The new Washington Monthly rankings, like those in previous years, measure the “contribution to the social good” of universities–but this year’s rankings also include a “Best Bang for the Buck” list that ranks institutions according to their net cost to families with incomes of $75,000 or less.
The best bang measure also reflects the best deals for a family’s first time, full time college students. The magazine may have added the measure in anticipation of President Obama’s higher ed policy announcements, which propose rewarding institutions that perform best in graduating lower income students who receive federal loans, without incurring high default rates.
Washington Monthly has for some time taken a dim view of the U.S. News rankings, and in the recent issue alleges that the U.S. News list is based on “crude and and easily manipulated measures of wealth, exclusivity, and prestige.” In our view, the U.S. News rankings are useful in some ways, but we strongly agree that they over-emphasize the financial resources of the universities they evaluate, with the result that public institutions are generally underrated.
Below are the top 50 national universities that yield the best bang for low- and middle-income families, according to Washington Monthly. In parentheses, we will also list a university’s overall ranking by the magazine in the national universities category. The overall ranking considers the percentage of Pell grant recipients; the graduation rate; the graduation rate in relation to the predicted rate given the number of low-income students; and the loan default rate, which must be no more than 10 percent.
A school’s overall ranking also reflects the dollars brought in by research, B.A. to Ph.D. progression; science and engineering Ph.D.s granted; faculty honors; ROTC and Peace Corps participation; community service requirements; and use of federal work-study funds. Thus a school’s overall ranking could be enhanced by its academic and research achievements, but also by high ratings in the other areas.
Please note that only the top 284 schools out of more than 1,500 reviewed have a published overall ranking; therefore, some of the schools below will not have a ranking in parentheses.
The entering cohort was chosen from nearly 1,200 high school students in 30 states and five countries who had initially expressed interest in the program. Fifty-eight applicants were invited to the annual selection weekend, from which the final 21 students were chosen.
The incoming class of 2013 will include eight students from the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. Ten others are from out of state, and one is from Romania. Collectively, this group has an average two-part SAT score of 1520. Eighteen of the 21 have received recognition from the National Merit Scholar program, five were high school valedictorians, and two were Presidential Scholar nominees.
“UT Dallas and the McDermott Scholars Program have again proved their ability to attract some of the nation’s best and brightest students,” said Molly Seeligson, director of the McDermott Program. “I am so pleased that our institution and program will have the opportunity to benefit from the contributions of these remarkable young people while we help them to realize their potential.”
As McDermott Scholars, the students will have educational expenses covered for the next four years and will participate in a wide variety of cultural and educational enrichment experiences in the Dallas area and beyond.
The McDermott Scholars Program is carefully designed to incorporate various aspects of experiential learning:
• Freshman year includes an orientation trip to Santa Fe, N.M., weekly leadership development seminars and a trip to Washington, D.C., for an immersion in government operations.
• During their sophomore year, scholars take leading roles on campus, and experience state and local government during a trip to the Capitol in Austin.
• Junior year is focused on study abroad and/or internships.
• Senior year centers on final preparations for the next phase of scholars’ lives and includes traditions such as a class retreat, capstone service projects and the passing of the McDermott Scholars Program torch in the “Lighting the Legacy” ceremony.
The arrival of this year’s class will mark the program’s 13th class. The incoming group will join the 62 scholars already in attendance at UT Dallas. The program has 142 alumni.
The McDermott Scholars Program was made possible by a $32 million gift from Margaret McDermott, wife of the late Eugene McDermott, one of the co-founders of Texas Instruments (TI). McDermott and two TI co-founders, Cecil Green and Erik Jonsson, founded the research institution that in 1969 became UT Dallas.
The 2013 Princeton Review “Best Value” Public Universities list has changed somewhat from the previous edition, with the University of Virginia taking over the number one spot from UNC Chapel Hill, which is now ranked number 2.
Below are the best values from the 2014 edition, along with a side by side list showing the schools in the same slots in 2013. Changes in best value lists can be more meaningful than some other ranking changes because the best value lists are based on tuition, loan, net cost, and other financial metrics. The Princeton Review best value rankings are unique, however, in that they also consider student views of how interesting and accessible professors are.
