College Rankings, Do They Really Matter?

I think among recruiters and grad schools the rankings don't mean too much since they know that it's highly volatile with the exception of the top 5 (harvard/yale/princeton/stanford/mit). The colleges themselves do care a lot about it since it affects public percetion and application numbers.

I think the top 5 I mentioned will always be the best schools in the country, and that's not going to change. The schools below them are more debatable: penn, columbia, duke, dartmouth, uchicago, brown, cornell.

You just butthurt yours got kicked out of top 25.

To boost what LastCall is saying, take a look at the book "Harvard Envy." It talks about how schools obsess over rankings and tend to mis-allocate resources to things that can make them "look better," while the schools at the very top always have been, and always will be the top schools. It's available for free on the Amazon marketplace and can be read in an afternoon.

http://www.amazon.com/Harvard-Envy-Colleges-Overshoot-ebook/dp/B005O3AM…

Obviously they are legit. I mean when I went to school, my university's ranking dropped from #8 to #10. The year after I left it went from #10 to #8. How could they not be legit if they measured my influence on the academic human capital pool so effectively?

Rankings don't mean shit but also it's a fact that HYPS give great financial aid (I got by far the best aid package from the one I go to).

Also maybe Oglethrope University has better teaching than Cornell but I think you would find more smart / well-connected people at an ivy than at oglethrope lol.

But yeah ofc brandname is nothing compared to personal character/willpower. Yet it doesn't hurt to go to a "prestigious" school.

HYPS will always be on top of the rankings. It has everything to do with money. They have more access to resources, and they can pay the best professors in the country. That attracts the smartest people in the country, who then become the richest and most powerful people in the country. They will continue to donate millions to the endowment, and go out of their way to help other alumni.

So, basically money is everything. Just go look at the difference between a Teir 2-3 state school vs a Tier 1 state school. Kids who attend a Tier 2-3 school are at a huge disadvantage.

i mean, i come from a top 30, so i know what you mean about how certain schools never seem to budge- my school as been kind of stuck in it's middling position for a long time, and you'd think that you'd see the list be a little bit more dynamic...

however, it's kind of like a positive feedback thing: these schools are consistently ranked top because the best people go there, and then perform the best in society. the system may be a little bit broken, but the rankings follow sound reasoning in making this list

also, don't you think you attacking image and money is a little bit hypocritical, especially on a forum like this? why would you be here anyway?

Rankings are a tough call. I didn't go to a top school, wanted to, couldn't afford it - even with loans. Thats neither here nor there. Top schools do help you get a foot in the door; however, there are two questions to ask. 1. What is the drive of the individual? People find opportunties they don't just come to you. If you truly want to do something you will. 2. By going to a top school where will you be in 10 years compared to someone that didn't? Most likely the same job one with more debt and the other with less.

• Here is something to ponder. I went to a onground UOP. UOP leases its masters program to UIC and benedictine, that I know of. Most of my teachers were alumni of top schools and people in great positions that just wanted to teach 1 night a week for fun.

I think major matters more than school

The nike vs wal mart sneaker analogy is not very apt. Why? Because when it comes to private colleges, Oglethorpe is sometimes just as expensive as say, Dartmouth or Georgetown. And top schools like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc. can end up being the cheapest option or close to the cheapest option for many families.

The prestige/brand of the school is what matters. And if your college ranking is going to take that into account, and if that is what is cared about in a ranking, then college rankings do matter.

The "real" ranking of schools, i.e. where they fall in terms of reputation and prestige within your target industry, matters a huge amount. Rankings in magazines/papers are usually bull shit, with random variable s sending random schools up and down way too far.

i dont think it matters much as long as top 30 or 40 on bizweek

these prestige school threads will be the death of this site.

No they don't matter you cretins have it all wrong. You better know someone in this game if you expect to move around. If not, you're better of learning to trade, make $250K then invest in something outside of wall street.

College rankings are just another tool that person A can use to claim they're better than person B. Person C or D can accomplish the same end using tools such as employer or salary or any number of variables.

At the end of the day, the question shouldn't be "Do College Rankings Matter" but rather, does being better than someone else based on some arbitrary measure matter?

Life is a shitshow.

Columbia > UPenn, sweeeet

Lets face a fact... MacroEconomics is the same at a Target School as it is at a Non-Target, and this basically goes for all of business majors. Finance is essentially black and white. Now I agree that assumptions and interpretations are why we enjoy finance and what makes it creative and unique. But what is taught in undergrad is merely the foundation. Regardless of the university, it is your work ethic that allows you to indulge yourself in the creative mindset. I made the financial decision to go to a state school over the $50k target schools. Now I have NO debt, and a excellent offer in IB... so what really is the difference?

The rankings will always be biased towards private schools so fuck it. Don't even know if there is a difference between top 5 state schools and private schools ranked #11-20.

There are three types of people concerning this topic: 1.) grads who think rankings are completely asinine and irrelevant and say it because they DON'T work in their favor 2.) grads who think rankings are completely asinine and irrelevant and don't say it because they DO work in their favor 3.) kids who haven't even graduated yet and thus aren't allowed to speak

Great comments everybody, thank you and I like the differing opinions!

Here’s a few that I’d like comment on…

Bonks thanks a lot for the information! I suggest everyone here at least take a look at this as it drives home the point of my article, Harvard Envy: Why Too Many Colleges Overshoot

matayo41] …don't you think you attacking image and money is a little bit hypocritical, especially on a forum like this? Why would you be here anyway?”[\quote]</p> <p>No at all, I find nothing hypocritical about reporting anecdotal facts about image and money. Besides, I explicitly stated I have no issue with either. I’m not here to confirm what you may believe but occasionally challenge what <abbr title=Wall Street Oasis>WSO</abbr> accepts, see my earlier articles <a href=//www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/84413>GMngmt</a>.</p> <p>[quote=TheLastCall:

People in general underestimate how important school brand is. Not to say that personal qualities are not more important; ultimately it's up to you to take advantage of opportunities. But going to the right school, especially at the MBA level, opens doors that otherwise could be closed to you.”

I agree.

Virtu333:

The Nike vs. Wal-Mart sneaker analogy is not very apt.

I’m glad you bring this up. Here’s why I think it stands: I went to RIT (Wal-Mart), a private second-tier engineering school for Finance and Economics. My alma mater, who was the President of the Financial Management Association had parents that both worked at Cornell (Nike) and friends that attended. He confessed their coursework was relatively the same and may in fact be more challenging at RIT because we did it in 10 weeks instead of 16! The point being, I got two degrees by spending less than I would at Cornell yet the subject matter is likely identical in nature. Like raz points out, finance doesn’t change from institution to institution you’re either teaching it correctly or not. The same goes for economics and I argue as a matter of value that one should pay the lesser amount for commoditized information. In other words, I can get the same basic function of a sneaker (two majors) from Wal-Mart (RIT) instead of paying for the more expensive Nike (Cornell). If instead, I went to Cornell I could get the same knowledge but pay more, ceterus paribus. So what I’m saying is that the functionality of either Nike or Wal-Mart sneakers are relatively the same but what’s added in the price of the Nike (Cornell) is a premium partly based on brand, image, perception etc.

raz:

Let’s face a fact. Macroeconomics is the same at a target school as it is at a non-target, and this basically goes for all of business majors. Finance is essentially black and white. Now, I agree that assumptions and interpretations are why we enjoy finance and what makes it creative and unique. But what is taught in undergrad is merely the foundation. Regardless of the university, it is your work ethic that allows you to indulge yourself in the creative mindset.”

Excellent point!