New US News and World Report College Rankings Out

[NeverMarryAStripper 22030]

Then we're all fucked

[Guest Lobo]

I'd say a distant second after the Big 10 is the Pac-12.  Yeah, they've got Arizona State Community College, and OSU and WSU aren't great...but 9 out of the 12 are very respected universities and some really elite schools in the mix as well.  The ACC really is pretty good top-to-middle as well, not like Pac-12 but respectable.  Sadly, the Big XII is a distant 4th, and then at the end of the academic world, you have the SEC.  

[hornhorn 100]

Now that its page 2, can we stop pretending that anything past top 10 or maybe 15 matters? 

At least not in the business world. You know where people go get jobs. At no place will they have two candidates with equal qualifications and pick the one with University of Florida degree over Texas or Oregon State because its ranked 20 or 120 spots ahead. Nobody fucking cares.

These rankings barely matter for Law schools and MBAs and ofcourse penis measuring contests. A doctor/engineer/IT graduate from U of F will make the same money as the one from UT. 

[Guest Lobo]

I've never met an engineer from University of Florida.  I assume because they're all busy collecting awards for their infrastructure work in Haiti.  

['stache 21908]

29 minutes ago, hornhorn said:

Now that its page 2, can we stop pretending that anything past top 10 or maybe 15 matters? 

At least not in the business world. You know where people go get jobs. At no place will they have two candidates with equal qualifications and pick the one with University of Florida degree over Texas or Oregon State because its ranked 20 or 120 spots ahead. Nobody fucking cares.

These rankings barely matter for Law schools and MBAs and ofcourse penis measuring contests. A doctor/engineer/IT graduate from U of F will make the same money as the one from UT. 

This has been my position for a long time. Everyone by now knows this annual list is meaningless. There is already general consensus about the Ivy League schools, Stanford/Vanderbilt/MIT's, and the "Public Ivy's." After that there is very little difference other than bias from a hiring person based on their own alma mater. There has never been a situation of two equally qualified candidates based on GPA and experience where a Baylor grad would get hired over an OSU grad based on the US News difference. That would be fucking absurd. 

[tx 3 putt 77935]

My last two jobs they didn’t even verify I had an engineering degree or mba

’It’s on your resume, must be true !!!!’ 

[crash_davis 23158]

14 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

My last two jobs they didn’t even verify I had an engineering degree or mba

’It’s on your resume, must be true !!!!’ 

it depends on your employer.  companies who have the funds to do thorough background checks will verify degree.  some smaller companies don't have a expense dollars to spend on thorough background checks other than criminal background checks.

when you are applying with a company, you do not know to what level they are checking.  would hate for a person to get to offer stage and they turn him/her down because of lying about a degree.  that would be kinda embarrasssing.

Edited September 11, 2019 by crash_davis

[crash_davis 23158]

when i review who gets interviews, i first look at experience, certifications, and school.  i won't hire because of school attended, but it gets your foot in the door.

[hornhorn 100]

1 minute ago, crash_davis said:

when i review who gets interviews, i first look at experience, certifications, and school.  i won't hire because of school attended, but it gets your foot in the door.

Do you give candidates from University of Florida with same qualifications/experience a higher pedigree than the ones from UT?

[tx 3 putt 77935]

22 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

it depends on your employer.  companies who have the funds to do thorough background checks will verify degree.  some smaller companies don't have a expense dollars to spend on thorough background checks other than criminal background checks.

Both very large companies, 300k+ and 12k+

[52-80 19281]

49 minutes ago, 'stache said:

This has been my position for a long time. Everyone by now knows this annual list is meaningless. There is already general consensus about the Ivy League schools, Stanford/Vanderbilt/MIT's, and the "Public Ivy's." After that there is very little difference other than bias from a hiring person based on their own alma mater. There has never been a situation of two equally qualified candidates based on GPA and experience where a Baylor grad would get hired over an OSU grad based on the US News difference. That would be fucking absurd. 

didnt realize vanderbilt was that favorably looked upon

22 minutes ago, crash_davis said:

it depends on your employer.  companies who have the funds to do thorough background checks will verify degree.  some smaller companies don't have a expense dollars to spend on thorough background checks other than criminal background checks.

when you are applying with a company, you do not know to what level they are checking.  would hate for a person to get to offer stage and they turn him/her down because of lying about a degree.  that would be kinda embarrasssing.

hell, theres been some cases of high high profile resume dishonesty w.r.t. degrees... cfb head coaches, high level US politicians, and even CEOs

[Gene Parmesan 4023]

The picture you included on your resume must have really sold them.

[tx 3 putt 77935]

Just now, Gene Parmesan said:

The picture you included on your resume must have really sold them.