2014 (1) Virginia; 2013 (1) UNC Chapel Hill
2014 (2) UNC Chapel Hill; 2013 (2) Virginia
2014 (3) New College of Florida; 2013 (3) New College of Florida
2014 (4) William & Mary; 2013 (4) Binghamton
2014 (5) UCLA; 2013 (5) Wisconsin
2014 (6) NC State; 2013 (6) William & Mary
2014 (7) Wisconsin; 2013 (7) Florida
2014 (8) Binghamton; 2013 (8) Georgia
2014 (9) Michigan; 2013 (9) Washington
2014 (10) Georgia; 2013 (10) UT Austin
The Review lists an additional 65 public universities, in alphabetical order, that are also best values, but does not rank them within that group. Below are the universities that we follow that are on this second list:
Arkansas, Central Florida, Clemson, College of Charleston, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Houston, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa State, LSU, Maryland, Massachusetts Amherst, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Pitt, Purdue, South Carolina, Stony Brook, SUNY Buffalo, Tennessee, Texas A&M, UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara, UC Santa Cruz, UT Austin, Virginia Tech, Washington, and Washington State.
The Fiske Guide to Colleges has long been recognized for providing excellent and highly readable profiles of more than 300 colleges and universities, and this year the Guide also recognizes the best value institutions in the nation based on the relationship of cost and academic quality.
Eighteen public universities in the U.S. are on the list, shown below in alphabetical order. The Guide also allocates stars for academic quality, with five stars (*****) being the highest.
Please note that the Guide may differ from other publications in its assessment of academic quality because it does not rely on reputation only. Instead, it considers “the overall academic climate of the institution, including its reputation in the academic world, the quality of the faculty, the level of teaching and research, the academic ability of students, the quality of libraries and other facilities, and the level of academic seriousness among students and faculty members.”
In our view, the Guide is able to do this successfully–though with some surprises–because of its extensive college contacts developed over many years. We believe it is especially important that the publication shows not only “feel good” atmospherics but also gives readers an idea of just how rigorous a given university is likely to be.
Editor’s Note: The following item comes from the staff of Michigan State University Today.
Citing interests in research opportunities, study abroad programs and the flexibility offered by the Michigan State University Honors College, 20 top high school scholars have chosen MSU for the next chapter of their academic careers.
The students’ average high school grade point average is approximately 4.3. The average ACT score is 35 (out of 36) and the average SAT score (critical reading plus math only) is 1520 (out of 1600).
The newest Alumni Distinguished Scholarship and University Distinguished Scholarship recipients hail from Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wyoming.
The scholarships, which are considered among the most competitive awards in the country, are valued at more than $115,000 for in-state students and $190,000 for out-of-state students. They cover full tuition, room and board and a stipend for up to eight semesters of study.
All students will join MSU’s Honors College along with approximately 500 other outstanding incoming students.
Alumni Distinguished Scholars:
Rebecca Carlson of Rockford, Rockford High School
Kevin Chase of League City, Texas, Clear Creek High School
Tyler Alden Cochran of Manhattan, Kan., Manhattan High School
Kim Gannon of Downers Grove, Ill., Lemont High School
Adam Greene of Taylor, Harry S Truman High School
John Groetsch of Holt, Okemos High School
Thomas Grubb of Haslett, Haslett High School
Laura Hesse of Madison, Ind., Shawe Memorial High School
Abigail Lewis Johnson of Winter Springs, Fla., Winter Springs High School
Claire Morrison of Grosse Pointe Woods, Grosse Pointe South High School
Joseph Mulka of Livonia, Churchill High School
Patrick Murray of Taylor, Harry S Truman High School
Adam Michał Olszewski of Ann Arbor, Pioneer High School
Matthew Suandi of Williamston, Williamston High School
Angela Sun of Canton, Plymouth-Canton High School
John Wenzel of Haslett, Haslett High School
University Distinguished Scholars:
Eric Boerman of Mohnton, Pa., Twin Valley High School
Jaazaniah Catterall of Rock Springs, Wyo., Rock Springs High School
Zach Farmer of Cincinnati, Ohio, Anderson High School
Ana Veskovic of Allentown, Pa., Parkland High School
Alumni Distinguished Scholars were selected from more than 1,100 of the top high school seniors who applied to MSU and took an intensive general knowledge exam. They were then selected by a committee composed of faculty and administrators based on the results of the exam, high school programs and achievements, other standardized test scores and interviews with the finalists.
