Education December 15, 2017: Brown sets early decision admission low for the Class of 2022




By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

Medium, 12-15-17

Brown University admitted 738 students as part of their binding early decision program to the Class of 2022 out of a record 3,502 applications making for a 21 percent acceptance rate, the highest among the Ivy League schools. (Source: Brown University Twitter) 

On the last day of early admission decisions from the Ivy League students found out if they were accepted from their coveted school. On Thursday, Dec. 14, 2017, at 5 p.m. Brown University admitted 738 students as part of their binding early decision program to the Class of 2022. This year the Ivy League school saw their largest number of applications for the early admission cycle, with 3502 high school seniors applying, 10 percent more than last year. Although Brown has, a higher acceptance rate than the Ivy League schools, it was a low for them, and Brown’s acceptance rate was only 21 percent for the Class of 2022.

Previously, Brown set a record low for the Class of 2021 admissions. Last year Brown had a “record-low” 8.3 acceptance rate, admitting 2,027 applicants for their new freshmen class with just a 6.5 acceptance rate for regular decision. Brown saw a record 32,724 applications. Brown also waited listed 1,000 high school seniors. In December as part of early decision admission for the Class of 2021, Brown accepted 695 applicants out of 3,170 applications for an acceptance rate of 21.9 percent.

In addition to the 738 lucky students that were admitted, 2318 were deferred to the regular admission cycle for reconsideration, 429 were denied admission, there were 14 incomplete applications, and three students withdrew from consideration. The accepted students come from “33 nations and 43 states,” last year they came from “39 nations and 41 U.S. states.” This year a majority of the students come from New York (110), California, and Massachusetts. Most international students are coming from China, the United Kingdom, and India.

This year’s class is the most diverse accepted by Brown during the early decision cycle. As the Brown Daily Herald indicated, “Over 38 percent of the early decision admits — 283 students — identify as people of color, which marks the highest percentage in the University’s history.” Last year, Brown accepted 36 percent of the early decision class that considered themselves people of color, which is “African American, Latino/a Native American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or Asian.” The trend continues that more women are accepted than men are to Brown’s early decision. This year “430 students were female and only 308 were male. Last year, “411 accepted students were female and 284 were male.”

Half the students accepted as part of early decision applied for financial aid. This year as part of $30 million Brown Promise Campaign, undergraduate students will not receive loans but grants. Dean of Admission Logan Powell commented, “We couldn’t be happier because it’s a great opportunity for those students offered admission, and obviously a wonderful opportunity for Brown to have those students.” There was, however, a decrease in the number of students accepted who would be the first generation attending college, with only 10 percent, down from 13 percent last year.

Powell said the same type of students accepted in the early decision cycle would be accepted during the regular cycle. Powell said, “Every early decision student who was admitted is exceptional, and would have been admitted in our regular decision round.” The same can be same for the rest of students admitted to the other Ivy League universities this past week. On Tuesday, Dec. 12, Harvard University admitted just 964 students out of 6,630 applicants, an admission rate of just 14.5 percent to their early admissions program. Harvard is the most selective Ivy League college.

Earlier on Wednesday, Princeton University sent out early action admissionoffers to 799 lucky school seniors to the Class of 2022, out of a record 5,402 applications. Princeton’s acceptance rate was a record low with only 14.7 percent of student accepted. Also on Wednesday, the University of Pennsylvania sent out 1,312 early decision offers of admission for the Class of 2022, out of record number 7,074 applications, the college has its record lowest early admission rate in history at just 18.5 percent. Also on Thursday, Dec. 14, 2017, at 5 p.m. Yale University notified the Class of 2022 their decisions on their early action admissions. This year Yale admitted only 842 students, out of a record number 5,733 applications, with a 14.7 percent acceptance rate.

Bonnie K. Goodman BA, MLIS (McGill University), is a journalist, librarian, historian & editor. She is a former Features Editor at the History News Network & reporter at where she covered politics, universities, religion, and news. She has a dozen years experience in education & political journalism.




Education December 14, 2017: Yale admits record low for early action admission to Class of 2022




By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

Yale University’s acceptance rate this early admission cycle was the second lowest of all the Ivies at only 14.7 percent behind Harvard’s 14.5 percent and the same as Princeton’s 14.7 percent. (Source: Yale University News)

On the last day of early admission decisions from the Ivy League students found out if they were accepted from their coveted school. On Thursday, Dec. 14, 2017, at 5 p.m. Yale notified the Class of 2022 their decisions on their early action admissions. This year Yale admitted only 842 students, the least out of all the Ivies, out of a record number 5,733 applications. The acceptance rate this early admission cycle was the second lowest of all the Ivies at only 14.7 percent behind Harvard’s 14.5 percent and the same as Princeton’s 14.7 percent.

Yale admitted fewer students than last year’s early admission. Of all the Ivies, only Yale University increased the number of students they accepted for the Class of 2021, because of the two new residential colleges that are opening this fall. Yale admitted 1550 students to the Class of 2021 regular cycle. Yale accepted 2,272 students out of “record” 32,900 applicants, making a 6.9 percent acceptance rate. In December, as part of early admission, Yale accepted 871 applicants out of 5,086 applications for an acceptance rate of 17.1 percent. Additionally, 1,181 students were placed on the waitlist. In previous years, Yale used to receive only about 4,700 applications each early admission cycle.

Of the record 5,733 applications, aside from the 842 accepted high school seniors, 55 percent of the applicants were deferred to the regular admission cycle, 29 percent were downright refused and “2 percent either withdrew or submitted incomplete forms.” Yale has a single-choice early action admission, meaning students can only apply to Yale in the early admission cycle, however it is non-binding and students have until May 1 to notify Yale of their decision.

Dean of Undergraduate Admissions and Financial Aid Jeremiah Quinlan made a statement to the college’s student paper the Yale Daily News. Quinlan commented on the incoming class, saying, “The Admissions Committee was very impressed with this year’s early applicant pool across every dimension. We are pleased to offer admission to this first group of students in the Class of 2022, and look forward to admitting a much larger group of students through our Regular Decision process this spring.”

Quinlan also commented that Yale is continuing their trend to increase the number of students admitted due to the new residential colleges. The Dean of Admissions said, “The addition of Benjamin Franklin and Pauli Murray colleges enables us to bring to Yale more students from a more diverse collection of backgrounds. The combination of expanding enrollment and greater representation of students from under-resourced backgrounds means more opportunity for more students.”

Yale provided very little information about the pool of those accepted to early action. Director of Outreach and Communications Mark Dunn only commented in November about the applications to early action admission. Dunn said they included “virtually every subgroup of applicants that the admissions office tracks.” Yale has enhanced their financial packages for those coming from “lower-income backgrounds,” in an effort to increase diversity. Yale received applications from “49 states, Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and 98 foreign countries.” Dean of Admissions Quinlan wants the final Class of 2022 to be 1,550 students enrolled.

On Tuesday, Dec. 12, Harvard University admitted just 964 students out of 6,630 applicants, an admission rate of just 14.5 percent to their early admissions program. Harvard is the most selective Ivy League college. Earlier on Wednesday, Princeton University sent out early action admission offers to 799 lucky school seniors to the Class of 2022, out of a record 5,402 applications. Princeton’s acceptance rate was a record low with only 14.7 percent of student accepted. Also on Wednesday, the University of Pennsylvania sent out 1,312 early decision offers of admission for the Class of 2022, out of record number 7,074 applications, the college has its record lowest early admission rate in history at just 18.5 percent.

Bonnie K. Goodman BA, MLIS (McGill University), is a journalist, librarian, historian & editor. She is a former Features Editor at the History News Network & reporter at where she covered politics, universities, religion and news. She has a dozen years experience in education & political journalism.

Education December 14, 2017: University of Pennsylvania has record low early admission acceptance rate to the Class of 2022




By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

Medium, 12-14-17

The University of Pennsylvania received a record number of application to the Class of 2022 leading to their lowest early decision acceptance rate in history. Source: Wikipedia Commons

Mid-December is early admission decision time and almost every other day anxious high school seniors await an email from the school of their dreams that will determine their future. On Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2017, at 7 p.m. Ivy League school the University of Pennsylvania sent out 1,312 early decision offers of admission for the Class of 2022. This year Penn received a record number of applications, 7,074 students applied, and 15 percent more to the early decision program for the Class of 2021. As result, the college has its record lowest early admission rate in history at just 18.5 percent down from last year’s 23.2 percent.

The acceptance rate for the Class of 2022 is the lowest in the school’s history, still, the university did not actually admit that much fewer students than last year. Penn admitted 1,312 students this year and last year they accepted 1,354 students. UPenn admits over half of the freshmen class through their early decision program. As the student paper, the Daily Pennsylvanian noted: “Last year approximately 55 percent of the total 2,445 spots available were filled by Early Decision applicants.”

Last year, Penn hailed their Class of 2021 acceptance rate as the lowest in history, accepting 3,699 students from 40,413 applicants for “a record-low 9.15 percent acceptance rate.” In December 2016, Penn sent notifications to 1,364 students that they were accepted as part of the early decision program with a nearly 24 percent acceptance rate. The university targeted goal of 2,445 students enrolling in the fall.

The sheer increase in the number of applications received is the only reason for Penn’s significantly smaller acceptance rate. More high school seniors are applying for early admission programs giving schools more quality applicants to choose from for their incoming class. This year Penn saw an increase of 9.5 percent from last year in the number of early decision applications they received, that number is 38 percent more from when the Class of 2018 applied in 2013. For the Class of 2021, Penn received what was then a record 6,147 applications.

Penn released, however, very little demographic data about the early decision Class of 2022. This year’s class comes 54 countries and 45 states and Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, while last year, they came from 44 countries and 46 states. Additionally, despite only 16 percent of their applications coming from legacies, “the children or grandchildren of Penn alumni,” the school admitted a whopping 25 percent to their early decision program. Meanwhile, only “11 percent of student accepted are first-generation college students,” the same as last year. This year’s Penn applicants included as the Daily Pennsylvanian pointed out, “47 percent are women, 11 percent are first-generation college students, 40 percent self-identify as students of color, 16.5 percent were educated outside of the United States, and 16 percent are legacies.”

Dean of Admissions Eric Furda released an email statement commenting on the early decision Class of 2022. Furda noted, “It does not appear that travel bans and immigration legislation has impacted Penn’s applicant pool.” Furda believes the new SAT positively affected the students applying to the school. The Dean of Admissions said, “With changes to format and scoring instituted by The College Board in 2016, most students received higher scores on the rSAT than what they would have received in the older SAT format. The rSAT represents a significant change within the larger college application landscape that may have impacted college search, choice, and application behavior on the part of individual students.”

