What does sustained academic achievement mean, and do you have a source for studies that show a close relationship between rank and ‘sustained academic achievement’?
Many HSs don’t report, nor provide, rank for their students…there was a big movement to eliminate this reporting over a decade ago, and additional HSs choose this route every year. Based on the number of applicants reporting rank in CDSs, it looks like matriculants reporting rank is commonly below 50% sometimes as low as 30%.
The schools more likely to still rank include most in Texas (12% of total US high schools are in TX), those in less affluent communities, and test-in schools, so the schools that still report rank are not a representative sample. Making inferences on this data doesn’t seem like it would provide worthwhile insights.
Many Texas schools only rank the top 10% and notify the top 6% as well (UT). This happened yesterday at our HS.
“S22 said that top 10% rankings for the 2022 class came out today. Evidently the administration takes the top 10% out of class. S22 said that he was one of 5 students left in his AP TAG government class after the top ten percent left. They were staring at each other going “this is awkward”. So, he didn’t have government today, really. But he used his time well and worked on his college apps!”
Parallel? Wow. That’s a pretty ambitious swipe at Wesleyan (and Bates for that matter). Well at least we’re getting clear about your intent, which if I’m being transparent is what I thought it to be from the outset. As between the two comparators, the actual academic disparities between the “special” and regular admits, as well as the stakes and motivations for bringing them in, are so vastly different that even my taking the time to respond is itself somewhat ridiculous. If you are not taking into account a fundamental difference in “kind” as between two groups, then it’s really a pointless inquiry.
I’ll grant you that some LACs bend more for athletes than others. It is known, for example, that coaches at Williams have more pull with admissions than do the coaches at Vassar. Yes, we had a relationship at all three schools, among many others, so I’m passing on information obtained right from the horse’s mouth.
I’ll share this and close out. One year during my D’s time at Wes, her team suffered a 50% recruiting attrition, meaning 1/2 of the positive pre-reads (i.e., kids with good credentials) on the magic list were denied admission. Maybe the football team needed more slots (fodder for an entirely different thread). Who knows? But any notion that Wesleyan is bringing in low academic kids for sports, much less in the zip code of what you see in D1, is untrue. At Wes, that lowest stat admit (still academically qualified) is as likely or more to be a really talented artist with one hell of a story as it is to be a lacrosse player.
My interpretation of what he’s getting at is this: because a school like Hamilton [consistently] has a higher % of its admits in the top 10th or quartile of their HS classes as compared to other schools, we can fairly deduce, or infer, that they have an overall academically stronger student body across the board than those of other schools, even when 80% or more of the data is missing. And to reach that conclusion, one of the things you have to assume is that where you rank in your class is a hell of a proxy for academic excellence.
I’m not saying that idea is preposterous. But class rank has limitations, even when that stat shows up “consistently” in one’s favor, for the reasons you and @Data10 have proferred. My D was full IB diploma, hardest rigor course of study, at a highly competitive HS in an affluent part of Seattle. Her school doesn’t rank. Her academic excellence is therefore not represented in Wesleyan’s CDS rank stats for her admit year. My niece, a wonderful kid but of differing academic focus and ambition, sailed through our rural hometown HS without getting near calculus, much less physics or anything else super challenging, but graduated in the T10. Not %. T10. If she had gone to Wesleyan (not that she could or would have), she’d have counted in their favor. Who cares?
If I want to discuss Wesleyan for its superb film or physics departments, I will. Similarly, I may discuss Wesleyan in the context of its liberal social climate, cleanly designed arts center, or riparian setting. If it’s necessary to advise an OP about Wesleyan’s low acceptance rate and general difficulty of admission, I’ll comment on that. And if I’d like to use Wesleyan as an example of a statistical attribute such as that mentioned in this topic, I will.
But, let’s be clear: the statistical point you are trying to make is that you can draw broad conclusions about the intellectual life of a college (ANY college) based on data that is largely hidden from the public (i.e., high school seniors whose class ranks are unreported.)
Regarding coaches at Williams having more pull, I believe academic stats for athletes have been in line with the numbers for the accepted students overall. Also, on % of students in the top 10% being a rankings factor, I believe many students self report being in the top 10% based upon being on the highest level honor roll each year for being in the top 10% even though the school does not rank students per se. So it is more of an indicator than one would think if you just assume almost all high schools do not “rank” students.
I’m not sure I used the term in this thread, but either way “pull” doesn’t mean that coaches can get idiots into the college. It means there’s a recruiting program, and at Williams, there is. At any rate, if you review the whole part of the thread in which I took part, where we ended up was really far afield from my original point; and I certainly didn’t intend at the outset to lead myself into a debate about Williams athletics and recruiting.
If it helps anyone rest easy, I’m happy to go on the record that I believe all admitted to Williams with athletic support are highly capable students whose accomplishments all of Williams’ stakeholders can be justifiably proud. So I don’t think we need to beat this point up any more.
Self-reported anecdotes are not used by USNews for rankings. Only numbers produced by the college in their Common Data Set. Since Williams was just mentioned, they report that just 23% of high schools reported class rank. (With such a low response, I’m surprised that USN still uses it.)
More accurately, 23% of matriculants’ (not applicants) transcripts reported class rank. Williams most recent CDS (2020/21) also has a value of 23% in this field.
Entering frosh academic strength will be hard for USNWR to compare consistently across colleges.
Class rank reporting is relatively low (as noted above).
SAT / ACT score reporting is falling due to test optional or test blind admissions.
HS GPA is not reported in a standardized manner (unweighted, weighted, what kind of weighting).
None of the above come anywhere close to telling the complete story of student academic strength (e.g. high school course selection and rigor are absent).
In other words, USNWR does not have good measures that directly measure student academic strength; they are merely holding onto what they see as the least bad ones. But then the relatively heavy weight on indirect measures (graduation and retention rates, although these also mix in affordability influences) may be their way of compensating for the poor quality of direct measures.
What US News has - is our (the potential students/parents) belief that what they say matters. Clearly some colleges also care even though they often dismiss rankings…and employers…not sure…but if someone were starting a search for a new target school…they might use.
Whether their formula is best or WSJ, Forbes, Niche or anyone else who ranks…who knows.
But just like Business Week used to be for MBA, they’ve got the “trust” factor going and have used it to develop a very nice business.
Since schools don’t play each other like in football, we’ll never truly knew the actual results of who truly is the best school.
Rather than use a formula based on a combination USNWR, WSJ, Forbes, or Niche rankings; I expect employers are far more likely to emphasize colleges that they believe are likely to provide quality hires at a reasonable recruitment cost.
For example, I have worked for smaller tech companies in the southern CA area. If they were recruiting new grads for an engineering position, I’d expect some considerations would be the following. Using a formula based on USNWR or other ranking does not capture these criteria well.
Does the college have a good number of grads in desired majors, such as EE or CS, depending on positions to be filled?
Does the company have a history of quality hires with that college? Or special connections including networking and past internships?
How far away is the college? (all on-campus recruiting I am aware of at smaller tech companies at which I have worked has been at colleges within the state of CA)
Does the college have a good reputation in the desired EE or CS field?
I predict no impact on rankings. It will be many years – if ever – before the NIMBY’s allow the campus to expand. (Yes, technically UC is nearly sovereign and can do what it wants on its own land, but the City could tie it up in courts for years if they try to go that route.)