"For decades, higher education seemed immune to market forces, as families stretched to pay almost any price for a top-ranked college. Prestige was seen as synonymous with enduring value: Harvard would always be Harvard, Yale would always be Yale, followed by the Northwesterns and the Cornells, with aspirants such as the University of Southern California and Northeastern further down the ladder. But with sticker prices surging and graduates facing a tough job market,"
"These perceptions were cemented in the late 1980s, when U.S. News & World Report turned its college rankings into an annual exercise. A school's "reputation score," as determined by a survey of college leaders, was the most heavily weighted factor in assigning it a ranking on the list. Reputation is still the biggest factor in the U.S. News methodology, and plenty of people still care enough about an exclusive brand to pay a premium for it."
Prestige long dominated college choice as families paid high prices for top-ranked institutions. U.S. News reputation scores institutionalized brand hierarchies by heavily weighting peer assessments in rankings. Rising sticker prices and a difficult job market have prompted many parents to question whether prestige alone justifies the expense. Today's parents, more often college graduates, have witnessed changes in the college hierarchy and are less inclined to assume enduring value from reputation. Many families now prioritize practical factors such as tuition affordability, experiential learning, and career outcomes. As reputation loses influence, colleges move up and down rankings more frequently.
Read at The Atlantic
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]