There are institutions that compete on the basis of teaching quality. Often private, sometimes public. They emphasize small class sizes, do not stress research productivity in hiring or promotion, etc.

Some of those institutions also signal (e.g., Williams, Harvey-Mudd, etc.) but most of them are relatively unknown and really do just compete on educational quality.

A degree from MIT is exactly the same as one from the University of Phoenix?

Successfully graduating from u of phoenix I heard was no easy feat. They didn’t teach much or at all and failed most of their students. To actually graduate from there required a great deal of drive and determination. The program was designed to fall so to succeed against that is a undervalued accomplishment. It was completely worthless for signaling though.

The caliber of student going into MIT is a lot different than UOP but the net ADD from MIT is probably not as big as you expect especially compared to any other accredited institution which UOP was not.

> The caliber of student going into MIT is a lot different than UOP but the net ADD from MIT is probably not as big as you expect

the net add of being surrounded by high caliber students is immeasurable in a positive way. The professors are experts, if the students can handle it, the professors deliver more material, faster. It's a huge add, there is no substitute for it.

> It was completely worthless for signaling though.

Everyone I know who was going through their program had a structured pay scale where a graduate degree got them more money regardless of the degree. It was effective for signalling you wanted to get more money without learning much.

I never really thought grad students knew much more than under grad they were just willing to grind for longer. There are exceptions in some fields where undergrad programs are really weak but that master’s is simply a signal that You will continue to grind hard

(Some) community colleges are competing on academic strength and quality of teaching. Transfer rate, and graduation rate (and/or graduation time) from the subsequent institutions are easily measured proxy metrics for academic quality (up to you to decide if they're compelling proxy metrics).

Class size is also a proxy metric for quality of teaching. If all your classes are auditorium lectures vs 20 student groups, it makes a difference. Of course, small classes with terrible instructors and awful lesson plans aren't better than competent lectures.

Of course, community colleges fill a lot of roles, and aren't just for transfer students, and they need to compete on those other things too.

are you suggested that you wouldn't be able to spot an ivy league school if you saw one?

seems like it would be useful to have available a "nutrition" label for colleges, which has to be based on facts.

By quality of education no. As a method of pre-filtering candidates sure it’s pretty obviously when someone comes from an extremely privileged background.

Also there isn’t really much difference between Cornell, brown, or pen graduates from Any of the decent state schools. Except they are full of themselves more.

Honestly the graduates from 2nd tier state schools seem to have gotten the best education but they had adverse selection coming in because their more competitive peers went to higher ranked/named schools.

I like this education label idea. I further suggest a couple of columns of numbers based on the outcomes for several socioeconomic groups. Most people can read the side of a cereal box.