- Joined
- Nov 25, 2007
- Messages
- 9,295
My post was litered with typos. I apologize.
They certainly couldn't be as discerning and forthright as say...U.S. News & World Report
You realize Forbes is basing a big chunk of their rankings on the fact that it is basically free to go to the schools and you are guaranteed a job when you get out right? We sort of already discussed that. In this economy that is incredibly important. Of course it doesn't mean your education is as good as at other schools. But continue on slamming everyone that doubts your self proclaimed wisdom, and realize that in any other forum, debating the merits of the SA's, the SA's wouldn't be ever mentioned as one of the top 10 colleges/universities. Top 50, probably, top 25, maybe top 10, nope. But alas we are here, and you, obviously, are correct.
My post was litered with typos. I apologize.
You realize Forbes is basing a big chunk of their rankings on the fact that it is basically free to go to the schools and you are guaranteed a job when you get out right? We sort of already discussed that. In this economy that is incredibly important. Of course it doesn't mean your education is as good as at other schools. But continue on slamming everyone that doubts your self proclaimed wisdom, and realize that in any other forum, debating the merits of the SA's, the SA's wouldn't be ever mentioned as one of the top 10 colleges/universities. Top 50, probably, top 25, maybe top 10, nope. But alas we are here, and you, obviously, are correct.
1. Student Satisfaction (27.5%)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Student Evaluations from [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]RateMyProfessor.com [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](17.5%)
Actual Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates (5%)
Predicted vs. Actual Freshman-to-Sophomore Retention Rates (5%)
[/FONT][/FONT]
2. Post-Graduate Success (32.5%)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Listings of Alumni in [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Who’s Who in America [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](10%)
Salary of Alumni from [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Payscale.com [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman](15%)
American Leaders List (7.5%)
[/FONT][/FONT]
3. Student Debt (17.5%)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Average Federal Student Loan Debt Load (10%)
Student Loan Default Rates (5%)
Predicted vs. Actual Percent of Students Taking Federal Loans (2.5%)
[/FONT][/FONT]
4. Four-year Graduation Rate (11.25%)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Actual Four-year Graduation Rate (8.75%)
Predicted vs. Actual Four-year Graduation Rate (2.5%)
[/FONT][/FONT]
5. Academic Success (11.25%)
[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]Student Nationally Competitive Awards (7.5%)
Alumni Receiving PhDs (3.75%)
[/FONT][/FONT]
Again, you continue to prove how little you actually know about this subject and the service academies. I've given you AMPLE opportunity to debate the merits of the SAs and their rival civilian institutions. I asked you to give us all some factual evidence about why you believe these other institutions have superior facilities and superior professors. You've yet to offer even one bit of fact to support your views--views which more and more appear to be based on stereotype, generalizations, and tradition.
So unless you have some facts to offer about what makes the undergraduate education at your favorite "elite" universities so far superior to that at USMA, just save us all the trouble and stop prattling on about how you're beset on all sides by big meanies who won't just ignore the facts and proclaim you to be right.
And since you don't even seem to know what the methodology of the Forbes ranking was, see below. Note that immediate employment in the U.S. Army has no direct weight in this study, contrary to your belief, but only factors in when the average salary of a graduate is evaluated, for which the initial service period could only have a 7.5% weight in the study. Also, note that the big three Ivy League schools give tons of need-based aid, which allows poor but smart students to attend at prices approaching that of a state university. But I'm sure you knew that.
Again, you continue to prove how little you actually know about this subject and the service academies. I've given you AMPLE opportunity to debate the merits of the SAs and their rival civilian institutions. I asked you to give us all some factual evidence about why you believe these other institutions have superior facilities and superior professors. You've yet to offer even one bit of fact to support your views--views which more and more appear to be based on stereotype, generalizations, and tradition.
So unless you have some facts to offer about what makes the undergraduate education at your favorite "elite" universities so far superior to that at USMA, just save us all the trouble and stop prattling on about how you're beset on all sides by big meanies who won't just ignore the facts and proclaim you to be right.
And since you don't even seem to know what the methodology of the Forbes ranking was, see below. Note that immediate employment in the U.S. Army has no direct weight in this study, contrary to your belief, but only factors in when the average salary of a graduate is evaluated, for which the initial service period could only have a 7.5% weight in the study. Also, note that the big three Ivy League schools give tons of need-based aid, which allows poor but smart students to attend at prices approaching that of a state university. But I'm sure you knew that.
I'm going to ignore that "you're".
You haven't posted anything other than a forbes article to back up your declarations, but that's ok. let's look at that for a second. Once again, a large chunk of their rankings is based on the facts that the students,
1. stay there between freshman and soph year. 5%
2. have a good salary when they graduate 15%
3. (the 17.5% chunk) Have low student loans, low defaults on those loans, and small number of students taking those loans.
4. 11.25% 4 year graduation rate, and actual vs predicted 4 year graduation rate.
5. no part of it.
The % I posted, I feel are all directly affected by the way the SA's are set up, and the article rewards the SA's based on that.
1. At a non SA if a student doesn't like it at a particular school they go to a different one, they already have paid anyway. What happens if a student decides to leave a SA after a year, do they suddenly have to pay for that year? That cost certainly would affect that students decision whether or not to see if the grass was greener somewhere else.
