Many colleges like to publicize the fact that they're included in a list of the "most rigorous colleges" in the US. For example, Furman University's Wikipedia page shows that it was #2 on the Daily Beast's list of "most rigorous colleges". It's also ranked in the 50s in US News.
Question: If you value the payoff per hour of studying that you get, why attend one of the "most rigorous colleges" in the US if the school isn't highly ranked or very well-known?
Wouldn't the most effective method, from a cost/benefit analysis, be to attend one of the "most rigorous colleges" only if it's also well-ranked? Or wouldn't the best method, from a cost/benefit analysis, be to attend the school that's the best ranked by US News but that is as low as you can get on the "most rigorous colleges" list?
Otherwise, wouldn't a student be slaving away for a degree that is not necessarily valuable (by comparison to the rigor expended for obtaining the degree)?
I attended a college that's near the top of those "most rigorous colleges" list but isn't well-known, and a classmate (from another school I attended, who had gone to Duke University for college) asked me why I would have gone to a "most rigorous college" that nobody much had heard of. I was offended, but I see the point, since I worked myself to death at that college but nobody much knows about it out in the adult working world.
Thoughts?
↧