<p>Speaking of selectivity, I though William & Mary was the most selective public school. Does US News overweight the HS rank of entering freshman? W&M's SAT average is much higher than Berkeley and W&M's out-of-state acceptance rate is 22%.</p>
<p>The argument goes, </p>
<p>1) YLS is universally recognized as the best:</p>
<p>-By publications (being ranked alone as the #1 law school in USNWR since the rankings first came out in 1987, while other law schools have fluctuated between #2 and #4 or worse);</p>
<p>-By the public (unlike other LSs, virtually everyone getting in chooses to attend);</p>
<p>-Less importantly, based on the success of their alumni as a whole (many measures are available for this, all pointing to YLS alumni as the most successful, which I won't get into here except to say that one of the most convincing is the amount of money YLS alumni donate to their school on a per capita basis);</p>
<p>and, 2) the "best" prelaw programs are the ones that can be demonstrated to give their alumni the greatest chance at getting into the "best" law school. </p>
<p>If you have a different definition of best, that's fine, but my argument (detailed on the other thread) is that any just about any other way to look at prelaw programs is inherently much more subjective.</p>
<p>To kk19131:</p>
<p>As to SAT scores - they <em>might</em> be the best measure for measuring "selectivity and strength of student body performance" but for several inconvenient truths:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The College Board's own statistics graphically illustrate the tight connection between family income and SAT score. Traditional conservative that I am, I am not ready to conceed that all rich people are inherently smarter than all poor people - let alone that the children of poor people are inherently inferior.</p></li>
<li><p>The SAT has become politically incorrect, for this reason and also for the widely-noted differences in scores for certain ethnic and racial groups, and thus many schools (including all the elites) who value "diversity" as a goal in constructing their classes are increasingly ignoring or downplaying SAT scores to a substantial degree in the selection process. </p></li>
<li><p>Harvard could fill its class twice over with valedictorians or those who scored 800 on the Math, Verbal or both, although it does not choose to do so, considering other factors of almost equal importance. The same is true, to a lesser degree, at other elites.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Byerly, I said "best measure" not "perfect measure"</p>
<p>After all, theres gotta be some way to measure it</p>
<p>The percentage of NMSC-sponsored National Merit Scholars is a better and more egalitarian measure, since it is not solely based on SAT score, and therefore more commonly used to study selectivity from an academic standpoint.</p>
<p>School: 2002 2003 2004 2005 (2004–2005 change) – estimated 2005 percentage of class </p>
<p>Harvard: 396 378 312 287 (-25) – 17.5% </p>
<p>Yale: 180 228 224 232 (+8) – 17.5% </p>
<p>Princeton: 149 165 192 180 (-12) – 14.7% </p>
<p>MIT: 139 151 134 131 (-3) – 12.2% </p>
<p>Stanford: 223 217 217 194 (-23) – 11.9%</p>
<p>Given the limited number of NMSC-sponsored National Merit Scholars, most schools report much lower figures, e.g., Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Cornell, Columbia and UPenn commonly hover in the 2-5% range.</p>
<p>I move that USNWR adopts this measure as a key factor in their selectivity ranking.</p>
<p>Cre8tiv1, thanks for the work and the list.</p>
<p>yeah, may be i was biased. perhaps it was a bit of shock to see a school dropping from 13th to 16th.</p>
<p>“1. The College Board's own statistics graphically illustrate the tight connection between family income and SAT score. Traditional conservative that I am, I am not ready to conceed that all rich people are inherently smarter than all poor people - let alone that the children of poor people are inherently inferior.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The SAT has become politically incorrect, for this reason and also for the widely-noted differences in scores for certain ethnic and racial groups, and thuse schools (including all the elites) who value "diversity" as a goal in constructing their classes are increasingly ignoring or downplaying SAT scores to a substantial degree in the selection process. </p></li>