University Distinguished Scholars were chosen from an MSU applicant pool based on academic records, accomplishments and interviews with the finalists. Students were selected by the director of admissions and dean of the Honors College on the basis of their high school programs, achievements and standardized test scores.
For more information about the scholarships, visit the Honors College or the Office of Admissions.
If the recent Supreme Court decision in Fisher v. The University of Texas at Austin ultimately leads to a prohibition on using race-conscious factors in college admissions, one counter-intuitive result could be that middle-class applicants of all races may find it more difficult to get into selective public institutions.
Currently, UT Austin is required to allocate 75 percent of its freshmen spaces to students who graduate in the top 8 percent of their high school classes (2013-2014 academic year). The remainder of the places may be filled with some consideration given to an applicant’s race, along with many other factors, including socioeconomic status.
Many of the students who are automatically admitted through the top 8 percent formula come from minimally desegregated high schools in poor urban and rural areas of the state, so the automatic formula is a proxy for increasing the enrollment of minority students, many from Dallas, Houston, and the Rio Grande Valley. About 37 percent of the automatic admits are minority students.
The second group–the 25 percent who do not have to be in the top 8 percent of their high school classes–includes a much higher proportion of students who come from more rigorous high schools. The “holistic” process utilized to admit these students emphasizes test scores, high school gpa, quality of the high school, leadership, extracurricular activities, work, etc., along with special factors, including race. But only about 22 percent of holistic admits are minority students.
The interesting thing about the holistic process is that, even though a smaller percentage of minorities are admitted this way, the socioeconomic status of these students is higher, meaning that they “diversify diversity” by including minority students from all socioeconomic levels in the university population. Aside from being a way to counter racial stereotypes that may be held by white students, these minority students also pay more of the costs of attending UT Austin.
Many high-achieving students of all races also gain admission through the holistic process. Students at demanding high schools may not rank in the top 8 percent, but many have high SAT scores and even have gpas that are higher than many of the automatic admits. (The average SAT scores of holistic admits in a recent year was 1902, but for automatic admits the average was 1812.)
For legal purposes, the automatic admission process is considered “race neutral,” and so would likely be allowed to continue if “race conscious” plans are eventually disallowed. But since the automatic plans are proxies for using race, and because they are also proxies for admitting lower-income students, the use of automatic admission practices alone would leave less room for many high-achieving students of all races who come from strong schools in middle class or high income districts.
The admission of more low-income students will all place greater demands on the ability of the universities to provide financial support to middle-class students.
The University of Colorado at Boulder has experimented with a more sophisticated admissions system that provides “boosts” to applicants who have some degree of disadvantage coupled with evidence of over-achievement. Highly-qualified applicants who are not disadvantaged are not penalized, yet the boosts for other applicants will still yield a student body with more lower-income students. Again, added pressure on financial resources is one result.
The Colorado plan is a laudable attempt to increase access, promote diversity, and avoid overt racial considerations. The point of this article is not to criticize these goals but only to point out the possible impact that the changes in college admissions could have on the middle class.
So in the end, while some non-minority families might complain about what they see as favoritism in current race-conscious practices, the change to race-neutral options might make it even more difficult for middle-class students to gain entrance to selective schools and receive some financial assistance in the process.
The rankings are based on the responses of 1,500 Business Insider readers, most of them from the finance and tech sectors.
“Almost 30 percent of the respondents work in finance, 22 percent work in technology, 9.9 percent work in education, 9.9 are current students, 9.2 percent work in media and marketing, and 8 percent work in law,” according to the publication.
Also interesting is that BI combines national universities and liberal arts colleges in the same list, just as Forbes does.
Please to to the BI link to see comments from the respondents. In the meantime, here is the list of the top 50:
In our book, A Review of Fifty Public University Honors Programs (2014), the Echols Scholars program at the University of Virginia was one of seven programs to receive the highest overall rating–five “mortarboards.” (Please see our Methodology page for more information about these two categories.)
The Jefferson Scholars program at UVA was not rated as an honors program because it is primarily a generous financial support program coupled with enrichment activities for only about 30 students each year. The good news is that you can be both an Echols Scholar, which allows you almost total freedom in course selection along with housing and priority registration benefits, and a Jefferson Scholar, fortunate enough to receive the outstanding financial benefits and enrichment features of that program.
Admission to each program is, however, separate, so some students invited to be Echols Scholars do not receive Jefferson Scholarships, and some Jefferson Scholars are not in the Echols Program.
