2007 USNEWS Rankings!

<p>Some observations:</p>

<p>The color of the cover is actually different than last years - last year's was neon green, and this year's is banana yellow.</p>

<p>How is Harvard more selective than Yale (Selectivity ranking 1 - 2 ) when they have the same 25-75 percentile scores (1400-1580) and Yale has 1 percent less acceptance rate (10 to 9) and Harvard has 1 percent more freshmen in top 10% of class (96 to 95)?</p>

<p>If peer assessment score was taken out, caltech might be on top.</p>

<p>If Graduation and retention rank were taken out, then UChicago and Caltech would benefit greatly.</p>

<p>Public Universities, as always, lose out in the area of alumni giving - that category is arbitrary and should probably be taken out.</p>

<p>Percent of faculty who are fulltime means nothing - what if those full-time professors only teach grad courses? how does that help out undergraduate education?</p>

<p>No, the PAS is still 4.7; its infamously high acceptance rate is going down fast however.</p>

<p>UChicago has one of the highest peer assessment scores, with a 4.7. - compare to Caltech and berkeley with 4.7s, columbia with 4.6, and penn/duke/michigan with 4.5s.</p>

<p>They still, however, hae a 40%!! acceptance rate, which sticks out like a sore thumb compared to Dartmouth 17% and Columbia 13%, the two schools it is tied with.</p>

<p>/EDIT: Yes, I bought my copy a few minutes ago. Ask away.</p>

<p>could you post some of the important stats for emory please?</p>

<p>Emory: 4.0 Peer Assesment; 1300-1470 SAT range, 90% of Frosh in top 10 percent, 37% acceptance rate.</p>

<p>Have it missed it? Engineering rankings?</p>

<p>"Percent of faculty who are fulltime means nothing - what if those full-time professors only teach grad courses? how does that help out undergraduate education?"</p>

<p>You've touched on an important point. Colleges measure their faculty in different ways, and the numbers USNWR reports have nothing to do with the faculty that teach undergraduates. In fact, USNWR's student to faculty ratios are simply wrong, as they overlook important types of faculty who do a lot of undergraduate teaching (such as law or medicine professors who teach a few undergraduate courses). Therefore, USNWR's rankings are simply invalid.</p>

<p>They are to be used primarily for entertainment purposes.</p>

<p>if the rankings are true (which i think they are), then i'm glad to see chicago in the top-10 where the school deserves to be. </p>

<p>also, Cornell moves up again, awesome!</p>

<p>Baylor University's rank, please?</p>

<p>
[quote]
The color of the cover is actually different than last years - last year's was neon green, and this year's is banana yellow.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>wow, talk about getting caught up in the minutiae...</p>

<p>(and that's not a knock on Mr. Pink, just a general observation over the obssessive compulsive-like discussions over such trivial things - particularly when it comes to USNWR...)</p>

<p>Just for the record: JHU admission rate for class of 2010, 27%; for class of 2009, 35%.</p>

<p>What is the feature about Cornell University like? Does it describe the university as a whole, something new, or something that has to do with the upward trend this year. Thanks a lot!</p>

<p>
[quote]
To slipper1234 and everyone else complaining about Chicago's "dramatic" leap, please note that Chicago was a staple of the U.S. News top 10 for a good part of the 80s and early 90s. In fact, it was only in recent years it slipped into the 13-15 range. Chicago's undergraduate program has been underrated by the general public and U.S. News for a while now, so I don't see what the big fuss is all about.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm not arguing with you in saying that Chicago deserves its rank, I'm just saying that it seems unusual (and unlikely) that any university could change so much in one year when nothing about them changed so drastically (i.e. no huge donation, etc.). What makes it a #15 one year and a #9 the next? I don't see much change in any of their numbers vs. last year's rankings, so what happened?</p>

<p>And saying "it's finally getting the recognition it deserves" is not a valid argument, because it's not realistic to assume that someone at USNEWS all the sudden felt bad for underrating Chicago for so many years and then decided to bump it up 6 spots to make up for it- that would defeat the whole point of the rankngs (if there even is one).</p>

<p>Could you type out the rankings from about 70-120 if possible?</p>

<p>Thanks alot</p>

<p>I was suspicious about everything since Emory's acceptance rate for class of 2010 is 31%</p>

<p>But then I realized that the data for the 2007 US news in terms of things like acceptance rates and such is probably data from 2005 if I'm not wrong?</p>

<p>So its using data from the class of 2009?</p>

<p>Yes, that's correct.</p>

<p>For the middle half of the SAT scores, like say if it's from 1390-1520 or something, does that mean that 25% of the admitted students get higher than 1520?
Thanks.</p>

<p>25% get equal or greater than 1520</p>

<p>Baylor University?</p>

<p>what are the sat ranges for the top 10 or so schools? Thanks</p>