2008 US News Rankings

College Search & Selection
381

<p>rankings perpetuate "myths"...be they good or bad....the fact is, Princeton is really an LAC because of its small size, as is Dartmouth....but both are listed as National University based on recognition factors, their own preference to be there, and endowments.</p>

<p>Sadly too many kids apply to colleges based LARGELY on these bogus rankings.</p>

<p>There are differences of course between Truman State and Harvard, or Xavier and Princeton, or CalState Riverside and Michigan. But we dont need US News or Newsweek to tell us those differences and why they are so. </p>

<p>Notre Dame admits more than 20% more kids off of the EA/ED process than they do off of RD. So does UNC Chapel Hill. That means that they are MUCH less selective in early admissions process. If you apply RD, for whatever reason, you may get burned, though you would have been clearly admitted in the EA process. </p>

<p>A student should consider FIT as the number ONE reason they apply to any school. That may be size of student body, faculty strength, program strength, location, sports reputation and or opportunities, weather, dorms, internships, feeder to grad schools etc. It varies from kid to kid and from college to college to college. Bates and Bowdoin are FABULOUS schools, but they arent for everybody.</p>

<p>There are MANY gems out there in the muddled middle (lower than top 20 but higher than 100 in the top 260 national university rankings, ditto in the LAC and Masters college rankings.</p>

<p>What we need is to have college counselors, teachers and parents to do a better job of advising kids about their options and what may be in the student's best interests long term. What price do you put on happiness?</p>

<p>Stories of kids leaving Harvard to attend Michigan and being much happier. Etc. Etc.</p>

382

<p>LACs with top 50 Peer Assessment Scores, 2008 USNWR, listed by PA score.</p>

<p>USNWR Overall Rank, School, Overall Score, Peer Assessment Score</p>

<ol>
<li> Williams College (MA) 100 4.7</li>
<li> Amherst College (MA) 98 4.7</li>
<li> Swarthmore College (PA) 95 4.6</li>
<li> Wellesley College (MA) 93 4.5</li>
<li> Carleton College (MN) 90 4.4</li>
<li> Bowdoin College (ME) 89 4.3</li>
<li> Grinnell College (IA) 84 4.3</li>
<li> Smith College (MA) 81 4.3</li>
<li> Middlebury College (VT) 90 4.2</li>
<li> Pomona College (CA) 89 4.2</li>
<li> Davidson College (NC) 87 4.2</li>
<li> Wesleyan University (CT) 84 4.2 </li>
<li> Oberlin College (OH) 80 4.2 </li>
<li> Haverford College (PA) 86 4.1 </li>
<li> Vassar College (NY) 84 4.1</li>
<li> Harvey Mudd College (CA) 82 4.1 </li>
<li> Bryn Mawr College (PA) 78 4.1 </li>
<li> Macalester College (MN) 77 4.1</li>
<li> Claremont McKenna College (CA) 84 4.0 </li>
<li> Colgate University (NY) 81 4.0</li>
<li> United States Naval Academy (MD) 80 4.0</li>
<li> Colby College (ME) 79 4.0</li>
<li> United States Military Academy (NY) 79 4.0 </li>
<li> Bates College (ME) 78 4.0</li>
<li> Mount Holyoke College (MA) 76 4.0</li>
<li> Washington and Lee University (VA) 82 3.9</li>
<li> Barnard College (NY) 75 3.9</li>
<li> Reed College (OR) 63 3.9</li>
<li> Colorado College 77 3.8</li>
<li> Bucknell University (PA) 75 3.8</li>
<li> Kenyon College (OH) 74 3.8</li>
<li> Hamilton College (NY) 81 3.7</li>
<li> Scripps College (CA) 76 3.7</li>
<li> Occidental College (CA) 71 3.7</li>
<li> College of the Holy Cross (MA) 73 3.6</li>
<li> Trinity College (CT) 72 3.6</li>
<li> Sewanee—University of the South (TN) 69 3.6</li>
<li> University of Richmond (VA) 69 3.6</li>
<li> St. Olaf College (MN) 63 3.6</li>
<li> Furman University (SC) 70 3.5</li>
<li> Franklin and Marshall College (PA) 69 3.5</li>
<li> Connecticut College 68 3.5</li>
<li> Pitzer College (CA) 65 3.5</li>
<li> Rhodes College (TN) 65 3.5</li>
<li> Earlham College (IN) 57 3.5</li>
<li> Lafayette College (PA) 72 3.4</li>
<li> Bard College (NY) 70 3.4 </li>
<li> Centre College (KY) 68 3.4</li>
<li> Dickinson College (PA) 68 3.4</li>
<li> Skidmore College (NY) 67 3.4</li>
</ol>

