<p>Hawkette, the numbers may say something about student quality. However, perceptions take a much longer time to change. </p>
<p>USC has no doubt improved student quality. But, it will take more time for these changes to attract more top professors, build academic reputation, and change public perception.</p>
<p>UCBChem:</p>
<p>you obviously have NOT been reading the 24 pages of this thread. According to some posters, the measure of student "quality" is solely defined by SAT scores. which we all know are higher at USC than they are at Cal (just bcos USC says so).</p>
<p>^ No, I didn't read all of it. But, like I said earlier, IMO, student quality only makes up a portion of academic reputation for which a school should be ranked. I think top professors and program reputation are just as important as having an entering freshman class who are great test-takers.</p>
<p>How many of the students that are accepted to top universities completed an SAT/ACT coaching class?</p>
<p>"How many of the students that are accepted to top universities completed an SAT/ACT coaching class?"</p>
<p>That would be an interesting exercise. Can anybody answer the following questions:</p>
<p>PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO TOOK SAT/ACT PREP COURSES AT:
Elite Private Universities
Elite Public Universities</p>
<p>AVERAGE NUMBER OF TIMES STUDENTS TOOK THE SAT/ACT TEST AT:
Elite Private Universities
Elite Public Universities</p>
<p>Since we are all playing the rating game, here's mine:</p>
<p>GROUP I
Harvard University
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Princeton University
Stanford University
Yale University</p>
<p>GROUP II
Brown University
California Institute of Technology
Columbia University
Cornell University
Dartmouth College
Duke University
Johns Hopkins University
Northwestern University
University of California-Berkeley
University of Chicago
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Pennsylvania</p>
<p>GROUP III
Boston College
Carnegie Mellon University
Emory University
Georgetown University
Rice University
Tufts University
University of California-Los Angeles
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
University of Notre Dame
University of Southern California
University of Texas-Austin
University of Virginia
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Vanderbilt University
Washington University-St Louis</p>
<p>GROUP IV
Boston University
Brandeis University
Case Western Reserve University
College of William and Mary
Georgia Institute of Technology
New York University
University of California-San Diego
University of Rochester
University of Washington
Wake Forest University</p>
<p>GROUP V
George Washington University
Indiana University-Bloomington
Lehigh University
Pennsylvania State University-University Park
Syracuse University
Tulane University
University of California-Davis
University of California-Irvine
University of California-Santa Barbara
University of Florida
University of Maryland-College Park</p>
<p>^ Excellent!</p>
<p>Man, Alex, what on earth was your criteria? The phone book? I didn't give it a real long look, I just hunted our my favorites. But seeing schools in your Group IV a whole group below schools like U of Texas-Austin and others has me thinking you've got a specific curriculum or agenda in mind. Granted you've listed yourself as an International but ever heard of schools like Swarthmore, Wesleyan, University of Pennsylvania, and others missing entirely from your list? This thread gets more useless the longer it gets. :(</p>
<p>^ Proud Dad... Alexandre has U Penn listed in Group II. Swarthmore and Wesleyan are LACs. He was ranking national universities.</p>
<p>Oops! Excuse me. Now my bias is showing. </p>
<p>Time for bed!</p>
<p>Proud Dad, I am very familiar with LACs and respect them a great deal. LACs should be rated separately from research universities.</p>
<p>I just hope people who read cc and this thread understand there are hundreds of colleges out there that do a superb job of educating their students and getting them ready for the real world to solve problems...and in the end, it really doesnt matter where you went to school....its what you do with what you learned that counts.</p>
<p>If you got into Princeton, congrats! But if you are at Pepperdine, I offer the SAME congratulations!</p>
<p>
Proud Dad, I am very familiar with LACs and respect them a great deal. LACs should be rated separately from research universities.
Well actually, this was in the College Admissions/Search and Selection forum. Really, what good is leaving the impression that only top-ranked U's are worthy of consideration? Other than for the simple exercise of statistic juggling (NTTAWWT), there's not much here that will benefit those seeking help in the process for their kids or for kids themselves. It's a rather myopic view. God help anyone who stumbles on this thread and thinks the number of responses gives it some validity. I think time would be better spent ranking community colleges by their success in feeding top U's in their area. </p>
<p>Sorry to prolong the agony. This much misdirection (if not misinformation) without including LACs is a disservice to most who have just started playing this game. And I say that as an alum of two of your topped-ranked U's. Love the stats, but consider the needs of the audience at this site. This thread went wide of Search and Selection long ago.</p>
<p>I'm going to vote with ProudDad on the Research U/LAC thing. I understand categorizing them separately when you're using criteria such as funding, retention, etc., but if you were to put together a list using simply undergraduate education as a criteria (and we can still argue over what criteria go into a comparative evaluation of undergraduate education) there's no reason to separate the categories of schools. Lots of kids here with both types of college on their list - if you're ranking, your list should incorporate all sources of undergraduate education.</p>
<p>It's a harder task, sure (especially since we don't have the crutch of the USN ratings to at least start with) but what do you say, folks? If you toss Williams, Swarthmore, Pomona, etc. into the mix, how do your groupings end up?</p>
<p>For one thing, many LACs lack dozens and dozens of majors that they have at large schools. How do you rank an LAC for somebody who wants to study a certain type of engineering, business, or nursing?</p>
<p>Barrons, that's true of research U's as well. How do you rank Caltech for a sociology major? Many RU's don't have nursing majors; few have undergraduate business majors, either. Every student who has an interest in a particular field will do well to investigate that particular department at the schools they are considering applying to. But I don't think that is germane to the overall horserace under discussion.</p>
<p>Well, I'd say that most major RU's have all the above but that's not the issue.
