Lyra1960

Agreed, not all programs are the same, but they do meet (haha or claim to meet during site visits) basic requirements. One example would be the number of clinical hours provided. ASHA requires 400 (25 obs and 375 clinical) hours. I know one very low ranked program (relative is a prof there) which can sometimes struggle to give students enough clinical hours (but they always manage to do so in the end) while many programs go well over (500-600 hours). This is NOT at all to say that every lower ranked program has trouble giving its students clinic time. Just one example of the point above. Another example of how programs differ could be how how supervises you on off site locations. Some schools have their own people supervise and some have the people at the site you are going do the supervision. I'm not arguing that there is direct correlation to such factors and ranking, but sometimes things like these can indirectly trickle down an impact opinion which is really all that the rankings seem to boil down to. I think its safe to say the rankings can mean something but not necessarily something good, bad, or even accurate.
 
At the end of the day, any program that will lead to your C's should get you a job, so if that is ALL that you care about then they absolutely do not matter. However, when choosing a program they might be able to help you better approach how to ask questions relating to how much you will like the program/ how well you will fit in. For example, if a program is highly ranked then you know there is a higher probability it is more researched based and can ask about this aspect. If you like research this is great, but if you don't, you might be both more happy and successful at another program that is lower ranked.So, I think the rankings can be helpful not in telling you what program is better or worse, but by simple giving you a starting point from which you can delve deeper into a program to see if it is a good fit for your personally/learning style/personal goals within the SLP field.
 
The one exception to this is indeed if you are thinking about pursuing a PhD. High rankings do tend to mean more research is being done and encouraged in students. Also, the academic world is vain and ranking (whether or not they should) matter. 
 
I think its worth noting too that at the graduate level, the overall school rankings / prestige mean pretty much nothing and are definitely weighed less in the field's eyes than program rankings. For example, if you are planning to pursue your PhD and you get into Columbia University and the University of Iowa, definitely go to Iowa unless there is some very very powerful outside factor drawing you away. 
 
And purely statistically, some very low programs can be much harder to get into due to numbers. For example, I applied to a higher ranked school which got around 250 apps and a local school with a much lower ranking had over 500 and both were looking for roughly the same class size. Of course you cannot calculate your odds based on number of apps and admits alone; you need factor in the strength of your own application. The overall types of applications received by the programs makes program competitiveness hard to compare among each other. However, no program is a safe bet these day, and I'm sure programs from number 1 to the bottom all admit some truly exceptional students.
 
Hope that helps and I haven't ruffled too many feathers. 

Agreed, not all programs are the same, but they do meet (haha or claim to meet during site visits) basic requirements. One example would be the number of clinical hours provided. ASHA requires 400 (25 obs and 375 clinical) hours. I know one very low ranked program (relative is a prof there) which can sometimes struggle to give students enough clinical hours (but they always manage to do so in the end) while many programs go well over (500-600 hours). This is NOT at all to say that every lower ranked program has trouble giving its students clinic time. Just one example of the point above. Another example of how programs differ could be how how supervises you on off site locations. Some schools have their own people supervise and some have the people at the site you are going do the supervision. I'm not arguing that there is direct correlation to such factors and ranking, but sometimes things like these can indirectly trickle down an impact opinion which is really all that the rankings seem to boil down to. I think its safe to say the rankings can mean something but not necessarily something good, bad, or even accurate.
 
At the end of the day, any program that will lead to your C's should get you a job, so if that is ALL that you care about then they absolutely do not matter. However, when choosing a program they might be able to help you better approach how to ask questions relating to how much you will like the program/ how well you will fit in. For example, if a program is highly ranked then you know there is a higher probability it is more researched based and can ask about this aspect. If you like research this is great, but if you don't, you might be both more happy and successful at another program that is lower ranked.So, I think the rankings can be helpful not in telling you what program is better or worse, but by simple giving you a starting point from which you can delve deeper into a program to see if it is a good fit for your personally/learning style/personal goals within the SLP field.
 
The one exception to this is indeed if you are thinking about pursuing a PhD. High rankings do tend to mean more research is being done and encouraged in students. Also, the academic world is vain and ranking (whether or not they should) matter. 
 
I think its worth noting too that at the graduate level, the overall school rankings / prestige mean pretty much nothing and are definitely weighed less in the field's eyes than program rankings. For example, if you are planning to pursue your PhD and you get into Columbia University and the University of Iowa, definitely go to Iowa unless there is some very very powerful outside factor drawing you away. 
 
And purely statistically, some very low programs can be much harder to get into due to numbers. For example, I applied to a higher ranked school which got around 250 apps and a local school with a much lower ranking had over 500 and both were looking for roughly the same class size. Of course you cannot calculate your odds based on number of apps and admits alone; you need factor in the strength of your own application. The overall types of applications received by the programs makes program competitiveness hard to compare among each other. However, no program is a safe bet these day, and I'm sure programs from number 1 to the bottom all admit some truly exceptional students.
 
Hope that helps and I haven't ruffled too many feathers. 

Nope, haven't been to graduate school so can't speak from personal experience. This is coming from several family members who are professors in various fields, including one in SLP.
 
Just to reiterate, I am not saying at all that masters PhD programs are superior to those without. All I am saying is, if one has a choice between two programs: one with and one without a PhD program AND is contemplating pursuing a PhD later, it is not a factor that should simply be ignored. I do agree that just knowing whether or not a program has a PhD program is pretty useless in itself. However, it is quite important when researching the program and should color the way one asks questions about it. For example, from everyone I have talked to in multiple fields the general consensus seems to be that departments with PhD programs TEND but, of course, do not always have more research going on, more fulltime (not adjunct) professors, a higher reputation, etc. These factors could be completely unimportant to someone who does not want to pursue a degree beyond a masters but can be very important to one who does and therefore should be looking into. If after one asks about these factors and finds them to be either untrue, not sufficient to outweigh the pros of the other school, or not relevant to their personal interest, then by all means choose the other school, but I feel that it is good to know all the same.  
 
One final comment. The family member who is a professor in an SLP program (lower ranked with no masters program) told me that over the years she has had many students apply to PhD programs. Some were successful and some were not. So it is entirely possible to be accepted into a PhD program without attending a school that has a PhD program. However, she also added that she felt like many of the students who did not get accepted deserved to be accepted and that the admissions committees were biased against them due to the low ranking program from which they came. Just food for thought.
 
I am certainly not an expert and hope I haven't offended anyone. I just wanted to jump in because I felt like I was in a similar position as the original poster and wanted to add my two cents. 

ASHA edfind should post the total number of students in each program (under grad, slp, aud, phd) as well as the incoming class size which can differ slightly from the target class size (because sometimes the admissions committee incorrectly predict the number who will accept/decline). I know that many schools do rounds, but I think many also send out all admissions around the same time and know that a certain percent will decline (usually around 60%). So in the later case, its not so much getting lucky (in rounds also many school do their top applicants first), schools just they admit many more people than the number of students who will actually accept. If you are simply trying to calculate your odds of getting in look at the total number of admission offers (of course assuming your statistics match somewhat those to admitted students). If you want to know how big the class will actually be when you arrive on your first day of class, look at the target class size. 

While it might be worth it to go to a cheaper program vs one with a lot of prestige depending up on personal factors, going to a program that is not accredited is very very risky! If it does not get accredited, I'm pretty sure you cannot be certified by ASHA. I'm totally for going with a mid level program that is significantly cheaper than a very highly ranked program with no funding. But, not to sound too dramatic, I think it's a little crazy to go to a program that is not accredited. If it doesn't get accredited then you will be paying all that money and be kindof stuck.