<p>But seriously, where is Wesleyan? Were they left out by accident, or were they ranked but rated so low as to be off the list? Or like Reed did they not cooperate with the survey? I know "SATs aren't everything" (HA!) but what would convince so many young people with such high SAT scores to spend so much money to attend such a "lousy" (low ranked) school???</p>
<p>I think Wes is 12, down from 11 last year.</p>
<p>WUSTL is clearly overrated.</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>I don't think that USNEWS' financial rankings are necessarily indicative of much. There is nothing on the Common Data Set questionnaire that gives much visibility on that issue.</p>
<p>It is possible, especially for LACs, to research the per student endowment and (more importantly) per student spending by looking up college financial statements. I've done the research for a few schools and those with the largest endowments typically outspend those will smaller per student margins by quite a bit.</p>
<p>For example, Swarthmore has one of the highest per student endowments in the country and spent $78,980 per student (inc. finanicial aid) in 2004. Nearby Haverford has a relatively low per student endowment (less than half of Swarthmore's) and spent considerably less per student - $60,685 in 2004.</p>
<p>If you want to dig deeper, it's possible to identify where the money is spent -- anywhere from having a swimming pool to financial aid/diversity.</p>
<p>By the way, page 2 of this PDF link has pre-calculated per student endowments for most of top universities and colleges:</p>
<p>Actually, I believe Wes was 9 last year. Unclear why they went down.</p>
<p>Where did you guys get the rankings? I am a US News subscriber and haven't even gotten my issue yet. I checked the US News website and didn't see them there. Is someone just re-hashing last year's numbers?</p>
<p>The table I posted shows the last three years of ranking:</p>
<p>Wesleyan ..... 12 9 11 </p>
<p>or</p>
<p>USNews 2006 Rank is 12
USNews 2005 Rank was 9
USNews 2004 Rank was 11</p>
<p>Wesleyan did have a drop in its number of applications, resulting in an decrease in selectivity. For a specific reason, you may want to check the percentage of top 10% students as it dropped below 70%. But again, it does not seem that the changes reported by US News track much of anything that truly happens at any school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In addition to the peer assessment, US News can show subjectivity by designing its methodology to benefit or penalize the schools.
[/quote]
What I worry about more, is how the US News methodology drives the admissions and other aspects of the schools. The recent article in the NYT educational supplement on law school rankings makes this point. The emphasis on gpa, for example, has driven some law schools with an eye on rankings to turn down otherwise interesting students. They can manipulate this by taking transfer students with a lower gpa. They manipulate such categories as student resources by accounting shifts -- for example, whether the water bill is paid by the law school or by the larger university -- that have dramatic effects on rankings. I am sure that similar "tricks" exist at the undergraduate level as well.</p>
<p>I-dad, thanks for the reply.</p>
<p>It is hard to understand how US News arrived at its numbers. Also, I noticed that they excluded some "operations and maintenance" expenses for non-public schools. </p>
<p>I'll check the link for the figures reported by Williams. This is my -unverified- table for endowment and endowment per student. The table is ranked by endowment/student. First number is endowment in $MILLION and second number is endowment/student in THOUSANDS. I used the NACUBO 2004 report and USNews 2004 report for enrollment (100% of full time + 1/3 of part time) </p>
<p>1 Grinnell College (IA) 1291 878
2 Pomona College (CA) 1150 739
3 Swarthmore College (PA) 1080 732
4 Williams College (MA) 1230 628
5 Amherst College (MA) 993 614
6 Wellesley College (MA) 1180 525
7 Bryn Mawr College (PA) 478 375
8 Smith College (MA) 924 353
9 Wabash College (IN) 316 349
10 Haverford College (PA) 348 315
11 Bowdoin College (ME) 514 311
12 Claremont McKenna College (CA) 316 308
13 Middlebury College (VT) 665 292
14 Washington and Lee University (VA) 478 274
15 Macalester College (MN) 487 269
16 Carleton College (MN) 511 266
17 Hamilton College (NY) 487 265
18 Harvey Mudd College (CA) 179 255
19 Vassar College (NY) 608 250
20 Lafayette College (PA) 544 242
21 Colorado College 424 226
22 Scripps College (CA) 179 217
23 Oberlin College (OH) 593 213
24 Denison University (OH) 441 212
25 Whitman College (WA) 296 207
26 Davidson College (NC) 333 203
27 Colby College (ME) 357 195
28 Wesleyan University (CT) 517 190
29 Trinity College (CT) 364 186
30 Mount Holyoke College (MA) 397 185
31 Sewanee University of the South (TN) 240 181
32 DePauw University (IN) 410 178
33 Colgate University (NY) 463 165
34 College of the Holy Cross (MA) 419 150
35 Franklin and Marshall College (PA) 284 150
36 Occidental College (CA) 258 144
37 Furman University (SC) 385 143
38 Rhodes College (TN) 212 139
39 Union College (NY) 270 137
40 Bucknell University (PA) 429 126
41 Bates College (ME) 186 107
42 Kenyon College (OH) 144 92
43 Gettysburg College (PA) 203 86
44 Connecticut College 152 83
45 Skidmore College (NY) 175 75
46 Dickinson College (PA) 159 71
47 Barnard College (NY) 144 64
48 Sarah Lawrence College (NY) 49 41
49 Bard College (NY) Miss the figure for endowment<br>
50 Centre College (KY) Miss the figure for endowment</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>Your table is one year more recent than the Williams link I provided. But, the overall "ranking" shouldn't have changed much, if any.</p>