Early decision is binding, meaning a student who applies and then is accepted is required to attend the university or college, while early action is non-binding, a student can be accepted and then decide against going to that particular school and can turn down their admission offer. Applying for early admission is not without its risks either, some schools have policies where if a student is rejected in the early admission cycle, cannot reapply for regular admission, however, some universities who do not accept students that applied for early admission, automatically consider them for regular admission.

Despite having the lowest acceptance rate in their school’s history, so far, Penn has the highest acceptance rate among the Ivy League schools that released their data. On Tuesday, Dec. 12, Harvard University admitted just 964 students out of 6,630 applicants, an admission rate of just 14.5 percent to their early admissions program. Harvard is the most selective Ivy League college. Earlier on Wednesday, Princeton University sent out early action admission offers to 799 lucky school seniors to the Class of 2022, out of a record 5,402 applications. Princeton’s acceptance rate was a record low with only 14.7 percent of student accepted.

Bonnie K. Goodman BA, MLIS (McGill University), is a journalist, librarian, historian & editor. She is a former Features Editor at the History News Network & reporter at where she covered politics, universities, religion and news. She has a dozen years experience in education & political journalism.

Education December 13, 2017: Princeton hits new early action admission record low with Class of 2022




By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

Medium, 12-13-17

Princeton admitted a record low acceptance rate to their early action admissions for the Class of 2022, only 14.7 percent of applicants. Source: Princeton Admissions Twitter)

Another day in December another Ivy League university sends out their early admission decision to high school seniors. On Wednesday, Dec. 13, 2017, at 3 pm, Princeton University sent out early action admission offers to 799 lucky school seniors to the Class of 2022. Princeton had a record number of applications this early action cycle with 5,402 applications with 8 percent more than last year and 57 percent more applications than six years ago in 2011. Because of the number of applicants, Princeton’s acceptance rate was a record low with only 14.7 percent of student accepted down from last year’s 15.4 percent.

Princeton’s acceptance rate for the Class of 2021 was “the lowest in school history.” The University invited just 6.1 percent of applicants to join the University, 1,890 students out of a “record” 31,056 applicants. In December 2016, Princeton accepted 770 applicants out of 5,003 applications for an acceptance rate of 15.4 percent as part of the “single-choice early action” program. Princeton first offered early action admission seven years ago. Students can only apply to Princeton in the early admission cycle, but they can notify the college of their decision by May 1. As Princeton points out the landscape now is radically different from 2011 when the college accepted 21.1 percent of early action applicants.

Those accepted to the Class of 2022 early action come from “48 countries and 44 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.” Last year to the Class of 2021, Princeton accepted students from 45 countries and 42 states plus DC and Puerto Rico. The university says that 44 percent of the accepted students this year are minorities, up from 43 percent last year. This year 11 percent are international students, the same as last year. Both this year’s class and last year’s is evenly balance by gender, 50 percent are women and 50 percent are men.

For the Class of 2022 fewer students come from public or charter schools, with 56 percent versus 57 percent for the Class of 2021. The same amount of students who are the first in their family to attend college were accepted as last year, with 14 percent. This year Princeton accepted more legacy students, the children of alumni, with 17 percent of the Class of 2022, whereas they represented 16 percent of the Class of 2021 early action admissions.

Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye commented on this year’s class. Rapelye said, “The admission committee was impressed with the strength and depth of the pool this year. Our admission officers worked long hours reading the applications of the candidates, and we had to make difficult choices. The admitted students have demonstrated extraordinary academic achievements as well as extracurricular talents throughout high school. We are thrilled with the quality of these students and their commitments to their communities. We look forward to all the ways they will contribute to Princeton.”

Bonnie K. Goodman BA, MLIS (McGill University), is a journalist, librarian, historian & editor. She is a former Features Editor at the History News Network & reporter at where she covered politics, universities, religion and news. She has a dozen years experience in education & political journalism.

Education December 12, 2017: Harvard continues trend of accepting record low early admissions applicants to Class of 2022




By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

Medium, 12-12-17

Harvard is continuing the trend of accepting a record low percentage of applicants to early admissions. (Source: Harvard Admissions Twitter)

Harvard College shattered many high school seniors’ dreams admitting their one of their lowest rate of early admission applicants to the Class of 2022. Harvard is one of the first of the Ivy League universities to notify students if they were accepted for early admission. Harvard College notified students by email on Tuesday afternoon, Dec. 12, 2017, at 5 p.m. if they were accepted to the Class of 2022, rejected or waitlisted. Harvard admitted just 964 studentsout of 6,630 applicants, an admission rate of just 14.5 percent to their early admissions program. Harvard is the most selective Ivy League college, and the elite Stanford University only beats it in the country.

As has been the trend, Ivy League, and elite universities are becoming more selective, and their early action admission rates are falling after receiving a record number of applications. This year is no different if Harvard’s numbers are an indication the Ivy League and elite universities are continuing the trend and are on track for their most selective year as they choose the Class of 2022.

Although 964 lucky seniors were accepted to the holy grail of Ivy League universities, others were not as lucky. Among the remaining applicants, 73 percent or 4,882 students have another opportunity and they were deferred to the regular admission cycle. However, for 9.2 percent or 611 students the dream is over, they were outright rejected. There were an additional 173 students who did not properly complete their applications and they also have the opportunity to complete them for regular cycle consideration.

Harvard admitted nearly the same percentage of early applicants as last year a 14.53 acceptance rate this year versus a 14.49 percent rate last year an addition of less than a half percentage point. In December 2016, Harvard admitted their lowest number of early applicants, accepting just 938 students out of 6,473 applications to their early admissions program for the Class of 2021. Their admissions represented just 14.5 percent of the applicant pool down only 0.3 percent from 2015. In total for the Class of 2021, Harvard admitted 2,056 students out of a record of 39,506 applicants, to have a 5.2 percent acceptance rate.

William R. Fitzsimmons, the dean of admissions and financial aid, commented to student paper The Harvard Crimson on the record number of early admissions’ applicants for the Class of 2022. Fitzsimmons expressed, “The one thing we can say with certainty is that the numbers rose this year. In general terms, it appears that more institutions had increases than the reverse… Early admission, in one form or another, is the new normal.”

Harvard’s Class of 2022 is even more diverse than last year, partially due to legal scrutiny. More minorities were admitted with 13.9 percent of early African-American applicants being accepted up from 12.6 percent of were admitted last year. This year saw a slight rise in Hispanic students accepted with 9.8 percent, up from 9.5 percent last year. Native American and Native Hawaiian applicants made in-roads with 1.8 percent accepted early up from last year’s paltry 1.1 percent. Of all groups, women saw their numbers decrease down one percent from 48 percent to 47 percent.

The minority group with the largest early acceptance rate was Asian-Americans with 24.2 percent accepted this year up from 21.1 percent in last year’s early admissions cycle. Harvard is facing an investigation into their admission rates of Asian Americans by the Department of Justice and a private lawsuit by former applicants. The DOJ began investigating Harvard’s affirmative action practices this past summer. The DOJ wanted the college to hand over is applications and student records and threatened to sue if they would not comply with Dec. 1. The DOJ is now contemplating Harvard’s counteroffer to allow the review of redacted student records

Harvard is also facing a separate private lawsuit by rejected Asian American applicants, who are accusing the college of discriminatory admission practices. The lawsuit is ongoing from 2014 where the college was accused of “employing racially and ethnically discriminatory policies” and that “Harvard’s undergraduate admissions policies and procedures have injured and continue to injure Plaintiff’s members by intentionally and improperly discriminating against them on the basis of their race and ethnicity in violation of Title VI.” The college is providing hundreds of thousands of former applications to comply with that lawsuit.

Harvard is also making an effort to accept more economically disadvantaged students. Among those admitted to early admission, 58 percent are asking for financial aid, and 13 percent needed application fee waivers, while last year only 10.7 percent made that request. More First-generation college students were admitted with 10.6 percent to the Class of 2022 up from 8.7 percent for the Class of 2021. Despite concerns about attracting international students, the rate admitted remains steady with 10.2 percent, and 2.3 percent from northern neighbor Canada.

Fitzsimmons noted early admissions usually see less diversity, but this year was an exception. Fitzsimmons told the Crimson, “Traditionally, early programs have tended not to reflect the excellence and diversity that you see out in the world, so one of the real pushes over the past decade or so-and part of it was giving it up and then bringing it back-is to make certain that people from all of those backgrounds do consider early. We’re delighted to see that we had greater economic and ethnic diversity not just in the pool, but in the admitted group.”

For the Class of 2022, Harvard intends to admit fewer students than to the Class of 2021. Fitzsimmons cited overcrowding in the Class of 2021 freshman as the reason for accepting fewer students this upcoming year. For the Class of 2021 much, more students accepted admission offers, leading to “twenty-eight freshmen living in DeWolfe, overflow housing typically reserved for upperclassmen.” The Dean of Admissions wants to admit also students off the waitlist this year. Last year they were unable to able to accept any students off the list. Fitzsimmons said in September his goal to accept “40 to 50 to maybe 100 people” off the waitlist. Now the Dean of Admissions says the college “will certainly be mindful of coming in on target” when it deciding admissions in the regular cycle.

Early decision is binding, meaning a student who applies and then is accepted is required to attend the university or college, while early action is non-binding, a student can be accepted and then decide against going to that particular school and can turn down their admission offer. Applying for early admission is not without its risks either, some schools have policies where if a student is rejected in the early admission cycle, cannot reapply for regular admission, however, some universities who do not accept students that applied for early admission, automatically consider them for regular admission.

Bonnie K. Goodman BA, MLIS (McGill University), is a journalist, librarian, historian & editor. She is a former Features Editor at the History News Network & reporter at where she covered politics, universities, religion and news. She has a dozen years experience in education & political journalism.

Education September 12, 2017: Princeton and Williams again top of US News’ 2018 Best Colleges amid accusations of elitism




By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

U.S. News & World Report again has Princeton University and Williams College topping their list of Best Colleges for 2018. (Wikipedia Commons)

While international university rankings are reporting upheaval, there is one ranking that remains rock solid in its findings, U.S. News & World Report again has Princeton University and Williams College topping their list of Best Colleges. U.S. News, the standard-bearers in the national university and college rankings game released on Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2017, their first of two major college and university rankings for the season, their Best Colleges rankings for 2018 online. Princeton, Williams, and Berkley all saw repeat visits to the top of the rankings. Princeton is №1 of all Best National Universities for the seventh year, while Williams remains atop the Best National Liberal Arts Colleges for the past 15 years. This year’s ranking was rather indecisive with multiple schools vying for a single spot.

