If you’ve read this blog for more than a few months, then you know where I come down on the College Rankings issue. It’s crap, and I don’t like it. You can read the full, venomous fury in the Previous Posts list below.

For now, here’s one rankings list that is based on tuition costs alone, which I mostly trust because I can’t see how they could tweak and warp basic numbers. U.S. News and World Report has a simple list of the 10 Most Expensive Public Medical Schools for In-State Students. It’s not at all what I would have expected.

1. Oregon Health and Science University
2. University of Pittsburgh
3. University of Minnesota
4. Medical University of South Carolina
5. University of Virginia
6. University of Illinois
7. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey—New Brunswick (Johnson)
8. Michigan State University (College of Osteopathic Medicine)
9. University of California—Davis
10.University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey—Stratford

Previous College Rankings Posts (the short list):

Hone Your Inner B.S. Detector
Beware the College Rankings Machine
New System For Ranking Colleges
College Rankings
Acceptance

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image: UC Davis water tower)

What has risen 400% in 25 years? Not housing prices in San Francisco, but that’s an excellent guess. Nope, it’s college tuition. That one-liner factoid takes me out at the knees and makes me want to hurl.

Phenomenal amounts of money are spent, borrowed, and paid back over lifetimes for higher education. At some point, one hopes, the college students will become educated enough to figure out when the price of education is just too damned much.

Since that hasn’t happened yet, two professors were interviewed on NPR recently so they could explain WHY college costs so much. It turns out that any and all tuition payers (students, parents) are at the sticky bottom of any given school’s list of people to impress or keep happy. The violent rage I’m feeling makes me warm inside.

Economist Richard Vedder of Ohio University and Stephen Trachtenberg of George Washington University tell NPR host Neal Conan what in the hell is going on with college costs.

You can read listen to the story (30 min.) or you can read the transcript in its entirety here.

Excerpt from the transcript:

CONAN: I wanted to ask, you wrote an op-ed for CNN.com, “Why Does College Cost So Much,” you argued essentially that colleges have absolutely no incentive to reduce costs.

VEDDER: That’s right. Now, there are a few exceptions to that. The for-profit higher education sector is certainly a clear exception, but by and large, most colleges do not get rewards. The presidents of the universities, the senior officials, the key faculty do not get rewarded by being efficient, by teaching more students for the same amount of money or whatever, by using buildings efficiently, six, seven days a week, et cetera. There’s no incentive in that for them.
So there’s no great compulsion to reduce costs, and yet spending more money often has rewards. It can help improve your rankings in the magazine rankings that go on by magazines like US News or Forbes. And it is actually beneficial to colleges, or at least it’s perceived to be beneficial to colleges, to spend more money: nicer facilities for students so you attract more students, better students, whatever, lower teaching loads for faculty so that they’re happy and content and not likely to cause a lot of problems.
So the job of a university president is to raise a lot of money, tons of money, and distribute it, and not too much attention is placed on lowering the cost to the consumer.

CONAN: In fact you argue that the consumer, the student and then the student’s parents, but they come last in a list that includes, you mentioned the faculty, key faculty members are bribed with lower teaching loads. You mentioned alumni, who are in a sense are bribed to make donations to the school through successful sports programs and other things like that, and trustees.

VEDDER: Yes, I think that’s right. Remember, colleges and universities don’t have the profit motive that compels people in the traditional private sector to cut costs, be efficient, try to get more bang for the buck, as it were. So that is sort of lacking. It’s a nonprofit sector, and there’s a lot of third-party payments, that is government money and also private, philanthropic money, that comes into universities that reduces the need to depend utterly, solely on the consumer to foot the bills, to pay the freight, as it were.

Related Posts:

How To Avoid Graduating College Summa Cum Debt
Watching America’s Higher Education Creams Go Down In Flames
College Tuition: Save Or Borrow?
Ways To Kick The Ass Of Student Loan Debt
International Students Bring $18.8 Billion To U.S. Economy
I Live In A Van Down By Duke University
College Or Gambling?
The Cost of College and the Three-Year Degree Option
Streamlined and Fuel-Efficient Three-Year Degrees
Economy Makes Being an RA Seem Like a Good Idea
Increased Tuition Increases Some More

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image: new Stanford University library)

Let’s all watch me try to navigate this post. It’s about sex and Trojans and Mormons and how well 141 universities assist their undergrads in traversing the seas of collegiate sex. The odds of me crashing and burning into a twisted pile of political incorrectness and offending everyone on my way down are as excellent as a bloated road-kill raccoon is to finally pop in July–one hard wave of heat moving up from the asphalt and nothing will smell good ever again.

I usually have no qualms about the possibility of offending the sensibilities of other humans, but today it seems as if I should run.

First off, I’m not Mormon. But I do have Mormons in my family. I love them and they love me and there are no issues between myself and the Mormon contingent of my family tree. Aside from the fact that I always forget who I’m with and continue to cuss like a drunken sailor whenever I visit them and I never ever go to church while they continue to pray for my unquestionably hell-bound soul and respect my request to not be recruited, we’re all good.

