2018 USNWR Rankings Forum

[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.

How come?

See my original comment.

[goldenbear2020]

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.

That's biglaw hours for low pay. Even K-12 teachers in SF are starting at 54k.

[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?

See my original comment.

So you wouldnt have a higher starting salary if you start with a masters?

[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.

That's biglaw hours for low pay. Even K-12 teachers in SF are starting at 56k.

Yep. The Big4 love to tout exit ops but you're basically stuck there for 3-6 years before you can snag something that breaks 100k.

100k is a perfectly respectable amount of money for a 9-5, but not great for someone coming out of a feeder.

[dabigchina]

So you wouldnt have a higher starting salary if you start with a masters?

Masters in tax make 65 iirc. I'm not sure if a masters in accounting gets you anything.

smart kids don't get the masters because it basically pigeonholes you into going into the big4.

[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)

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 law rankings:
1. Penn
2. NYU
3. Chicago
4. Columbia
5. UVA
6. Harvard
7. Stanford
8. Northwestern
9. Michigan
10. Berkeley

Forbes business school rankings:
1. Stanford
2. Harvard
3. Northwestern
4. Columbia
5. Dartmouth
6. Chicago
7. Penn
8. Berkeley
9. MIT
10. Cornell

And at the undergrad level: Do you genuinely believe that Williams is better than Harvard or that Pomona is better than Columbia or that Haverford is better than Caltech or that Tufts/BC are better than Duke/Rice?

All three sets of rankings seem off.

Technically, no set of rankings is ever wrong since they're just weighting different factors, although Forbes seems to be particularly extreme with whatever system it's using. They're measuring something else, but I'm not confident that what they're measuring is actually desirable or even in line with what they purport to be measuring.

And I'm not trying to say that making more money is objectively better than making less money (or better for the world), but I do think that MBB, bulge brackets, top CS jobs, etc. are some of the more desirable employment outcomes available for someone looking to join the workforce straight out of undergrad. At minimum, they are selective, which should count for something, and aren't available to your average student from Big State U.

That's not to say that those jobs are superior to pursuing a PhD or going to med school or following your dreams in public service or doing whatever it is you want to do. I mean, hey, I was dumb enough to go to law school.

I just think that some of the softer outcomes are at best more difficult to quantify and at worst window dressing (liberal arts major strikeout who needs to go to grad school).

Fwiw, I would expect top LACs to do very well on a per capita basis since I do buy into the "better profs who are more interested in teaching than research" kool aid. There's probably something to be said for smaller class sizes and a more tightly-knit community. Also, going back to the initial point of selection bias: I would assume that most students who self select into one of those schools would be more interested in fellowships or grad school or academia to begin with than your average Wharton undergrad econ major.

[wiz]

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.

I think this has turned into a national university vs. LAC discussion.

[Hikikomorist]

LinkedIn should publish UG and graduate rankings.

[Pomeranian]

Also, consider that liberal arts colleges attract and self select rich trust fund SJW kids. These kids have less of a desire or need to attend grad school or get a high powered job.

Working at a law firm or corporation isn't seen as hip to a liberal arts grad wealthy social justice warrior type.

[wiz]

LinkedIn should publish UG and graduate rankings.

Why is Pomona so much better than Harvey Mudd and Claremont McKenna? They all have high SAT scores, low acceptance rates, and small class sizes, but obviously there's something going on with yield.

[A. Nony Mouse]

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'm probably tromping all over a Penn State joke, but School of Mines and Colorado College are different.

And where I grew up, Carleton was way more prestigious than Berkeley. And the LACs were just as prestigious as the Ivies. Subjective as fuck, people.

[Hikikomorist]

LinkedIn should publish UG and graduate rankings.

Why is Pomona so much better than Harvey Mudd and Claremont McKenna? They all have high SAT scores, low acceptance rates, and small class sizes, but obviously there's something going on with yield.

Yeah, I almost mentioned earlier that it's hard to exclude those two schools. I think Pomona is the best of the three, which would explain the differences in yield. Harvey Mudd is also more of a specialized school, like MIT/Caltech. This also cuts against the WASP narrative, if Pomona faces substantial competition with schools whose numbers are on par with Amherst's.

[Hikikomorist]

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'm probably tromping all over a Penn State joke, but School of Mines and Colorado College are different.

And where I grew up, Carleton was way more prestigious than Berkeley. And the LACs were just as prestigious as the Ivies. Subjective as fuck, people.

Oops. No idea what a Colorado College is, then.

[A. Nony Mouse]

It's like a Colorado Grinnell.

[wiz]

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'm probably tromping all over a Penn State joke, but School of Mines and Colorado College are different.

And where I grew up, Carleton was way more prestigious than Berkeley. And the LACs were just as prestigious as the Ivies. Subjective as fuck, people.

I don't think it's subjective if it's like a 90%/10% split in favor of Ivy + Stanford/MIT/Caltech/Chicago

I get how WASPy areas of the northeast might favor the WASP schools, but LACs always get the shaft when you go beyond upper class/higher ed circles

[wiz]

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'm probably tromping all over a Penn State joke, but School of Mines and Colorado College are different.