Public universities some changes in this year’s ranking. Berkley is no longer the only university in the University of California system helming the Top Public Schools among National Universities; UC Los Angeles, both tying for first place, joins it. Berkley still №1 as it has been for the last 20 years. There is, however, a new king in first place in the Top Public Schools among National Liberal Arts Colleges ranking. The United States Military Academy at West Point takes over from former honor taker the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis as the best public liberal arts college. As much as US News is celebrated for its king maker status it is becoming increasingly under fire for claims that their Best Colleges ranking fuels elitism and shuts out low-income students seeking degrees because they would hinder schools’ quest to rise in the rankings.

The Ivy League and elite universities dominate the Best National Universities. Princeton remains on top, followed by Harvard again in second, while the University of Chicago and Yale continue to tie for third place. Three elite schools now tie for fifth place, Columbia, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Stanford. MIT leaped two spots to end up in the top five. The University of Pennsylvania retains the eighth spot, but no longer shares it with Duke University. Duke drops one to fall into ninth place. Rounding out the top ten is the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), who moves back up two to retake the tenth place after leaving the top 10 briefly last year. John Hopkins University leaves the top 10, to tie for 11th place. The top thirty has a new school with the New York University joining the esteemed ranks rising six to 30. NYU raised their profile by having additional campuses in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai and marketing themselves as a “new type of global, private research university.”

There are also plenty of colleges tied in the Best National Liberal Arts Colleges ranking, listing the best primary undergraduate schools specializing in the arts and sciences. The top two remain unchanged, with Williams College on top and Amherst in second. Now the third place is a three-way tie with Bowdoin, Swarthmore and Wellesley vying for the one spot. Bowdoin is the greatest gainer in the bunch was Bowdoin moving up from sixth, while Swarthmore moving up one from tied for fourth. Middlebury College loses two positions moving down from tied for fourth to tie with sixth with Pomona College, which moves up one from seventh. Carleton College moves down one to tie for eighth with Claremont McKenna, who moves up from ninth. Two colleges now vie for tenth, Davidson College moves down one, and Washington and Lee University moves up one into the top 10.

In the lists of best public schools, University of California-Berkeley is longer the lone king atop of the Top Public Schools among National Universitiesranking. In its 20th year, Berkley now co-reigns with fellow University of California school, UC Los Angeles, both schools tie for 21st place in the Best National Universities list. UCLA standing rose because this past year it became the first university in the country to receive 100,000 applications for the 2021 freshman class. The University of Virginia maintains its third spot. The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor also stays in its spot at fourth, with the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill still rounding out the top five.

The ranking’s biggest shake up is the Top Public Schools among National Liberal Arts Colleges list, with the United States Military Academy grabbing up the top spot from the former king the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis. West Point ties for 12th on the national ranking. The United States Naval Academy now slips to second and is the 21st school on the national list. This is the first time since 2009–10 that West Point led Annapolis. The United States Air Force Academy remains in third. Another military college the Virginia Military Institute takes the fourth place alone this year. St. Mary’s College of Maryland rounds out the top five.

US News publishes their “Best Colleges” ranking lists in different categories including National Universities, National Liberal Arts Colleges, Top Public Universities and Liberal Arts Colleges, Regional Universities and Regional CollegesA-plus Schools for B StudentsBest Value Schools for universities and liberal arts colleges, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities. In total, more than 1,800 colleges and universities were profiled.

Brian Kelly, editor and chief content officer of U.S. News, commented on the value of the rankings to help with college choice decision making. Kelly explained, “Before taking out student loans or writing a tuition check, families should research graduation and retention rates. These are important indicators of how well a school supports its students both academically and financially.” Continuing Kelly remarked, “Colleges that saddle students with debt but do little to support them through graduation are contributing to a vicious cycle — without that valuable degree, students will have a difficult time landing well-paying jobs and repaying their loans, which puts them in a precarious financial situation early on in their careers.”

Although public universities and liberal arts colleges are given separate lists, the same is not done with private universities and liberal arts colleges. The US News’ ranking categories are based on Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. US News Best Colleges’ methodology involves looking at over 1,800 universities and colleges to create their four rankings; the results are determined by “15 measures of academic quality,” taken from the Common Data Set. The Best Colleges lists rely heavily on “student outcomes” predominantly “graduation and retention rates” which represent 30 percent of the deciding factor in the ranking. The main criterion includes “graduation and retention rates, undergraduate academic reputation, student selectivity, faculty resources, financial resources, alumni giving and graduation rate performance.”

This year US News tweaked their methodology adding new elements to give seniors and their parents more information for the college decision making. One factors into the ranking the other does not. For the National Universities under graduation rates US News now looks at the “proportion of degrees awarded in the science, technology, engineering and math fields.”

US News is also dipping into the return on investment (ROI) trend in college rankings and will now provide “salary data for alumni of individual schools, supplied by the online analyst PayScale.” The salary data, however, is still not part of the ranking methodology. Robert Morse, chief data strategist for U.S. News remarked on the new ROI addition, saying. “Using salary as a heavily weighted rankings factor ignores academic quality, which we believe is more important for prospective students and their parents when considering which school to attend.” Morse, however, pointed out, “Not everyone is interested in a high-salaried career. Secondly, the salary data — while important — is not comprehensive enough to do an analytic school-by-school comparison.”

The US News rankings guidebook and companion website include over 50 ranking lists. The methodology US News uses benefits private universities, and the rubrics are “based on school reputation surveys; student selectivity; faculty resources; alumni giving; graduation and retention rates; and total spending per student on education.” In contrast public universities “rely heavily on state funding, often have tighter budgets, far larger enrollment and a broader mandate for accessibility than private institutions.”

US News’ Best Colleges list has become more controversial in recent years because of its focus on the cliché Ivy League and elite universities. As the Washington Post pointed out, calling the ranking “an annual sorting exercise that draws scrutiny from students, parents, and alumni but scorn from critics who say it’s a pointless game of prestige.” A day before the 2018 edition’s release Politico went further in their investigative article “How U.S. News college rankings promote economic inequality on campus.” The article’s subtitle is even more politically loaded, saying, “Once ladders of social mobility, universities increasingly reinforce existing wealth, fueling a backlash that helped elect Donald Trump.”

The article argues that the US News rubrics have become ingrained in universities strategic plans that they “create incentives for schools to favor wealthier students over less wealthy applicants.” The top one percent are catering to the top one percent rather than giving an opportunity to the bottom 60 percent. Politico argues that admission decisions and financial priorities are determined by the schools’ ranking aspirations and that is threatening students from middle and low earning families.

Among the criteria most being altered include, “student performance, lower acceptance rates, performing well on surveys, and alumni giving. Despite all the claims of diversity in admissions, the Ivy League is nearly three-quarters filled with the “top quartile of income earners” and only less than five percent from the bottom quartile, with those in the lowest never even going on to complete their bachelor’s degrees if they are started. Private and public schools are continuing the trend just to up their prestige on rankings, primarily US News Best Colleges.

The stereotypical poor and white are the most affected, and as Politico noted fueled the 2016 election that saw Donald Trump rise to the presidency. Walter Benn Michaels, a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago told Politico “Elite colleges are part of the apparatus that produces Trumpism and produces working class, white resentment.” While Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation claimed, “It fits perfectly into Trump’s narrative … Basically, if you’re a low-income or working-class white student who works hard and you find out that what matters in admissions is who your daddy is, or what your race is, you’re completely left out.”

Politico’s research concluded US News is the worst of the rankings to continue the descent into economic equality in higher education. US News is one of the oldest and the most prestigious national ranking started in 1983, which the magazine called “the 800-pound gorilla of American higher education.” US News’ methodology factors in university spending on faculty salary and on students, which rises up tuition to the astronomical rates seniors are now facing as they embark on college. Universities are attempting to reap the most rewards by accepting students they know would succeed, the wealthy ones. F. King Alexander, president of Louisiana State University was the harshest in his opinion, saying, “I think U.S. News has done more damage to the higher education marketplace than any single enterprise that’s out there…. I call it ‘the greatest inefficiency ranking in America.’”

The Politico article accuses US News of stifling the increase in college degrees earned and preventing low-income students from acquiring them. Mitchell Stevens, a Stanford University sociologist called the U.S. News “the machinery that organizes and governs this competition.” Stevens called the ranking a peculiar form of governance” in higher education “because schools essentially use them to make sense of who they are relative to each other. And families use them basically as a guide to the higher education marketplace.” The rankings rubrics have become benchmarks for universities and state governments who yearn for a top ranking university in their midst at the public school level.

US News fiercely denies the negative effects their king maker status has on higher education. Robert Morse on the defensive told Politico, “We’re not setting the admissions standards at any schools. Our main mission for our rankings is to provide information for prospective students and their parents, and we’re measuring academic quality. That’s what we’ve been doing. We’ve been doing this for 30 years, and we believe we’ve been driving transparency in higher education data. Our methodology and the data we’ve chosen for the best colleges rankings is to measure which schools are the top in academic excellence.”

US News also denies their methodology affects universities policies, but administrators contradict that claim. Student selectivity has lead universities to accept students with higher scores on the SAT and ACT exams, where students from wealthier families do better because of access to preparation courses, materials, and tutors. The acceptance rate game also plays against low-income students, as acceptance rates have dropped; schools are becoming more selective as more students apply. Early admission and decisions programs are accepting more of the share of students but less low-income students apply for early decision.

A university financial and faculty resources matter a lot to US News, but also lock out low-income students as universities want to free up funding so they stay away from students that need financial and funding. Instead, to increase their rank, universities are spending more to hire faculty and ensure class sizes fall below the ideal 20 students per professor. Universities and colleges are also paying their faculty more. To acquire the necessary funding schools are increasing tuition and skirting financial needy students. Public universities are feeling the crunch the most and they are the ones raising tuition.

The all-important undergraduate academic reputation has college presidents, high school guidance counselors, college advisors rate universities, and colleges. A majority of high schools especially in low-income areas do not even have a counselor for their school, giving wealthy schools another advantage. Universities are also peddling to students that they know will keep up the alumni-giving rate, this is especially rampant among elite schools. The Ivy League particularly Harvard are preferring legacy admissions, with 40 percent of Harvard’s incoming class having a parent who graduated from the school. To ensure the money flows in low-income students are shut out.

Only two of US News’s metrics graduation and retention rates and graduation rate performance benefit low-income students, however, to ensure rates remain high schools turn to wealthier students who will graduate. Graduation rate performance is the most beneficial to low-income students because it “recognizes schools that are working to help the most disadvantaged students.” Morse argues the ranking’s rubrics are not creating biases but “creating a better academic environment” and “improvements across the board.”