383

<p>
[quote]
Xiggi: But the other data is not objective. It is constantly played with to result in a desired outcome. There is nothing that the public can do to combat someone with such minimal ethical standards so as to not fill out the USNWR honestly, and to the best of his ability. Frankly, that one comment alone speaks volumes about Mr. Cook, and unfortunately, the institution that would allow him to continue as its leader. He makes no valuable contribution to the education of young people. He is not worthy of our time.
I would hope that the overwhelming majority of professionals doing the assessments are on the up-and-up, and take the questionaire that they are charged with filling out, seriously.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, you're correct about Mr. Cook, but his comments and his willingness to share the anecdote do speak volumes about the entire exercise. By bits and pieces, we can get to the conclusion that for every administrator who takes the survey seriously, there are a "number" of manipulators who play games, and many more who simply do NOT have the knowledge to offer a qualified opinion, not to mention the ones who admitted delegating it to their staff as a matter of routine. The reported story of "Bob, you fill this for me" comes to mind! </p>

<p>In the end, we are facing two choices: we either believe that the PA with its low reply number and even lower honest reply is ... valuable or we don't. We either trust the system or we don't! And that is where it all start ... as I said, it requires little but a fast cursory review to notice the geographical cronyism and the high scores of non-coed schools such as Smith, Mount Holyoke, and Bryn Mawr, that are simply impossible to correlate with any of their statistics. Comparing their "scores" with that have the misfortune to have been built later and in western or southern states it's all it takes to appreciate the extent of the imperfection of the PA. </p>

<p>And this does not even relate to the blatant misunderstanding regarding the SCOPE of the PA as high scores of research universities are a better indicator of their research reputation than dedication to teaching their sardine-boxed undergraduates, and this despite that the PA should measure UNDERGRADUATE reputation! </p>

<p>Indeed, in the end, one has to wonder about the credibility of the entire exercise and the integrity of the colleges and universities.</p>

384

<p>Can somebody please post how much the colleges moved up or down (ie +3 or -7) please?</p>

385

<p>Gabriellah: You bias in JHU's favor is messing with your judgement and what I'm sure is usually a mature sense of fair play. </p>

<p>WU is not the only top school to offer large scholarships to top students --- I believe Duke and Chicago do as well --- yet you use every loaded "spin" word possible to make WU's effort to attract top students something sinister and underhanded. Apps are not sent out with the "promise" of anything. One is simply invited to apply; a simple question to admissions and they'll tell you how competitive the field is. They do not in any way imply that these scholarships are easy to get. You say your son was told he could "possibly be eligible" for a full scholarship. What perfidy! How dare they make such a promise. Possibly be eligible.....so misleading. </p>

<p>And some of his friends applied to the college, tantalized by the scholarship offer, were accepted, and did not receive the scholarship. They took a shot and didn't get it; you act as though they were deceived into applying which is entirely unfair. How many Ivy hopefuls apply, despite unstellar stats or grades or ECs, tantalized by the prospect of getting in because of the welcoming attitude behind "holistic" admissions and the "go for it" encouragement in Ivy college admissions talks. We can apply these loaded subjective spin words to the practices used in all college admissions, by every college. </p>

<p>"WU makes a consistent and effective effort to make an end run around PA because that is an external number that couldn't be internally manipulated..."</p>

<p>Again, it's a choice to take the most insulting, negative view of WU policies, which means it simply is your biased opinion, not fact. I have a different perception and it's as valid as yours. WU wants an abundance of apps, as do all the top colleges, to choose from the largest pool of talent nationwide as it can. It offers merit aid to attract stellar prospects who also want to take advantage of the high quality academic programs, top faculty, and high-achieving classmates they would encounter there. Attracting and keeping talented students is crucial to maintaining quality university programs, not merely hitting a certain mark in USNWR methodology(though there is a correlation, obviously).</p>

