<p>and Midmo:</p>
<p>If your son is happy and thriving, not merely surviving.....then that is the BEST response to those who deign to criticize your/his decision to not apply/attend Ivy.</p>
<p>The only time I ever comment, and usually that is in a very private and confidential setting, abou someone's choice of colleges is when I believe strongly it is a poor fit for one reason or another and often enough it isnt just stats I am referring to.</p>
<p>dstark:</p>
<p>I dont think Hawkette works for USNWR. Perhaps she will tell us. But if she does that would be very interesting.</p>
<p>Regardless, I just wish USNWR (which above all is the servant to its advertising masters which is just trying to sell magazines) would put a caveat on its annual rankings issue; "While we do our best to be objective and fair, we recognize that statistics is a malleable science and that one person's perception of excellence is not necessarily another's. Moreover, picking a college is a serious and expensive endeavor. We urge all readers to look in a broad spectrum for the college that will be the best fit for you and yours. We recognize that many outstanding colleges do not make our list of the best colleges in America, for one reason or another. Many of these schools do an outstanding job of educating our nation's youtha and graduate truly outstanding students."</p>
<p>dstark and friedokra,</p>
<p>My husband got another phone call from the same guy yesterday, ostensibly to ask about something else, but really just to go on and on about the fabulous connections his daughter is making at High Ivy. "It's all about connections", my H was informed. </p>
<p>Something else.</p>
<p>dstark,
The problem with USNWR (no, I don’t work there-LOL) and its ranking methodology is that IMO it perpetuates an educational pecking order and status quo that neither accurately reflects the breadth of great colleges around the country nor the changes that have taken/are taking place at America's colleges. </p>
<p>OTOH, the great thing about USNWR is that it provides a ton of data in one place about a great many colleges. Also, if you read their verbiage attached to the magazine and in the related articles, they do make some "disclaimers" and encourage students to go for fit. The headlines, of course, are the rankings, but they're not completely dense about how people should use the rankings and the data. For anyone starting their college search process, USNWR or something like it is the logical, best place to start in assembling a list of college for further investigation. </p>
<p>As USNWR relates to this thread, they gave us four important data points that help us consider four critical questions about the undergraduate classroom experience and the teaching that goes on there:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>How good has a school historically been at providing great classroom instruction?</p></li>
<li><p>What will a student see in the size of the classroom when they get to campus?</p></li>
<li><p>How strongly is the college committing resources to support the classroom experience?</p></li>
<li><p>How has this commitment changed over time and what could that mean for the quality of the instruction that the student will receive? </p></li>
</ol>
<p>I think that these are important questions for any student involved in the college search process. The answers are not homogenous from college to college.</p>
<p>friedokra,</p>
<p>USNWR has a section titled "How to Use the Rankings Wisely".</p>
<p>"The 2008 edition of the U.S. News rankings of colleges and universities provides an excellent starting point for families comparing colleges because it offers an opportunity to judge the relative quality of the educational experience at schools according to widely accepted indicators of excellence. But many other factors that can't be measured should figure in your decision, including the school's cost, the availability of financial aid, course offerings, the feel of campus life, and the setting and geographic location.</p>
<p>So how should you use our ranking tables? Study the data that accompany the actual rankings. The tables are a source of highly useful information about colleges that is otherwise hard to obtain and which will help you narrow your search to a small number of colleges that are a good fit.</p>
<p>For instance, high school students can scan our column of college student SAT scores to infer whether they could gain admission to a college—and even rise to the top of the applicant pool and possibly qualify for a merit-based scholarship. They can use our class-size data lists to get a sense of the intimacy of colleges' classroom experiences. They can check faculty-student ratios to see how much attention they are likely to get from professors at different schools, or check the freshman retention rates to learn how hard schools work to keep students from dropping out. They can study other lists to see how the public schools stack up against each other, to compare specialty schools, or to see how we rate campuses in terms of diversity or best value for the dollar. And look up any of 1,800 four-year schools in our directory to get information on schools' location, size, cost, academic offerings, and financial aid policies.</p>
<p>While scanning our lists to find colleges that feel right, students and parents may find many names that they had not considered—or even heard of. There are hundreds of fine colleges and universities, and ultimately the challenge is to narrow the list to a few that you'd really like to attend. ..."</p>
<p>Midmo, for some people, it is all about connections. Luckily, I don't know too many people like that. Nobody trashes another kid's choice.</p>
<p>Friedokra, I don't really think Hawkette, works for USNWR. Public relations however......</p>
<p>USNWR does have a disclaimer. Campus life, activities, sports, academic offerings, location, cost, and availability of financial aid are other factors. </p>
<p>And the mag should be used along with college visits, interviews, and your own intuition.</p>
<p>Somehow, the discussion turns on rankings. I don't get the argument....