The Trojan condom company (possibly more famous than the Mormons) puts out an annual survey ranking the sexual health of undergraduate colleges and universities. Rankings are based on sexual health resources and support available to students on campus, from pamphlets to condoms to someone to talk to.

Out of 141 schools ranked in 2011, Brigham Young University came in 140th. This either means BYU is a cesspool of STD-sharing Mormon youth, or those Mormon kids are living cleaner than the rest of us and are abstaining, thereby severely reducing the need for condoms, counselors, and antibiotics at the student health center.

I’m sticking with the abstinence and not-a-cesspool theory. While not on board with the Mormons and their beliefs, I have to say they’re super serious about innocent perfection and clean living. No alcohol, no smoking, no premarital sex. They don’t even allow caffeine, for crying out loud (it’s near the top of my Why I’m Not a Mormon list).

Further Reading:

Columbia University Tops the Trojan® Sexual Health Report Card Rankings for the Second Year in a Row

Posted by Alexa Harrington

It turns out parents and students are less than rational when it comes to choosing institutions of higher learning for the prospective college student’s matriculation. Paying for the education venture twists everyone’s grey matter into knots as well. Let’s keep our heads in the game, people! Read this article in the Wall Street Journal: Get Smart About College.

From the article:

When weighing present obligations against future potential, it can help to take a step back. College is an investment but it’s a peculiarly intimate one; students are investing in themselves, parents in people they love. To get some perspective on the matter, families should look at choosing and paying for a college like starting a small business (You, Inc.). Would someone launch an enterprise without a line of credit? Or skimp on equipment and human capital to avoid cutting into short-term consumption?

Families should also think carefully about context when they’re making estimates of future earnings. Someone who graduates in four years is likely to have a shot at a much better first job than someone who graduates right now; many experts hope and expect the economy to look quite different by the time today’s high school students finish college.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(photo: campus)

Ohio University was just named Top Party School in the Princeton Review. Sweet! Shockingly, school officials aren’t well pleased with their school’s new ranking…

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(Ohio University)

The parents who will be driving their offspring to insanity as soon as the kids can spell S-A-T start in on the psychotic haranguing early:

Try to stay off of my sh*t list, lesser humans.

Further Reading:

What Makes A Good Parent?
Media Frenzy Around High Pressure College Admissions
Testing Season Begins
Play-Doh Smeared Credentials
Find Your Happy Place
(Possibly) The End Of Helicopter Parenting

Posted by Alexa Harrington

I think we all know how I feel about college rankings lists: unreliable. (That’s me being restrained and polite. Enjoy it now. It won’t last.) If you need to catch up, you can read this, this, this, and this.

What do we learn in high school these days? How to get into college. What do we learn in college? We learn how to learn and we perfect our inner bull**it detectors. If you’re in the process of choosing colleges, then you’re in high school and have less-than-precise bull**it detecting instrumentation.

Here’s a friendly tip: Even research scientists, the humans I’ve revered since I was six years old, are capable of dishonestly crunching their data to make their work more grant-worthy. Scientists, who spend their lives peeling back the layers to find the molecular structures of truth, will bend facts for money.

One could argue that scientists are at least doing it for more funding so they can continue to search for the truths of our universe, but whatever, it’s still dishonest. If they can lie for money, then no one should be surprised that most college rankings lists come from questionable versions of reality. Just something to keep in mind if you’re planning to peruse U.S. News & World Report’s Best Colleges 2011.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

While I remain consistent in my opinion that there’s a special circle of hell reserved for the creators, utilizers, and proctors of standardized tests for children, I understand full well the necessity of standardized testing for adults in certain cases. Licensure and certification exams pretty much have to be standard, as the information and knowledge being tested for is all about the standardization of professionals and making certain all professionals in a given field know the same pile of stuff before they’re legally allowed to head out and do stuff to real people.

It’s deeply comforting to know that anyone who may need to palpate, prick, inject, or slice me with sharp instruments has been educated to within an inch of their lives and has been tested several times over to ascertain their level of know-how.

One of the simpler ways to research possible schools is to check out the scores their graduates earn on required exams. Graduates of New Mexico State University’s School of Nursing tend toward kicking tons of ass on the National Council Licensure Examination the first time they take it. Very nice. Next time I’m in a sterilized room I’m planning on pointing toward New Mexico State U. and saying, “Yeah, I’m gonna need one of those, please.”

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source)

The Princeton Review and the U.S. Green Building Council have just released their Guide to 286 Green Colleges. I require people who review and/or guide young adults anywhere along their college path to prove that they aren’t out to sell biased information for a profit (e.g., the U.S. News and World Report’s annual college ranking lists are against all laws of good and the back-boned members of humanity and isn’t worth wiping one’s college-bound heinie on). This guide may have some merit as it has, at the very least, aggregated planet-saving information and it’s free. Also: downloadable (saves the trees and whatnot).

Here’s the pertinent info:

NEW YORK, APRIL 20, 2010 — In an effort to recognize the impressive environmental and sustainability programs at universities and colleges across the country, The Princeton Review, in partnership with the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), today announced the release of “The Princeton Review’s Guide to 286 Green Colleges” — the first, free comprehensive Guidebook solely focused on institutions of higher education who have demonstrated an above average commitment to sustainability in terms of campus infrastructure, activities and initiatives.

