Mga app ng Google
Pangunahing menu

Post a Comment On: Steve Sailer: iSteve

"College rankings"

24 Comments -

1 – 24 of 24
Anonymous birmingham said...

If I had a kid who could get into Cal Tech

Ouch. Does Sailer Junior read this blog? That's gotta hurt. You don't worry about his self-esteem if he hears his own father say things like that?

Regression to the mean, maybe?

9/17/09, 6:27 PM

Blogger Greg said...

Steve, no one uses "neoliberal" this way anymore.

"Neoliberal" means evil free market capitalism and globalization -- Friedman and Hayek -- in the current language fashion.

9/17/09, 6:43 PM

OpenID mutecypher said...

Those of us who went to Cal Tech also wonder if it makes sense to have such an oppressive level of difficulty. I'm told it's a pretty cushy place for grad students. So, send your kid to Harvey Mudd or MIT or Stanford and then they can go to Tech for the additional letters and skip the part where they're made to feel stupid. Unless your kid is a seriously arrogant little prick, then it might do them some good. For some of us, humiliation is a necessary part of growing up.

9/17/09, 6:50 PM

Anonymous Will said...

Steve,

Three questions I'm curious about: What schools were you accepted to as an undergraduate, and why did you choose to go to Rice?

What was your SAT score, and what was the verbal/math breakdown?

Why UCLA for b-school?

9/17/09, 7:01 PM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the Liberal Arts list, they've ranked Morehouse 14th (above Grinnell and Wheaton?) Spelman 21st, Fisk 32nd, Dillard 40th, and Rust 57th. (All are historically black institutions)

I suspect there was some "special sauce" weighting involved here especially as Rust University's graduation rate is 29%!

For comparison's sake, the excellent Kenyon College is ranked #58 (one space lower than Rust), and yet it graduates 83%.

9/17/09, 8:58 PM

Anonymous Mitch said...

I don't know about the others, but at Cal you can graduate with a liberal arts degree with just one math class, "pre-calc". This class is waived if you get over 600 on the SAT Math section, which is everyone except URMs.

9/17/09, 9:03 PM

Anonymous Reg Cæsar said...

The elite model these days is to have very high admissions standards and pretty low graduation standards. Is that better for the country?

If the country is Japan! That's been their "elite model" for generations.

UCLA didn't use to be easy...

It's so refreshing to see this phrase spelled correctly. I can't remember a time when one didn't use to see the wretched "didn't used" much more often.

9/17/09, 9:11 PM

Anonymous Tom V said...

"Alma maternal pride" would have been a characteristically brilliant coinage, Steve, but it should refer to something that UCLA feels for you rather than the other way round.

9/17/09, 10:09 PM

Blogger Steve Sailer said...

Oh, well, no hope of that!

9/17/09, 10:15 PM

Anonymous klaos said...

I guess once we're in full fledged Idiocracy they'll scrap the GDP in favor of a GDPPG (Gross Domestic Production of Public Good).

9/18/09, 12:01 AM

Anonymous stari_momak said...

According to the Washington Monthly's (presumably linear) model, 104% of Cal Tech students should graduate

I would think that if they are going to do this sort of thing, they would at least consult with a social scientist aware of logistic regression.

9/18/09, 12:03 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What were you doing on the Cal Tech campus?

Were you running 'Game' on statistics nerd girls?

9/18/09, 12:26 AM

Anonymous dearieme said...

"some of the high rankings of the UC universities stem from the Research measures being partly biased in favor of sheer size of school": are you using "neo-liberal" as a code for "stupid"?

9/18/09, 2:15 AM

Anonymous Drawbacks said...

Maybe Caltech just don't care much about their students.

9/18/09, 6:19 AM

Blogger silly girl said...

There is an interesting discussion at the feministing blog of all places where one commenter, Alice, asserted that in fact college is an "investment" worthy of debt in only some cases. She further argued that college is actually "consumption" if the degree, college, etc. does not lead to a return on the outlay.

It really is a better paradigm. That is "investment grade" education vs. "personal enrichment" education.

It would be nice if a newspaper or magazine would do a review of colleges and degrees based on their value as an investment. This would take a fair degree of analysis because although there is info on the average salary for graduates in certain fields, say a CPA, some employers pay more and are more likely to interview and hire graduates of certain programs. The ratio of the cost of a specific degree at a given institution to the lifetime average income potential is its investment rating.

Just an idea.

9/18/09, 7:13 AM

Blogger silly girl said...