And where I grew up, Carleton was way more prestigious than Berkeley. And the LACs were just as prestigious as the Ivies. Subjective as fuck, people.

Oops. No idea what a Colorado College is, then.

I think it's a private LAC

School of Mines is public STEM

[Hikikomorist]

I'm really happy with the quality of this thread. I think it's certainly the best UG prestige thread on TLS.

[Pomeranian]

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'm probably tromping all over a Penn State joke, but School of Mines and Colorado College are different.

And where I grew up, Carleton was way more prestigious than Berkeley. And the LACs were just as prestigious as the Ivies. Subjective as fuck, people.

Oops. No idea what a Colorado College is, then.

I think it's a private LAC

School of Mines is public STEM

Colorado College is the quintessential trust fund SJW liberal arts college. Lots of Colorado College grads end up bumming around in fancy ski towns after graduation.

[Moneytrees]

The thread started off promising enough, but took a turn for the worse when people started to claim Carlton > Berkeley. Like, sure, perhaps in one small sliver of the United States that may be true, and I'm sure Carlton is a prestigious school, but in what world does it have more general lay prestige than Berkeley? And in which ways is it stronger as an institution?

Let's keep it real, folks.

[wiz]

LinkedIn should publish UG and graduate rankings.

Why is Pomona so much better than Harvey Mudd and Claremont McKenna? They all have high SAT scores, low acceptance rates, and small class sizes, but obviously there's something going on with yield.

Yeah, I almost mentioned earlier that it's hard to exclude those two schools. I think Pomona is the best of the three, which would explain the differences in yield. Harvey Mudd is also more of a specialized school, like MIT/Caltech. This also cuts against the WASP narrative, if Pomona faces substantial competition with schools whose numbers are on par with Amherst's.

I was just thinking about that. So East Coast Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore vs. West Coast Pomona/Harvey Mudd/Claremont McKenna.

I think I know people who went to the West Coast LACs from high school but wasn't outwardly aspie enough to ask where else they got in.

Isn't WAS more of an HSW (GSB/HBS 1a, Wharton 1b) situation, while PHC is more analogous to YHS (YLS 1a, SLS/HLS 1b)?

[wiz]

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

Aight I'm out

Okay seriously pls shame me until I stop

I am embarrassed and might have to take a post deleter to my post history soon

[FascinatedWanderer]

A quick linkedin search on past employer McKinsey with school Bentley turned up 32 people. Same search for Columbia turned up about 200,000.

Bain turns up a whopping 78 for Bentley. Really crushing it.

Sorry for edits.

Columbia has significantly more alumni than Bentley on LinkedIn so yeah no shit. And again I didn't imply at any point that Bentley is better than an Ivy League, but to say Bentley is a bad school is just wrong. They do place well into the top banks, consulting and accounting firms especially considering the school was established in 1917 and you're comparing it to Columbia which has been around since the 1700s. I could really care less what you think however to get back to my original point before this pointless discussion was started undergrad prestige is stupid because aside form the Ivies there are very few schools that are considered top schools for multiple things. In general a 3.7-4.0 GPA regardless of where you went to undergrad is going to open doors for you.

I am so sorry I offended you. Truly I cannot say that enough. I know how deeply shameful it must be for you and your family that you went to Bentley, so I will drop the issue. Again, my condolences that you went to Bentley.

[Hikikomorist]

The thread started off promising enough, but took a turn for the worse when people started to claim Carlton > Berkeley. Like, sure, perhaps in one small sliver of the United States that may be true, and I'm sure Carlton is a prestigious school, but in what world does it have more general lay prestige than Berkeley? And in which ways is it stronger as an institution?

Let's keep it real, folks.

It's stronger as an institution by virtue of having more money per student and better students.

[Hikikomorist]

LinkedIn should publish UG and graduate rankings.

Why is Pomona so much better than Harvey Mudd and Claremont McKenna? They all have high SAT scores, low acceptance rates, and small class sizes, but obviously there's something going on with yield.

Yeah, I almost mentioned earlier that it's hard to exclude those two schools. I think Pomona is the best of the three, which would explain the differences in yield. Harvey Mudd is also more of a specialized school, like MIT/Caltech. This also cuts against the WASP narrative, if Pomona faces substantial competition with schools whose numbers are on par with Amherst's.

I was just thinking about that. So East Coast Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore vs. West Coast Pomona/Harvey Mudd/Claremont McKenna.

I think I know people who went to the West Coast LACs from high school but wasn't outwardly aspie enough to ask where else they got in.

Isn't WAS more of an HSW (GSB/HBS 1a, Wharton 1b) situation, while PHC is more analogous to YHS (YLS 1a, SLS/HLS 1b)?

WAS is probably closer to an HSW than a YHS, but it's almost seems more like having 1a, 1b, and 1c. I'd actually defer to Nony's take here, though.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I'm really happy with the quality of this thread. I think it's certainly the best UG prestige thread on TLS.

This is a terrible thread and you should be ashamed.

(Also Moneytrees you should learn to spell Carleton.)