Top Public Universities as rated by U.S. News

[rugbdawg]

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandr...ges/rankings/national-universities/top-public

The flagship (Mississippi State) comes in at 73. You have to type in a search to find Ole Miss on the list. Comes in at 150. Comparatively speaking, they are less than half of what the flagship should be and is.

 

[rugbdawg]

My apologies. They come in at 79. When I did the search it showed overall

university ranking of 150. Still, Msstate is the flagship by all objective standards.

 

[coach66]

not bad for a bunch of leghumping farmers*

proud to call it my university and it is just getting better and better!

 

[croomin]

Looks like a number of our SEC peers

...will soon be overtaken by M-State.

Oh, the horror.

Can we please get the OM party line regarding the flaws of the most followed college ranking on the planet? Think hard because my guess is the divergence will grow next year. Thanks.

 

[Hanmudog]

Education just means more to State. We educate with hate......hey that sounds like a good bumper sticker.

 

[coach66]

Most Ole Miss fans have no idea of the changes in MSU and Starkville over the

past 30 years. Most don't care and that is fine but their opinion is a little dated and the product of group think.

 

[KurtRambis4]

This

is one of the most accurate posts on here in a while.

 

[Dawg Jurist]

Yep, but we're still M-State.

In the article:
"Mississippi State University is located in the city of Starksville, about 170 miles southeast of Memphis."

 

[uptowndawg]

The only reason we beat them is because we make academics our superbowl

we're so pathetic

 

[johnson86-1]

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandr...ges/rankings/national-universities/top-public

The flagship (Mississippi State) comes in at 73. You have to type in a search to find Ole Miss on the list. Comes in at 150. Comparatively speaking, they are less than half of what the flagship should be and is.

I'm not sure state or ole miss would get much more selective even if they could, but they're basically prevented by court order from moving up these rankings very much. A huge chunk of the rankings are how selective you are and then your retention and graduation rate (which will be a lot better if you only accept qualified students) so State and Ole Miss will continue to be ranked below where they probably should be if you're looking at it from the perspective of how good the schools is for a qualified student.

Retention (22.5 percent): The higher the proportion of freshmen who return to campus for sophomore year and eventually graduate, the better a school is apt to be at offering the classes and services that students need to succeed.

This measure has two components: six-year graduation rate (80 percent of the retention score) and freshman retention rate (20 percent).

Student selectivity (12.5 percent): A school's academic atmosphere is determined in part by the abilities and ambitions of the students.

We use three components: We factor in the admissions test scores for all enrollees who took the Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT and the Composite ACT score (65 percent of the selectivity score); the proportion of enrolled freshmen at National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school classes or in the top quarter at Regional Universities and Regional Colleges (25 percent); and the acceptance rate, or the ratio of students admitted to applicants (10 percent).

 

[MSUDawg25]

I'm not sure state or ole miss would get much more selective even if they could, but they're basically prevented by court order from moving up these rankings very much. A huge chunk of the rankings are how selective you are and then your retention and graduation rate (which will be a lot better if you only accept qualified students) so State and Ole Miss will continue to be ranked below where they probably should be if you're looking at it from the perspective of how good the schools is for a qualified student.

Retention (22.5 percent): The higher the proportion of freshmen who return to campus for sophomore year and eventually graduate, the better a school is apt to be at offering the classes and services that students need to succeed.

This measure has two components: six-year graduation rate (80 percent of the retention score) and freshman retention rate (20 percent).

Student selectivity (12.5 percent): A school's academic atmosphere is determined in part by the abilities and ambitions of the students.

We use three components: We factor in the admissions test scores for all enrollees who took the Critical Reading and Math portions of the SAT and the Composite ACT score (65 percent of the selectivity score); the proportion of enrolled freshmen at National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school classes or in the top quarter at Regional Universities and Regional Colleges (25 percent); and the acceptance rate, or the ratio of students admitted to applicants (10 percent).