<p>I think you would find that the per student spending at Pomona, Swarthmore, Williams, and Amherst is very similar -- and very, very high (in the $75,000 to $80,000 range). The financial strength of these schools, over a very long period of time, is the reason that they are consistenty the most "prestigious" LACs.</p>
<p>The exception is Grinnell which has a huge endowment, but lower per student spending. That may reflect the considerably lower cost of operations in Iowa relative to either the Northeast or greater LA.</p>
<p>Want an example of endowment or lack thereof? Ask why Haverford does not have a swimming pool.>></p>
<p>Interesteddad: I noticed Haverford was number 10 on Xiggi's list. Obviously, they feel spending their money elsewhere is more important than a swimming pool, not because they don't have enough money for one. :)</p>
<p>I checked and the correlation is very good - as expected. </p>
<p>Next stop, trying to figure out the differences between Wellesley, Scripps, and a few other schools that show variances between their renkings and their endowment. I also would like to find out if there is any relation between the faculty resources and the spending. It seems to me that a school that has smaller classes and pay its faculty better should also spend the most. Swarthmore and Williams seem to have identical rankings in these two categories. However, the difference between Wellesley and Davidson is striking. I'd like to understand how that all fit together. </p>
<p>Do you think US News may tell us? :)</p>
<p>Carolyn:</p>
<p>Yes, the "swimming pool" was just an example of the range of things that are impacted by the size of the endowment, in this case simple infrastructure amenities. I picked it because Haverford cited the lack of a pool as an example of the difficulties competing with their relatively low endowment (compared to their direct peer institutions).</p>
<p>There are far larger consequences. For example, Swarthmore spends twice as much on financial aid grants as does Haverford. The diversity stats are a direct result of this disparity. This really shows the double whammy of endowment. Not only does Swarthmore spend $18,000 more per student per year, but because of the financial aid differences, it is actually cheaper (on average) to attend Swarthmore.</p>
<p>Or, take a look at faculty compensation in a way that is hidden from the usual reporting. Both schools offer a sabbatical semester after each six semesters of teaching, but Haverford's is at 75% pay; Swarthmore's is at 100% pay.</p>
<p>Obviously, you can provide a terrific education with an endowment of $250k per student and the admissions selectivity at Haverford are a direct result. But schools with $700k per student endowment provide even more bells and whistles (be it diversity, faculty, infrastructure, etc.). That is why the richest schools have the most applicants and the highest selectivity.</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>The womens colleges really have to be "ranked" separately if your ranking includes selectivity. They pay a huge penalty in a generic ranking because they simply don't attract the number of applications.</p>
<p>This is why generic rankings like USNEWS are so useless. IMO, the various statistics can be very helpful, but only once you've decided on your own critieria and found those schools that match your criteria. </p>
<p>For example, Williams and Davidson cater to virtually the same customer base (excellent academics, heavy athletics, heavily pre-professional). So, if you are looking for that kind of school, and you've been accepted at both, you would have to be nuts to choose Davidson over Williams with such a huge disparity in per student endowment and per student spending. A more difficult decision would be Haverford, Bowdoin, and Davidson -- three schools that serve a roughly similar customer base and have much closer per student endowments.</p>
<p>Of course, "getting accepted" is the great equalizer. The schools with the big per student endowments are usually the hardest to get into.</p>
<p>Thanks for the explanation ID. I owe much of my understanding of endowments and how they're used to our discussions over the years.</p>
<p>I think I must be the only person on CC who has never read or purchased a copy of the USNews rankings. Our kiddos did a lot of college research, getting information from the internet, their guidance counselors, word of mouth, and yes...here. They chose schools based on the programs offered, the location, and what those schools had to offer them as college students. Then my kids ranked the schools they chose. THOSE were the only rankings that mattered to them. Neither DS (who is in college) or DD (who is a rising HS senior) has looked at or will look at the USNews Rankings. They both have made (and I agree) excellent college choices that are or will serve them well. I know that there are some folks who feel that their college choices should be wedded to these rankings but I would graciously say that this does not need to be the case. There are some really terrific schools out there and they are not in the top 50. My kids (and many others) attend those schools and receive a fine education and go on to good careers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think Wes is 12, down from 11 last year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I must be looking at a different list. I don't see them named anywhere... not that I care about Wesleyan, just curious.</p>
<p>The list I see on the US News website looks like this: (I dont see Wesleyan anywhere.........) Is there another list??? OK, they rank the LACs seperately and Wesleyan University is amongst the LACs.. of course. Now I get it.
