but we arent talking about the Claremont-McKenna schools here.

Here's another amazing pearl of wisdom from Forbes: a school called Colorado College is more prestigious than Wash U, John Hopkins, and Emory.

Yeah, Colorado Mines has no lay prestige, but it places a ton of people into petroleum engineering jobs, which are pretty sweet.

I suppose its INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY simply eclipses John Hopkins and Wash U.

[jbagelboy]

Who doesn't consider a job at PwC prestigious? You're in the minority there thinking that the Big4 aren't prestigious.

Oh yeah, I forgot how preftigious making 59k a year while billing 1800-2000 hours was.

At most serious feeder schools for MBB and IBD, working at the big4 is not considered a good outcome.

This is true. It's usually people that went into accounting because they couldn't hack a math heavy concentration in economics. It's a good job for a college graduate, of course, but not among the most snotty outcomes/people

[Moneytrees]

Who doesn't consider a job at PwC prestigious? You're in the minority there thinking that the Big4 aren't prestigious.

Oh yeah, I forgot how preftigious making 59k a year while billing 1800-2000 hours was.

At most serious feeder schools for MBB and IBD, working at the big4 is not considered a good outcome.

This is true. It's usually people that went into accounting because they couldn't hack a math heavy concentration in economics. It's a good job for a college graduate, of course, but not among the most snotty outcomes/people

What's a good outcome for students with a masters in accountancy?

[dabigchina]

Who doesn't consider a job at PwC prestigious? You're in the minority there thinking that the Big4 aren't prestigious.

Oh yeah, I forgot how preftigious making 59k a year while billing 1800-2000 hours was.

At most serious feeder schools for MBB and IBD, working at the big4 is not considered a good outcome.

This is true. It's usually people that went into accounting because they couldn't hack a math heavy concentration in economics. It's a good job for a college graduate, of course, but not among the most snotty outcomes/people

What's a good outcome for students with a masters in accountancy?

Smart kids don't get a masters in accounting.

[Moneytrees]

Who doesn't consider a job at PwC prestigious? You're in the minority there thinking that the Big4 aren't prestigious.

Oh yeah, I forgot how preftigious making 59k a year while billing 1800-2000 hours was.

At most serious feeder schools for MBB and IBD, working at the big4 is not considered a good outcome.

This is true. It's usually people that went into accounting because they couldn't hack a math heavy concentration in economics. It's a good job for a college graduate, of course, but not among the most snotty outcomes/people

What's a good outcome for students with a masters in accountancy?

Smart kids don't get a masters in accounting.

How come?