<p>Hmm......that doesnt seem a bad methodology.</p>
<p>thoughtprocess...</p>
<p>then you might as well make another list of ranking only for the east coast schools.</p>
<p>Well, I mean, Stanford students are slightly statistically weaker than Harvard and Yale students, with SAT ranges at 1380 - 1550 compared the Harvard and Yales 1410 - 1580. This is in line with the NMS proportons because H and Y are slightly higher also. So the rank with proportion is very much correlated with entering class SAT scores.</p>
<p>also, what about Princeton and MIT?</p>
<p>Princeton has 14%, and MIT 11%.</p>
<p>MIT is technically oriented, so shouldn't it attract more statistically strong students? And MIT fields division 3, while Princeton fields division 1. Meaning MIT is less likely to attract athletes than HYP. </p>
<p>MIT's URM IS 16%, while Princeton has 17%.</p>
<p>Does anyone have the historical USNWR rankings from </p>
<p>2006-2002?</p>
<p>I guess MIT and Pton are one of the exceptions, its not perfect but its pretty consistent with overall student body strength</p>
<p>These are only the top 25. I haven’t seen any complete rankings.</p>
<p>US News Top 25 for 1991-2006</p>
<p>Institution 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991</p>
<p>Harvard University 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
Princeton University 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 4 4
Yale University 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 1 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 3
Stanford University 4 5 5 5 4 5 6 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 4 3 2
California Inst. of Technology 4 7 8 5 4 4 4 1 9 9 9 7 7 5 5 4 5
Massachusetts Inst. of Technology 4 7 5 4 4 5 5 3 4 6 5 5 4 4 5 6 6
Duke University 8 5 5 5 4 8 8 7 6 3 4 6 6 7 7 7 7
University of Pennsylvania 7 4 4 5 4 5 6 7 6 7 13 11 12 16 14 13 13
Dartmouth College 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 10 7 7 7 8 8 7 8 8
Columbia University 9 9 9 11 10 9 10 10 10 9 11 15 9 11 10 9 10
Northwestern University 14 12 11 11 10 12 13 14 10 9 9 13 14 13 13 14 23
University of Chicago 9 15 14 13 12 9 10 13 14 14 12 11 10 9 9 10 11
Washington University 12 11 11 9 12 14 15 17 16 17 17 20 20 18 20 18 24
Cornell University 12 13 14 14 14 14 10 11 6 14 14 13 15 10 11 12 9
Rice University 17 17 17 16 15 12 13 14 18 17 16 16 12 14 12 15 16
Johns Hopkins University 16 13 14 14 15 16 15 7 14 14 15 10 22 15 15 11 15
Brown University 15 15 13 17 17 16 15 14 10 9 8 9 11 12 18 17 12 19
Emory University 18 20 20 18 18 18 18 18 16 9 19 17 16 25 21
University of Notre Dame 20 18 18 19 18 19 19 19 18 19 17 18 19 25
University of California-Berkeley 21 20 21 21 20 20 20 20 22 23 27 26 23 19 16 16 13
Vanderbilt University 18 18 18 19 21 21 22 20 20 19 20 22 18 20 25 19
Carnegie Mellon University 21 22 22 23 21 23 23 23 25 23 28 23 24 24 19 24 22
University of Virginia 24 23 22 21 23 21 20 22 22 21 21 19 17 21 22 21 18
Georgetown University 23 23 25 23 24 23 23 23 20 21 23 21 25 17 17 19
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 24 25 22 25 25 25 25 25 25 23 24 24 21 23 24 22 21
University of California-Los Angeles 26 25 25 26 25 26 25 25 25 28 31 28 22 23 23 17
Wake Forest University 30 27 27 28 25 26 28 28 - - 25 - - - - -
U. of North Carolina-Chapel Hill 27 27 29 29 28 28 25 27 24 27 25 27 - - - 25 20
Tufts University 27 27 28 27 28 28 29 29 25 23 22 25 - - - -
University of Rochester - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25</p>
<p>I agree that your ranking methodology does indicate NMS students' preference for schools. However I doubt that it can also degtermine the strength of an entire student body.....</p>
<p>The problem is, we are still using SAT scores to back up our points - so how can this play an "alternative" to using SAT scores? </p>
<p>Also, it rules out the rest of the student body.....while Princeton's 14% might seem to have a big gap with Yale's 17%, we do know that Princeton and Yale have trivial differences in SAT score.</p>