Is this last year's list??? It says 2005. hmmmm... too much energy spent on this topic already.</p>
<p>Sort by: Rank
1. Harvard University (MA)<br>
Princeton University (NJ)<br>
3. Yale University (CT)<br>
4. University of Pennsylvania
5. Duke University (NC)
Massachusetts Inst. of Technology
Stanford University (CA)
8. California Institute of Technology
9. Columbia University (NY)
Dartmouth College (NH)
11. Northwestern University (IL)
Washington University in St. Louis
13. Brown University (RI)
14. Cornell University (NY)
Johns Hopkins University (MD)
University of Chicago
17. Rice University (TX)
18. University of Notre Dame (IN)
Vanderbilt University (TN)
20. Emory University (GA)
21. University of California Berkeley *
22. Carnegie Mellon University (PA)
University of Michigan Ann Arbor *
University of Virginia *
25. Georgetown University (DC)
Univ. of California Los Angeles *
27. Wake Forest University (NC)
28. Tufts University (MA)
29. U. of North Carolina Chapel Hill *
30. Univ. of Southern California</p>
<p>LACs (or more accurately, 4-year bacalaureate schools) are ranked on a separate list by USNEWS.</p>
<p>Wesleyan is considered a 4-year bacalaureate school on the Carnegie Classification system used by USNEWS and thus it appears on the LAC list.</p>
<p>"The womens colleges really have to be "ranked" separately if your ranking includes selectivity. They pay a huge penalty in a generic ranking because they simply don't attract the number of applications."</p>
<p>Interestesdad, I would not have a major problem with a separate ranking for non-coed colleges. Actually, I would welcome it as it would eliminate the need to distort the rankings. </p>
<p>As far as selectivity, the number of applications and admission rates play a VERY small role in the rankings. Right now, US News has dropped it to a quasi non-existent and trivial 1.5%. However, selectivity IS selectivity. The argument that non-coed schools are self selective falls flat on its face when considering the size of the pool of candidates that ARE interested in a most selective school. Without even mentioning the Ivies, does Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, or Pomona have great difficulties to recruit women as applicants? How many thousands of women do those four schools REJECT? Also, on the application subject, Wellesley is seeing an explosion in applications. </p>
<p>The selectivity is also expressed in the quality of the admitted and enrolled students. The percentage of top 10% students and the SAT scores are trailing similar schools by a HUGE margin. </p>
<p>If we follow the statistics offered by TCB, it appears that female students earn BETTER grades than their male counterparts. So, why would be have to make adjustments for a girls' only pool of applicants? </p>
<p>The bottom line is much simpler. The easier admission rates attract a pool of candidates that is not exactly comparable with "peer" schools and does have lower average statistics. Simply stated, non-coed schools have to reach much lower in the basket to fill their classes and end up admitting students who would not be admitted at more selective schools. Despite admitting about everyone who applies, the number of ED at schools such as Wellesley and Smith remain extremely low. </p>
<p>Please note that this entire discussion only relates to "selectivity" and does address issues such as reputation, prestige, or quality of education. There are countless reports extolling the merits of the schools. The way I see it, I have no reason to doubt that the reports posted by parents are absolutely true. I also do not doubt that numerous students at Wellesley or Smith DID have other choices. However, that does not eliminate the fact that a great number of students do not have the same qualifications -at least score wise-than students who attend "peer" schools. If 50% of your students are in the top 10% of their class, it also means that 50% were NOT. If the SAT average is 1250, it means that 50% score below that number. </p>
<p>Despite the attempt by US News to bury or trivialize the impact of selectivity in the rankings, it is clear that the most selective schools end up on top of the rankings, except for some notable exceptions such as Harvey Mudd and the non-coed schools. </p>
<p>While I am not sure how people look at the selectivity and admission rates, but I would tend to think that knowing the relative number and qualifications of other applicants is extremely important. After all, there is little rhyme or reason to analyze a school that is clearly out of reach.</p>
<p>Yes, that's last year. Some minor moves were made.</p>