Standing besides a mango tree sends a strong message 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

42 minutes ago, hornhorn said:

Do you give candidates from University of Florida with same qualifications/experience a higher pedigree than the ones from UT?

Small differences like UT and UF don’t matter, especially where the places are so geographically distant.  There are a 1000 good reasons any particular individual would choose one over the other.    But UT versus some 100+ ranked Texas school or something does.  I begin with the assumption someone ‘chose’ [generic Texas school] over UT because of reasons of ability.  

[hornhorn 100]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Small differences like UT and UF don’t matter, especially where the places are so geographically distant.  There are a 1000 good reasons any particular individual would choose one over the other.    But UT versus some 100+ ranked Texas school or something does.  I begin with the assumption someone ‘chose’ [generic Texas school] over UT because of reasons of ability.  

Its not a small difference, its 20 spots. Fine, let's take Rice(ranked 17) for example, again ranked much higher than UT: If you have a position to fill, offers between $85-90K/year based on experience and you have three equally qualified candidates from Rice, UT and Aggy(all 20 spots behind the one before them).

- Would you rule out the Aggy with similar qualifications and experience just because he went to A&M over the other two? No.

Once going through the interviews and narrowing them down, would you 

- Change the compensation you offer now that you have a candidate from Rice in the picture who obviously went to a much better school than the other two? No.

You have X number of jobs to fill, with X number of candidates. Unless they are truly something special the pay isn't going to change no matter the school and as long as they have similar experience/qualifications hiring managers would rarely rule them out. I'd agree with you if the 3 candidates were from Rice, UT and some online university, the third one maybe gets left out. But as long as they are from a state school with four year degree programs, especially noticeable "brands" due to their presence on TV via sports or flagship schools of their state, they aren't getting left out.

These rankings are meaningless if we aren't talking about MBA or law school. 

[CooterBrown 18092]

11 minutes ago, hornhorn said:

- Would you rule out the Aggy with similar qualifications and experience just because he went to A&M over the other two? No.

I always rule out aggy prior to interviews. No one in the office wants to risk some wide-set eyed mouth breather whooping at his fucking desk all day long.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

14 minutes ago, hornhorn said:

Its not a small difference, its 20 spots. Fine, let's take Rice(ranked 17) for example, again ranked much higher than UT: If you have a position to fill, offers between $85-90K/year based on experience and you have three equally qualified candidates from Rice, UT and Aggy(all 20 spots behind the one before them).

- Would you rule out the Aggy with similar qualifications and experience just because he went to A&M over the other two? No.

Once going through the interviews and narrowing them down, would you 

- Change the compensation you offer now that you have a candidate from Rice in the picture who obviously went to a much better school than the other two? No.

You have X number of jobs to fill, with X number of candidates. Unless they are truly something special the pay isn't going to change no matter the school and as long as they have similar experience/qualifications hiring managers would rarely rule them out. I'd agree with you if the 3 candidates were from Rice, UT and some online university, the third one maybe gets left out. But as long as they are from a state school with four year degree programs, especially noticeable "brands" due to their presence on TV via sports or flagship schools of their state, they aren't getting left out.

These rankings are meaningless if we aren't talking about MBA or law school. 

What you see are big differences in rankings, I don't think of as that big.  The differences between Rice, Texas, and A&M are small enough that it doesn't really harden my opinion of them one way or the other in the stuff I've been involved in.  Although the Rice to A&M spread starts to get there and would be weighing on my mind as potentially important.  

Anyway, your knowledge of the hiring practices in individual businesses throughout innumerous fields is pretty impressive.

[hornhorn 100]

2 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

What you see are big differences in rankings, I don't think of as that big.  The differences between Rice, Texas, and A&M are small enough that it doesn't really harden my opinion of them one way or the other in the stuff I've been involved in.  Although the Rice to A&M spread starts to get there and would be weighing on my mind as potentially important.  

Anyway, your knowledge of the hiring practices in individual businesses throughout innumerous fields is pretty impressive.

Acceptance rate at Harvard/Stanford is 4-6%, Rice is at 15% vs 40% at UT. 

That's a huge difference. 

[ztejas 43746]

1 minute ago, hornhorn said:

Acceptance rate at Harvard/Stanford is 4-6%, Rice is at 15% vs 40% at UT. 

That's a huge difference. 

Um... Rice has an undergrad population of 4k. UT is over 50k. I don't think that's a good metric to compare the 2. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

I think Rice is definitely a better school in general.  I also am aware that certain majors are considered better at UT than at Rice (including my own major).  I also think there are a lot of other viable reasons why to choose UT over Rice, so the mere names on there doesn't necessarily make me think one way or the other about the applicant.  Two quality schools offering different things.

