Couple of questions:

1) Would you really "forbid" your child from going to a particular school, and if so, why tu?

2) If your child is Harvard material, would you really steer them to a lower school?

WTF?
I don't see this as being true... NO TROLL BEEECHES!

Our diversity ranking sucked ass! I know the existence of minorities are limited but damn!

Diversity:You'll find people of all sorts, of every culture, background, and
social group, but only in small amounts. A&M is largely
conservative, Christian, and white. There is not much diversity. In
general, people are not very accepting towards other religions, races,
political beliefs, or sexual orientations. The student body is very
narrow minded and racist

3rd behind tu and Rice, but where did this *hit come from?

quote:

---

Couple of questions:

1) Would you really "forbid" your child from going to a particular school, and if so, why tu?

2) If your child is Harvard material, would you really steer them to a lower school?

---

No I wouldn't forbid them from going to that school up north but wouldn't encourage it (was being sarcastic). Secondly what school in particular are you referring to as being "lower"? Harvard is not the end all be all of education either. Texas A&M does exist and is a damn good school!

I just cannot stand the hate of bringing more students to TAMU. If we can get more "quality" students here then so be it. We will not become a diploma mill university by any means. I just don't see this happening. I just wouldn't want my kids going to a school where they may feel unwanted. I didn't experience that despite being a minority but things change and the schools I listed previously do not experience the racial divide some schools present.

This attitude of not wanting more students (as if it's some sort of disease) is the perfect brewing ground for a polarized environment. The most bewildering component with all this is the mid-west is heavily divided racially and the Universities are champions of avoidance of such conditions and environments.

Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, maybe Dartmouth and Penn. There are schools that if you get accepted and can manage it financially - you go. (period)

It's no insult to be "lesser" to these schools.

quote:

---

Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, maybe Dartmouth and Penn. There are schools that if you get accepted and can manage it financially - you go. (period)

It's no insult to be "lesser" to these schools.

---

You have a good point, but there are so many variables that this idea may not work for every student that "can" go to one of the schools you listed. Unless you (student) plan to get into finance, economics or business these schools may not be the best decision to attend. Personally, I'd rather my children attend Texas A&M (Engineering or Business) because the potential for a highly competitive meaningful job is very probable. The same can be said for the schools you listed, but the comparison on price and quality is an easy win for Texas A&M!

quote:

---

Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, maybe Dartmouth and Penn. There are schools that if you get accepted and can manage it financially - you go. (period)

It's no insult to be "lesser" to these schools.

---

This is true. Going to these schools changes the trajectory of your life. Not to say you can't be successful anywhere because you can. However, these schools open doors that can be very hard to open otherwise.

My daughter who just graduated high school could have gotten into a top tier school. She got a 35 on the ACT the first time she took it without any classes and only taking a few practice tests.

She didn't have lots of AP classes, but that is because she had some medical problems.

She didn't even apply to the Ivy League schools. We live in the San Francisco Bay area, and she has spent lots of time at Stanford. She also toured Duke. After that, she ruled out the elite private schools. It was just not her thing.

She is thinking that she wants to be a speech therapist, and there are not a lot of colleges that have the prerequisites that she needs.

She is actually going to the University of Alabama on a full out of state tuition scholarship. She loved their honors college. Her top 2 picks were University of Georgia and Alabama.

She figures the money she saves on her undergraduate degree will be used to fund graduate school.

2 of her roommates are National Merit Scholars. She's not the only smart kid picking Alabama.

I would have never dreamed that would be her final choice. However, she loved the school.

A&M has always had super smart kids choosing it. Many years ago, I remember our orthodontist's kid went to Princeton and majored in Chemical Engineering. He never did as well as the Aggies majoring in it. Aggies get lots of connections.

However, I am not thrilled with increasing tuition to 80,000. Part of A&M's appeal was that small town family vibe it had. My son is at A&M now, and I think it's lost some of it's family atmosphere. The dorms have really changed. When I was there, you lived in the dorms longer, and they were all very active communities with parties and activities. I also think moving to co-ed dorms made the dorms less of a community. I can see why fraternities and sororities have increased in popularity, but I think that has made A&M less unique.

