<p>I enjoyed BalletGirl's forecast of national mergers. However, what I think will happen are international mergers and alliances as the education business globalizes. Often this will be initiated by US colleges and universities with the largest endowments that enable them to invest internationally. At the graduate level, there will be virtual classes with notable professors of international stature in specific fields. </p>
<p>Large corporations will fund more education in specific fields in which they forecast they will need knowledge workers to move ahead. These knowledge-workers will go under contract to work for the corporation after graduation, and will include students from countries that participate in the international trade alliance (yes, I'm dreaming). </p>
<p>OK. I don't know enough about colleges and universities abroad to do a forecast on which ones will be on top, but I believe that the future will include international alliances and mergers, and that the use of technologies emerging now or still unknown will play a role in how students are educated. Given the strong role the US plays in the education market, there is a chance for global leadership, and I'm guessing that those colleges and universities with the largest endowments now will end up on top.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well, HMC is ranked #1 in selectivity by US News because its SAT scores are highest. But HMC is tiny; it's like saying Caltech is more selective than Stanford because its SAT scores are higher (but Caltech is substantially smaller, so that isn't so difficult to achieve).</p>
<p>I'd say HMC and CMC are roughly the same in selectivity; they just emphasize different things.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>HMC is more self-selecting. You can't just look at the admission percentages as the definitive measure of selectivity. US News knows this and it has why HMC is ranked #1 in selectivity despite HMC having an admissions percentage twice as high as some schools. US News judges selectivity by asking the question "Which school is the hardest to get into for the same applicant?" And don't act like the #1 ranking is just because of high SAT scores from a "small" student body. The difference in SAT scores is still statistically significant and US News uses many other factors.</p>
<p>The average applicant quality at Mudd is just higher than at CMC. So Mudd admits a greater percentage of applicants, yes, but they are stronger applicants than those for CMC. Therefore admission rates become almost irrelevant. Get the logic?</p>
<p>If you took the same student and had him apply to CMC and HMC, he would probably have a better chance of getting into CMC. For example, an applicant with a 1450 SAT and 3.7 UW gpa would be at a significant disadvantage for getting into Mudd. But, the same applicant would have a decent shot of getting into CMC.</p>
<p>burb parent probably gave the most thoughtful answer thus far. neat</p>
<p>atomicfusion,</p>
<p>I completely disagree. The applicant quality at Harvey Mudd is not higher than that at Claremont McKenna. Also, I don't think that a student applying to both schools would have a better chance of getting into CMC. These 2 schools look for different types of applicants. I know CMC looks for someone who is involved and has potential to be a leader. For example, let's say a student has a 2300 SAT, 3.9 GPA, and is involved in a few clubs. I don't think he would have a better chance to get into CMC than HMC if he doesn't have any leadership qualities. But even without leadership positions, he may be accepted into HMC.</p>
<p>atomicfusion: you assume I'm talking about acceptance rate; I didn't mention that once. And as I said, the smaller the school, the easier it is to reach high in stats -- in other words, to have a (statistically) high-quality student body. MIT has a much larger class than Caltech, and has slightly lower stats. But I don't think anyone would say that MIT is less selective than Caltech.</p>
<p>Same deal with Harvey Mudd and CMC. Not to mention that to rank schools only on SAT and other statistical measurements is like saying that only stats are taken into consideration for admission. That is obviously not true. Harvey Mudd is superficially more selective, and Mudd students obviously like to boast that their school is the most selective LAC. But other schools that are actually diverse in their offerings don't just care about high math scores and such, but with a student's ability in other areas. It's clear that schools like Swarthmore, Amherst, Williams, etc. are more selective than Mudd, even if their SAT scores aren't as high. I wouldn't say Mudd is more selective than CMC, but I wouldn't say that CMC is more selective than Mudd, either; they simply emphasize different things for admission, as they're two very different schools with different goals.</p>
<p>I'll just post this and then I'm done:</p>
<p>CMC
SAT - Critical Reading Middle 50%: 630-730
SAT - Math Middle 50%: 640-740
Students in top 10% of HS class: 83%</p>
<p>HMC
SAT - Critical Reading Middle 50%: 680-760
SAT - Math Middle 50%: 740-790
Students in top 10% of HS class: 89%</p>
<p>You can use the BS cop-out of "they look for different types of people" all you want, but Mudd's CR scores are clearly higher than CMC's. Mudd is a tech school looking for science/math-focused students. CMC is a real LAC looking more at CR scores. It's true that they look for different things, but Mudd students still have better CR scores.</p>