<li><p>Harvard could fill its class twice over with valedictorians or those who scored 800 on the Math, Verbal or both, although it does not choose to do so, considering other factors of almost equal importance. The same is true, to a lesser degree, at other elites.”</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I know and understand all of these things. However, if there is to be some measurement – some way of comparing the strength of an academic class, I can think of few better ways to do so than by studying standardized test scores.</p>
<p>If Harvard does add weight to extra factors, that is certainly fine, but that is also Harvard’s choosing, and not something that could be measured objectively, as, no school weighs any criterion the same as another.</p>
<p>“Less importantly, based on the success of their alumni as a whole (many measures are available for this, all pointing to YLS alumni as the most successful, which I won't get into here except to say that one of the most convincing is the amount of money YLS alumni donate to their school on a per capita basis);”</p>
<p>-This is, to me, even more important than most other things being studied. After all, if a school can in some way prove that its graduates are more successful than all others, than it could make claims of being the best. These are the kinds of data that should be studied, not things like yield. </p>
<p>“-By the public (unlike other LSs, virtually everyone getting in chooses to attend”</p>
<p>-Again, it does not matter how many of those who are accepted to Yale Law choose to attend, that does not speak to the claim that it is the “undisputed” best school in any way shape or form. If an applicant applies to Stanford, Harvard, and Columbia law, the very fact that Yale does not appear on this list could suggest that to that student, Yale was not worth an application, and thus, not the “best”. </p>
<p>“and, 2) the "best" prelaw programs are the ones that can be demonstrated to give their alumni the greatest chance at getting into the "best" law school.”</p>
<p>-All the numbers show is the amount of people from a particular school who are in Yale Law. Without having LSAT scores of those who have applied and acceptance rates, the conclusion that you make is unfounded. The only way to tell if a particular school’s name carries more weight is to study LSAT scores and GPAs from the various schools, to see if those at “higher” ranked schools have, on average, lower stats. This is the only way to make a judgment about the strength of a pre-law program.</p>
<p>The percentage of NMSC-sponsored National Merit Scholars is a better and more egalitarian measure, since it is not solely based on SAT score, and therefore more commonly used to study selectivity from an academic standpoint.</p>
<p>Although- some schools offer money and some dont. Some will tweak need using their own forms, and others stick to the FAFSA EFC.</p>
<p>While the strength of student body when they enter as a freshman is important- I would argue that what the school provides and requires of students once they are there, gives a better idea of the strength of the school.</p>
<p>Regarding NMSC-sponsored National Merit Scholars, they are not offered money by the schools because they are typically selected after students have made a decision where to apply and attend. Also, the majority attend elite schools that do not give out merit-based scholarships. Don't confuse NMSC-sponsored Merit Scholars with the other, more generic, college or corporate sponsored Scholars.</p>
<p>I completely agree with your second point, as I explained in a previous post.</p>
<p>Can someone post Duke's stats this year?</p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<p>Stats for what, SATs?</p>
<p>On Duke.edu, this years entering freshmen's SAT scores are 1370 - 1540 (this is for students who chose to attend Duke, not those accepted)</p>
<p>As much of the following data for Duke as possible: </p>
<p>Thanks</p>
<pre><code>* Average freshman retention rate
* 2005 actual graduation rate
* Faculty resources rank
* % of classes w/50 or more ('05)
* % faculty who are full time ('05)
* SAT/ACT 25th-75th percentile ('05)
* Acceptance rate ('05)
* Alumni giving rank
- Overall score
- Graduation & retention rank
- 2005 predicted graduation rate
- 2005 overperf.(+)/ underperf.(-)
