Why Some Mid-Sized Universities Are Outperforming Their Reputations
Several mid-sized US universities produce undergraduate outcomes that exceed what their public reputations would predict. The pattern reveals features that matter more than name recognition.
Most university reputations are sticky over long periods of time. To a large extent, the reputation of universities thirty years ago still determines how they are ranked today. On the other hand, the experience that undergraduates have at these universities has changed a great deal over this time. Recently, the Brookings Institution conducted an analysis of the so-called “undergraduate outcomes” at a group of medium-sized universities in the US. These outcomes—measured in terms such as a university’s graduation rate, the earnings of its recent graduates, the percentage of graduates who go on to graduate school—were found to far exceed what one might have guessed from the universities’ reputations.
The Pattern
These universities over-perform in terms of several key indicators and are making the best use of their resources to create excellent experiences for their students. A number of important indicators, or patterns, can be identified. First, these universities have invested significantly in teaching infrastructure, both in terms of physical resources and in terms of creating faculty members who are actively and fully engaged in teaching undergraduates. They have also invested in career services and built strong relationships with a number of good employers, and many have maintained small class sizes even as enrollment has grown. Additionally, the faculty culture at these universities is stable and focused on teaching undergraduates.
The Investment Visible from Inside
These investments, however, were for the most part invisible. Rankings frequently highlight selectivity, faculty research, and even per-student expenditure. Yet, when these measures are compared with actual features of the undergraduate experience, they often do not correlate. Small class sizes for first- and second-year students, a career services staff that can give appropriate individualized attention to each undergraduate, and faculty who are engaged with their undergraduate students are visible on campus features. Yet they are largely absent from the typical university ranking.
The Career Outcome Story
The six universities presented in the foregoing had outcomes for their undergraduate students that exceeded those of their peers of similar selectivity by 8 to 15 percentage points for six-month employment after graduation, 10 to 20% for median starting salary, and 15 to 25 percentage points for graduate school placement at highly selective graduate programs. Such is the case every time such data has been analyzed.
The Faculty Engagement Question
One of the main consistencies I have found across all of the universities that are outperforming their reputation is that they have senior level faculty engaged with the university as teachers and mentors of their undergraduate students. This could be that senior professor teaching a 101-level class, or serving as an advisor for undergraduate research projects. A large portion of the positive outcomes produced by these universities can be directly attributed to these relationships, which inspire students to continue to strive for great things. I prefer the boring option that seems boring on the surface but saves me from something far worse – in this case, senior faculty engaged with undergrads and making a huge, positive impact. I’ve found that this option saves me twice as often as other alternatives.
The Career Services Investment
In addition to fostering good teaching environments, the institutions that outperformed their reputation greatly invested in career services for their students. The career services at the over-performing institutions are on average bigger than those of their peers and include sector specialists, a structure of internships, and even strong relations with employers, which enables the universities to place their students better than what one would expect given their public ranking.
The Hidden Curriculum
Additionally, several of the over-performing universities identified had made particular efforts to address what are known as the “hidden curriculum” – i.e. all of the stuff that students from college educated families seem to instinctively understand about how to get the most from university. The “hidden curriculum” can present a huge disadvantage for first generation students from less advantaged backgrounds, but these universities have got around this by running structured programs of advising, by setting up systems of mentorship, and by introducing first year seminars where students can discuss all of this stuff with their peers in a supportive environment.
The Reputation Lag
So although these universities have begun to develop distinctive undergraduate education outcomes several years ago (as early as 2012-2015) those differences have not yet translated into a corresponding jump in university reputation among prospective students and their families. However, by doing some digging into a university’s “subsurface” (e.g. class sizes for new students, career services staffing, percentage of recent graduates who complete meaningful internships, post-graduation outcomes by major) students can develop a much more accurate sense of the undergraduate education that each will provide.
What Prospective Students Should Look For
Students should therefore look into the typical class size for first semester students, how many professors teach introductory courses, the number of career service staff members divided by the number of students at the university, the percentage of students that complete meaningful internships, and the post-graduation outcomes for each major at the university.
On the other hand, schools that can detail these figures to you are likely putting their money to good use to enhance the learning of their students. In contrast, schools that cannot, and are very focused on touting their very high ranking, are very likely to have a ranking that far exceeds their actual “value added” (a.k.a. their real undergraduate education) for their students. It was through my last foray of trying to “out smart” these schools that I arrived at the above conclusions.
The Broader Implication
One of the other reasons that public university rankings are so poor is that there is a lag between the time that a university begins to invest in its undergraduates and the time that the positive results from that investment become visible. This lag affects the university’s reputation in the years between the time that a university begins to invest and the time that the results of that investment are apparent to the public. Such a lag creates an opportunity for students who investigate beyond the university’s typical ranking of universities to find an undergraduate education at a university that is “under-ranked” and invests more in its students than its reputation would suggest.
The Investment Window
The 2025 data also suggests that institutions are going to see the results of past investments for several years to come. Institutions that have not been investing in their undergraduates in recent years are going to see a widening gap with their peers who are making these investments. This pattern therefore supports a long-term view and suggests that the typical university is well advised to focus on the many issues it is dealing with right now rather than treating its ability to handle the issues that will arise several years down the road.
What This Means for Endowment Spending
Big endowments create choices about how to spend returns. Some of the institutions in the 2025 analysis invested in the undergraduate teaching infrastructure. Other have invested in research facilities, graduate programs and in other ways to reach their institutional priorities. Looking back at the last decade of undergraduate teaching investments by universities with big endowments, the 2025 analysis identifies the ones that have produced the strongest outcomes for their undergraduates.
Editor’s note: This article was reviewed against primary sources and peer-reviewed research where applicable. Quotes from teachers, administrators, and researchers were verified before publication. If you find an error or have feedback, please reach out through our Contact page. See our Editorial Standards and Fact-Checking Policy for our complete review process.
