Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

anandsanwal.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 78 posts

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#41

Post by bbor »

WalterBright wrote: post #37
bbor wrote: post #33

Ha, pretty funny article. Well written for sure, but it's got major "if only they let ME run things, everything would be fixed in day!" vibes. College rankings aren't broken because some data scientist made a bad decision, they're broken because they're an essential part in the contemporary American class system: sending your kid to SAT bootcamp and then a "prestigious" university is one of the few ways the top 10% c…

Supplying free rides results in students who don't have "skin in the game". If one works to pay the tuition, one is incentivized to get the most value out of their classes. Without such skin in the game, a student is more likely to do as little as possible and focus on having fun instead.

Maybe! Not sure I've seen data that supports that, but it's a sound hypothesis among some populations. That said, the students who do the very least work and learn absolutely nothing are the ones too poor to ever become undergraduate students in the first place ;)

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#42

Post by itronitron »

WalterBright wrote: post #38
DoreenMichele wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Viewing college through this lens is part of the problem. It's college as job training , not education. Real education covers more than "skills and credentials I need to get a well-paid job."

> Real education covers more than "skills and credentials I need to get a well-paid job." I'm curious what real education would be that does not impart a skill that others are willing to pay for? I speak as someone who selected classes based on maximizing skills that would be useful in the career I wanted.

philosophy, fine arts, comparative literature, history, etc.

Those are all quite valuable to have in the workplace, but anyone with a bachelors in one of those topics will likely need to get a masters degree in the same field or something else before they can find a decent career.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#43

Post by screye »

r00fus wrote: post #2

Modern US society seems to be layers upon layers of gamified results with little coherent vision. We blame other countries for having "stifling" regulation, "burdensome" oversight and "top-down" planning, but honestly - it seems we simply let problems precipitate for decades on end and in many cases think it's some sort of achievement.

It's the inevitable conclusion of American meritocracy.

In a world where you can achieve anything, someone without achievements must be incapable or, worse, apathetic. Pair that with routine measurement, and it creates a real compounding effect.

So parents correctly try to accumulate achievements as early as possible. To get into HFT, you must go an Ivy, for which you need a recommendation at a top high school, etc, etc....and so you need to impress the pre-K director.

Even (so-called) failure must be managed strategically. Spend 6 months as a freshman at MIT before dropping out, so everyone knows you're better than the best.

Other nations don't do much better. It's a pick your poison situation. But, other nations seem more willing to accept the poison as a necessary evil. The US (systems, not individuals) refuses to see its quirks as anything but a universal good.

Still the least bad system out there.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#44

Post by taeric »

toast0 wrote: post #40
ineedasername wrote: post #12

Here's an insider's insight: Colleges hate these rankings too, including the shit eating grin they have to plaster on their face when they go out in public and say things like "We're one of the top 10 small public non-land grant research institutions in the upper middle pacific northwest region!" But too many families have been convinced that rankings like this are useful so now the institutions have little choice bu…

I dunno, my community college didn't seem to care about rankings (although they were proud of their transfer statistics), but my 4 year school seemed really proud to be in the top 10 of small private engineering schools where doctorates are not offered in the upper midwest that nobody two states away has heard of. Looking now, they've got actually some good looking rankings in some other categories.

Agreed on the skepticism. Feels safe to say that anyone not in the top 10 don't care about the ratings that heavily, but I question whether it is meaningless.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#45

Post by ocean_moist »

Here is a relevant tool that ranks colleges (and degrees) by ROI/EV: https://www.collegenpv.com/programrankings/?pcip=11&page=1&s.... Not perfect, but better.

As someone who just played the college admissions game last year, these (US News) rankings pretty accurately reflect the *perceptions* of the general, college applying, public (or maybe they are the source of those perceptions). They aren't really even good at that outside the T10.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#46

Post by WalterBright »

itronitron wrote: post #42
WalterBright wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Real education covers more than "skills and credentials I need to get a well-paid job." I'm curious what real education would be that does not impart a skill that others are willing to pay for? I speak as someone who selected classes based on maximizing skills that would be useful in the career I wanted.

philosophy, fine arts, comparative literature, history, etc. Those are all quite valuable to have in the workplace, but anyone with a bachelors in one of those topics will likely need to get a masters degree in the same field or something else before they can find a decent career.

Why does that make comparative literature, for example, a "real" education and, say, math not?

BTW, there's no need to go to university to learn history. All that's necessary is to read a history book. I read lots of them. Paying someone to lecture you about history seems a waste of time and money. Just read it. Much more time efficient.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#47

Post by WalterBright »

bbor wrote: post #41
WalterBright wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supplying free rides results in students who don't have "skin in the game". If one works to pay the tuition, one is incentivized to get the most value out of their classes. Without such skin in the game, a student is more likely to do as little as possible and focus on having fun instead.

Maybe! Not sure I've seen data that supports that, but it's a sound hypothesis among some populations. That said, the students who do the very least work and learn absolutely nothing are the ones too poor to ever become undergraduate students in the first place ;)

I see it all the time. Money is a very effective motivator. Working to get money is very much going to influence what you choose to buy with it - and you're going to want to get your money's worth.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#48

Post by itronitron »

WalterBright wrote: post #46
itronitron wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

philosophy, fine arts, comparative literature, history, etc. Those are all quite valuable to have in the workplace, but anyone with a bachelors in one of those topics will likely need to get a masters degree in the same field or something else before they can find a decent career.

Why does that make comparative literature, for example, a "real" education and, say, math not? BTW, there's no need to go to university to learn history. All that's necessary is to read a history book. I read lots of them. Paying someone to lecture you about history seems a waste of time and money. Just read it. Much more time efficient.

I'd consider math a real education as well.

Going back to the initial comment you were responding to, I'd add that most degrees will cover things that aren't skills and credentials that will help someone get a job. That may explain why people with CS degrees still have to answer fizzbuzz questions in job interviews.

Whether reading history is more time efficient than taking a class depends a lot on the topic, the writing about it, and the knowledge and abilities of the professor. It's been my experience that a knowledgeable professor can add important context to a topic that will save the student a lot of time and energy.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#49

Post by [deleted] »

WalterBright wrote: post #37
bbor wrote: post #33

Ha, pretty funny article. Well written for sure, but it's got major "if only they let ME run things, everything would be fixed in day!" vibes. College rankings aren't broken because some data scientist made a bad decision, they're broken because they're an essential part in the contemporary American class system: sending your kid to SAT bootcamp and then a "prestigious" university is one of the few ways the top 10% c…

Supplying free rides results in students who don't have "skin in the game". If one works to pay the tuition, one is incentivized to get the most value out of their classes. Without such skin in the game, a student is more likely to do as little as possible and focus on having fun instead.

[deleted]

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#50

Post by norir »

WalterBright wrote: post #47
bbor wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe! Not sure I've seen data that supports that, but it's a sound hypothesis among some populations. That said, the students who do the very least work and learn absolutely nothing are the ones too poor to ever become undergraduate students in the first place ;)

I see it all the time. Money is a very effective motivator. Working to get money is very much going to influence what you choose to buy with it - and you're going to want to get your money's worth.

Money is an effective motivator until it isn't. I quit an extremely lucrative job because I hated the person I was turning in to and haven't looked back.

I would be wary of making generalizations on motivation which is highly variable person to person.

Post reply on HN