I know I've said all of this on this site before, but I can't help myself...
The point of a liberal arts degree is to teach critical thinking, not to prepare you for a specific field. The name of the degree doesn't matter if it is teaching that.
The old man taught mechanical engineering at Stanford for 50 years, and he was happy to hear that SFGopher is majoring in Political Science. He thinks the world needs more critical thinkers, and mind you, he is a true believer in engineering.
He is also a firm believer that the selectivity of a college (which is directly tied to its graduation rate) is way over emphasized. He has strong opinions about engineering programs, but he has been known to say that Cal Poly San Luis Obispo--a well-regarded, public state college in California--does a better job of training undergraduate engineers than Stanford often does--that it might be the best undergraduate engineering school in the state (I'm sure it depends on what type of engineering studied--no worries BRAD, he thinks highly of Cal, too). He also has been known to say: you can get a world-class education at [name your large, public school]; at Stanford [and schools like it] they will make sure you get a world-class education. In other words, there is a lot more hand-holding at the elite schools--and their selection criteria ensure that they aren't taking many chances.
In my opinion, state universities--largely funded by taxpayer dollars--should serve their state's population. That means, among other things, that they should take chances on students, which, in turn, means a lower graduation rate. That's ok. One of my concerns about my own alma mater, is that it has gotten away from that, in favor of accepting more out-of-state students who help subsidize the educations of the in-state kids (and make up for funding deficiencies coming from the state). And yes, there is lots of irony--or at least hypocrisy--coming from this comment because both I, and SFGopher, are examples of out-of-state students who helped/help fund the in-state kids. And I wouldn't trade my experience in Wisconsin for anything.
California's "top" public universities also benefit from the fact that since 1970, when there were eight undergraduate UC campuses, the population of the state has doubled, but we have built one new University of California campus (and way more kids apply to and attend college today than they used to). That necessarily makes Cal and UCLA way more selective, which helps their ranking. But they didn't magically become better schools (nor did UC-Davis, UC-San Diego, UC-Santa Barbara, UC-Irvine...) they just get a lot more applications, while not having the space to accept more students. And don't get me wrong, they are excellent universities.
Because of USN (and other similar rankings) a lot of money spent in higher education is aimed at recruiting. More applicants means more selectivity, which means higher rankings, which means more applicants...etc. Facilities end up being a key component of that because people love shiny things (the same is true in athletic recruiting, although maybe less so in the NIL era). Again, using Stanford as an example, the old man told me how much campus tour groups loved a particular lab that was brand new, that the old man thought was nice, but nothing special--and basically a tangential part of the curriculum. But that shiny thing made people want to come to Stanford (when choosing among other "elite" universities) more than the faculty, the method of instruction, etc.
Which is all to say that these rankings are one of the things that feeds Badge847's complaints about higher education--they are largely divorced from the reality of the education the students get, particularly if you are parsing between number 4 and number 16, or number 25 and number 75. The reality of the education received has little to do with that ranking.
Now, the reality of the job offers coming out of those places does have a connection, primarily when you look at small, private universities with elite reputations. Those schools open more doors. Does that mean a better education? No. Does it mean they may be worth their insane price tags? Maybe.
I like that my alma mater is well-regarded in these rankings, but most of it is still BS.