I hate the state mandated low admission standards. I don't know what the standards would be without them, but it would be higher. It would mean a higher GPA and higher graduation rate (fewer students who have no business being in college). Tuition would be higher probably, but you would have more students, on average, on academic scholarship. Sure some kids would miss out on an MSU degree, but not everybody needs to go to college. I still would have gotten in. (English section of the ACT and whatnot).

These rankings don't matter overall, but they piss me off. We should be higher. The state mandated low admissions water down my hard earned degree and those from Ole miss too.

 

[croomin]

Didnt't seem to be a problem for Portera raising student quality, dropping admit

rates. Maybe Keenum should give him a ring and take some notes. Believe our avg test scores, etc. have dropped since that period.

 

[JungRebel]

"Objective standards"…? There is no such thing. These studies only find where universities rank according to the study's criteria. Such is any study. However, there are degrees one would be better suited to get from MSU (i.e. engineering) instead of Ole Miss and vice versa. The two schools balance each other quite well. There is a good program available for almost any kind of student that MS has to offer when you consider both of the universities.

 

[mstateglfr]

What exactly is the state policy concerning selectivity that will forever keep us down in the rankings?

 

[johnson86-1]

rates. Maybe Keenum should give him a ring and take some notes. Believe our avg test scores, etc. have dropped since that period.

That's why I said I'm not sure we'd get selective. I don't think dropping admissions standards back down was driven by the Ayers case, but because our admission numbers were taking a hit. Could be wrong though.

The reality is most state schools probably should have relatively low admission standards, with maybe one (or more in the big states) school aimed at elite students. But it's stupid to ding State schools for basically being open to the residents/citizens of the state it gets public money from. Most of what should matter is how students perform in getting into graduate/professional programs compared to waht would be expected from those individuals' ACT/SAT scores and GPA, and how graduate's salary compares to the median and average in the industry they're in and location they're in, again, adjusted for predicted earnings based off of high school performance.

 

[Wooly17er]

So what you're saying is - if Ole Miss didn't come in first, the standards used are probably subjectively biased? I see. The funny thing about these "objective rankings" is that the ones dealing with education and success rate of graduates all have MSU topping Ole Miss; but when it comes to partying, coke sniffing, *****-hotties, and oak trees, Ole Miss is clearly at the top. Thanks for stopping by with your subjective opinion, Jing'ling. Now go stick your face back deep into that bucket of turds.

 

[JungRebel]

No, not "probably subjectively based," but entirely subjectively based—subjectivity is a precondition for obervation, period.

There are no "things-in-themselves," and even if there were, there is no "pure reason" for us to use to contemplate them. In short, Kant was an idiot and you have made the same mistakes he did.

 

[engie]

Ayers... Mandated low admission standards is not "mandated easy curriculums". So, we let in people who have no business being there -- and they promptly drop out. Double whammy of low admission standards and high dropout rate = ranked terribly in these ridiculous studies that fail to realize their own redundancy(at least in relation to our institutions).

These rankings do not adequately convey the academic quality available at Ole Miss or MSU. That much is for sure.

I've long thought the best way to do this is to take median graduate incomes versus the per capita income in median living areas of the given institutional alumni bases -- and rank them that way. Guaranteed that both MSU and Ole Miss would both suddenly shoot way the hell up these lists.

Also, several terms of Ayers are very near collapse -- at which point(assuming it happens), there is already a corroborative plan in place between MSU and Ole Miss to raise our admission standards uniformly together...

 

[LiterallyPolice]

This is classic. I mean - we've seen bears come on this board and say some crazy **** to defend their university. But I don't think I've ever seen anyone question the very constructs of reality to do it. Hats off, sir.

The bottom line is that US News is widely accepted as the most respected rankings organization for colleges/universities, and they consider us better than you. Don't be so ******** about it ("********" being a subjective term, of course).

EDIT: Apparently implying someones butt may hurt is frowned upon on this board, and gets replaced with asterisks.

 

[Philly Dawg]

I don't know how they rank universities, but the rankings of law schools do include some objective elements like scores on admissions tests and other measures of student quality. I'd guess the same is true for univeristies, i.e. research grant money, incoming ACT/SAT, etc.