- % of classes w/fewer than 20 ('05)
- Student/ faculty ratio ('05)
- Selectivity rank
- Freshmen in top 10% of HS class
- Financial resources rank
- Avg. alumni giving rate </code></pre>
<p>
</p>
<p>What, exactly is a Penn-like fashion, dear?</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>Define massaging as it relates to Chicago. What are you implying? </p>
<p>Here are the numbers of NMSC-sponsored students at schools with at least 10 scholars. These are the pure numbers and do not take into account class size. The ability of scholars to receive merit aid from a school is also not considered.</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard– 287</li>
<li>Yale- 232</li>
<li>Stanford-194</li>
<li>Princeton- 180</li>
<li>MIT-131</li>
<li>Duke-117</li>
<li>Pensylvania-101</li>
<li>Columbia-71</li>
<li>Dartmouth-64</li>
<li>Brown-62</li>
<li>Texas (Austin)-60</li>
<li>Michigan-59</li>
<li>Rice-59</li>
<li>California (Berkeley)-50</li>
<li>Washington University it St. Louis-49</li>
<li>Notre Dame-49</li>
<li>Chicago-48</li>
<li>Caltech-44</li>
<li>Georgetown-42</li>
<li>Vanderbilt-42</li>
<li>University of Florida-42</li>
<li>Northwestern-41</li>
<li>Brigham Young- 37</li>
<li>Virginia-36</li>
<li>Cornell University-35</li>
<li>Texas A&M-35</li>
<li>Oklahoma-35</li>
<li>USC-31</li>
<li>North Carolina (Chapel Hill)-31</li>
<li>Georgia Tech-29</li>
<li>Wisconsin (Madison)-24</li>
<li>Illinois (Urbana-Champaign)-23</li>
<li>Amherst-23</li>
<li>Williams-23</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon-22</li>
<li>Tulsa -22</li>
<li>Boston U-22</li>
<li>California (Los Angeles)-21</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins-21</li>
<li>Swarthmore-20</li>
<li>Ohio State– 20</li>
<li>Arizona State-20</li>
<li>Purdue-20</li>
<li>NYU-18</li>
<li>Case Western Reserve- 17</li>
<li>Carleton-17</li>
<li>Penn State (U Park)-17</li>
<li>Iowa State-17</li>
<li>University of Arizona-17</li>
<li>Kansas-16</li>
<li>Pomona-15</li>
<li>Michigan State-15</li>
<li>Emory-15</li>
<li>Macalaster-14</li>
<li>India University (Bloomington)-13</li>
<li>Tuscaloosa-13</li>
<li>University of Arkansas (Fayetteville)-12</li>
<li>Maryland (College Park)-12</li>
<li>Washington-12</li>
<li>Harvey Mudd-12</li>
<li>Baylor-11</li>
<li>William and Mary-10</li>
<li>Furman University-10</li>
<li>North Carolina State-10</li>
<li>University of Georgia-10</li>
<li>Kentucky-10</li>
</ol>
<p>When you have a chance, please post the requested Duke data for all of the top 10 schools as well. Thank you!</p>
<p>kk, that's great info, do you have a list sorted per capita/class size?</p>
<p>also, is there an aggregate / historical list of previous years?</p>
<p>agoodfella, I can't help you with that since I don't have a copy of US News, but overall Duke is ranked 8th this year...so the culmination of all that is 8th overall</p>
<p>The list of NMS winners and where they choose to attend...HYPSM followed by some combination of Penn, Duke, Columbia, Dartmouth, and Brown....seems like almost every ranking points to this sort of order in overall undergraduate strength</p>
<p>For example, the NMSC winners adjusted by student body size would make the list look something like this:</p>
<p>NMSC
1) Harvard
2) Yale
3) Princeton
4) MIT
5) Stanford
6) Duke
7) Dartmouth
8) Penn
9) Columbia
10) Brown</p>
<p>Now, look at the WSJ feeder rankings for these schools
1) Harvard
2) Yale
3) Princeton
4) Stanford
7) Duke
8) Dartmouth
9) MIT
11) Columbia
12) Brown
16) Penn</p>
<p>US World News Rankings:
1) Princeton
2) Harvard
3) Yale
4) MIT
4) Stanford
7) Penn
8) Duke
9) Columbia
9) Dartmouth
12?) Brown </p>
<p>Ok, so these 10 schools are at the top for every category...ok, good, as the acronym goes, HYPSM is consistenly the best overall - MIT suffers in WSJ rankings because its more engineerish. Then, Dartmouth, Penn, Duke, Columbia, and Brown follow them. </p>
<p>Other strong privates in all these categories would be Chicago, NU, and Cornell</p>
<p>So, what this determines, is that if you are looking for an undergrad student body that has the strongest students going in, and the most success coming out, look at HYPSM, Dartmouth, Brown, Duke, Columbia, Penn, and Chicago, NU, Cornell. Of course, to each his own. Not everyones interested in prestige and being in a comeptetive environment, but if students are, these would be schools to look at.</p>