$800,000,000.00 isn't chump change

quote:

---

OK, so the USNWR rankings don't matter.

Do any rankings?

---

A few other rankings that I don't believe have been discussed. They are well-known internationally and tell broadly the same story. Unlike US News which ranks the undergrad education, these focus more on overall research power, with more bearing on graduate programs:

https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2014#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search=

http://www.shanghairanking.com/

Interesting. Thanks.

FWIW, USNWR national university rankings are overall, including undergrad, grad and research. They do have a separate list for undergrad education. Princeton always is number one, Dartmouth bounces between 1 and 4.

It's no surprise that most of the top 10 alumni networks are universities with small enrollments and very low acceptance rates.

I think A&M's exclusion from the list is due to not drawing students nationally. The Aggie Network doesn't mean much outside of Texas. Move into the top 10 of public universities and this could change, but that won't happen while going the Arizona State/70% acceptance rate route.

quote:

---

Interesting. Thanks.

FWIW, USNWR national university rankings are overall, including undergrad, grad and research. They do have a separate list for undergrad education. Princeton always is number one, Dartmouth bounces between 1 and 4.

---

They call their main list "national universities" but they are not ranking the overall university, just the 4 year college there. They just want to do a separate grouping for national universities and liberal arts colleges, as going to a college at a national university is a different environment than at a liberal arts college, but notice that they're both under the category of "Best Colleges." There is no way that Rice University would be ahead of Berkeley or even Texas if it were an overall university ranking. I think even A&M is ranked above Rice on the research university rankings I posted above.

USNWR does have grad school rankings based on specialty, but they aren't very reputable.

quote:

---

They call their main list "national universities" but they are not ranking the overall university, just the 4 year college there.

---

Not sure that's completely accurate. They do have a separate ranking for "undergraduate teaching". It's a reason that a school like Dartmouth College is ranked lower than you'd think, as they are primarily anundergraduate college with minimal research.

Edit: I reviewed their criterion and it's unclear. You are correct that they don't seem to use research. However for things like professors and avg class size they do not specify if it's undergrad only or total school. Since they do breakout undergrad education as a separate listing, and the National College category requires PhD level programs, I'd think that graduate school is included in the ranking:

quote:

---

National Universities offer a full range of undergraduate majors, plus master's and doctoral programs, and emphasize faculty research. National Liberal Arts Colleges focus almost exclusively on undergraduate education. They award at least 50 percent of their degrees in the arts and sciences.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

They call their main list "national universities" but they are not ranking the overall university, just the 4 year college there.

---

Not sure that's completely accurate. They do have a separate ranking for "undergraduate teaching". It's a reason that a school like Dartmouth College is ranked lower than you'd think, as they are primarily anundergraduate college with minimal research.

Edit: I reviewed their criterion and it's unclear. You are correct that they don't seem to use research. However for things like professors and avg class size they do not specify if it's undergrad only or total school. Since they do breakout undergrad education as a separate listing, and the National College category requires PhD level programs, I'd think that graduate school is included in the ranking:

quote:

---

National Universities offer a full range of undergraduate majors, plus master's and doctoral programs, and emphasize faculty research. National Liberal Arts Colleges focus almost exclusively on undergraduate education. They award at least 50 percent of their degrees in the arts and sciences.

---

---

That last quote tells you the difference between a national university and a liberal arts college, but it does not mean they are ranking the whole university. The overall heading is "Best Colleges." This is a ranking of undergraduate education.

Dartmouth would be nowhere near the top 25 if it were an overall university ranking, and I doubt Rice would make the top 100. Berkeley would be top 5, Michigan top 10, Texas top 20. It's a whole different animal.

Why then the separate ranking for Best Undergraduate Teaching?

quote:

---

Many colleges have a strong commitment to teaching undergraduates instead of conducting graduate-level research. In a survey conducted in spring 2014, the schools on these lists received the most votes from top college administrators for putting a particular focus on undergraduate teaching.