<p>You can call it "manipulation" if you want; I call it competition. As another poster said earlier irt to Penn: you can't fault a school for spending money to improve its student body, faculty, facilties and research capabilities. WU's policies are aimed at enhancing the quality of the education offerred; that USNWR overall rankings acknowledge that quality is gravy.</p>

<p>I don't know if WU waitlists more "outrageously" than a lot of other top colleges. In 2006, the year that counts for stats in USNWR, no students were accepted off the waitlist, so I don't see how any "manipulation" of a metric that counts for all of 1.5 percent of the total could have occurred. Because it was overenrolled last year, WU did increase it's waitlist this past cycle, but so did Northwestern (up by 1,000 to 2,700) and Penn, according to a recent NYT/WSJ article.</p>

386

<p>Thank you SarahsDad.</p>

<p>Haha - Swarthmore sucks! 95 overall with a 4.6 PA. I definitely made the wrong choice ;)</p>

387

<p>USN '08 USN '07 (-)Loss (+)Gain
1. Princeton 1<br>
2. Harvard 2<br>
3. Yale 3<br>
4. Stanford 4<br>
5. California Institute of Technology 4 -1<br>
5. University of Pennsylvania 7 +2
7. MIT 4 -3<br>
8. Duke 8<br>
9. Columbia 9<br>
9. University of Chicago 9<br>
11. Dartmouth 9 2<br>
12. Cornell 12<br>
12. Washington at Stl Louis 12<br>
14. Brown 15 -1<br>
14. John Hopkins 16 +2
14. Northwestern 14<br>
17. Emory 18 +1
17. Rice 17<br>
19. Notre Dame 20 +1
19. Vanderbilt 18 -1<br>
21. Cal Berkeley 21<br>
22. CMU 21 -1<br>
23. Georgetown 23<br>
24. University of Virginia 24<br>
25. Cal-LA 26 +1
25. Michigan 24 -1<br>
27. USC 27<br>
28. Tufts 27 -1<br>
28. North Carolina 27 +1<br>
30. Wake Forest 30<br>
31. Brandeis 31<br>
31. Lehigh 33 +2
33. William and Mary 31 -2<br>
34. NYU 34<br>
35. Boston College 34 -1<br>
35. Georgia Institute of Tech 38 +3
35. Rochester 34 -1<br>
38. Cal-San Diego 38<br>
38. Illinois 41 +3
38. Wisconsin 34 -4<br>
41. Case Western 38<br>
42. Cal-Davis 47 +5
42. Washington 42<br>
44. RPI 42 -2<br>
44. Cal-Irvine 44<br>
44. Cal-Santa Barbara 47 +3
44. Texas 47 +3
48. Penn State 47 -1<br>
49. Florida 47 -2<br>
50. Syracuse 52 +2
50. Tulane 44 -6 </p>

<p>LACS
USN '08 USN '07 (-)Loss (+)Gain
1. Williams 1<br>
2. Amherst 2<br>
3. Swarthmore 3<br>
4. Wellesley 4<br>
5. Carleton 6 +1
5. Middlebury 5<br>
7. Bowdoin 7<br>
7. Pomona 7<br>
9. Davidson 10 +1
10. Haverford 9 -1<br>
11. Claremont 12 +1
11. Grinnell 14 +3
11. Vassar 12 +1
11. Wesleyan 10 -1<br>
15. Harvey Mudd 14 -1<br>
15. Wash and Lee 17 +2
17. Colgate 16 -1<br>
17. Hamilton 17<br>
17. Smith 19 -2
20. Oberlin 22 +2
20. US Naval Academy<br>
22. Colby 20 -2<br>
22. US Military Academy<br>
24. Bates 23 -1<br>
24. Bryn Mawr 20 -4<br>
26. Colorado College 26<br>
26. Macalester 24 -2<br>
28. Mount Holyoke 24 -4<br>
28. Scripps 26 -2<br>
30. Barnard 26 -4<br>
30. Bucknell 29 -1<br>
32. Kenyon 32<br>
33. Holy Cross 32 -1<br>
34. Lafayette 30 -4<br>
34. Trinity 30 -4<br>
36. Occidental 36<br>
37. Bard 36 1<br>
37. Furman 41<br>
37. Whitman 36 -1<br>
40. Franklin and Marshall 41 -1
40. Sewanee 34 -6<br>
40. Union 39 1<br>
40. Richmond 34 -6<br>
44. Centre 44<br>
44. Connecticut College 39 -5<br>
44. Dickinson 41 -3<br>
47. Skidmore 48 1
48. Gettysburg 45 -3<br>
48. DePauw 48<br>
48. Pitzer 51 +3
48. Rhodes 45 -3<br>
52. Denison 48 -4<br>
52. Wabash 51 -1 </p>