 

[JungRebel]

"The constructs of our linguistic frameworks 100% capture what actually exists"—Human Ego.

Notice I haven't objected to the rankings, only to the ******** notion of objectivity, which remains an article of faith no matter how useful of an idea it is or how many people believe in it.

 

[johnson86-1]

I've long thought the best way to do this is to take median graduate incomes versus the per capita income in median living areas of the given institutional alumni bases -- and rank them that way.

Even then you'd mostly be telling people how successful a school is at attracting superior students. If you really want to know whether a school adds value beyond signalling, you have to account for test scores and GPA of incoming students. I know people have done this but don't know how public schools like MSU and Ole Miss fare. I do know that all the private schools other than the Ivy league ones do poorly if you account for value. Not sure if they do better if you ignore costs.

 

[LiterallyPolice]

"The constructs of our linguistic frameworks are the constructs of reality"—Human Ego, established at the dawn of consciousness.

Either you were creating broad philosophical straw men or you were arguing semantics. Either is a weak argument.

But please, wow us with some more Freshman level philosophy. You're really proving those rankings wrong!

 

[KurtRambis4]

So they're

not very dissimilar to those rankings of top party schools or nicest college campuses, is what you're saying?

 

[LiterallyPolice]

I don't know how they rank universities, but the rankings of law schools do include some objective elements like scores on admissions tests and other measures of student quality. I'd guess the same is true for univeristies, i.e. research grant money, incoming ACT/SAT, etc.

Yes, but who is to say that a high ACT score is "better" than a low ACT score?

I would put sarcasterisks, but this is LITERALLY the argument that JungRebel is using to question the rankings. Crazy, I know.

 

[JungRebel]

Of course not. All rankings reflect the values of the person ranking. For example, some rankings equate money with success, some equate drinking with partying. That does not mean money = success or drinking = partying or admission standards = the future success of students or the actual quality of education offered. Even the ACT does not measure "actual intelligence" (an undefinable term itself), although it is a useful guide for measuring how well you recall the **** that is considered valuable that has been crammed in your head over 18 years. The best programs produce the occasional flops and the worst programs produce the occasional stars.

 

[KurtRambis4]

So what

you're saying is those claims to fame that some use when describing how awesome a certain town(s) is are just subjective BS?

 

[JungRebel]

Yes. And yes, that includes all of the superflous **** said about Oxford.

 

[Wooly17er]

If we're going to argue about words, my word is "poontang."

 

[engie]

Even then you'd mostly be telling people how successful a school is at attracting superior students. If you really want to know whether a school adds value beyond signalling, you have to account for test scores and GPA of incoming students. I know people have done this but don't know how public schools like MSU and Ole Miss fare. I do know that all the private schools other than the Ivy league ones do poorly if you account for value. Not sure if they do better if you ignore costs.

HUH? I'm not comprehending how anything you posted has a thing in the world to do with anything I posted? You not only missed the boat -- but also the water on this one.

Why does incoming academic "attractiveness" trump real-world productivity? It doesn't. Test scores and incoming GPA is window dressing bs that just qualifies the quality of student you let in -- not the quality of professional you put forth into the real world. You tell me which of those two qualifiers are more important in establishing which institution is ACTUALLY superior?

What you want to do is tantamount to anointing Ole Miss with the superior football program to us because they outrecruit us -- is it not? A whole lot happens from the time you show up until the time you leave -- and finding a way to measure how good you are at the time you leave is much more important than measuring at the time you arrive. Agreed?

 

[FormerlyHighLifeRebel]

I've long thought the best way to do this is to take median graduate incomes versus the per capita income in median living areas of the given institutional alumni bases -- and rank them that way.