2. Student's graduating from the SA's are almost guaranteed a job, a student graduating from a non SA isn't, that certainly would help.
3. It doesn't cost real dollars to go to a SA, it costs a future commitment. So 17.5% of their best school rankings can be directly attributed to the fact going to a SA is free, unless you leave before you graduate.
4. At a non SA you can take as long as you want to graduate. I am not sure about this but I believe the SA's sort of frown on taking a semester or two off during your college tenure.
So 48.75% of Forbes rankings are directly affected by the way SA's are set up. By the facts that it doesn't cost anything to go to them, unless you leave before you graduate. By the facts that you have to pay for them if you leave early. By the fact that it is very difficult to take more than 4 years to graduate, and by the fact that you are pretty much guaranteed a very good paying job upon graduation. Once again, you are setting me up to make the SA's sound bad, and I don't believe that is the case at all. Furthermore, I like the way SA's are set up, and so does Forbes, however, that is why the USMA scores so well in Forbes' rankings, and a step down in most other college review sites. I thought the question wasn't which is the best school for the dollars you have to pay, or which school is free unless you don't graduate in four years, it was which school offers the best education.
I am also done debating here, I think you offer a great resource on this board and my intention is not to keep you from doing that in any manner. I think some posters here slightly over rank the SA's, and I felt it was only fair, to the kids who come here for information, to try and post a slightly different, and probably more main stream view.
Moosetache said:I am also done debating here, I think you offer a great resource on this board and my intention is not to keep you from doing that in any manner. I think some posters here slightly over rank the SA's, and I felt it was only fair, to the kids who come here for information, to try and post a slightly different, and probably more main stream view.
scoutpilot said:If you want to be viciously obstuse because you have a bone to pick with the Service Academies, you're welcome to do so. Just don't do it here.
I know I am attacking the hornet's nest, but here goes.
1. Scout and Moose you both have valid points, but seriously do either of you think anyone's position will change with this back and forth?
Keep going at it, have a blast.
2. Here is where I am ready for come at me.
Moose was IMPO very polite to you, admitting you are a great resource, you on the other hand, IMPO told them to shut up and color in the corner.
They defended ROTC and colleges, just like you with the SAs, but from the opposing position. You told them to not do it here on a ROTC forum. Key word ROTC. Where else is Moose to do this according to you? SA, Off Topic, or on a forum you are not a member? I am right aren't I, this is the ROTC forum, and not USMA, correct?
Yeah, yeah, I know, Pima spoke and we must all get on board, yadda, yadda, yadda same as always whenever I disagree with you. Flame on, tell me I am only a wife, and a Mom, never served a day AD. Got it, and soon I will have a T-shirt made to say it too!
That doesn't release you from being rude to Moose when you couldn't see they took the high road and stated a positive about you in their post.
Heck, let's push it more...Mods, time to lock this thread. We are hurting our future military members with this type of in fighting.
AGAIN, to the OP. AROTC does not guarantee AD and the SA does. AFROTC and NROTC guarantees AD upon commissioning!
scoutpilot said:Just don't do it here.
Aglahad said:Your care factor is at a 10 ( on a 1-10 scale) right now let's step it down to a 2 or 3. Pull the big guns out on a debate that actually matters without the circular logic and anecdote ridden expanse that is third party school rankings.
Scout,
No you didn't say shut up and color that was my words. You did say:
To me that is shut up and color in the corner. Where else are they suppose to do it? You literally told them "DON'T DO IT HERE". Your words, own them.
It is your right to think they were being vicious; don't know why you feel that way with their post, but you also need to accept that this is their opinion. School rankings are subjective, you know that, they chose to disagree with your position.
I am not trying to pull Aglahad in here, but did you miss his post to you?
Irony is I agree with you scout regarding SAs academics. You hurt IMPO the military with your ROTC quality comments. I highly doubt you want to fly with a pilot because they have a ring knocker. I highly suspect you want to fly with the best, ring knocker or not you couldn't care about when it comes to the mission.
I don't know what criteria Forbes and US News are using is measuring "world-class facilities", but my criteria center around football stadium capacity (with a sub-set of % seats occupied during a home game, nothing worse than a very big and very empty stadium), ease of getting a tee-time on a Sunday morning at the school's golf-course (sub-set: how many carts does that course have), and the average number of different beers on tap in the basements of the school's fraternities.
To each his own.
BTW, I'm just a little disappointed that no one has rebutted my point on the Designated Hitter rule...
but that ROTC graduates have a wider variance in the quality of graduate owing to the structure of ROTC itself, e.g. USMA only produces USMA graduates, whereas ROTC produces Stanford and MIT graduates, but also produces and Northwestern State (Louisiana) and Southern Connecticut graduates. Among those programs, not only does the quality of student vary widely, but there is also variance in the quality of ROTC instruction.
I don't know what criteria Forbes and US News are using is measuring "world-class facilities", but my criteria center around football stadium capacity (with a sub-set of % seats occupied during a home game, nothing worse than a very big and very empty stadium), ease of getting a tee-time on a Sunday morning at the school's golf-course (sub-set: how many carts does that course have), and the average number of different beers on tap in the basements of the school's fraternities.