What I'm talking about are the UTs versus places that are in the 150s in rankings.  Those make a difference to me.

[TwiceHorn 31686]

5 hours ago, 52-80 said:

jockeying powerpoints for accenture probably isnt the way to do it tho

I know two dudes that started with AAC in the late 80s from CofE (aka Cockrell).  They actually stuck with that shit and are sitting atop the heap.  It's a bigger racket than law practice, also an equally shitty or worse way to make money for the first 10 years.

[crash_davis 23158]

1 hour ago, hornhorn said:

Do you give candidates from University of Florida with same qualifications/experience a higher pedigree than the ones from UT?

if equal experience, i bring both in for an interview.  if both are equal after the interview, then my bias is to give the UT candidate the job, unless the UofF is a hot chic, then that trumps everything.  🙂 likewise, i'm sure the opposite would be true for a hiring manager in florida.

again, i consider myself like most other hiring managers.  it depends.  if a candidate has great experience and interviews well, then his/her school shouldn't matter.  however, schools factor somewhat into my decision on getting in the door.  for example, i did bring in an engligh harvard graduate for a PM job just to see how she interviewed.  she had some PM and business experience.  she didn't get the job because it was a senior position so i went with a higher experienced person but i certainly would've hired her for an entry or possibly a mid level position knowing that she's most likely smart enough to learn the job and skills and perform the job well.

[tx 3 putt 77935]

You have to factor in the rice grad having extreme social anxiety issues 

[Newdoc 3465]

23 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

You have to factor in the rice grad having extreme social anxiety issues 

This and anyone from Ivy league. These students and graduates are usually a beating in the personal communication and meta-language aspect. If you need them for something that involves sticking them in a basement and solving high level problems then go for it.

Now a undergrad from UT, UCLA, etc. and then phd from Ivy can be a different story. 

Edited September 11, 2019 by Newdoc

[Neonmoon 38130]

Don’t ever hire an Aggy. That shit spreads faster than South Austin’s mom. Once one of them gets in a hiring position they will only hire other Aggies, and create this weird hive cult inside your company. Then that section of the company starts to fuck things up all the time. I wish I was joking. 

Other than that, I don’t give a shit where they went to college. We’ve found productive normal people from Ivies, Public Ivies, Big 12 Retard Schools, SEC SEC, Big 10, State Regional...it usually just depends on the person. 

[tx 3 putt 77935]

Pics of these South Austin Moms ?

[crash_davis 23158]

5 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Pics of these South Austin Moms ?

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

38 minutes ago, Newdoc said:

This and anyone from Ivy league. These students and graduates are usually a beating in the personal communication and meta-language aspect. If you need them for something that involves sticking them in a basement and solving high level problems then go for it.

Now a undergrad from UT, UCLA, etc. and then phd from Ivy can be a different story. 

My experience is that Ivy Leaguers who have skills are all at the by NY investment banking firms or in law school.  The ones left are the kids whose parents forced them to practice cello and chess 18 hours a day in preschool.  Miserable fucks.

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

33 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

My experience is that Ivy Leaguers who have skills are all at the by NY investment banking firms or in law school.  The ones left are the kids whose parents forced them to practice cello and chess 18 hours a day in preschool.  Miserable fucks.

I went to UT grad school with a bunch of Ivy leaguers (in a field where your graduate pedigree mattered).  My take away on them is if you paid a quarter mill to go to Princeton for undergrad then had to settle for public school grad school, you were the dregs of your class.  They were all the mediocre students.

[FWD 297]

The University of California system has 6 universities rated higher than UT-Austin. UCLA, Berkeley, Davis, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Irvine.

There is no reason the state of Texas cannot produce a public university as good as the 6th best public in California. It is pathetic.

[Guest Lobo]

There are very significant reasons the State of Texas can barely produce one higher education university in the same breath as most of the UC schools.  It will continue to be that way at least for the next generation.  Only a handful of Texans, many of whom are bachelor holding Texans themselves, actually give a shit about the state of higher education in the Lone Star State.  And the reasons for them are antithetical to what actually makes UC/CSU schools great.  We are a walking paradox in this state.  The things we loudly exalt are not actually principles we live by.  

[DaysOff 8006]

The University of California system has 6 universities rated higher than UT-Austin. UCLA, Berkeley, Davis, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Irvine.
There is no reason the state of Texas cannot produce a public university as good as the 6th best public in California. It is pathetic.

If you use those rankings I guess it's true. Having a hard time believing the University of Chinese Immigrants should be ranked ahead of UT Austin.