Comment by Alice at feministing blog


It has nothing to do with the extent to which different degrees are "worthwhile," but with the fact that a degree that can make you money is, besides whatever else it may be to you, an investment, whereas a degree which you pursue purely for its own sake is a form of consumption.
Going into huge amounts of debt can make sense if you expect the returns to be worth the wait, even if your real reasons for doing it don't involve money. The problem with unprofitable degrees is not that people get them, but with people treating such consumption, noble a form of consumption as it may be, as though it were an investment, and going into far more debt than they would normally be willing to for something that they did not expect to earn a return on.
So, saying that you should not go into a huge amount of debt for a degree that will not pay for itself is largely the same as saying that you should not go into a huge amount of debt for any other form of consumption.

http://www.feministing.com/archives/017772.html#comments

9/18/09, 7:16 AM

Blogger Quant said...

Regarding CalTech's low graduation rate, it may not be a problem if its "dropouts" are simply students who find it too intense and transfer to another college. Anyone smart enough to get into CalTech is smart enough to graduate from a decent school.

How do transfers out of a school affect its reported graduation rate?

9/18/09, 10:02 AM

Anonymous Anonymous said...

birmingham: That's not much of a self-esteem crusher. Cal Tech is damned hard to get into.

9/18/09, 10:22 AM

Anonymous Alticor said...

I paid about ten thousand dollars, total to get a degree in Political Science. I went to a small town community college 2 years and the other two as an adult off campus resident local at a crummy teacher college.

I paid $24,800, upfront and in cash, to get an aircraft mechanic's license thru a private vo tech school. In both cases I cared little about the subject-I wanted a flying job and airlines wanted a degree, any degree. Aeronautical Engineering was no more attractive than music or literature. When the airline jobs collapsed, I wanted a corporate flying job and having an A&P is a big advantage. I had no intention of becoming an aircraft mechanic per se.

The quality of instruction at the vo-tech was vastly superior.

9/18/09, 3:40 PM

Blogger Truth said...

"The quality of instruction at the vo-tech was vastly superior."

I had a similar experience. There is nothing quite like the feeling of "graduating" from a Southwest directional school, then moving to LA and discovering that your freshman level classes at Los Angeles Valley College are more challenging than your Senior level classes back home were.

9/18/09, 5:18 PM

Anonymous Anonymous Rice grad said...

Steve,

I am also curious about Rice. I was there about 10 years after you. Two questions:

1. What did you think of it (educationally, socially, etc.)?

2. I remember being told that prior to the mid-80's or so, it had "the highest" or at least an on-par with MIT suicide rate due to workload and academic pressures. But then they had some sort of reform to mellow things out a bit by the time I got there.

My opinion of it was that it was challenging enough, probably harder than the Ivies but not at the level I would have expected at MIT/Cal Tech. What was it like when you were there?

9/18/09, 6:38 PM

Blogger Steve Sailer said...

"I am also curious about Rice."

My recollection of 1976-1980 is that Rice then was hard but not brutal; but I triple-majored in soft subjects (econ, history, management). It was clearly much harder for science and engineering majors. About 3/4ths of freshmen entered intending to major in S/E fields, but only about half graduated with an S/E degree.

I don't, however, recall many people other than architecture majors and computer science majors routinely pulling all-nighters. A roommate had to switch to working all night to graduate in CS because the mainframe was so slow during the day.

The serious dope smokers tended to fail to graduate, or still be at Rice after a half dozen years. Most people who did graduate seemed to study six nights per week and party one night. It was fairly monastic -- most guys didn't seem to have girlfriends, at least not until they got far enough ahead and could coast during their senior years.

I may be underestimating how hard it was, though. I had higher than average SAT scores, easier classes (especially in Econ, which didn't require any econometrics back then), and good, non-procrastinatory work habits (much better than I have today).

9/18/09, 7:24 PM

Anonymous Horace Mann said...

It looks like some of the authors of this ranking share some of Stevil's ideas from an earlier post of his and may perhaps even be readers.

From Purpose:

we want to add even more, particularly with respect to the single most important thing colleges do: helping students learn. Remarkably, colleges report virtually no useful, comparable information about teaching practices or how much students learn between the time they arrive as freshmen and leave as seniors. It’s not that such data don’t exist...

There are, however, positive signs from the Obama administration, including a push for legislation that would require colleges to report data like graduation rates for Pell Grant recipients (another measure we called for four years ago), how much students earn after college, and whether they land a good job. This type of transparency will be key to understanding which colleges really serve the public interest—and giving others a reason to follow their lead.

9/18/09, 10:20 PM

Blogger Andrea Nyx Hemera said...

If they really want to be PC, why not include some city colleges or community colleges?

9/18/09, 11:14 PM

Comments are moderated, at whim.
You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
OpenID LiveJournal WordPress TypePad AOL