Universities that play the game are rewarded and those who choose instead to help low-income students are punished in the rankings. President Barack Obama decried the rankings culture and attempted to counter US News’ influence by creating a rival ranking, The College Scorecard, which the Trump Administration is continuing. The ranking has its problems and needs to bolter its credibility, now the scorecard does not even threaten US News in the least. US News still dominates and does not care about the counter effects. In the end, despite the controversies that dog US News’ ranking and other rankings for fueling elitism or other reasons, as long as the rankings continue and equate prestige universities and colleges will continue playing the game perpetuating the problems.

Best National Universities

1 Princeton University (NJ) (1)
2 Harvard University (MA) (2)
3 University of Chicago (IL) (4)
3 Yale University (CT) (3)
5 Columbia University (NY) (5)
5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (7)
5 Stanford University (CA) (5)
8 University of Pennsylvania (8)
9 Duke University (8)
10 California Institute of Technology (Caltech) (11)

Best National Liberal Arts Colleges

1 Williams College (MA) (1)
2 Amherst College (MA) (2)
3 Bowdoin College (ME) (6)
4 Swarthmore College (PA) (4)
3 Wellesley College (MA) (3)
6 Middlebury College (4)
6 Pomona College (7)
8 Carleton College (7)
8 Claremont McKenna College (9)
10 Davidson College (9)
10 Washington and Lee University (11)

Top Public Schools

National Universities

1 University of California-Berkeley (1)
1 University of California-Los Angeles (2)
3 University of Virginia (3)
4 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor (4)
5 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (4)

Liberal Arts Colleges

1 United States Military Academy (NY) (2)
2 United States Naval Academy (MD) (1)
3 United States Air Force Academy (CO) (3)
4 Virginia Military Institute (4)
5 St. Mary’s College of Maryland

Bonnie K. Goodman BA, MLIS (McGill University), is a journalist, librarian, historian & editor. She is a former Features Editor at the History News Network & reporter at where she covered politics, universities, religion and news. She has a dozen years experience in education & political journalism.

Education August 10, 2017: Harvard University tops Forbes America’s Top College 2017 for the first time




By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

In their tenth annual ranking of America’s Top 100 Colleges 2018 Forbes finally crowned America’s most coveted and oldest university handing Harvard University their first top spot on the ranking. Wikipedia Commons

There is a new king on the top of Forbes Magazine national ranking of American colleges and universities. On August 2, 2017, Forbes released their tenth annual ranking of America’s Top 100 Colleges finally crowning America’s most coveted and oldest university, Harvard University in the top spot. This year’s top public school is the United States Naval Academy, while the University of California, Berkeley is the top public school non-military. The ranking heavily relies on return on investment with the subheading the 600+ schools worth the investment. The ranking looks at the top colleges but also includes separate lists for Top Public and Private Colleges as well as top colleges in the country’s four regions.

This year’s overall top three represents high school seniors’ university wish list with Harvard number one, followed by last year’s top college Stanford in second and Yale University in third. As Forbes pointed out, Harvard “is the gold standard of American higher education” and it finally “lives up to its reputation and tops the list as the best in the U.S.” Harvard does the best when it comes to the rubrics Forbes uses. Forbes indicates that 87% graduate” in four years and 97% in six years.” Harvard graduates have a “mid-career median salary of $123,000 and a median debt of some $7,500.”

The top ten radically changed from last year’s ranking with Ivy League and major prestigious research universities dominating. The nation’s most selective school Stanford drops from the top spot to second place. Yale moves three spots to the third position. Princeton University drops one place from third to fourth. Rounding out the top five is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which stagnates and remains at fifth. As for the rest the California Institute of Technology, Caltech moves up 33 spots to the top ten, placing in at sixth, as does the University of Pennsylvania into the top ten at seventh, and Duke University is also a new entry at eighth. Brown University is down one to nine while 2015 former top college Pomona moves down four from sixth to tenth.

Forbes also ranks separately, private and public colleges and the best amongst the country’s four regions, Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. The “gold standard” Harvard also tops the private colleges’ list, with “coveted” Stanford slipping to second place. As Forbes points out, Harvard and Stanford “are, undoubtedly, the two foremost universities in the country today and spar with each other for the finest students, professors and researchers.” Yale University is again third, followed by Princeton University in fourth, MIT in fifth and CalTech in sixth mirroring the top six in the overall top colleges ranking list. As for the rest of the top ten, the University of Pennsylvania is in seventh, followed by Duke University (8), Brown (9) and Pomona College in tenth.

The new top public school is the U.S. Naval Academy, beating the U.S. Military Academy, who has held the top spot since 2014, and now slips to second. The top non-military school is public university U.C. Berkeley at third. The public colleges top ten is divided almost evenly between military academies and flagship and research state schools. The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor move up to fourth place and surprisingly overtakes the University of Virginia, which slips to fifth. The U.S. Air Force Academy comes in at sixth falling three spots, the only military academy to do so. In seventh is the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, while eighth goes to the University of California-Los Angeles. In ninth is list newcomer the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, who last year was number 61. In tenth place is the “second oldest” college in the College of William and Mary.

The regional ranking with the highest median on “the overall FORBES Top Colleges list” is the Northeast where the Ivies reside. As Forbes highlights the region is “Home to many of the nation’s oldest and most renowned universities, the Northeast is an academic goldmine. The entire top ten is filled with Ivy League colleges and those Liberal Arts Colleges that belong to the little Ivies. Harvard is also perched atop the Northeast ranking, and with Stanford out of the mix, Yale moves up to second place, while Princeton moves up to third, followed by MIT in fourth and the University of Pennsylvania in fifth. Except for Williams College at the eighth spot, the rest of the top ten is filled with Ivies, Brown (6), Dartmouth College (7), Columbia University (9), and Cornell in tenth.

In the South, Duke University is again the top “Southern College,” after losing the title last year, by falling into second place. Four North Carolina schools in the top ten, but Virginia takes top honors with the most schools in the top 25. Duke is also the only southern school also appearing in the overall top ten. In second place is another private school, Rice University, “the Harvard of the South.” Another private school Vanderbilt University is in third. All three are in the overall top 30, with Rice at number 22 and Vanderbilt at 27. Private liberal arts college, Washington and Lee University is in fourth and Davidson College reaches the fifth spot. The University of Virginia comes in at sixth and is the top Southern public school and one of three in the top ten. As for the rest of the top ten, in seventh place is the College of William and Mary, in eighth is Wake Forest University. In the ninth spot is Emory University and in tenth place is the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill.

In the Midwest, the top college is the University of Chicago, who ranks at number 16 overall. It has been years since U of Chicago topped the Midwestern schools. Notre Dame University falls to second place after reigning the list in the past two years, Notre Dame is number 26 overall. The list represents a mix of top tier universities and liberal arts colleges, but the top ten only has two public schools represented. In third place is Northwestern University; followed by Washington University in St Louis in fourth and rounding out the top five is Carleton College. The highest-ranking public school is in sixth place with the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. In seventh place is Oberlin College, followed by Grinnell College (8) and Kenyon College (9). In tenth place is public school, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Stanford University dominates the Western schools, the country’s most selective university and most coveted tops the list by a long shot. The western rankings’ top three are all in the overall top ten, represent a mix of private, public top tier universities and private liberal arts, and STEM colleges. In second place is Caltech and Pomona College is third. In fourth place is Claremont McKenna College, and rounding out the top five is Harvey Mudd College. The top Western public school is the University of California, Berkeley at sixth place, followed by the topped ranked Western military college, the U.S. Air Force Academy in seventh. Scripps Colleges comes in the eighth spot, while University of Southern California (9) and the University of California, Los Angeles (10 complete the top ten.

In recent years, Liberal Arts Colleges dominated Forbes’s overall ranking, topping the list in 2014 with Williams College and in 2015 with Pomona College and keeping the top ten split with the Ivies up to last year. This year, only Pomona hangs on in the top ten, while the Ivies see the return to the spotlight along with the “highly selective private” universities. STEM and “research-oriented universities” are gaining in the ranking over Liberal Arts Colleges, notably with MIT and Caltech both entering the top ten. Military academies also do well in Forbes ranking with The U.S. Naval Academy surpassing usual top school the U.S. Military Academy for the last spot in the top 20. Forbes also notes bigger public universities are faring better than some of the smaller private schools. The Northeast “dominates” the top 25 with 17 colleges, while the West has five and the Midwest only has two colleges represented.

Forbes like US News weighs graduation and retention rates high in the listing’s methodology. Forbes grades each college on four categories “quality academics and student satisfaction, on-time graduation rates, low student debt and high earning potential and career success. These top ranking schools have the right combination of “age, location, endowment and low debt for students.” Like US News, Forbes is riding the wave of ranking the best value colleges, determining Return on Investment, ROI. Forbes worked with the Center for College Affordability and Productivity (CCAP) to determine “What are students getting out of college.”

Caroline Howard, “Digital Managing Editor, Forbes Media” commented on Forbes’ goals with the America’s Top Colleges ranking. Howard explained, “Before you become a college student, you need to think like a graduate. Our goal is to showcase the colleges and universities that deliver the best return on your education investment dollars: low student debt, on-time graduation, quality academics, high earning potential and career success.”

Forbes’s America’s Top Colleges’ overall top ten:
1. Harvard University (4)
2. Stanford University (1)
3. Yale University (6)
4. Princeton University (3)
5. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (5)
6. California Institute of Technology (39)
7. University of Pennsylvania
8. Duke University
9. Brown University (8)
10. Pomona College (7)

Bonnie K. Goodman BA, MLIS (McGill University), is a journalist, librarian, historian & editor. She is a former Features Editor at the History News Network & reporter at where she covered politics, universities, religion and news. She has a dozen years experience in education & political journalism.

Education July 31, 2017: UC Irvine rescinds admission offers to 500 freshmen because of over enrollment




By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS


The University of California, Irvine revoked nearly 500 offers of admissions because of over enrollment, leaving students with very few options just two months before the start of the fall semester. Wikipedia Commons

Nearly 500 incoming freshmen accepted to the University of California Irvine are facing the worst nightmare of their academic careers less than two months before the start of the fall semester. The Los Angeles Times was the first to report on Friday, July 28, 2017, that the UC campus rescinded the admission of 499 incoming students. The university sent the letters last week and the admissions office gave minor or no real reason for the revocation of the admission offers. The university, however, had more students accepting offers of admissions this year than expected. Most including students and the news media believe over enrollment is the only reason UC Irvine is causing a nightmare for these students.