Schools with higher average SAT scores are better; therefore, students that go to these schools are smarter and get a better education.</p>
<p>I don't see that in real life. I guess others do. We all see what we want to see anyway.</p>
<p>Plus, there was a story yesterday that said a person is more likely to believe what somebody tells him over what that person sees with his own eyes. :)</p>
<p>I guess that is the theory behind saying the same thing over and over again. Eventually you will convince others that what you are saying is more accurate than what they are seeing. :)</p>
<p>"The problem with USNWR (no, I dont work there-LOL) and its ranking methodology is that IMO it perpetuates an educational pecking order and status quo that neither accurately reflects the breadth of great colleges around the country nor the changes that have taken/are taking place at America's colleges."</p>
<p>That is your opinion. That's my opinion too. :)</p>
<p>There is a difference between pointing out something is inaccurate, and coming up with different rankings that are also inaccurate. That's what you do.</p>
<p>Those rankings you come up with are fine for you. They are just as inaccurate for the mass of students as USNWR's are. </p>
<p>Inaccurate rankings or inaccurate rankings, which should I choose? :)</p>
<p>dstark,
I know that you don't like my frequent use of SAT data and the sometimes heavy-handed (ham-handed?) way that I use the data as a proxy for student quality. I agree (again!) that is not the be-all, end-all for college admissions, but it is important for college admissions departments and usually has high correlation to other parts of an application. </p>
<p>Earlier this week, the National Association of College Admissions Counselors (NACAC) put out an article and study on the factors and the weighting used by colleges in their admissions decisions. As the table below shows, they seem to think that standardized test scores are an important factor. </p>
<p>Importance Assigned by College Admissions Counselors to Application Items </p>
<p>Considerable Weight , Moderate Weight , Limited or No Weight </p>
<p>75.9% , 17.4% , 6.7% Grades in college prep courses
61.5% , 25.3% , 13.2% Strength of curriculum
60.4% , 27.9% , 11.7% Standardized Test scores (SAT, ACT)
51.2% , 36.4% , 12.5% Grades in all courses
27.9% , 30.6% , 41.5% Essay and/or writing sample
23.1% , 38.6% , 38.3% Class rank
21.2% , 40.7% , 38.0% Counselor recommendation
20.8% , 31.2% , 48.1% Student's demonstrated interest
19.5% , 41.1% , 39.3% Teacher recommendation
10.4% , 23.1% , 66.5% Interview
7.6% , 37.0% , 55.4% Extra-curricular activities
7.6% , 23.5% , 68.8% Subject test scores (AP, IB)
6.3% , 13.4% , 80.4% State graduation exam scores
5.2% , 8.5% , 86.3% SAT II scores
2.9% , 21.5% , 75.5% Work</p>
<p>I think the best measure available of teaching/mentoring quality, although indirect, is the US News overperformance/underperformance index. This probably captures teaching quality as well as other qualities.</p>
<p>Schools accept students with a certain average level of ability and you would expect them to graduate at a rate that is typical of students with that level of ability. When they graduate at a rate higher than expected, it probably means the school is doing a good job in the classroom and elsewhere.</p>
<p>However, schools with lots of engineering and science students have a tougher overall curriculum and that should be taken into account.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Small classes can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, I think they're more conducive to learning in the classroom than large lecture classes, and certainly to classroom discussion. On the other hand, large lecture classes probably mean a large department, and that this department has lots of resources (research funding for undergrads, internship programs, career services, free/cheap private tutoring services, etc) and is valued by the school culture.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>From experience, I can tell that there are schools with very small classes AND lots of resources. Why wouldn't research funding for undergrads, internship programs, career services, free/cheap private tutoring services, etc) not be more plemtiful at schools that ONLY have undergraduates but well-funded programs?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the best measure available of teaching/mentoring quality, although indirect, is the US News overperformance/underperformance index. This probably captures teaching quality as well as other qualities.</p>