---

How can they strip out undergraduate specific teaching from the National Rankings if the National Rankings are already 100% undergrad criteria?

quote:

---

Why then the separate ranking for Best Undergraduate Teaching?

quote:

---

Many colleges have a strong commitment to teaching undergraduates instead of conducting graduate-level research. In a survey conducted in spring 2014, the schools on these lists received the most votes from top college administrators for putting a particular focus on undergraduate teaching.

---

How can they strip out undergraduate specific teaching from the National Rankings if the National Rankings are already 100% undergrad criteria?

---

They're trying to show which of these big universities has a specific commitment to caring about undergraduate students, so that mom and dad know that little Johnny won't get lost.

I'm not getting into a back and forth. "Best Colleges" means undergrad. The whole ranking is oriented towards naive high school students and concerned parents. A real university ranking would give very little consideration to the student experience.

quote:

---

Why then the separate ranking for Best Undergraduate Teaching?

quote:

---

Many colleges have a strong commitment to teaching undergraduates instead of conducting graduate-level research. In a survey conducted in spring 2014, the schools on these lists received the most votes from top college administrators for putting a particular focus on undergraduate teaching.

---

How can they strip out undergraduate specific teaching from the National Rankings if the National Rankings are already 100% undergrad criteria?

---

Here's what they say the criteria are for the overall ranking:

quote:

---

The indicators we use to capture academic quality fall into a number of categories: assessment by administrators at peer institutions, retention of students, faculty resources, student selectivity, financial resources, alumni giving, graduation rate performance and, for National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges only, high school counselor ratings of colleges.

The indicators include input measures that reflect a school's student body, its faculty and its financial resources, along with outcome measures that signal how well the institution does its job of educating students.

---

While for best undergrad teaching they used a very different methodology

quote:

---

The rankings for Best Undergraduate Teaching focus on schools whose faculty and administrators are committed to teaching undergraduate students in a high-quality manner. College presidents, provosts and admissions deans who participated in the annual U.S. News peer assessment survey were asked to nominate up to 10 schools in their Best Colleges ranking category with a strength in undergraduate teaching.

The Best Undergraduate Teaching rankings are based solely on the responses to this separate section of the peer assessment survey.

---

Genuinely interested in your take, as you are clearly informed, don't mean to seem belligerant...

I just don't completely agree, that's all. (But that probably means I'm wrong.)

quote:

---

A real university ranking would give very little consideration to the student experience.

---

I disagree with this. Indeed if that were true, much of what we sell as a benefit of Texas A&M wouldn't be important. Without a good student experience, there would be fewer (or no) students and hence no university. Clearly it would have to be weighted appropriately, but would be higher than "very little consideration".

Also, that undergraduate teaching ranking, based upon my one student experience, has nothing to do with "mommy and daddy". Kids fixin' to spend a quarter million dollars on an undergraduate education tend to be very particular/wary of what they are buying (or is being bought for them) The kids that qualify for these schools are by definition serious and driven and far from needing "mommy and daddy" to lead the way.

biobioprof,

quote:

---

assessment by administrators at peer institutions, faculty resources, financial resources, alumni giving,

---

Do these parameters, by definition, exclude grad school influence. It may be implied, but I can't find where it's stated?

quote:

---

biobioprof,

quote:

---

assessment by administrators at peer institutions, faculty resources, financial resources, alumni giving,

---

Do these parameters, by definition, exclude grad school influence. It may be implied, but I can't find where it's stated?

---

I would say no they don't. Administrators at peer institutions are not going to know the details of the undergraduate programs elsewhere... in many cases they aren't really aware of all the things going on at their own campuses; it's impossible to really know at a school the size of TAMU. Some high profile things are going to be on their radar. People who get things like big HHMI and NSF grants for education stuff. Stars who are associated with teaching. For example: tu undoubtedly gets national reputation credit for their freshman research initiative and Colorado's reputation is helped by Nobel Laureate Tom Cech's high profile commitment to teaching. But while those things are great, it's not clear how much they affect the quality of overall undergraduate education for other majors. There's a trend these days of emphasizing assessment at the university level (lagging K-12 in some ways, I suppose). But from what I've seen, while people are doing some interesting things in that area, it's not anywhere close to being ready to make comparisons across schools.