The majority of students were given reasons such as not filing their final transcripts by the due date or bad senior grades. The LA Times notes, “290 of them for transcript issues and the rest for poor senior-year grades, according to campus data.” Students, however, said according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the reasons were “insufficient or nonexistent.” One student claimed the admission office just said they had “violated a freshman admission requirement,” without elaborating or clarifying. Many of the students who were accused of not sending their transcripts in time even if they had have proof they did. The students now have two choices appeal or change their plans for the fall with community college being almost the only option at this point in the summer.

The university claims they can invoke offers of admissions for the following reasons, “not graduating with their high school diploma,” not maintaining in their senior year a “weighted 3.0 senior-year grade-point average, having “Ds or Fs in UC-approved courses” and not “meeting deadlines for submitting all official high school and college transcripts and test scores.” The number of rescission notices at other University of California campus was minute in comparison UCLA revoked seven admissions, UC San Diego revoked nine, and in the previous two years, UC Davis revoked an average of 150 admission offers where most were because of senior final grades.

Thomas Parham, the university’s vice chancellor for student affairs issued a statement on Friday. Parham explained, “Acceptance into all University of California campuses is provisional, contingent on meeting the contractual terms and conditions that were clearly outlined in your original admissions offer.”

UC Irvine accepted 850 more students than they originally planned for the Class of 2021. In total, According to the LA Times, “7,100 of the 31,103 freshmen who were offered admission to UC-Irvine had accepted it by May.” The university originally hoped their incoming freshman class would consist of approximately 6,250 students. Tom Vasich, “a spokesman for the university,” told the New York Times on Friday, “This is not a typical year. More students than we expected accepted admission to the university.”

A petition was created to object to the revoked admissions notices. According to the LA Times by Thursday, “640 students, relatives, alumni and community members” signed. The petition read, “We are so sorry that UCI admin has decided to ruin students lives…. They NEED to be held accountable for their actions, and they need to know that we will not just sit back and allow them to take advantage of students.”

The cruel predicament UC Irvine put students admitted to their school was rather unprecedented. There have been many well-publicized horror stories of universities sending offers of admissions by mistake, but not rescinding genuine acceptances on mass. In recent years, each cycle there are stories of universities making computer error, accessing the wrong lists and sending out offers of admissions to thousands of students, before retracting and claiming they were all by accident. The New York Times lists recent mistaken admissions controversies at “Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in 2017, at Tulane University in 2016, and at Carnegie Mellon University in 2015.” In 2009, the UC San Diego sent 28,000 acceptances by error, the campus sent admission offers to all 46,000 applicants instead of just the 18,000 students they admitted.

All of these mistaken acceptances either happened in the early admission cycle or regular cycle, but before students accepted offers of admissions on May 1. Students still had the opportunity to apply or accept other university admission offers. This year, Harvard University caused an uproar after the university revoked admissions for 10 freshmen for inappropriate behavior in mid-April. According to CNN, the ten students posted “explicit memes via a Facebook chat group,” which was “an offshoot of the official Harvard College Class of 2021 Facebook group affiliated with the university.”

According to the student paper the Harvard Crimson, the group “mocked sexual assault, the Holocaust, and the deaths of children.” Harvard Admissions Office let the students know, “As a reminder, Harvard College reserves the right to withdraw an offer of admission under various conditions including if an admitted student engages in behavior that brings into question his or her honesty, maturity, or moral character.” The situation at UC Irvine was radically different since none of the admitted students had done anything, which would cause revoking admission.

The UC Irvine students are most left without options so late in the season; if they want to continue their education, they will have to consider community college and then transferring to a university, or try again this upcoming admission cycle. Even more tragic is the many of the students that UC Irvine rescinded admission fall under the category of minorities, from low-income families, or first of their families to attend college, one student was even a former marine. So far 64 of the 265 that filed appealed have been successful in getting their admissions reinstated.

Bonnie K. Goodman BA, MLIS (McGill University), is a journalist, librarian, historian & editor. She is a former Features Editor at the History News Network & reporter at where she covered politics, universities, religion and news. She has a dozen years experience in education & political journalism.

Education July 17, 2017: Concordia University’s policies purposely delay graduation dates




By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

Concordia University is plagued with enrollment issues delaying students’ graduations and potentially ruining their prospects for graduate and professional school. Wikipedia Commons

We are now in the summer with this year’s convocation ceremonies celebrating university graduates just ended, while new incoming students anticipate the start of their higher education journey. However, how many students who start university end up at the finish line? The question is the reason why graduation rates are an important part of choosing a university, but some universities hide their problems. One such school is Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. Concordia has long faced questions about their graduation rates, but now a reason has emerged, the University has been purposely pushing students to delay graduation.

An April 9, 2017, article by local Montreal radio station CJAD entitled “Over Enrollment Blamed for Class Crunch at Concordia” exposed that the university has over enrollment issues in key requirement courses. Instead of dealing with the longtime issue, undergraduate advisors are convincing students to delay graduation by taking a reduced course load, which ruins students’ graduate school prospects if they look to go outside of Concordia. The psychology department is not the only department experiencing these types of problems they happen elsewhere within the university. The issue is also not exclusively a problem plaguing undergraduate students, deterrence tactics also common at the graduate level.

The report by CJAD and authored by reporter Shuyee Lee delved into some of the reasons there are problems with Concordia graduation rates, over enrollment in courses and advisors telling students to take lighter course loads. In what has been going on “for years” unreported, students face problems enrolling in popular courses that are also part of the major or specialization requirements to graduate or even proceed with next level courses. The courses often offered once a year do not have enough spaces, filled up quickly, and have long waitlists, in the end, many students are shut out. Students have to take longer to graduate and fulfill their requirements. The even problem, the university’s cover-up, many academic advisors are trying to convince students to take lighter course loads, make the students believe it is better for their academic future to do so.

One of Concordia’s most popular majors, Psychology was highlighted in CJAD’s report. Student Paolo Drago, the representative for the Concordia’s Undergraduate Psychology Association spoke to CJAD about the problems within his department, he and fellow students face. Drago explained, “Some courses are only offered once a year, by a particular professor, so you can imagine people who want to take a specialization class that really caters to what they want to research or study, they might not be able to get into that class for a whole year because the class is full, it’s usually a class of 60 so they start lagging behind on the classes they want to take.”

Concordia might be able to keep students enrolled longer and garner additional fees, but it is to the academic detriment of its students. Delays in graduation, taking longer than the average time to complete a degree and taking lighter course loads are frowned at in graduate and professional applications. Students trying to be admitted into law, medicine, and graduate programs at other universities are having problems being admitted and the explanation, they were only listening to the advisor’s does not work. Drago told CJAD, “People are kind of blindsided when they start applying and they don’t get accepted, ‘Well, I did everything the academic advisor told me to do and it’s not paying dividends.’”

Instead of finding solutions, the university’s faculty and administration are denying that there are even any problems. Concordia spokesperson Chris Mota denied there are any over enrollment issues. Mota said, “There are a few programs where opening extra sections of a course is a challenge.” Still, the university plans to increase the minimum average for acceptance to their psychology program, and increase course sizes for the popular required courses. Nevertheless, what about the greater problems in other programs that was not part of CJAD’s report?

This is not the first time Concordia faced a controversy about graduation rates. In 2014, Concordia faced a controversy when the Montreal’s French language paper La Presse wrote an expose claiming a drastic fall in the university undergraduate graduation rate. Concordia quickly pressured La Presse to retract the story. In the original story published on January 3, 2014, entitled “ PLUS DE LA MOITIÉ DES ÉTUDIANTS DE CONCORDIA NE DÉCROCHENT PAS LEUR DIPLÔME “ reporter Hugo Pilon-Larose claimed that only 48 percent of students who started degrees in 2006 had completed them by 2012. The number was a fall from the 75 percent, who had started their degrees in 2001 and finished them by 2007. The troubling number was supposed because of the higher proportion of international students and part-time students.

The university was outraged, almost immediately La Presse was forced to retract their original article. Another article was published four days later on January 7, 2014, entitled, “Taux d’obtention de diplôme: Concordia maintient le cap” and written by Pilon-Larose. The New correction article now claimed that Concordia’s 2007 graduation rate was 75.5 percent and 2012, and it was 74.2 percent for students who commenced their studies six years before. Benoit-Antoine Bacon, vice-president, and vice-president of academic affairs at Concordia University boasted about the rate in the revision. Bacon said, “Our graduation rate is close to or even above the national average. We are very satisfied. But we can always do better, and we are working hard to increase it. But to do so, we face financial and academic challenges.”

In comparison, the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM) a comprehensive school like Concordia had a 68.7 rate in 2007 and 71.3 percent in 2012. McGill University and Université de Montréal (UdeM), the city’s medical and doctoral schools had higher rates. McGill had 84 percent in 2012 for students starting in 2006, lower than in 2007 when they had 86 percent graduation rate for students who commenced their studies 2001. Université de Montréal (UdeM) graduation during the same period dropped only slightly from 80.2 percent in 2007 to 79.4 percent in 2012.

Meanwhile, Concordia countered with a correction to LaPresse’s story. The university claimed that LaPresse compared full-time rates from 1999 to part-time rates for 2012 leading to the discrepancies. Concordia indicated that the full-time rate is down only slightly from 74.5 percent to 74.2 percent whereas for all cycles is down 75% to 75.9%.

The truth is the graduation rate is much higher than La Presse’s number but not nearly as high as Concordia claims. University rankings claim the number is in fact, nearly 5 percent lower that Concordia boasts. Maclean’s Magazine profiled Concordia in 2016 for their annual university ranking where Concordia held the tenth position in the Comprehensive University category. According to Maclean’s Concordia has only a 70.5 percent graduation rate, but an 85.9 percent retention rate, showing students keep going and going at Concordia without completing their degrees.

Aside from clarifying the La Presse controversy, Concordia does not publish graduation rates only the number of graduates each year and the number of students enrolled each academic year.
In 2011–12, there were 35,848 undergraduates, 23,390 full-time and 12,458 part-time enrolled at the university. There were also 7,314 graduate students, 5,294 full-time and 2,020 part-time. Meanwhile, that year 4,889 undergraduate received the diplomas, and 1,593 graduating students graduated. In 2015–16, there were 35,616 undergraduate students; the divisions between full and part-time were not disclosed. Meanwhile, 5,213 undergraduates received a diploma and 1,901 graduate students. Although there are more students graduating in the previous academic year, no data was released to indicate when they started their studies and how long it took them to graduate.

Concordia does fare well in world university rankings, partly because they are a comprehensive university focusing or some professional and graduate degrees, but are not a full research, medical doctoral university. In Canada, according to Maclean’s Concordia is 10th in the comprehensive category. On the world stage, the university cannot compete with Canada’s bigger names.