<p>Schools accept students with a certain average level of ability and you would expect them to graduate at a rate that is typical of students with that level of ability. When they graduate at a rate higher than expected, it probably means the school is doing a good job in the classroom and elsewhere.</p>
<p>However, schools with lots of engineering and science students have a tougher overall curriculum and that should be taken into account.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree the model used by USNews has two downfalls:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>This metric does de facto balance out the selectivity index. Schools with lower selectivity are rewarded with a lower expected graduation rate. In some cases, it does look like schools would benefit for under-reporting their selectivity to get a "bigger" bang in the other category. </p></li>
<li><p>As you said, there are little adjustments for the highly technical schools. For instance, Harvey Mudd was placed dead last in this category as USNews ignored the difficulty of the curriculum and assigned a completely unrealistic (and ridiculous) graduation expectation because HMC had the highest SAT in the LAC realm. Caltech faces a smiliar situation but obtained more "logical" adjustments to its expected grad rate.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Hawkette, I see the NACAC numbers, but I don't draw the conclusion that schools with higher average SAT scores will give a person a better education.</p>
<p>Average SATs don't give you a better education. The environment that a student is in and particularly how the individual takes advantage of that environment is what gives the person the better education. To the extent that a top student wants to be around other excellent students and believes that interacting with/learning from them is an important aspect of an undergraduate education, then going to a college with a strong student profile is an important goal. You can argue whether standardized test scores are a reliable indication of student quality/preparedness, but it is clear that most adcomms assign it "considerable weight" in choosing their class.</p>
<p>In context. Hawkette. It depends on the situation of the student.</p>
<p>Really watch the video. You are interested in college admissions.
When it comes to SAT scores, am I going to believe the admissions dean of Amherst or not?</p>
<p>If US News added this type of ranking of undergrad education to its annual "swimsuit" issue, I wonder how long it would take the Harvards/MITs/Michigans of the world to join their LAC brethren in the current boycott.</p>
<p>Prob faster than GW Bush could join the Natl Guard.</p>
<p>dstark,
I read the entire transcript and I'm not sure how what the Amherst dean is saying is at odds with the way the NACAC survey came out. What do you think the NACAC results are saying about the factors generally and standardized tests in particular? BTW, I think the NACAC survey results are pretty accurate.</p>
<p>doctorb,
I understand where you are coming from, but give credit where it is due. Harvard actually was one of the colleges that made the 1996 Best Teaching Top 25 National University list and they also have long had very good ranks for Faculty Resources. With their financial resources, I'd be really shocked if that changed. </p>
<p>As for MIT and U Michigan, I suspect that you are right that they would object to an annual Classroom Teaching Excellence survey. These two schools suffered the greatest declines in Faculty Ranks over the 12-year period from 1996 to 2008 (MIT down 17 places from 3rd to 20th and U Michigan down 24 places from 45th to 69th).</p>
<p>Of all the liberal arts colleges ranked in usnwr, Amherst has the highest 50th percentile ranges: 1330-1530 so I would guess that not giving SATs considerable weight "depending on the candidate" is definitely the exception rather than the rule. Whatever the A admissions dean believes SAT scores measure or don't measure, his ad com favors students that score high. Even their admitted athletes as a group are averaging a score of 1400. They must consider that important for a reason.</p>
<p>collegehelp,
I tested your theory about a relationship between great classroom teaching and the Over/Under Performance results in USNWR for 1996. The results are below. I don’t see any trend or connection. However, I believe that your hunch about the engineering schools being more difficult is proven out as Caltech had a -14 underperformance and MIT had a -8 underperformance.</p>
