Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rankings for the nations top Universities/Colleges were released (I believe by U.S. News and World Report) and quite oddly, the top 10 Universities also appear to be substantially more wealthy than the vast majority of those schools that bottom out the list. Is the message here that less affluent schools, with higher diversity representation are not capable of providing superior world-class education to their students, despite the lack of research projects, funding, and large contributions that more affluent schools receive?
I would guess some of it has to do with the things a wealthy school could provide compared to a poorer school. But, you also need to look at the home environment. Dysfunctional families, families raised by grandparents due to drug problems, limited proficiency in English, and lack of role models who did well in and valued school ,IMO have a more substantial contribution to the academic potential of someone rather than how many "bells and whistles" a school has.
To me, a lot of these lists are based on criteria that the most wealthy universities have clear advantages in.
Quick examples:
Princeton:
Excellent alumni relations fuel career placement like you wouldn't believe
Has the money to accept the best of the best, even if they can't afford to pay a dime for college
Similarly, has the money to hire the best professors paying them whatever it is they want
Perhaps even has the money to influence rankings lists like these ones
Other universities:
Simply cannot do the above listed things
The differences in endowments are enormous too. Many people would consider the University of Vermont to be the top public university in the US, but it has an endowment of only $250mil, which can hardly compete with Princeton's $14.2bil. The same is true with many very excellent private universities such as Boston College with $1.6bil, and even Duke, who has $6.2bil, can find it difficult to compete with Princeton's $14.2bil, or better yet, the relatively elephantine $30bil Harvard controls.
Rankings for the nations top Universities/Colleges were released (I believe by U.S. News and World Report) and quite oddly, the top 10 Universities also appear to be substantially more wealthy than the vast majority of those schools that bottom out the list.
Why is this odd? Would you expect that the poorest schools would perform better than wealthy schools? This finding seems like common sense to me.
Quote:
Is the message here that less affluent schools, with higher diversity representation are not capable of providing superior world-class education to their students, despite the lack of research projects, funding, and large contributions that more affluent schools receive?
What makes you think that poor schools have more minorities, and wealthy schools have less? I'm not saying "You're wrong", but that seems like a claim that is coming out of left field.
In about 2 minutes worth of research, I found that Stanford is only 41% white, Cal-Berkeley is 32%, Harvard is 47%, Princeton is 58%. Since whites make up around 74% of the U.S. population, I don't really understand how you've come to your conclusion that the best or more affluent schools underrepresent minorities.
These universities have higher standards to get in. An education from a lesser school doesn't exactly mean the education is poor. A person who works hard and is determined can be at the top of their class in either situation.
In general, wealthy students tend to be better educated, because they either attended expensive private schools or lived in a town where the property taxes were incredibly high and funded schools that could attract the best teachers. These wealthy students often go on to pricey private colleges, and after they graduate, are able to give these colleges large endowments. Yes, private universities do attract some low income students, but the cumulative education of a lot of poor students isn't always enough to make them competitive for these schools. For example: out of my graduating high school class in a wealthy NJ suburb, 17 students out of 370 went to Ivy League schools. A friend who went to an urban high school in a poor area barely knew anyone who went to a state school... the most common option was community college or the workforce. Even minor college loans are difficult for a student whose family is economically and educationally disadvantaged.
Also, a large portion of those "ratings" are based on alumni donation and endowment... I think it's ridiculous to base a school's merit on that. I went to an excellent state school, got a great education, and have almost $80,000 less in loans than many of my private university friends.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
