<p>So as you can see, MIT, and particularly Caltech, get destroyed in the rankings because of their low 6-year graduation rates. MIT is also hurt by its larger classes.</p>
<p>Stanford gets hurt by its larger classes and lower SAT scores.</p>
<p>It is important to note that “Financial Resources” is the amount spent by the University per student, not in the endowment per student - otherwise Princeton would be first in this category and not the 12th place that is shown above.</p>
<ol>
<li>Stanford lower SAT scores:
Compare Stanford’s SAT scores to Columbia’s. Do you see a major difference? The difference in the selectivity index is attributed to the lower percentage of top 10 percenters.<br></li>
</ol>
<p>However, you should also look at the 2010 rankings and compare the changes to the 2011 changes. Do the rankings behave the same way for the same schools? To put it mildly, some schools seem to have been rather creative in 2011 in reporting their top 10%. Of course, one can expect this when the 10% is not an actual number but an estimate of what it could be – without much scrutiny. </p>
<ol>
<li>MIT and Caltech and low 6-year graduation rates.
Yes and no! The real negatives comes from the insidious use of the EXPECTED graduation rates. Caltech and MIT suffer from the combination of being among the most selective schools (high selectivity indexes) and offering difficult technical programs. It is obvious that the problem here is with the application by USNews of incorrect weights. In so many words, the USNews expected rates are way off for those schools. Fwiw, this is the same expected graduation rate that also contributed to the changes in ranking of Stanford and Columbia … in a questionable manner.</li>
</ol>
<p>xiggi, both the 6 year graduation rate and the graduation rate perfromance are DIRECTLY tied to the 6 year graduation rate. Combined they account for 85% of the category, which is the biggest weight in the rankings.</p>
<p>so are you still insisting that Caltech and MIT’s lower ranking is not due to low 6 year graduation rates for both schools as I have SPECIFICALLY STATED?</p>
<p>RML, maybe you should review the detailed parts of the Selectivity rankings again, in which the acceptance rate is a very small part of the overall Selectivity ranking?</p>
<p>Again, is there a reason for the attitude? </p>
<p>And, fwiw, your attitude would be more defensible if you were actually addressing the issue correctly. RML spoke about “getting in” and that is NOT necessarily and entirely a function of the USNews selectivity index. It is however DIRECTLY related to the admission rate! </p>
<p>Further, perhaps, just perhaps, does RML know that Columbia does have different admit rates for different classes of applicants, namely RD and ED students, and students who apply to different colleges at Columbia. </p>
<p>xiggi, so are you stating that the following comment by me is “simplistic and incomplete”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>do you understand that the “Graduation Rate Performance” is directly dependant on the “6 year Graduation Rate” - therefore by having a low “6 year graduation rate” the whole problem with the Caltech and MIT rankings can be easily explained?</p>
<p>why the attack on your part from the beginning?</p>
<p>can you not see that RML very specifically copied the selectivity rankings and mentioned the “getting in” aspect as to implying that the selectivity rankings were fully dependant on the acceptance rate, which they are not?</p>
<p>and I pointed out his deficiency in his comment ABOUT THE SELECTIVITY RANKINGS</p>
<p>TheAnalyzer is one of xiggi’s multiple personalities.</p>
<p>What we see taking place before us is an internal battle of epic proportions brought to the fore, about how the USNWR is the tragic product of a statistical abortion.</p>
<p>And to answer your question that is "do you understand that the “Graduation Rate Performance” is directly dependant on the “6 year Graduation Rate” allow me to say … What do you think? </p>
<p>I obviously understand the relation between the “Graduation Rate Performance” and the “6 year Graduation Rate.” OTOH, do you understand how the “Graduation Rate Performance” is established?</p>
<p>By the way, why is the placing a quote box UNDER a message seems as familiar as it is odd?</p>