<p>Non Ranked Sarah L 45 Minus All</p>

<p>Note that the inclusion of the Military Academies caused a drop to every school ranked below 22.</p>

388

<p>just a correction</p>

<p>Virginia moved up 1 since last year, and is 23 this year, not 24 ;-).</p>

389

<p>where is the link again ?</p>

390

<p>Has anyone posted the Undergrad b-school rankings yet?</p>

391

<p>xiggi, Penn is tied with Cal Tech at #5 for '08 which is a gain of +2.</p>

392

<p>Too late to edit Virginia</p>

<p>USN '08 USN '07 (-)Loss (+)Gain</p>

<p>Largest Drops among top 50 Universities
50. Tulane 44 -6
38. Wisconsin 34 -4
7. MIT 4 -3
11. Dartmouth 9 -2
33. William and Mary 31 -2<br>
44. RPI 42 -2
49. Florida 47 -2 </p>

<p>Largest Gains among top 50 Universities
42. Cal Davis 47 + 5
35. Georgia Institute of Tech 38 +3
38. Illinois 41 +3
44. Cal-Santa Barbara 47 +3
44. Texas 47 +3
5. University of Pennsylvania 7 +2
14. John Hopkins 16 +2
31. Lehigh 33 +2
50. Syracuse 52 +2</p>

393

<p>xiggi:
Under
Largest Gains</p>

<p>Binghamton went from 86 to 82...</p>

394

<p>Just in case there's any confusion about what the actual rankings are, here's the link:</p>

<p><a href="http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

395

<p>LACS</p>

<p>Largest Gains among Top 50
37. Furman 41 +4
11. Grinnell 14 +3
48. Pitzer 51 +3
15. Wash and Lee 17 +2
17. Smith 19 +2
20. Oberlin 22 +2</p>

<p>Largest Drops among Top 50
40. Sewanee 34 -6
40. Richmond 34 -6
44. Connecticut College 39 -5
24. Bryn Mawr 20 -4
28. Mount Holyoke 24 -4
30. Barnard 26 -4
34. Lafayette 30 -4
34. Trinity 30 -4
52. Denison 48 -4
44. Dickinson 41 -3
48. Gettysburg 45 -3
48. Rhodes 45 -3 </p>

<p>Sarah Lawrence was 45 - No longer ranked</p>

396

<p>The USNEWS Rankings are not accurate. On the rankings go down to #14 and click on Northwestern. The listed endowment is $2,388,257,000. This is less than half the real endowment of Northwestern. </p>

<p>The real NU endowment can be found at a variety of locations, including the Northwestern website <a href="http://www.northwestern.edu/about/facts/"&gt;http://www.northwestern.edu/about/facts/&lt;/a>. There, it clearly lists the NU endowment as 5.9 billion dollars (more than twice that listed on USNEWS).</p>

<p>This should be brought to the attention of the appropriate individuals. This error on the part of USNEWS likely caused Northwestern to be wrongly docked points.</p>

397

<p>Hey does anyone remember the rankings that ranked LACs and Universities in one list?</p>

398

<p>
[quote]
Hey does anyone remember the rankings that ranked LACs and Universities in one list?

[/quote]

no such list</p>

399

<p>endless game,</p>

<p>I think you'll find many universities have incorrect endowment information. It seems to be that they don't use the same years for each school when determining the endowment, or they exclude certain numbers and include other number in their own calculation of it, or other times they're just plain wrong.</p>

<p>for example, they list william and mary as having a $44 million endowment--which is about 10% of the actual endowment.</p>

400

<p>That's an interesting explanation... only wrong. The number is less THAN HALF the correct number. It's almost 30 years old.</p>