For administrators I'm sure that their implicit bias about overall reputation is involved in a USNWR survey. They're busy people. That reputation probably includes more research reputation than graduate programs per se. While grad students do a lot in research, the top places have lots of postdocs and some very good non-tenure-track senior scientists. Heck, a friend of mine at MIT had someone working his lab for years who had been on the faculty at Harvard Med, but didn't make tenure there. I also suspect the level of visible spin-off businesses also affects the overall reputation. Long before Google, HP was a big part of Stanford's reputation as being central to Silicon Valley.

Edit to add: after writing all of the above, I found myself wondering if the surveyed University admins do the USNWR survey the way the coaches are said to do the coaches poll: have a grad assistant fill it out!

quote:

---

Genuinely interested in your take, as you are clearly informed, don't mean to seem belligerant...

I just don't completely agree, that's all. (But that probably means I'm wrong.)

quote:

---

A real university ranking would give very little consideration to the student experience.

---

I disagree with this. Indeed if that were true, much of what we sell as a benefit of Texas A&M wouldn't be important. Without a good student experience, there would be fewer (or no) students and hence no university. Clearly it would have to be weighted appropriately, but would be higher than "very little consideration".

Also, that undergraduate teaching ranking, based upon my one student experience, has nothing to do with "mommy and daddy". Kids fixin' to spend a quarter million dollars on an undergraduate education tend to be very particular/wary of what they are buying (or is being bought for them) The kids that qualify for these schools are by definition serious and driven and far from needing "mommy and daddy" to lead the way.

biobioprof,

quote:

---

assessment by administrators at peer institutions, faculty resources, financial resources, alumni giving,

---

Do these parameters, by definition, exclude grad school influence. It may be implied, but I can't find where it's stated?

---

Since you're genuinely interested and not belligerent, I will explain a little further. The reason student experience would be given little consideration is that when people compare universities overall, what really matters is what the universities produce in terms of original research, ideas, inventions. Student experience is more of something that is of concern to students, and mainly undergrads at that. Grad students tend to care more about who the faculty are, resources, what the school is good at, whether they will have funding to support themselves, and where they will end up in the job market. They are generally willing to live in a cardboard box if all those other things are there.

Also, I said "mom and dad," not "mommy and daddy." I don't disagree that students are very concerned and shrewd about these things, but parents are usually the ones paying for it, and I think much of what goes into a college ranking is tailored with them in mind.

this editorial in the WaPo seems appropriate to the discussion

quote:

---

If we are going to treat college as a commodity, and an expensive one at that, we should at least grasp the essence of its economic nature. Unlike a car, college requires the "buyer" to do most of the work to obtain its value. The value of a degree depends more on the student's input than on the college's curriculum. I know this because I have seen excellent students get great educations at average colleges, and unmotivated students get poor educations at excellent colleges. And I have taught classes which my students made great through their efforts, and classes which my students made average or worse through their lack of effort. Though I would like to think I made a real contribution to student learning, my role was not the sole or even determining factor in the value of those courses to my students.

A college education, then, if it is a commodity, is no car. The courses the student decides to take (and not take), the amount of work the student does, the intellectual curiosity the student exhibits, her participation in class, his focus and determination all contribute far more to her educational "outcome" than the college's overall curriculum, much less its amenities and social life. Yet most public discussion of higher ed today pretends that students simply receive their education from colleges the way a person walks out of Best Buy with a television.

---

Those are interesting thought,s but education isn't a commodity as is his point, right? It would be interesting if there were a measure of "student seriousness and intensity". I suspect it would line up with the perceived rankings of schools, i.e. overall Harvard probably has more intentful students than Texas State. I think students look at academic rankings, at least partially, with that sort of thing in mind.

,And I still have trouble with the concept of valuing a degree based solely upon the money it earns. A&M touts the "other education" as being an important part of the value of an education, and I agree with A&M. And bringing this discussion back to A&M, if we want to consider ourselves "better" than Texas Tech and Texas State, it is only wise to look at the schools considered to be "better" than us for comparison, right?

