<p>Another good approach is to use the Rugg’s Guide because he recommends schools by major. So you could look at his lists for biology or chemistry. Each list is broken down into groups based on selectivity.
You might be able to find previous editions in your library, but his newer editions are all online PDF’s that you have to buy.</p>
<p>^^ If the USNWR rankings were complete nonsense, they would have no predictive value. The features they do measure would have no correlation at all with significant features they don’t measure. If you believe this is the case, consider how the rankings align with financial aid metrics (which USNWR does not directly factor into the rankings) for schools clustered around some of the ones recommended above. There appears to be a fairly clear progression from top 30 LACs (like Carleton), which typically meet 100% of need, to schools ranked above 100, which in some cases (like Wittenberg) fully meet the need of less than 30% of their students.</p>
<p>It seems to me that if there is one “G-factor” that the USNWR rankings do reflect fairly accurately, it’s not so much prestige as institutional wealth. The #50-something school isn’t necessarily more prestigious than the #100-something school (all these LACs are relatively obscure), but the much higher-ranked school quite likely is wealthier. Even if aid is not a factor for you personally, you might want to consider what it suggests about a school’s financial resources and its potential impact on many aspects of college life. Yes, a determined person can get a good education despite big classes, poorly paid professors, run-down facilities, and a student body that isn’t very diverse. However, why struggle with these limitations if you can also get a good education from a school with small classes, highly paid professors, good facilities, a diverse student body … and excellent financial aid to boot.</p>
<p>So check out some schools in the USNWR ~50-100 range, whichever ones catch your eye based on location/other “fit” factors, for colleges with relatively good resources for someone with your stats. Then look through online course catalogs and other references to isolate the ones that have the strongest offerings for your interests (pretty much regardless of rank within this group).</p>
<p>There is no evidence that financial aid - or wealth of an institution - has any bearing at all on the quality of education available. You could also argue (though I would not) that schools that offer little financial aid attract a higher quality student body because they come from wealthier, and thus better educated families. There’s just as much evidence for that as there is for your speculative assertions.</p>
<p>I’m not sure what speculative assertions annasdad thinks I’m making.
I’m not asserting that institutional wealth necessarily has (or does not have) clear bearing on specific, well-defined educational outcomes, or on quality of education. </p>
<p>I’m suggesting that institutional wealth can buy many things that many students and families presumably consider desirable in their own right, regardless of demonstrable impact on educational outcomes. Consider financial aid, for example. All else being equal, is it not desirable for a family with demonstrated financial need to have lower net college costs? I don’t think it is too speculative to suggest an apparent rough correlation between USNWR rankings and the quality of need-based financial aid (which, one should note, doesn’t necessarily translate to the lowest net cost for all students).</p>
<p>College… USNWR rank … % of Students whose need is fully met … avg % of need met
Bates … 22 … 90.1% … 100%
Grinnell … 22 … 100% … 100%
Macalester… 24 … 100% … 100%
Scripps … 24 … 100% … 100%</p>
<p>Hendrix …70 … 40.56% … 82.9%
Ill Wesleyan …70 … 37.2% … 95%
Lewis&Clark …70 … 37.6% … 89%
Muhlenberg …70 … 91.3% … 94.3%
VMI … 70 …54.3% … 90%
Agnes Scott… 75 …23.8% … 88.1%</p>
<p>Presbyterian 121 … 43.1% … 89%
Principia …121 … 41.9% … 82%
Wittenberg …121 … 28.6% … 83%
Berry …124 … 26.3% … 81%</p>
<p>Creighton … 1 (“regional”/MW) … 37% … 88%
Drake … 3 (MW) … 26.8% … 76%
Bradley … 6 (MW) … 13.8% … 70.2%
Evansville … 9 (MW) … 25% … 80.4%</p>
<p>The same institutional wealth that can pay for better need-based aid also can pay for smaller classes, higher faculty salaries, new lab equipment, new dormitories and dining halls, etc. etc. Even if none of these things correlate strongly with somebody’s definition of good educational outcomes, neither do they demonstrably result (as far as I know) in worse educational outcomes (notwithstanding the often-cited William Deresiewicz piece). True, I can imagine designing a deliberately rather spartan campus environment in an attempt to promote certain educational outcomes (think Deep Springs College). However, wealthy colleges presumably would not invest in smaller classes, higher salaries, labs, dorms, etc., if there were no market demand for them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course. That’s why the best option is often a community college, followed by a commuting-distance lower-tier state school. You don’t need USNWR to identify those.</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd was mentioned… again, not an option with the OP’s GPA/SAT scores. Also, don’t be fooled by Reed’s ranking… they don’t play in the USNWR space. Literally, they don’t submit data. So they are more like a top 25 school in most ways. </p>
<p>Earlham might be a good choice, they are particularly strong in biology.</p>
<p>I like Bates but I think getting in would be a long shot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They publish a CDS, which includes most the basic information that USNWR uses to compile its rankings.</p>
<p>[Reed</a> College 2010-11 Common Data Set](<a href=“http://www.reed.edu/ir/cds/index10.html]Reed”>Reed College 2010-11 Common Data Set - Institutional Research - Reed College)</p>
<p>The magazine does not publish its formula, but they do say inputs like CDS data are being deemphasized. Magazine editors design the ranking criteria, not educators. They must meet the public’s expectations of rankings or sales will dry up.</p>
<p>When the magazine’s best-colleges list first appeared in 1983, the issue ranked Reed among the top ten national liberal arts colleges, and its stats have improved since then. In 1994 the Wall Street Journal reported about institutions flagrantly manipulating data in order to move up in the rankings. Reed then refused to submit data, and the magazine arbitrarily sent the college to the lowest tier in its category, the steepest drop in the history of its ratings. The following year, responding to widespread criticism of its retribution, the magazine praised Reed in its “best colleges” press release as being new to the “top tier” of national liberal arts schools. Reed has thrived since then; the positive publicity has no doubt helped!</p>
<p>vonlost, the US News criteria are described on their site.
[Methodology:</a> Undergraduate Ranking Criteria and Weights - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2012/09/11/methodology-undergraduate-ranking-criteria-and-weights-2]Methodology:”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2012/09/11/methodology-undergraduate-ranking-criteria-and-weights-2)</p>
<p>Cool, thanks, google didn’t hand me that page when I searched; I found [Frequently</a> Asked Questions: Best Colleges Rankings - US News and World Report](<a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2012/09/11/frequently-asked-questions-best-colleges-rankings#4]Frequently”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2012/09/11/frequently-asked-questions-best-colleges-rankings#4).</p>