<p>Anybody have predictions for 2015 USNWR?
Here's mine:</p>
<ol>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>UChicago (8.8% acceptance rate from 13% the previous year)</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Caltech</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>JHU</li>
<li>Brown
15 WUSTL</li>
<li>Vanderbilt</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>GTown</li>
<li>USC</li>
<li>UCBerkeley</li>
</ol>
<p>The acceptance counts for nearly nothing so likely little change. Chicago will not go that high</p>
<p>Chicago’s already #5 right now, tied with Stanford. It passed ~4 of the top 15 schools in selectivity. It’s only a prediction, but I think UofC will be either 4 or 5 either way. Then of course the establishment schools will always be HYP at 1-3. </p>
<p>Yes, but it is all irrelevant. Chicago will never be considered at the level of hypsm for undergrad. Applications at chicago have already begun falling after its whole new wustl mailing propaganda approach.</p>
<p>You just couldn’t wait to drop Duke huh?</p>
<p>Def don’t believe that Berkeley would be below some of those schools. I would rate Berkeley over USC, Cornell, WUSTL and Vanderbilt any day.</p>
<p>I definitely do not see USC above Berkeley. And, I don’t see Berkeley as above Duke. I don’t think that USC will crack the top 20, but I could see Duke as somewhere between 15-19. Also, I don’t think that Vanderbilt should be rated as highly, either. I see both USC and Vanderbilt as a 21-27 school.</p>
<p>Yeah, USC won’t surpass Berkeley. I do see Stanford becoming a definite 5 (no ties) or even moving up to 4.</p>
<p>Somebody has way too much time on their hands. </p>
<p>What no predictions on how the USNWR will tweak its methodology to make it appear as if one top school has moved up against another top school in a year’s time?</p>
<p>Princeton and Harvard will be tied again for 1.</p>
<p>Berkeley will fall out of the top 20. USNWR probably realized their mistake of including a public school in the top 20. Obviously private schools offer superior educations.</p>
<p>Bowdoin will rise in LAC rankings.</p>
<p>When do the new rankings come out?</p>
<p>Duke has only been outside the top 10 once in the past 20 years I believe. I doubt this year will be any different.</p>
<p>@Blah2009: I’m not really sure what you are referring to when you say “whole new wustl mailing propaganda approach.” Care to explain?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the US News national university rankings, it already is. Chicago is tied with Stanford and ahead of MIT. Whether that fully translates to social prestige is another matter. Chicago’s social prestige is dampened by its location, its lack of engineering programs, and its lack of successful D1 sports teams. </p>
<p>I agree that Chicago won’t get much of an immediate bump in either direction due to changes in the admission rates. The admit rate only counts for 10% of the “student selectivity” factor, which in turn only counts for 12.5% of the overall national university ranking. However, over time, changes in selectivity may have an indirect impact via the more heavily-weighted PA or GC ratings. The overall rankings do appear to correlate strongly with student selectivity. One could almost replicate the USNWR top 20 list just by ranking the 75th percentile M+CR scores, ignoring everything else (<a href=“Top 500 Ranked Colleges - Highest SAT 75th Percentile Scores”>USA University College Directory - U.S. University Directory - State Universities and College Rankings). </p>
<p>US News generally avoids big year-over-year movements in the T20 rankings. Chicago is fairly exceptional in its movement from top 5-10 (in the 80s), into the teens (by the late 90s), then back into the top 5-10 in recent years. Does this movement correspond to any real changes in undergraduate academic quality? I doubt it. However, a big change in admission rates (even if it only reflects a change of marketing strategy) might be influencing Peer and GC perceptions over time. Of course, changes in ranking criteria and weights also affect the outcomes.</p>
<p>So Rice lowered its acceptance rate to 14 percent and still falls out of the top 20? Interesting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And Stanford is at about a 5% acceptance rate this year. Not sure how that helps you put UChicago above Stanford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think Blah was trying to say that Chicago’s undergrad will never be considered at the elite level of HYPSM. I wouldn’t say never, but I’d say that’s probably true. It’s extremely difficult to become a university with that level of prestige. If it weren’t for the Silicon Valley tech boom, Stanford probably wouldn’t be part of that list either. It’s pretty hard to call a university non-elite when it’s producing billionaires left and right though. And even then, there’s still some evidence that it’s not considered as elite as HYP on the east coast.</p>
<p>I also don’t see USC going above Berkeley in the USNWR rankings.</p>
<p>The primary factor here is chicago meeting with us news administrators to optimize their ranking, something none of the other top schools have been accused of doing. Selectivity only helps so far, see wustl and vandy 75th percentile sat scores of 1550 and 1570, respectively (huge increases from their once under 1500 75th percentile scores). Despite these massive increases, these two schools have remained constant or even dropped in the rankings. Peer assessment for these schools have remained constant as well. </p>
<p>And tk, you’re right. Chicago will not be considered socially elite as hyps. Just as penn never was when it reached #4.</p>
<p>Why Why Why…is Berkeley so Down the list???</p>