<p>In other words, your way of writing down raw percertage makes trivial differences seem significant......</p>
<p>well, just a suggestion you know....</p>
<p>OH MY GOD.</p>
<p>JHU once ranked 7? hhhhhhhhhhhhhh</p>
<p>and it once ranked 22 and shot to 10 next year......??????</p>
<p>kk, yeah i saw that posted earlier...</p>
<p>was wondering if anyone had a complete list of rankings for:</p>
<p>2006-2002...</p>
<p>Alexandre? Do you happen to have this historical info?</p>
<p>I don’t think that SATs need to be used to bolster the information given. In fact, I think the very notion of using these data was so that using just SAT information would not be necessary. PosterX suggested that using such data would be a better way to measure the academic strength of entering classes of a particular school, and the methodology pretty much spawned from there. </p>
<p>If you ask me, the lists really aren’t showing anything that shocking; that is, if you believe that college rankings are more so tiered than directly hierarchical. Eventually, I’d like to see the whole directly numbered rankings done away with for more grouped rankings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The number in parentheses is the number of scholars sponsored by the given school. The numbers that I provided are the total number of scholars minus the number of school-sponsored scholars, which leaves only NMSC-sponsored scholars.</p>
<p>So for ASU, there are 136 school-sponsored scholars and 20 NMSC sponsored scholars, for a total of 156.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>kk19131, that makes sense, but can you explain the difference between school sponsored vs. NMS sponsored?</p>
<p>NMS sponsored scholars get ours from the corporation itself. There's 2,600 and it's the highest termination of the national merit process. School sponsored ones are easier to get because the schools generally give you one automatically if you become a finalist, of whom there are about 15,000. Since some schools don't give school sponsored scholarships, those that do get inflated numbers of national merit scholars a la ASU or my school.</p>
<p>Can you post materials science engineering rankings 1-100?</p>
<p>Is the online edition any good? I bet I can get my parents to pay for it, but I don't wanna waste their money either.</p>
<p>look for that chrysler promo for free access to it</p>
<p>FWIW, here's ave ranking +/- sem for each college from 1991-2007. While ranking criteria may have changed over the years, the ranking of suprisingly few schools (*, Penn and WUSTL, most notably) varied significantly beyond the ave sem of the entire dataset, suggesting that they are: 1) improved; or 2) successfully manipulating the rankings. </p>
<p>School Ave. rank sem stat rank
Harvard 1.4 .15 (1)
Princeton 1.8 .27 (1)
Yale 2.5 .19 (3)
Stanford 4.6 .27 (4)
MIT 4.8 .25 (4)
Caltech 5.7 .54 (6)
Duke 6.1 .37 (6)
Dartmouth 8.5 .27 (8)
Penn 8.6 .99* (8)
Columbia 10.1 .36 (10)
UChicago 11.5 .50 (11)
Cornell 12.1 .57 (12)
NWstern 12.6 .77* (12)
Brown 13.4 .78* (14)
Hopkins 14.2 .75* (15)
Rice 15.1 .48 (16)
WUSTL 15.9 .98* (17)
Emory 18.1 .86* (18)
NDame 19.0 .50 (19)
Vandy 20.0 .47 (20)
Berkeley 20.5 .83* (20)
UVa 21.1 .43 (22)
GTown 21.9 .63* (23)
CMU 22.9 .47 (24)
Michigan 23.8 .36 (25)
UCLA 25.0 .76* (26)
Ave sem .53
Sem of sem .05</p>
<p>Interestingly the Cornell #6 was actually due to false information (USNEWS submitted a press release) and the JHU #7 was the year they increased the value of faculty resources greatly, they changed the rating system the next year.</p>
<p>Slipper, what did Cornell report incorrectly?</p>
<p>The averaged list is pretty much consistent with popular sentiment as well as this years ranking I think, besides a couple of exceptions</p>
<p>My school made the "Their Students (Almost) Never Study" list. Better than nothing... I guess. Better than the "Their Students Never Stop Studying" (for me at least).</p>