I agree Cecil.

As populations increase, figures naturally inflate. Take that to mean numbers or waistlines, they're probably both correct.

Top 10 ROI colleges.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/Slideshow/2015/06/11/10-Biggest-Bang-Buck-Colleges

1) Harvey Mudd
2) Cal Tech
3) Stanford
4) Stevens Institute of Technology
5) Babson College
6) MIT
7) Princeton University
8) Brown University
9) Colorado School of Mines
10) Rice University

With an $11 billion endowment, A&M needs to do better than this.

28) UT-Austin
69) Rice
141) Texas A&M

https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking

quote:

---

With an $11 billion endowment, A&M needs to do better than this.

28) UT-Austin
69) Rice
141) Texas A&M

https://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2014-15/world-ranking

---

And this:

Acceptance Rates
UTSA 60%
DBU 44%
Baylor 58%
TCU 49%
UofH 58%
UNT 61%
TAMU 69.2%

He's probably getting a kick back from the local businesses. That's the only thing that would benefit.

There seems to be lotsa butthurt on here with regard to A&M's ranking by the perceived leaders among national media.

These are links to listings of two of the top ten richest university systems in America, as published by Forbes. Of particular note, the "flagship" campuses of these two systems are not mentioned in the Forbes listings.

Since this is the zoo....." a major black eye for the media and public relations departments at these 2 flagship institutions."

http://www3.forbes.com/education/22-richest-schools-in-america/21/

http://www3.forbes.com/education/22-richest-schools-in-america/17/

Forget Forbes. We are the Aggies.....the Aggies are we.

We have become the society that believes that every kid should get a college education. So when all these kids graduate, they can have their expectations shattered by the reality that a liberal arts degree does not always get you a desk job.

quote:

---

We have become the society that believes that every kid should get a college education. So when all these kids graduate, they can have their expectations shattered by the reality that a liberal arts degree does not always get you a desk job.

---

The STEM fields are not a panacea.

Engineering is saturated as is. Technology fields are similar to the gold rush right now, and will level out the salary to becoming the new standard business major - which may or may not be a bad thing.

And science along with mathematics? Well, you pretty much need a Ph.D nowadays to be anything other than a research assistant or teacher.

Texas A&M's job is to be the FLAGSHIP institution that provides education to the public, accepting the best students while the others without the credentials or test scores can go to other non-flagship schools TAMU-CC, TAMU-Galveston, and such.

We should striving to be like or better than the other flagships: UVa, UT, UC-Berkeley, Wisc, UMich, UF, and so on. But they're currently outperforming us.

What metrics do we have other than ROI or US News? Both of which we seem to be slipping in (see above). I'm not saying we should be some elite school like Stanford, Cornell, Harvard, etc. That's dumb. But we should be at least equal to our peers.

Nowadays, due to the large amount of college educated students, your university seems to provide the initial filter for jobs. If we slip up, it does not bode well for future Ags.

Ranger. Your info on acceptance rates was disturbing. I did not realize that we were admitting so many so easily.

The gap b/t where we are and where we should be is widening, all for the sake of bringing in more money.

Is anyone actually doing anything about it? Sending emails and withholding donations?

Knocking Liberal Arts shows little understanding of what strengthens the mind and makes for a good critical thinking person. Quite frankly there are many great individuals in history that would tell you, one is not truly educated without one. Now, if your expectation is to be job ready when graduating from the undergraduate program like some sort of technical school, then perhaps liberal arts is not for you. However, if you look at learning as a process and life long endeavor, start with Liberal Arts then hone your skills with an advanced degree or work in the field and career of your choice.

quote:

---

Knocking Liberal Arts shows little understanding of what strengthens the mind and makes for a good critical thinking person. Quite frankly there are many great individuals in history that would tell you, one is not truly educated without one. Now, if your expectation is to be job ready when graduating from the undergraduate program like some sort of technical school, then perhaps liberal arts is not for you. However, if you look at learning as a process and life long endeavor, start with Liberal Arts then hone your skills with an advanced degree or work in the field and career of your choice.

---

Correct. Thank you.