<p>huskem55:
I'm curious to know just exactly what your ranking system is based on...</p>
<p>just my opinion of how schools should be 'ranked,' based on both objective and subjective criteria. i despise individual rankings, and support a system based on groups of schools.</p>
<p>What is the objective criteria?</p>
<p>I considered the following</p>
<p>OBJECTIVE:
-acceptance rates
-gpa
-sat scores
-graduation rates</p>
<p>SUBJECTIVE:
-the people who i've know that have applied/attended
-my visits to the schools (i'm very familiar with 39 of the ones i listed)
-commonly associated peer institutions
-top to bottom strength of school (i.e. if you have an awesome english department but not so awesome chemistry department, you're going to slip)
-reputation of student life/happiness/education
-i used the usnews for some guidance- as i went down the usnews list, i compared each school to the ones i had already listed in terms of my placements
-conversations i have had with high school guidance counselors, college admissions counselors, graduate admissions counselors. i know MANY.</p>
<p>again. i hate individual rankings and think groupings are much more accurate.
i tried to be as unbiased as possible- my order of the top 50 LACs that i would want to attend would be extremely different.</p>
<p>
[quote]
OBJECTIVE:
-acceptance rates
-gpa
-sat scores
-graduation rates
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You actually figured those out for all those schools?</p>
<p>I'm not trying to give you hard time (well, maybe a little) but I think kids need to know what is exactly behind the rankings people throw around on here.</p>
<p>weenie, i love when people actually examine rankings, so i'm not offended or anything!</p>
<p>as i said, i know the LACS extremely well, and know acceptance rates/average SATS etc for just about all of the northeastern schools. i did look to the source for schools i wasnt as familiar with.</p>
<p>Huskem - Thank you for including Whitman College - one of the best kept secrets. Great college!
Interested Dad - i wonder the same as Arcadia - what games does Middlebury play?</p>
<p>I actually don't believe that Middlebury plays any games anymore. Several years ago, their SAT scores were inflated because they only reported scores for submitters, who naturally had higher SAT scores than non-submitters. They also calculated acceptance rates by including September admits in the numerator and all applicants in the denominator. The "deception" was that the February admits were included in the denominator, but not in ther numerator. </p>
<p>Long story short, Middlebury no longer practices this numbers massaging, so its really a moot point.</p>
<p>I-dad is just being curmudgeonly.. as per usual!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Several years ago, their SAT scores were inflated because they only reported scores for submitters,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It was as recently as two years ago.</p>
<p>Middlebury has an unusual test policy. You can send whatever test scores you want and then designate any two to be used in evaluating your app (SATI, SATII, ACT, AP, etc.)</p>
<p>The Common Data Set instructions are very clear. A college is supposed to include ALL SAT scores that they have received for their enrolled students, whether they were considered for the application or not. After, all the idea is to provide an accurate snapshot of the student body.</p>
<p>In their Common Data Set filing, Middlebury only included the SAT scores that were designated by the applicants for use as their two scores (i.e. the high ones). On their website, they posted stats for the enrolled students using all of the SAT scores they had received. These stats were significantly lower than the stats provided to USNEWS on the Common Data Set.</p>
<p>As you yourself note, Middlebury now publishes the SAT I scores of all applicants, regardless of whether they were used in admissions. The latest US News ranking reflects those changes. No more "games," so stop whining.</p>