<p>Well I've been holding off posting about this, but here goes.</p>
<p>I am wondering what if any reaction the regulars or anyone else has to the marginal change downwards in Smith's place on the USNWR College rankings? Smith went from a tie for 14th place to a tie for 19th. I don't think this is such a big deal, but I remember last year when they went up a few notches there was quite a bit of reaction.</p>
<p>One thing I find strange is the inclusion of federal service academies in the "liberal arts college" rankings. But I guess it has been as such for the past couple years.</p>
<p>Anyway, please chime in if you have any thoughts on this. As I say, I don't think it's that big of a deal myself.</p>
<p>Federal service academies are colleges and so they belong on the college rankings. Plus they are liberal arts and among the best schools in the nation.</p>
<p>I just happened to see the new rankings today too and was very curious as to why Smith got pushed down. I also thought it might have to do with the federal service academies being included. </p>
<p>I read some of the student reviews and had to chuckle when I read the description of convocation, having just had a conversation about it on the Smith Parents FB page.</p>
<p>Slightly disappointed in the lower ranking, especially with what one would assume to be a positive with the recent gains from the Engineering school, but I have heard a lot of challenges to the USNWR methodology. Check Tulane’s CC board where a little thing like Katrina skewed the graduation rates and knocked them down…MANY pegs. Didn’t mean the school was any worse, but the methodology takes four years to work off that graduation rate. (Then again, wanna tempt fate with the next 'cane?)</p>
<p>Not sure what the cause is with Smith’s lower ranking with both applications and yield going up, but rather than fight it, let’s just make Smith a better school. Let’s share with all the high powered prospects investigating Smith on CC what a great school Smith is… and that when they come and add their smarts to the place, the rankings are sure to go up. </p>
<p>Any prospect interested in “a women’s school without boys”, this Dad, and many on this board can help you decide if Smith is for you.</p>
<p>I don’t know if this has anything to do with it, but several years ago Smith opted out of sharing information with USNWR, as part of a coalition of other colleges trying to combat the stranglehold that these fairly arbitrary ratings systems have on college admissions, budgeting, and other priorities. So it could simply be that USNWR is not rating Smith fairly because they’re working with limited information.</p>
<p>Interesting thoughts by all. I still can’t get my arms around the concept of Annapolis and West Point being classified as “liberal arts” colleges. My son is a service academy grad and I am a huge supporter of the academies. But when kids come looking for liberal arts colleges, those don’t immediately come to mind. They are great schools in themselves, but the student looking for a liberal arts experience need not go there. :eek:</p>
<p>If I remember correctly, Smith was at #18 for several years, so last year’s ranking of #14 was an anomaly. We can discount the relative unimportance of the USNWR rankings but I do think that last year’s “higher” ranking led to a higher yield of students who accepted.</p>
<p>USNWR hasn’t considered yield since '04. With ED and extensive use of the waiting list, yield is easily manipulated. Not that I’d accuse any colleges of doing so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe Smith opted out of sharing information, but I could be wrong.</p>
<p>As Carolyn aptly stated, there’s a direct correlation between ranking, yield and quality of students. I find it difficult to believe the administration would opt-out of reporting information and allow Smith to be put at a recruiting, financial and admission disadvantage relative to its peers. e.g. Reed</p>
<p>^ ^ ^
Initially, Reed’s decision to boycott USNWR had a very injurious effect. If Reed truly wishes to boycott the rankings, perhaps they shouldn’t publish their institutional data on their website ;)</p>
<p>“Initially, Reed’s decision to boycott USNWR had a very injurious effect.”</p>
<p>I can’t find a Common Data Set for Reed going back to 2000 or before. Did you find something that shows the school was injured (and I don’t mean the ranking, which seems to be irrelevant, given Reed’s numbers since 2001)? </p>
<p>Was there a drop in applications right after 1995? I’ve heard complaints that the publicity alone caused an increase in applications, but I have no numbers.</p>
<p>I said initially-- i.e. 1995. And, yes, I was referring to the ranking. You might consider the ranking irrelevant, others don’t. Statistics would suggest the ranking is very relevant. It appears Reed agrees, as they publish their institutional data on their website. By doing so, they supply almost all the data USNWR requires to rank the college. </p>
<p>Also, Reed’s percent of applicants admitted decreasing from more than 90 percent to 43 percent today is impressive by any measure. I’m sure Reed’s rise in the rankings was of some help.
There’s no need to attempt to convince me Reed is a phenomenal college. </p>
<p>The alumni I know are impressive, and the fact “studies continue to show Reed graduates earning doctorates or winning postgraduate fellowships and scholarships (such as Rhodes, Fulbright, Watson, and Mellon) at rates higher than all but a handful of other colleges” speaks for itself.</p>
<p>Agree with subtle point of post above…I am a CDS hound, and choose to intrepret the data myself. I assign the weights according to our priorities. USNWR assigns weights in a way that does not work for us (and uses some factors that are irrelevant).</p>
<p>The rankings are fun to look at, everyone says they don’t matter, and then we all proceed to think about them. I look at them in deciles (for admission rates), so moving up or down a few places does not matter.</p>
<p>I also agree that LAC category is not really the best list for military schools, but where else would they go?</p>
<p>For the right price I would go with almost any up to 55 as long as it is a culture fit.</p>
<p>BTW, Rice and WashU do not publish the CDS; my guess is to avoid the chart with students per class size section, which might conflict with their claim of low student to faculty ratio. They may be carrying a lot of non-teaching research faculty which skews that ratio towards the rosy side. But I am certainly not positive, because their CDS is not listed.</p>
<p>Yes, of course, a benefit to applicants is the primary reason colleges participate in The Common Data Set initiative as well as publish their data…but there’s another :)</p>
<p>What’s interesting, too, is that the CDS initiative is a collaborative effort.</p>
<p>Reed doth protest too much, methinks. Cynically viewed, Reed’s decision to continually refuse to participate in USNWR rankings, and the subsequent well publicized ‘feud’, could be judged as a PR stroke of genius. The college has received national awareness and immeasurable free publicity, much to the benefit of the college.</p>
<p>Kidding aside, I have no doubt Reed’s refusal to participate in the USNWR rankings is based solely on a genuine belief the methodology is flawed and the rankings are of dubitable value.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Doug Christiansen, Vanderbilt’s dean of admissions, also has a reasonable argument against the peer assessment.</p>
<p>“Cynically viewed, Reed’s decision to continually refuse to participate in USNWR rankings, and the subsequent well publicized ‘feud’, could be judged as a PR stroke of genius. The college has received national awareness and immeasurable free publicity, much to the benefit of the college.”</p>
<p>Therefore Reed having been in any way “injured” just doesn’t seem to fit! ;)</p>