Admission to either program is highly selective, pretty much on a par with top Ivy standards. UVA attracts quite a few students who have also been accepted to the most elite private institutions. But here is what you receive in the way of support as a Jefferson Scholar:
“Intended to cover the entire cost of attendance for four years at the University of Virginia, the Jefferson Scholars’ stipend includes tuition, fees, books, supplies, room, board, and personal expenses. In 2012-13, Jefferson Scholars from the Commonwealth of Virginia will receive over $25,000 each year, and out-of-state or international Jefferson Scholars will receive an annual stipend of over $50,000. In addition to the financial component of the Scholarship is an extensive enrichment program which aims to support and nurture these students throughout their four years at U.Va. Also an important part of the program is the community that develops between Scholars, Graduate Fellows, staff, and alumni.”
In a separate post and in our book we have estimated the admission requirements for Echols; the stats below are from the Jefferson Scholars site, and the admission requirements appear to be about the same as our estimates for Echols Scholars. Class of 2016:
31 accepted
17 states represented, plus the UK
2260 average SAT
23 scholars had a perfect score of 800 on at least one section of the SAT
Although we have written frequently about the inherent value of a college education and the downside of looking at a degree only in terms of the financial rewards to recipients, there is no question that many, if not most, parents and students are extremely concerned about salary prospects after graduation.
The recent Payscale.Com 2012 ROI Rankings are useful in this regard, especially if prospective students are pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering, or business. There are some caveats about the data: (1) they only include bachelors degree holders and do not include the salaries of alumni who have gone on to graduate or professional school–a significant fact; and (2) they generally favor universities located in the Northeast, the Washington, DC area, or the West Coast, where overall pay is often much higher than it is in other regions.
Partly for these reasons, all but two of the top 13 universities in the Payscale ROI are located in the Northeast or the West Coast. All of these are private institutions, many with strong financial aid to students, a fact that helps to offset high tuition in determining the ROI.
The ROI itself is the amount of career earnings over and above the median earnings of high school graduates. For more information on how Payscale derives net cost and ROI, please see the Payscale methodology.
Based on the methodology, below are the public universities that Payscale ranks in the top 100 (in-state tuition only for purposes of ROI). From the list it is clear that the methodology strongly favors universities with high STEM or business enrollments, that offer specialized programs, such as maritime instruction:
Editor’s note: This list is now updated effective June 28, 2017,to include data for 2016 compared to 2015. This is the most recent data available.
Below we list enrolled merit scholars, by university, for both years so that readers can gauge any trends in university support for the scholarships. Please know that “sponsorship” by a university of one or more National Merit Scholarships often means that the actual funding is $2,000 or less, although there remain a few universities that tie very generous awards to National Merit Finalist status.
Nowadays, winners of merit scholarships whose families fall into that broad range of being moderately well off but not comfortably well to do need to know which universities still place a premium on National Merit Scholars. The universities that continue to recruit NM scholars typically do so because (1) they want to compete with the Ivies for the best students and/or (2) they want to raise the profile of their undergrads so that national rankings will show a higher degree of selectivity.
Most of the highly-ranked private universities that continue their relationship with the National Merit Scholarship Corporation fall into category (1) above. Foremost among these in 2016 are the University of Chicago with 277 merit scholars (185 of them with university sponsorship); USC with 230 merit scholars (189 with USC support);Vanderbilt with 220 scholars (166 with university support); and Northwestern with 168 scholars (125 with school support).
It is noteworthy that some of the above private elites have reduced the total number of NMS scholars enrolled and the number of scholars receiving university sponsorship. Indeed, Washington University in St. Louis had 212 merit scholars enrolled in 2014, 159 with university sponsorship. In 2016, this number fell to 33 scholars enrolled, none with university sponsorship.
This is also a trend for most, but not all, public universities listed below.Of the 23 public universities listed, only 8 have increased their sponsorship of national merit scholars year over year. One can sense a university’s receptiveness and willingness to buck the trend against awarding merit scholarships by view the year over year list below.
A longer list of public universities appears below.
The excellent private universities still awarding merit aid are willing to take the heat for sponsoring non- need-based students based on merit alone at a time when the inequities of scholarship funding have led to a greater emphasis on allocating funds mostly or entirely on a need-based scale.