<p>1996 Classroom Teaching Rank , 1996 Over/Under Performance , NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES
1 , +3 , Dartmouth
2 , +3 , Brown
3 , -9 , W&M
4 , -7 , Rice
5 , +1 , Princeton
6 , -4 , Stanford
7 , 0 , Duke
8 , na , Miami U (OH)
9 , +13 , Notre Dame
10 , -1 , Yale
11 , +13 , U Virginia
12 , -9 , U Chicago
13 , +2 , Emory
13 , na , UC Santa Cruz
15 , +3 , Vanderbilt
16 , -9 , Boston College
17 , 0 , Harvard
18 , +4 , Northwestern
19 , -14 , Caltech
20 , -2 , Wake Forest
20 , +14 , U North Carolina
22 , na , BYU
22 , +3 , Wash U
24 , +7 , Georgetown
24 , 0 , Tufts</p>
<p>Hawkette, don't you read the NY Times. A survey was just done. </p>
<p>Of course, the results are a little different than you imply.</p>
<p>Hawkette, it doesn't matter if the NACAC survey is accurate. The dean of Amherst flat out said that SAT scores are very important if you come from privilege. If you don't, they are less important. </p>
<p>So Hawkette, if you are a school that wants to educate the less privileged, SAT scores are not going to be as important. That's one.
Two, if you come from less privilege, but are just as able as the privileged, you are more likely going to have a lower SAT score.
So three, if you judge schools by average SAT scores, you are more likely to get a wealthier student body in those schools. The Amherst dean said this exact thing. The higher the SAT score of a school the better the students doesn't fly because the best students from the lower classes score lower. You have to look at demographics too. I didn't post the Pell Grant stats by accident.</p>
<p>The lower class students catch up when given the opportunity.</p>
<p>I'm not making this crap up. Deans all over America will say what I am saying.</p>
<p>From the above link...
"There is almost an iron law of higher education: the more selective a school is, the fewer low-income students it has. At Harvard and Yale, only about 10 percent of undergraduates receive federal Pell Grants. (Typically, students from the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution are eligible for the Pell.) Even at top public universities, the share is often 15 percent or less. The colleges that are filled with poor and middle-class students almost invariably have low graduation rates. So their graduates are more likely to end up on the wrong side of the 21st century’s educational divide. A bachelor’s degree seems out of reach to a large portion of the American population, and, as a result, other countries have closed the gap in educational attainment with the United States over the last generation. </p>
<p>There are really only two exceptions to the rule, two universities that are both elite and economically diverse: U.C.L.A. and Berkeley. A chart on U.S. News & World Report’s Web site does a nice job of summarizing just how unusual they are. It lists the percentage of Pell Grant recipients at each university in the magazine’s famous Top 25 ranking. U.C.L.A. tops the list, at 37 percent, and Berkeley comes next, at 31 percent. In third place is Columbia, with just 15 percent."</p>
<p>You want to penalize schools that are looking for economic diversity. You are also assuming that because a person has a higher SAT he is more capable. That's not true Hawkette. </p>
<p>It is also not true that surrounding yourself with people with high SAT scores will give you a better education than another person who doesn't. </p>
<p>And how many high SAT scores to be surrounded with are enough. 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 12,000 fellow students? What percentage of the student body has to have high SAT scores? 100%, 75%, 50%? </p>
<p>The fact that 60% of NACAC survey responders said SAT scores were a considerable weight doesn't change a thing I said.</p>
<p>So if you want to compare average SAT scores, at least compare them with schools that value SAT scores the same and have similar demographic student bodies.</p>
<p>If you want to go to an elite school and you care about economic diversity, UCLA and Berkeley are one and two. Your rankings don't capture this. :) (Anyone who likes Washington and Lee doesn't think the economic diversity is important in a student body). But some of us do. :)</p>
<p>jazzymom, Amherst has a very wealthy student population. One of the wealthiest. They have stated they are going to try and become more economically diverse. We'll see what happens to their average SAT scores.</p>