According to the 2018 Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World University Rankings released in June, Concordia is 431–400, having moved up 30 spots. In comparison, the University of Toronto is now Canada’s top university in the QS ranking replacing McGill coming at number 31. McGill is now second in Canada at number 32. Although McGill ranks first in Canadian rankings in international ones the University of Toronto usual takes that honor. Canada’s third University in the top 100, the University of British Columbia is now number 52. In Canada, Concordia was in 16th place of all Canadian schools.

Meanwhile, in the Times Higher Education’s (THE) 2017 World University Rankings, Concordia came at between 501–600 th position. The school did better in the 2017 Young University Rankings, were ranked in the 101–150 th position. The University of Toronto again topped the Canadian universities on the list. The University of Toronto took the Number 22 position. The University of British Columbia was tied for 36, while McGill University was number 42.

The revelation of Concordia’s deterrence methods came close to home. I had two degrees from the neighboring McGill University before entering Concordia University. I had a BA in History and Art History and a Masters in Library and Information Studies before starting a second Masters degree in Judaic Studies with a thesis, at Concordia’s Religion Department from the start I was pushed to relax my course load. I came with plans to move full speed ahead and finish the program in two years and then on for a doctorate, but at every turn, there were obstacles that slowed me down. The following is my own experiences and observances while I was a student at Concordia.

At McGill, I completed a Masters degree by course and finishing the 48-credit degree in two years by taking a full load of four courses each semester. In Concordia, I was cautioned to take only two courses a required seminar and independent course in my first semester. In my first semester, I tried to stay strict with deadlines but saw professors being lax about deadlines as if it was not unusual, and it was not. For final research papers in seminars and independent courses my professors routinely recommended continuances that lasted up to two months into the next semester. With weekly readings and some short writing assignments throughout the semester it becomes easy to need the extra time a complete a research paper for a course, and if you start down that path, you continually need the extra time.

The research papers I completed for each course were sometimes upward to 50 pages in final presentation form. With the sheer amount of research for the papers plus reading throughout the semester, it is easy to take advantage of light course loads and extensions because they are approved and even advised by the faculty and your program advisor. Students fall into the trap, made so easy by your department but it ends up being destructive to graduating on time and realizing your academic goals.

Another unreported problem in Concordia is the amount of time it takes graduate students to complete their degree. A warning sign was hearing how long some of the students in the Religion Department were taking for their degrees, an average four years for the masters and upward to ten years for the doctorate. Concordia gives longer maximums for completing a graduate degree than neighboring McGill. The longer maximum time for full-time students is a leading indicator is would take longer to complete the degrees. The masters’ degree I was enrolled in the Religion Department resembled more of a mini-doctorate program at that time, with not only a thesis but also two comprehensive exams, it was impossible to complete it in the usual two years a Master’s degree should take. The degree has now been curtailed with the comprehensive exams removed as a requirement.

Concordia’s graduate programs have students paying a set schedule of fees regardless of the number of credits a student takes each semester. Therefore, one can take two courses and still be a full-time student. After the degree is paid, and if a student has not completed their degree they pay continuance fees. In comparison to Concordia’s, fee schedule, at McGill even in graduate study students pay by the number of credits per semester. In the end, after the three years, I completely paid off my degree plus three semesters of continuance fees, but with only 18 credits completed on my transcript.

Another way to deter students was making them repeat courses they had previously received credit for at another university. I faced another added burden, unlike the majority of students in my program I came with a Masters degree already under my belt, something the department repeatedly tried to forget. Whereas in McGill if a student already completed a research methods course, they were exempted from the requirement, it was the opposite in Concordia. I had taken an entire degree on research methodology, librarians are expert researchers, the ones helping students conduct research and find sources in the academic libraries, but the department was insistent I take a repetitive course or would not graduate.

The research methods course consisted of visits to the libraries and archives to hear about how to research. During my MLIS programs, I worked in libraries. Prior to entering Concordia, I had just put on an exhibition of a collection I cataloged in Canadian Jewish history as part of work I did at McGill’s University Archives. The department ignored that I completed a degree in research at the nation’s preeminent university. In my experience, the entire cycle was one I could not escape except leave the program without graduating. Therefore, after three years, 18 credits, an unsubmitted completed thesis, and a 3.95 CGPA I left Concordia’s MA in Judaic Studies program.

Like CJAD’s report on the psychology department’s deterrence methods, my experience was more the fault of the Religion Department than the university’s policies although they did facilitate them since departments have more control over graduate students and programs. As I observed a majority of the graduate students accepted to the Masters and even the Doctorate program came from different disciplines. I came from a related one history and was focusing on American Jewish history, but did not have Judaic or Jewish studies major beforehand. Other students came from even more different degrees and disciplines. Sometimes the students were required to take extra courses to obtain a background other times not, like me.

A majority in the department were also mature students returning to school after years in other professions. A minority were students continuing through the different academic cycles, I was one of the youngest in the program despite having completed another Masters before. I frequently saw favoritism for the mature students. Favoritism, in general, ran rampant, and it had nothing to do with grades or GPAs, rather personality but also research interests. Unlike psychology, religion is not usually a popular discipline; especially Judaic studies where there were only a handful of graduate students. University politics plays a factor, allocation of funding from the university depends on departmental enrollment. Promises of fellowships and awards attracted students like me for the money but mostly the prestige and honor. Keeping students in the department longer makes a larger student population. All these factors and some external ones were a recipe for students to take longer completing their degrees.

The reveal in CJAD’s report just touches on advisors recommending reduced course loads. Unfortunately, the advice is even more detrimental to graduate programs. Concordia’s policies do everything possible to slow down graduate students making them spend double the time and money. Departments are pushing students to take longer to graduate to increase their number of students and make sure the university collects more fees and that they get larger budgets. Instead of finding solutions, the administration chooses to ignore or better yet shut down any report that might indicate a problem at the university. LaPresse quickly withdrew their story in 2014 and CJAD’s report in April never went further with a followed up or covered by any other news outlet.

As their graduate rates suggest, maybe a majority of Concordia University’s students eventually graduate, others are fed up with the high costs, lengthy times and slow career movement. Either way, students are the ones that lose out from the university and department politics and policies. Longer times to graduate at the undergraduate or graduate level give students wishing to continue their studies little options outside of Concordia, which seems an intentional part of the cycle. For those who discontinue their studies, they are left few choices to continue graduate school, except return to Concordia or years of explaining why they did not complete their degree. Now at least thanks to CJAD’s reporting students and ex-students do not feel alone, it a common unresolved occurrence at Concordia one that desperately needs remedying.

Bonnie K. Goodman BA, MLIS (McGill University), is a journalist, librarian, historian & editor. She is a former Features Editor at the History News Network & reporter at where she covered politics, universities, religion and news. She has a dozen years experience in education & political journalism.

Education June 15, 2017: Harvard again tops Times Higher Education’s World Reputation Rankings for seventh-year




By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

The crown jewel of the Ivy League, Harvard University again is the world most prestigious university reputation wise. Photo: 

When it comes to reputation, no university in the world can surpass Harvard, who is again the top university. On Thursday, June 14, 2017, The Times Higher Education released their seventh annual World Reputation Ranking with Harvard University remaining in the top spot for six years in a row. The top three are all American universities, with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the second place, and Stanford University in third. British universities round out the top five with the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford both tied for fourth place.

There was little movement in the top 10. There was one big change The University of Chicago moves up two into the top 10 and the ninth spot bumping out Ivy League Columbia University, which falls from ninth to 12th place. The only other change is the University of Oxford moves up to tie with fellow British school The University of Cambridge.

Otherwise, Harvard remains on top as Forbes points out, “Harvard can, as of this month, claim another distinction: the most reputable institution of higher learning on Earth-an honor it has enjoyed for the past six years.” For the six of the past seven years; MIT has been in second place. Eight of the top 10 were American universities, including Stanford University, Princeton University, Yale University, the University of California, Berkeley, the California Institute of Technology and new entry the University of Chicago.

The ranking is considered, “the definitive list of the world’s most prestigious universities.” Phil Baty, the rankings editor for THE, explains, “Reputation is the global currency of higher education. It may be subjective; it may not always be fair, but it matters deeply.” THE’s World Reputation Rankings “have become a major fixture in the higher education calendar — serving as a yearly global academic brand audit and attracting news headlines across the world.”

The ranking is international, with 19 countries represented in the top 100 universities. The United States has the most schools in the ranking but one less this year, with 42 institutions represented and Harvard the top ranking. American universities, however, are seeing a decline, with 20 schools falling in the ranking and only eight improving their positions. In the second place, the United Kingdom has the second most universities with 10, and the University of Cambridge and Oxford University tied at fourth, as the country’s the top school.

The THE is blaming Donald Trump being elected President of the United States and Brexit, for American and British schools losing prestige. THE rankings editor, Phil Baty pointed out about American institutions’ decline, “Claiming 42 places in the top 100 list (one fewer than last year), the US is the most-represented country in the table. But it will have to watch out for the rise of Asia as several of the continent’s higher education stars overtake well-established American powerhouses. Overall 20 of the U.S.’s 42 representatives have declined since last year and only eight have improved; the rest are stagnant.”

The other factor is the rise of Asian universities. The top Asian university is the University of Japan sitting at number 11, barely outside the top ten. There are also two other Asian schools in the top 20, China’s Tsinghua University and Peking University at the number 14 and 17 positions. Since 2011, Tsinghua moved up 21 spots, while Peking moved up 26 spots, both incredible leaps.

As THE indicates the University of Japan ranks higher than Ivy League Columbia University, and that Tsinghua University and Peking University are leading Imperial College London, the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell University, two Ivy League universities and a prestigious British school. THE writer Ellie Bothwell comments in the press release, “China’s Tsinghua University and Peking University both leapfrogged the University of Pennsylvania and Cornell University in the table this year while the University of Tokyo now has a stronger reputation than Columbia University. Meanwhile, Seoul National University is now considered more prestigious than the University of California, Davis.”

The three Asian universities fare better than any European institutions, where the top school ETH Zurich — Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich is only 22. European universities are also “losing ground” to Asian schools. China has six schools in the top 100 and Japan also has six ranking as does Germany, the European country with the most universities in the top 100. Both China and Japan had each one more school ranking in the top 100 than last year, while in 2015’s ranking, Japan and China had only two universities each in the top 100.

Canada has three universities in the top 100, with the University of Toronto, the country’s top school falls one to number 24. Meanwhile, the University of British Columbia is in second place in the country drops three spots to number 40. McGill University, which usually ranks as the top university in Canadian rankings, is only third in THE’s World Reputation Ranking of all Canadian schools, and also lost ground moving down three spots to tie for number 42 with the University of California, San Francisco, and LMU Munich.