Again, for many families, that trend is a good one; but for families with incomes in the mid six figures, for example, the ability to qualify for need-based aid may be negligible while the pinch on the family budget is still significant.
Many public elites have joined the Ivies in not providing their own funds to match or pay entirely for merit scholarships. Among these schools are all the UC campuses, Virginia, Michigan, UT Austin, Washington, and more recently North Carolina, Ohio State, Illinois, and Georgia Tech. At these universities, merit scholars may still receive non-need-based assistance, but it will not be in the form of university-sponsored merit funds. These and other universities may also have some scholarships for valedictorians and other highly qualified scholars.
Of these leading public universities that do not sponsor merit scholars, UC Berkeley had the most enrolled merit scholars, 161, followed by UT Austin with 74. Among private universities, Harvard enrolled 233 merit scholars, Stanford 179, MIT 154, Yale 147, and Princeton 117.
The University of Wisconsin only sponsored 5 merit scholars in 2016, out of 17 enrolled at the university.
The University of Oklahoma returned in 2016 to the number 1 position in enrollment of national merit scholars among all universities public or private (279) and the number receiving university sponsorship (236).
Below is a list of public universities that still match or fund National Merit Scholars, regardless of need, and that had 25 or more university-sponsored merit scholars in 2016. We will list the university, followed by the total number of merit scholars in the 2015 report, followed again by the number of those scholars that also received school support based on the merit scholarship. Then we do the same for merit scholars in the same universities in 2016.
As a general rule, the higher the number of school-supported merit scholars, the greater the recruitment is for merit scholars. Colleges with a year over year increase in sponsored scholarships are in bold. All colleges are listed in order of their total merit scholar enrollment in 2016. A total of 16 of the 23 universities are in the South or Southwest.
Oklahoma (2015): 288 total, 240 with university sponsorship, (2016): 279 total, 236 with university sponsorship (still most in the nation).
Alabama (2015): 148 total, 120 with university sponsorship; (2016): 155 total, 135 with university sponsorship.
Florida (2015): 146 total, 113 with university sponsorship; (2016): 158 total, 119 with university sponsorship.
Minnesota (2015): 147 total, 115 with university sponsorship; (2016): 150 total, 113 with university sponsorship.
Purdue (2015): 94 total, 68 with university sponsorship; (2016): 125 total, 98 with university sponsorship.
Texas A&M (2015): 142 total, and 120 with university sponsorship; (2016): 122 total, 90 with university sponsorship.
UT Dallas (2015): 101 total, 78 with university sponsorship; (2016): 119 total, 94 with university sponsorship.
Arizona State (2015): 112 total, 94 with university sponsorship; (2016): 109 total, and 89 with university sponsorship.
Kentucky (2015): 111 total, 93 with university sponsorship; (2016): 99 total, 88 with university sponsorship.
Univ of Central Florida (2015): 69 total, 59 with university sponsorship; (2016): 77 total, 68 with university sponsorship.
Auburn (2015): 64 total, 51 with university sponsorship; (2016): 60 total, 52 with university sponsorship.
Maryland (2015): 61 total, 48 with university sponsorship; (2016): 52 total, 42 with university sponsorship.
Indiana (2015): 68 total, 50 with university sponsorship; (2016): 52 total, 38 with university sponsorship.
Cincinnati (2015): 44 total, 38 with university sponsorship; (2016): 50 total, 36 with university sponsorship.
Arkansas (2015): 37 total, 31 with university sponsorship; 2016: 45 total, 38 with university sponsorship.
Arizona (2015): 65 total, 57 with university sponsorship; (2016): 43 total, 37 with university sponsorship.
Clemson (2015): 55 total, 41 with university sponsorship; (2016): 43 total, 36 with university sponsorship.
Ole Miss (2015): 40 total, 34 with university sponsorship; (2016): 43 total, 30 with university sponsorship.
Georgia (2015): 42 total, 28 with university sponsorship; (2016): 39 total, 31 with university sponsorship.
Mississippi St (2015): 37 total, 33 with university sponsorship; (2016): 37 total, 29 with university sponsorship.
Nebraska (2015): 47 total, 41 with university sponsorship; (2016): 36 total, 31 with university sponsorship.
South Carolina (2015): 46 total, 33 with university sponsorship; (2016): 36 total, 31 with university sponsorship.
Michigan State (2015): 43 total, 36 with university sponsorship; (2016): 34 total, 30 with university sponsorship.