I just think trying to mix the ranking is a folly. Even the RUs are not apples and apples but it's much closer.</p>
<p>Proud dad, it was not my intent to degrade LACs. But I don't think LACs can be rated in a similar fashion. Even if I felt that a school like Grinnell or Haveford could somehow be compared to a school like Cal or Columbia, I would still not know enough about LACs to rate them adequately. I am obviously familiar with LAC rankings, but I have not been exposed to LACs nearly as much as I have been to universities. Someone should definitely put together a LAC rating.</p>
<p>"Every student who has an interest in a particular field will do well to investigate that particular department at the schools they are considering applying to. But I don't think that is germane to the overall horserace under discussion."</p>
<p>I think that's the problem--the overal horserace is not very meaningful to any individual student. Here's a thought experiment: there are two groups of five people. In the first group, each person has a million dollars. In the second group, four people have ten dollars, and one has 10 million dollars. Which group is "richer?" Which one would you join if you didn't know what your allocation would be? I mention this to suggest why it's pretty important to look at specific programs when choosing a school--even if your school wins the "overall horserace," that doesn't help you much if your chosen program is subpar.</p>
<p>Proud Dad,
I will accept some (probably most!) of the responsibility for this thread's sustained focus on national universities. This was not meant as any kind of slight to the LACs. There were three reasons for the focus on national universities:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Pulling all of this data together for many schools over many years is a lot of work and there is only so much time and energy that I have and want to commit to CC. You can also see that the focus of the data was only on the Top 30 national universities. This is NOT to say that there is not great quality at the LACs or at the national universities ranked lower by USNWR. Hopefully, someone else will make the effort and build on the data that I have posted here;</p></li>
<li><p>My personal interest in and knowledge of the national universities is larger than for the LACs; and</p></li>
<li><p>There seems to be more interest on CC in the national universities and there is greater disparity of college types in this universe of schools. While the Top 25 LACs are certainly not homogenous, one could say that they are compared to the Top 25-30 National Universities. Again, if someone is interested in the LACs and wants to do the work, then I look forward to the results.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I agree with you that many top LACs will be on the roster of colleges that many top applicants will apply to. With regard to the ranking list that I provided, this was not meant to be an exhaustive statement of which are the best colleges. IMO, all of the USNWR Top 20 LACs would easily fit in the 4.5 and above ratings that I posted earlier. I agree with your assessment that they truly offer a superb undergraduate education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"How many of the students that are accepted to top universities completed an SAT/ACT coaching class?"</p>
<p>That would be an interesting exercise. Can anybody answer the following questions:</p>
<p>PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO TOOK SAT/ACT PREP COURSES AT:
Elite Private Universities
Elite Public Universities</p>
<p>AVERAGE NUMBER OF TIMES STUDENTS TOOK THE SAT/ACT TEST AT:
Elite Private Universities
Elite Public Universities
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is interesting question, especially since it would be impossible to answer without idle speculation. </p>
<p>This said, based on a several years of talking with hundreds of students who post at great length in the SAT preparation forum, I think that the most plausible response might NOT exactly follow the expectations. </p>
<p>For starters, when talking about SAT preparation, one might assume that this means taking classes at national chains such as PR, Kaplan, Sylvan or regional chains such as TestMasters or IvyBound. The reality is that SAT preparation takes all forms ranging from purchasing a 20 dollar book, signing up for online classes, or simply attending one of the SAT stores that are located between the dry cleaning shop and the donut shop in a great number of shopping centers. Of course, this does not even address the Sunday schools that have long hosted SAT classes in certain part of our country.</p>
<p>Now, for a further exercise, check the racial distribution of Berkeley, UCLA, UCI, and then ask yourself who might have attended the classes I described above. </p>
<p>Let's not kid ourselves about the type of students who are obsessed with SAT and other standardized testing and the schools they attend. Since this phenomenom mostly exists on both coasts, it is not hard to fill the blanks for the Northeast and especially for California.</p>