The rankings are entirely based on the opinion of the institutions, as THE explains, “The rankings are entirely subjective — they are based purely on an annual opinion survey.” The methodology for determining the rankings consists of sending the survey to “more than 10,000 top scholars from around the world. Each academic was asked to name up to 15 universities that they believe are the best for research and teaching in their discipline. Votes for institutions based on research prowess were given twice the weight of those for teaching.”

THE’s Reputation Ranking mirrors THE’s World University Rankings in that most of the top 10 are the same but in vastly different spots. The biggest difference is that Yale University is included within the Reputation Ranking’s top 10, but misses it as 12th place in the World Ranking. While ETH Zurich — Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich, which is number 9 in the world ranking is absent from the Reputation Ranking top 10 and does not even hit the top 20. The World Ranking is far more objective than the perception of reputation and relies on factors including “teaching, research, knowledge transfer and international outlook.”

Top 10 World Reputation Rankings

2017 reputation rank — 2016 reputation rank — Institution Country — 2016–17 WUR position

1, 1 Harvard University, United States, 6
2, 2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States 5
3, 3 Stanford University, United States, 3
4, 4 University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, 4
4, 5 University of Oxford, United Kingdom, 1
6, 6 University of California, Berkeley, United States, 10
7, 7 Princeton University, United States, 7
8, 8 Yale University, United States, 12
9, 11 University of Chicago 10
10, 9 California Institute of Technology, United States, 2

Bonnie K. Goodman BA, MLIS (McGill University), is a journalist, librarian, historian & editor. She is a former Features Editor at the History News Network & reporter at where she covered politics, universities, religion and news. She has a dozen years experience in education & political journalism.

Education July 11, 2017: Princeton University again best ROI topping MONEY’s Best Colleges for Your Money 2017




By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

Princeton University is again MONEY’s top school in their annual Best Colleges for your Money for 2017, proving the Ivy League school also has a good Return on Investment for their graduates. Wikipedia Commons

If high school seniors and their parents are looking for the best return on investment in choosing a college MONEY Magazine just named Princeton University the best value for the buck among Americans colleges. Princeton was also MONEY’s top school last year. Time’s MONEY Magazine released on Monday, July 10, 2017, their annual Best Colleges for your Money for 2017. MONEY’s rankings differ from the majority of university rankings that are published each year in that factor in costs and ROI as some of the most important factors leading to a far more diverse top ten than any other ranking, filled with the Ivy League, private and public colleges and universities dubbed by MONEY as the “Paycheck League.” MONEY, PayScale and Kiplinger’s release annual rankings focusing on value and ROI all have diverse universities in the top spots. These rankings aim to give students a different perspective on the financial and investment aspects than the majority of rankings that focus just on academics and reputation.

This year’s top ten saw a major shake-up from 2016 with the exception of the top spot belonging to Princeton. Many of the schools have dropped out completely from the top 10, while others moved up or down drastically. This year’s number two the City University of New York, Bernard M. Baruch College catapulted to the top ten replacing the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, who moves down to third place. In fourth place is the University of California at Berkeley, who moved up one after tying for fifth place last year. Last year’s fourth place school Rice University moves out of the top ten to 12th place.

This year two schools vie for fifth place the University of California at Los Angeles and Stanford University. UCLA is a new arrival to the top ten moving up 15 from number 20, while the country’s most selective college Stanford University moves up five from the tenth spot. Last year Brigham Young University, Provo tied for fifth with Berkley, this year it drops from the top ten drastically to number 105. The University of California at Irvine moves up to take seventh place from number 16 last year. Last year’s number seven Amherst College moves down over 20 spots to number 28.

In the eighth position is QS World University Ranking leader Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) moving into the top ten from 11th place in 2016. Last year’s eighth-place the Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art tumbled this year not only out of the top ten but out of the top 100 to number 124. At number nine is the University of California at Davis the third University of California system school featured in the top ten. UC Davis moves up from number 17. Last year’s ninth place school, the University of Virginia — Main Campus moved down to number 11. Harvard University, one of the most coveted of the Ivy League world and national leader sees one of its lowest rankings on MONEY’s list falling from third to tenth place.

MONEY ranking is the most well known, PayScale and Kiplinger’s also release rankings focusing on value and ROI all have a different mix of colleges at the top of their list than other rankings. Ann Rossbach, president of the Independent Educational Consultants Association explained why this type of ranking is important. Rossbach told MONEY, “Families are really looking for, return on investment. They want to know the real numbers.” The top school on MONEY’s list are coined “the Paycheck League” by the magazine, “Nowadays, bragging rights are going to colleges in what we’ll dub the “Paycheck League”-schools that the real numbers show to provide a boost in the job market.”

For their methodology MONEY examined 711 colleges, up six from 2016. The magazine looks at 27 indicators that compromise three major areas that “measure educational quality, affordability, and alumni success.” The 711 colleges had to meet certain criteria, have a minimum of 500 students, data to analyze, not be in “financial distress,” have to have a median graduation rate or “valued added” rate. Under quality of education, there were minimum requirements, including a “six-year graduation rate, value-added graduation rate, peer quality, instructor quality” and minimum “financial troubles.”

Under affordability MONEY examined “Net price of a degree, debt, Student loan repayment and default risk, Value-added student loan repayment measures and Affordability for low-income students.” Under outcomes or alumni success looking at “graduates’ earnings, Earnings adjusted by majors, college scorecard 10-year earnings, estimated market value of alumni’s average job skills, value-added earnings, job meaning and socio-economic mobility index.” Socio-economic mobility index is a new indicator the magazine added this year. MONEY “used statistical techniques to turn all the data points into a single score and ranked the schools based on those scores.”

Other ROI rankings include PayScale who released their annual ROI Report: Best Value Colleges on May 3. PayScale had the United States Merchant Marine Academy as the top school followed by Harvey Mudd College in second and then MIT in third. In fourth place were SUNY Maritime College and Colorado School of Mines in coming in fifth place. As part of their methodology, PayScale examines the costs to attend the college and then the return how much a graduate will make in the 20 years after graduation.

Kiplinger’s released their Best College Values 2017 in December 2016 where Swarthmore College topped the list. Coming in second was Davidson College, third Princeton, fourth Duke University and rounding out the top five was Washington and Lee University. As Kiplinger’s points out their methodology revolves around their “definition of best value: a blend of academic quality and affordability.” Kiplinger’s defines their academic requirements as a “competitive admission rate, a high four-year graduation rate, and a low student-faculty ratio.” Affordability consists of “schools with a reasonable price tag, generous financial aid for students who qualify, and low student debt at graduation.” They also look at “future earnings data” determining the average salary for a graduate ten years after completing their degree.”

MONEY’s top ten Best Colleges for Your Money 2017

1. Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey (1)
Annual price without aid: $65,300
Annual price with aid: $19,300
Early career earnings: $67,600
2. City University of New York, Bernard M. Baruch College, New York, New York
Annual price without aid: $31,400
Annual price with aid: $9,800
Early career earnings: $51,600
3. University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Ann Arbor, Michigan (2)
Annual price without aid: $29,500
Annual price with aid: $17,000
Early career earnings: $61,200
4. University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California (5 tied)
Annual price without aid: $37,200
Annual price with aid: $17,900
Early career earnings: $62,100
5. University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
Annual price without aid: $35,300
Annual price with aid: $14,900
Early career earnings: $53,300
5. Stanford University, Stanford, California (10)
Annual price without aid: $68,100
Annual price with aid: $20,800
Early career earnings: $70,300
7. University of California at Irvine, Irvine, California (16)
Annual price without aid: $33,900
Annual price with aid: $15,800
Early career earnings: $52,000
8. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts (11)
Annual price without aid: $67,800
Annual price with aid: $23,400
Early career earnings: $77,000
9. University of California at Davis, Davis, California (17)
Annual price without aid: $36,300
Annual price with aid: $18,200
Early career earnings: $53,000
10. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts (3)
Annual price without aid: $68,600
Annual price with aid: $17,000
Early career earnings: $65,000

Bonnie K. Goodman BA, MLIS (McGill University), is a journalist, librarian, historian & editor. She is a former Features Editor at the History News Network & reporter at where she covered politics, universities, religion and news. She has a dozen years experience in education & political journalism.

Education July 9, 2017: Harvard and MIT the best universities for the highest earning majors




New guides to picking the best major at the best university

By Bonnie K. Goodman, BA, MLIS

The seventh annual QS World University Rankings by Subject 2017 had Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) dominate the rankings as the leading universities for a combined 27 subjects including some of the highest earning majors. Wikipedia Commons

The college admission process seems to be preoccupied with university rankings catering to high school seniors choosing the best university they can be admitted to, but choosing a major is equally important if not more for success after graduation. While rankings look at the best universities, recent lists also look at the best majors and the leading universities to matriculate. Michigan State University’s Collegiate Employment Research Institute (CERI) released in October 2016 their 2016–17 Recruiting Trends, which looks at the starting salaries for each major, helping students identify the best moneymakers. QS Quacquarelli Symonds released in March 2017 their World University Rankings by Subject 2017 listing the preeminent universities for particular majors. The seventh annual list had Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) dominate the rankings as the leading universities for a combined 27 majors.

The Michigan State University’s Collegiate Employment Research Institute annual recruiting trends lists the starting salaries of particular college degree majors from the associate level to the doctorate level emphasizing individual majors at the bachelor’s level. As Forbes explained, “Nearly 200 career service centers in the United States participated in the study and 4,350 employers provided information for the report, which includes data on full-time positions, internships, and co-op jobs.”

Forbes went further ranking these majors with the highest and lowest starting salaries. The vast majority of top earners are STEM, Science, Technology, Engineering and Medical degrees, particularly technology and engineering. Electrical engineering, software design, and chemical engineering are the top three degrees for highest starting salaries with graduates on average earning over $60,000 their first year on the job. Chemical Engineering was last year’s top earning degree.

Top ten highest starting salaries degrees:

1 Electrical Engineering: Average starting salary $62,428. Starting salary range $25,000 to #130,000
2 Software Design: Average starting salary $61,466. Starting salary range $25,000 to #134,000
3 Chemical Engineering: Average starting salary $61,125. Starting salary range $31,000 to #125,000
4 Computer Engineering: Average starting salary $61,092. Starting salary range $15,000 to #130,000
5 Mechanical Engineering: Average starting salary $59,610. Starting salary range $15,000 to #134,000
6 Computer Programming: Average starting salary $59,163. Starting salary range $15,000 to #130,000
7 Information Security Systems: Average starting salary $58,798. Starting salary range $19,000 to #123,000
8 Computer Science: Average starting salary $57,762. Starting salary range $15,000 to #130,000
9 Management Information Systems: Average starting salary $57,301. Starting salary range $15,000 to #122,000
10 Technical Engineering: Average starting salary $55,693. Starting salary range $15,000 to #132,000

While STEM majors dominate the highest earners, the Humanities, Social Sciences and Education have lowest earning starting salaries all earning less than $40,000 a year. Early Childhood Education has the lowest starting salary, followed by social work and then anthropology and sociology. Most of the humanities and social science majors listed as the bottom earners require graduate degrees for better positions and higher earnings.