<p>Mudd and CMC are pretty comparable in size so you can throw out all the arguments about smaller schools having higher stats when comparing them to each other.</p>
<p>Regarding the selectivity stat, only 50% of it is based on SAT scores. 40% of it is from the percentage of students in the top 10% of their high school class. 10% is from the actual admission rates. I don't see what the problem with that statistic is. In my opinion, it is a pretty good way to quantify selectivity considering the information that US News has. How else do you expect them to do it? Knowledgeable posters regard Pomona, HMC, AWS on pretty much the same level of selectivity, but CMC is never mentioned with them. Everyone knows Pomona is more selective than CMC. There are no debates about that, yet somehow we are debating this.</p>
<p>we<em>tard</em>it's post has flawed logic. True, a student might have similar changes at HMC and CMC if he doesn't have leadership positions. But, don't you realize that a student without great science/math ECs has a small chance at Mudd? Therefore your situation is useless because the student is obviously not just a generic student like I was talking about before; he/she has less chances of getting into CMC than Mudd (assuming he/she has great science/math ECs). So let's just make a control group that has no real stellar ECs at all. I would say, and this is the point I've been making all along, that this student would have a better chance at getting into CMC. </p>
<p>If you want, you can look up through countless results threads. I think you will find that a student is more often accepted to CMC and rejected to Mudd than the other way around. The same holds true for Pomona vs. CMC. It's been said many times before, but students who are waitlisted at Pomona are often accepted to CMC.</p>
<p>atomicfusion, we've already acknowledged that HMC's average SAT scores are higher. Multiple times. You don't need to post the ranges to illustrate a point that's already been refuted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Mudd and CMC are pretty comparable in size so you can throw out all the arguments about smaller schools having higher stats when comparing them to each other.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, they're not. I don't know what HMC's freshman class size is, but if we take 746 and divide by 4, we get 187, compared with CMC's 265. That's about 1.5 times the size. Given the total size of the school, such a difference in the # students can probably account for a difference in the SAT.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my opinion, it is a pretty good way to quantify selectivity considering the information that US News has.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's a way to quantify selectivity, but it isn't a way to say that one school is, therefore, obviously more selective. Admissions take much more than numbers into consideration. Stanford's numbers are a bit below Princeton's, but nobody would say that Stanford is less selective than Princeton.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Knowledgeable posters regard Pomona, HMC, AWS on pretty much the same level of selectivity, but CMC is never mentioned with them. Everyone knows Pomona is more selective than CMC.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ad populum arguments prove nothing.</p>
<p>atomicfusion,</p>
<p>CMC and HMC are not "pretty comparable in size" like you say they are. CMC has 1153 students whereas HMC has 729 students. CMC has 1.58 times the number of students as HMC. It's like having 6326 students versus 4000. You can easily see the difference. HMC's small size makes it easier to have those high statistics. If you took the top 729 students from CMC, I bet they would have the same stats as HMC's student body.</p>
<p>If one were to look at the top universities in 1908 and compare them to the top universities in 2008, they'd see startling similarities. I am willing to bet that there won't be much of a difference in 2108.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so, what will the top universities and LAC's look like 100 years from now?
[/quote]
If the war on terrorism is lost you can change the topic to "Madrasas Rankings in 2108".</p>
<p>By 2108, there will be a better form of college rankings. Hopefully.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If one were to look at the top universities in 1908 and compare them to the top universities in 2008, they'd see startling similarities. I am willing to bet that there won't be much of a difference in 2108.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I totally called that</p>
<p>NRC rankings report is due "late spring/early summer". Universities will be given advanced notice of their ratings.</p>
<p><a href="http://www7.nationalacademies.org/resdoc/CGS%20Slide%20Presentation.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www7.nationalacademies.org/resdoc/CGS%20Slide%20Presentation.pdf</a></p>
<p>It'll be interesting to see these rankings...</p>
<p>
[quote]
By 2108, there will be a better form of college rankings. Hopefully.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>By that time, university gladiatoral squads will fight to the death in the NCAA's annual tournament at the Grand Arena of Mexico City (the Capital of the United American States). The victorious team claims victory and honor for their university. Texas A&M, with their vastly superior weaponry and history of arms training, has remained undefeated for 10 years since the tournament's inception.</p>