A better education is not always the cause of a greater income and vice/versa. I want to be clear, I am not arguing the MORE education doesn't meant a greater income, I'm arguing that taking two people (one from University A and one from University B) and comparing their incomes can have little to no correlation on their actual education. It's no less accurate than any other measure of better education, but it encourages colleges/universities to become votech centers (preparing people for a specific job) instead of education centers (providing an educational basis and teaching people how to learn) in an attempt to better their rankings and attract more students.

Your idea to compare "median graduate incomes versus the per capita income in median living areas of the given institutional alumni bases" may be the worst way I can possibly think of to ascertain whether a given university is actually doing a good job of educating people. It would skyrocket all Mississippi schools because you would be comparing a very small subset of the population of an area (college graduates in MS) to an outlier of abject poverty (the rest of MS). Stanford would have to create nothing but 25 year old millionaires to compete with that type of comparison.

 

[BiscuitEater]

Shoot ...

~ 2400 years of 'scientific method' down the tubes with one observation.

Who knew that Kant was a rebel?

 

[Wooly17er]

You just made all of that up.

Obviously, the best way to rank public universities is the following calculation: the amount of oak trees at the center of campus multiplied by the number of tennis skirts plus keg stands found on campus on football weekends. If only US News would get their heads out of their silly ranking standards, they'd probably get it right for once.

Seriously though, the University of Mississippi's highly ranked stats don't usually show up on these things until just before football season (especially in those years that the UofM is not ranked in football) - that being parties, campus beauty, and people beauty. I'm willing to stipulate that FHLR and Jingle'ling can brag about their rankings when "their" results are released in late July/early August - if they'll agree that the rankings released at this time of year that use stupid criteria like grades and graduation success rates favor Our University. Squid Pro Ro.

 

[engie]

First -- it's obvious you got a "high quality" degree that hasn't translated well for you in the real world. Moving past that.

A better education is not always the cause of a greater income and vice/versa. I want to be clear, I am not arguing the MORE education doesn't meant a greater income, I'm arguing that taking two people (one from University A and one from University B) and comparing their incomes can have little to no correlation on their actual education.

********. Part of TRULY educating someone is teaching them how to translate lessons learned into the real world. It's not how well you can score on a test -- or understand a theory. Is ALL OF THIS not part of a university's job in preparing people for the real world? The university that better prepares -- will produce students that negotiate better, are more prepared, comfortable, and knowledgeable of their value. That translates into better jobs.

Of course, you can look at ONE PERSON -- and skew the results to say whatever you want them to say. There will by hyper successful people from both schools and major failures. When you look the sum of the whole, a clear trend emerges.

It's no less accurate than any other measure of better education, but it encourages colleges/universities to become votech centers (preparing people for a specific job) instead of education centers (providing an educational basis and teaching people how to learn) in an attempt to better their rankings and attract more students.

Say what?

Your idea to compare "median graduate incomes versus the per capita income in median living areas of the given institutional alumni bases" may be the worst way I can possibly think of to ascertain whether a given university is actually doing a good job of educating people. It would skyrocket all Mississippi schools because you would be comparing a very small subset of the population of an area (college graduates in MS) to an outlier of abject poverty (the rest of MS). Stanford would have to create nothing but 25 year old millionaires to compete with that type of comparison

Yet you do nothing to disprove the point. In fact -- you make the point for me. If MSU grads are greater than their average neighbor by a greater margin than the average Stanford grad is greater than their neighbor -- that tells you that -- in reality -- an MSU degree is worth more to a Mississippian that intends to stay home than a Stanford degree for a Californian hoping to do the same.

Pretty simple to understand -- unless you just want to overcomplicate into redundance.

 

[FormerlyHighLifeRebel]

Nice Ad Hominem. If you had decent education, you wouldn't have to use it.

There's a significant difference in being educated and having skills that translate into worth. If OM graduated more lawyers than any other university and, suddenly, for whatever reason, there was a huge demand for lawyers, so large in fact that there wasn't a lawyer in the U.S. that was making less than 500k right out of law school, that doesn't mean that the average OM lawyer is better educated than the average MSU Engineer. In fact, I would argue that, regardless of how much either is paid, the average engineer will, most likely, always be better educated than the average lawyer. It's simply a much more difficult field of study. If the average theoretical physicist made less than the average loan officer, the average loan officer wouldn't be more educated than the average theoretical physicist. While certain educations are obviously worth more on the market, that doesn't mean people who make less are less educated. It simply means that their education is less valuable to society.