Bottom ten lowest starting salaries degrees:
Pre-K & Kindergarten Education — $35,626
Social work — $37,115
Anthropology/Sociology — $37,672
Elementary education — $37,803
Special education — $38,002
Psychology — $38,079
English — $38,303
History — $38,361

In graduate and professional degrees, the same holds true STEM careers and graduate degrees reign supreme. Business including the coveted MBA and Law degrees are also high earners. Among the master’s degrees, the top three earners are computer science and engineering, as they are top earners at the undergraduate level. The Masters in Business Administration (MBA) comes in third, breaking up the undergraduate STEM monopoly. The top three all have starting salaries above $60,000 a year.

When it comes to doctorate and professional degrees STEM degrees and law dominate the top three, but this time a health science, pharmacy is the top earner. In second are computer science and engineering, while the law is third. The top three subject areas see starting salaries of $74,000 and above. The bottom end earners in the masters, doctoral and professional degrees are the social sciences and humanities subjects just as they were at the bachelor’s level. The only differences are the average starting salaries, at the masters level is just over 48,000, while at the doctoral level is over $58,000 a year, $20,000 more than just stopping at a degree at the bachelor’s level.

Master’s Degrees & MBAs

Computer science: $72,071 $15,000 — $145,000
Engineering: $69,729 $20,000 — $200,000
MBA: $62,700 $10,000 — $151,000
Physical & biological sciences: $59,204 $10,000 — $200,000
Accounting: $58,159 $10,000 — $144,000
LIR/HR: $58,125 $10,000 — $127,000
Health sciences: MS & MSW $53,283 $10,000 — $175,000
Social sciences: MA & MS $48,697 $10,000 — $150,000

PhD and Professional Degrees

Starting Salaries — PhD & Professional
Selected major Average Range
Pharmacy: $89,725 $20,000 — $146,000
Engineering & computer science: $77,811 $20,000 — $168,000
Law: $74,130 $20,000 — $200,000
Physical & biological sciences: $73,422 $20,000 — $141,000
Business: $67,578 $20,000 — $188,000
Social sciences & humanities: $58,897 $16,000 — $123,000

To complement the high-earning majors are the QS Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings by Subject 2017, which lets students know the best schools for their chosen major. QS World University Rankings’ annual list included the rankings for 46 subjects. Harvard was deemed the best university, landing on the top of the most subjects, and 15 majors. MIT came in a close second where they led the lists of 12 subjects. The results are a reversal to QS World University Rankings in 2017 and the latest for 2018, where MIT was the top ranking university for the last six years, whereas Harvard has remained in third place for the last two years. The University of Oxford is in third place topping the rankings of four subjects.

QS subject rankings not only lists the top majors, but also subject areas. MIT is the best school for high earning engineering and technology degrees followed by Stanford University in second and Cambridge in third. Harvard is the preeminent place for the Life Sciences & Medicine, Cambridge is second with Oxford third. MIT ranks as the leading school for the Natural Sciences, Cambridge is again second, while Harvard comes in at third. Harvard is again on the top as the leading university for the Social Sciences and Management. British schools again are the runner-ups with the London School of Economics (LSE) in second and Oxford third. For the Arts & Humanities, Oxford, the preeminent school for the classics is tops, followed by the University of Cambridge and Harvard in third.

The 46 subject rankings include “1127 universities from 74 countries” and are supposed to be “the most comprehensive global overview of higher education performance at discipline level.” This year QS added four additional subject rankings, “Anatomy & Physiology, Hospitality, Sports-related Subjects, and Theology, Divinity and Religious Studies.” There were only six subjects seeing new leaders this year notably as University World News indicates, “Mathematics, where MIT has taken over from the University of Cambridge, and history, where Harvard is the new leader.” Additionally, “development studies, the University of Sussex is now top, and archaeology, which is another of Oxford’s successes.”

The only school from continental Europe to top a subject list is ETH Zurich — Swiss Federal Institute of Technology for the Earth and marine sciences, who currently the only European school in the top ten at ten in the 2018 World University Rankings. In Australasia, the University of Sydney tops the Sports-related subjects. Canada does not have a university leading any of the subjects, but McGill University, the number 32 in the World University Ranking is third in Anatomy. However, the University of Toronto, QS’ top Canadian university at number 31 for the world ranking did the best in Canada ranking in “the top ten for six subjects.” Eastern European schools are also faring better in the rankings particularly those from Russia.

The rise of Asian schools in world rankings continues with their positions in the subject rankings. Only one Asian school, however, the University of Hong Kong tops a subject list with Dentistry. Singapore has the most top 20 placements of all Asian countries. With the rise of Asian schools, there is a decline of American and British schools in the rankings, although American schools still dominate the top spots.

Ben Sowter, head of research at the QS Intelligence Unit, who also compiled the ranking, commented on the shift. Sowter noted, “We observe nations in both Eastern Europe and Asia — most notably Russia and China — increasing their overall share. However, the upper echelons of the tables remain dominated by the US and UK, and this seems likely to continue for the foreseeable future.” Sowter, however, pointed out, “It seems certain that Asia’s leading institutions will continue to strongly displace the second tier of North American and European institutions.”

As with their World University Rankings QS relied on citations and surveys to compile their subject rankings, which is based on three major indicators “academic reputation, employer reputation and research impact.” For the ranking QS used their data from Scopus, “the world’s largest database of research abstracts and citations.” To determine the leading universities in certain subjects 43 million academic research papers with 144 million citations were analyzed. Additionally, to determine the reputation component QS used 305,000 “survey responses” from academics and 194,000 from employers.

QS World Rankings by Subject 2017

Accounting & Finance — Harvard
Agriculture & Forestry — Wageningen University
Anatomy & Physiology — Oxford
Anthropology — Harvard
Archaeology — Oxford
Architecture — MIT
Art & Design- Royal College of Art
Biological Sciences — Harvard
Business & Management Studies — Harvard
Chemistry — MIT
Communication & Media Studies — University of Southern California
Computer Science & Information Systems — MIT
Dentistry — University of Hong Kong
Development Studies — University of Sussex
Earth & Marine Sciences- ETH Zurich
Economics & Econometrics — MIT
Education — UCL Institute of Education
Engineering — Chemical — MIT
Engineering — Civil & Structural — MIT
Engineering — Electrical — MIT
Engineering — Mechanical — MIT
Engineering — Mining & Mineral — Colorado School of Mines
English Language & Literature — Oxford
Environmental Sciences — University of California, Berkeley
Geography — Oxford
History — Harvard
Hospitality — University of Nevada
Law — Harvard
Linguistics — MIT
Materials Science — MIT
Mathematics — MIT
Medicine — Harvard
Modern Languages — Harvard
Nursing — University of Pennsylvania
Performing Arts — Juilliard School
Pharmacy & Pharmacology — Harvard
Philosophy — University of Pittsburgh
Physics & Astronomy — MIT
Politics & International Studies — Harvard
Psychology — Harvard
Social Policy & Administration — Harvard
Sociology — Harvard
Sports-related Subjects — Loughborough University; University of Sydney
Statistics & Operational Research — Harvard
Theology — Harvard
Veterinary Science — University of California, Davis

Bonnie K. Goodman BA, MLIS (McGill University), is a journalist, librarian, historian & editor. She is a former Features Editor at the History News Network & reporter at where she covered politics, universities, religion and news. She has a dozen years experience in education & political journalism.

Education July 1, 2016: STEM and business top college majors with the best starting salaries




STEM and business top college majors with the best starting salaries

By Bonnie K. Goodman



When choosing a college major if one wants to make the most money upon graduating it is best to choose a STEM, Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math or business major. Michigan State University’s Collegiate Employment Research Institute (CERI) released their annual report according to a Forbes article published on June 30, 2016. The report documents the top majors that lead to the “highest starting salaries” after graduation. Engineering degrees seem the best certain path to the highest starting salaries with chemical, computer, and electrical engineering dominating the top three spots.

Phil Gardner, a “college labor market expert,” operates Michigan’s CERI. The annual report looked at the majors yielding the highest starting salaries. To determine the top degrees they researched data from 4,730 employers and “200 career service centers.” The report compiled “respondents recruiting… for full-time positions, internships, and co-ops.”

The top bachelor degree is in chemical engineering where graduates earn between $34,850 and $100,600, with an average $63,389 each year. Computer engineering is in second place with an
average starting salary of $63,313, while electrical engineering is third with a mean salary of  $61,173. The rest of the list predominantly includes degrees relating to science mostly engineering, math and computer science, and business majors.

In CERI’s list from last year, electrical engineering was the top-paying major; with a $57,000 starting annual salary, computer engineering, and mechanical engineering occupied the second and third place respectively. This year’s top earning major chemical engineering was in sixth place.

The top majors yielded starting salaries with $23,000 at the low end and just over 100,000 at the high end, with an average of just over 43,000 to over 63,000. CERI also lists the lowest-earning majors, which consist of Psychology with a mean salary of $36,327, “Public Relations ($36,235) and Advertising ($35,733).”

CERI also includes top earning Masters Degrees, which almost mirrors the top earning undergraduate degrees. The top Masters Degrees are Engineering with an average starting salary of $68,000, “Computer Science & IT ($67,735), and Masters in Business Administration, MBAs ($62,345).”

The report also included the best paying Doctoral degrees. The top earning Ph.D. is Engineering & Computer Science with an average starting salary of $76,702, in second place is the “Physical & Biological Sciences ($63,809) and Business ($62,454).”

Here are the top 20 bachelor degrees and their average starting salaries:

Chemical Engineering, $63,389
Computer Engineering, $63, 313
Electrical Engineering, $61,173
Software Design, $60,104
Mechanical Engineering, $59, 681
Computer Programming, $58,995
Computer Science, $56,974
Civil Engineering, $55,879
Management Information Systems, $51,690
Construction, $49,672
Finance, $48,785
Accounting, $47,834
Supply Chain, $47,147
Economics, $46,270
Human Resources, $45,737
Chemistry, $45,209
Mathematics includes applied, $44,609
Marketing, $43,481
Biology, $43,404
Agricultural Business, $43,214