[jimmyjazz 46479]

UT-Austin is generally held in very high regard, maybe not quite on the level of Cal-Berkeley, but in the same orbit as most "public Ivys" like Illinois, Wisconsin, UNC, etc., if not even a bit higher.  If a hiring manager truly put a lot of stock in the school, I seriously doubt the Cal-Davis grad would get the nod over an equal UT-Austin grad.  In reality, they could both be great, but the differentiator probably wouldn't be the school.

[ImissWallyPryor 9046]

The problem with USNWR undergrad rankings as far as large, public universities in flyover country are concerned is that so much of their ranking depends on things like student:faculty ratios and spending per student.  Even the acceptance rates are biased because I know a lot of students who waste money applying to Ivy League schools just to see if they can get in without a plan on how they'd pay for it (maybe hoping for scholarships).  It'd be interesting to see what percentage of acceptances result in actual enrollment.

The first time I saw their rankings in the 80s, Texas ranked in the top 25, IIRC. About 20-25 years ago, I read a critique of their rankings that pointed out that every change USNWR made in their ranking criteria favored the schools that the editorial staff and publishers attended, mostly East coast private schools. Schools in Texas, etc. can operate on a lower budget per student, but are punished for doing so.  Large schools with economies of scale are punished regardless of their location.

The graduate school rankings have fewer factors that favor schools on the coasts, and the University of Texas consistently ranks in the top 10 or top 25 in just about every category and subcategory.  Often, the expensive private schools don't fare as well as their undergraduate rankings would suggest.  I looked at Notre Dame (not an East coast school, I know) once and compared their graduate rankings with Texas'.  Texas beat them in probably 4 out of every 5 categories, but Notre Dame ranks well above Texas as an undergraduate school, according to USNWR.  Intuitively, that just doesn't make much sense to me.

And no, I'm not the least bit biased.

Edited September 11, 2019 by ImissWallyPryor

[YChang 3472]

If you use those rankings I guess it's true. Having a hard time believing the University of Chinese Immigrants should be ranked ahead of UT Austin.

 

I’m assuming you meant the Chinese qualifier as an insult but no... it’s not hard to imagine those UC schools being better than Texas at this period in time.

[ImissWallyPryor 9046]

On 9/10/2019 at 7:38 AM, VolenteHawk said:

I don’t mean for this to sound homerish but it might. Retention and graduation rate have always killed KU in these ratings, because until recently they had to accept anybody with a pulse as long as they were a graduate of a Kansas high school...and most schools in Kansas suck. The regents tied KU’s entrance requirements to all the state schools, so if you could get into Fort Hays State you could get into KU. KU fought it for years, because it limited out of state entrants and led to a staggering amount of dumbasses with no chance of graduating or even making it to their junior year. That finally changed but only went into effect 3 years ago. You still don’t have to be an elite student to get it, but the full on dumbasses are better weeded out. With no change to the academic quality, I’d expect a sharp uptick in rankings as the 2016 freshmen graduate and classes behind them advance just given the calculation.

 

I'd like to see a ranking of average SAT scores for graduates, not just incoming freshmen.  There are a lot of good public universities that are hamstrung by mandates requiring them to accept students who have little chance of succeeding. In fact, these schools probably see a 100-200 point increase by the time a class hits it's sophomore year.

[Bateshorn 9958]

There seems to be a lot of confusion on this thread that most people pay full ride to go to private school.  That is incorrect.  Usually well off (and even middling) private schools use a combination of merit and financial aid to make themselves competitive with in state public U. 

I can't speak for Texas, but on the coasts, the top 15 schools will get you an interview more often than others.  The name recognition gets you a foot in the door.

I agree that Ivy League grads tend to be extremely bifurcated:  Complete fucking rock stars, and zero personality eggheads.  There doesn't seem to be a lot of space in-between.

Edited September 12, 2019 by Bateshorn

[hornhorn 100]

I can agree with that, after the top 15 schools the name recognition is diluted enough that almost every school is the same until you hit for profit online universities.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5807]

On 9/11/2019 at 7:37 AM, Lobo said:

I'd say a distant second after the Big 10 is the Pac-12.  Yeah, they've got Arizona State Community College, and OSU and WSU aren't great...but 9 out of the 12 are very respected universities and some really elite schools in the mix as well.  The ACC really is pretty good top-to-middle as well, not like Pac-12 but respectable.  Sadly, the Big XII is a distant 4th, and then at the end of the academic world, you have the SEC.  

 

Pretty sure the ACC is ahead of the Big 10, and they definitely blow the Pac out of the water. The Big 10 and the ACC are in another tier from the rest of the conferences

[MAUFRAIS 6678]

 
I’m assuming you meant the Chinese qualifier as an insult but no... it’s not hard to imagine those UC schools being better than Texas at this period in time.

Lighten up, Francis-san. It’s a specific racist insult for Irvine, not a general observation about all the UC schools.