Many Universities believe that a higher ranking will lead to more students and more students applying leads to more selectivity. Consequently, more selectivity leads to a better student population, a better alumni base, a better reputation, and a better school. Let's say the average Insurance Salesman that graduated with a BBA in Marketing made 125,000 per year, but the average research biologist made 35k per year. If the rankings were based solely on what people made when they graduated, a University would be incentivized to graduate less Ph.D's in biology and more insurance salesmen. It's not a public university's job to provide the state with people who are valuable, but people who are educated. A University that's abandoning physics for insurance sales isn't doing a good job of educating.

Based on very little research, the average UCLA grad in mid career makes 91,000 per year. The average income in California is $29,551. So, the average UCLA grad, in mid career makes 3.07 times the average californian. The median income in Mississippi is 20,668. The average MSU grad at mid-career makes 72,700, or 3.51 times the average Mississippian. To even suggest that MSU or Ole Miss provides a better education than UCLA is just ******* stupid. Under no circumstances would the aggregate value of the average degree to a certain subset of people who have no intention of leaving a certain area be an accurate indicator of how well a University is educating its students.

I understand it. It's just a terrible idea.

 

[JungRebel]

The insistence that intelligence can be accurately or objectively measured is a piece of naïveté. A criteria for intelligence must be created first.

 

[engie]

Cost of living Jackson, MS - 86% national average
Cost of living Los Angeles, Ca - 144% national average

72.7 in Jackson = 82.88 in avg US town
91 in LA = 60.06 in avg US town
What does that say to you?

Do you really want to keep travelling this path?

Do you think a UCLA engineering degree gets you a better job anywhere in the southeast compared to an MSU engineering degree? Does it make you more money? How, then, does that elusive "better education" translate to a damn thing that's tangible in the real world? That's right -- it doesn't. And the simple fact of the matter is -- every time MSU engineers run up against engineers from other schools in real-world tests and competitions, we more than hold our own with these "elite" academic institutions. Ask all the B1G and ACC schools that got their *** kicked in Challenge X about it.

So, please tell me, what is a good "measure of how well a university is educating it's students" -- if not their actual performance in the real world?

 

[Philly Dawg]

Both high schools and Universities are institutions that grant diplomas based upon such measures of intelligence. And employers rely upon them, at least in part, in hiring decisions. So its reasonable to rank Universities based upon such measures. Your argument seems to be boiling down to, "everything is subjective, nothing is known," which is something you can save for the philosophy department.

 

[FormerlyHighLifeRebel]

It says that more people want to live in L.A. than in Jackson. What does it say to you?

What path are we travelling on?

Yes, but that's irrelevant. Why are we only taking engineering degrees in the southeast into account?

Let's hold off on the Engineers and ask if a degree from UCLA is worth more than a degree from MSU. According to the statistics I just gave you, it's worth 20k a year more.

Every time? Really? I'm sure you've got the stats to back that up right?

Go back and read my original post. I don't know what a good measure would be, but your measure doesn't measure anything but income gaps in poor states where most people cant bridge the gap between elementary and high school, much less high school and college. You aren't comparing peer to peer. You're saying Grade A apples are < Grade B apples because the difference between Grade B apples and rancid oranges is greater than the difference between Grade A apples and Grade B Oranges.

Do you realize how few people obtain an undergraduate degree from any university?

 

[JungRebel]

That has been the point from the beginning, and I have argued that the ACT is a useful test for measuring certain skills; but it is not an objective measure of intelligence, nor is there such a thing.

These rankings, as are all rankings that go from "best" to "worst," are for PR purposes only. This isn't something I learned in a philosophy department, it's something I learned reading threads regarding recruiting on SPS.