Just in time for the 40th Anniversary of Earth Day (April 22nd), the Guide — which is based on a survey of hundreds of colleges nationwide — profiles the nation’s most environmentally-responsible campuses. From solar panel study rooms to the percentage of budget spent on local/organic food, “The Princeton Review’s Guide to 286 Green Colleges” looks at an institution’s commitment to building certification using USGBC’s LEED green building certification program; environmental literacy programs; formal sustainability committees; use of renewable energy resources; recycling and conservation programs, and much more.

You can download the entire guide (in four bite-sized chunks) at The Princeton Review or at the U.S. Green Building Council’s site. You can also see the full list of schools or the full list of schools by state.

Not every starving college student in this economy can afford to buy organic all the time (seriously, organic chickens are $12), but attending a college or university that’s making a palpable effort to be green is a huge help toward saving the planet.

Further Reading:

M.S. in Sustainability Management: Earth Institute, Columbia University
UCLA Anderson MBAs Go Global
It’s Not Easy Being Green
Green Toilets at ASU Polytechnic
Saving the Planet is a Solid Career Choice
Beware the College Rankings Machine
New System for Ranking Colleges
College Rankings
U.S. News and World Report 2008 College Rankings

Posted by Alexa Harrington

Prior to reading the article below, I had my own theory as to why it takes more than four years for students to earn a bachelor’s degree. It all comes down to money. I included a few more factors in my theory, but I was mostly right in line with the study. Basically, higher tuition, decreased school budgets, a depressed economy, an increased population of young adults hell bent on pursuing a college education (because they’ve been told since birth that only educated humans will ever make enough money) mean more time spent earning a degree.

I was scared like a little girl to look up tuition rates for 1972 and present day, so I don’t have that information for you. My cojones are a force to be reckoned with, but I do have my limits. Eviscerating tuition hikes are one of them. But I think it’s common knowledge that tuition rates have increased since 1972, the economy is less than healthy, more kids head for college these days, and school budgets have been cut many, many times.

The crappier the economy is, the more the school budgets are cut, which leads to increased tuition and fewer faculty and staff. Higher tuition means more working for students and a decreased course load, leading to a longer stay in college. Less budget money means fewer instructors, fewer courses offered, and a more difficult time for the students to get into the classes they need in order to graduate, leading again to more time spent earning that bachelor’s degree.

According to the study, the fact that bachelor’s degree acquisition takes longer than four years is due to the type of institution a student attends; higher tier state schools and private schools vs. community colleges and lower tier state schools. Institution type and how a given school is affected by, and subsequently deals with, decreased funding is what it all comes down to.

Top-level schools with better faculty-to-student ratios offer an improved learning experience for the students. This gets them in and out in a more four-year manner. Public schools, like community colleges and state schools, cram a few more kids into every classroom, which decreases the learning experience and mucks up the four-year works. Hence, four years to complete an undergraduate degree at a top-tier school and closer to six years at a lower-tier school.

Interesting. And I don’t totally buy it. I mean, I understand what the study is saying and how a decrease in funding can affect the learning experience. But I think there are more factors involved. A students-per-faculty ratio of 25.5 to 1 vs. 29.8 to 1 is enough to cause the learning experience to suffer so much that two more years are tacked onto the end of the original four-year bachelor’s degree plan? Really? Or, you know, maybe, the less-than top tier schools are more selective when choosing faculty, staff, and students, and have a lot more private financial backing than do the community colleges and state schools. Less crowding, supah-focused students, publish-or-perish faculty, and enough cash to be able to keep both the crowding and the lay-offs down to a minimum.

Any institution relying on public funding has historically been screwed when the economy hits the crapper. And may I remind everyone that in 1972, the helicopter parent insanity hadn’t quite begun. Although parents were starting to push the importance of a college education, it was nowhere near the life-or-death situation that it is today: College or sweatshop-work, kiddo. You pick!

These days, there are more college students in the system and no one has money to pay for all that education, not the parents, not the kids, and certainly not the schools. Loans and financial aid are harder to nail down as well. I really don’t think it has only to do with a few more students per classroom and whether or not a student hits the higher education jackpot and manages to attend a top-tier school.

Here’s the summary from the study:

Time to completion of the baccalaureate degree has increased markedly in the United States over the last three decades, even as the wage premium for college graduates has continued to rise. Using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of the High School Class of 1972 and the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988, we show that the increase in time to degree is localized among those who begin their postsecondary education at public colleges outside the most selective universities. In addition, we find evidence that the increases in time to degree were more marked amongst low income students. We consider several potential explanations for these trends. First, we find no evidence that changes in the college preparedness or the demographic composition of degree recipients can account for the observed increases. Instead, our results suggest that declines in collegiate resources in the less-selective public sector increased time to degree. Furthermore, we present evidence of increased hours of employment among students, which is consistent with students working more to meet rising college costs and likely increases time to degree by crowding out time spent on academic pursuits.

Posted by Alexa Harrington

(image source)