<p>pretty big jump for ucsc. we were tied for 74 last year. the riverside rank sucks though...i seriously doubt they deserved the downgrade.</p>
<p>where are the other LACs? bates? macalester? colgate?</p>
<p>could you please post lacs up to 100? thanks</p>
<p>Barrons, Do you know what the ranking for Suny Binghamton is?</p>
<p>From Xiggi:</p>
<p>"Check the applicant pool of Duke and you'll find plenty of reasons why their current rank is a "bit" suspect."</p>
<p>I have no idea what that means. I think Duke had around 18,000 applicants. There must have been some qualified students in that "pool".........</p>
<p>Again, I still have not seen any valid data or rationale to show why Duke and Penn should not be ranked so high by US News. We hear the same complaints every year with no substantiation. Many times these complaints are from the cc self proclaimed college experts and students who really know nothing about those schools!</p>
<p>Aren't these complaints based on prestige anyways? ie. Stanford and MIT should be ranked higher than Duke and PENN because they are more prestigious.</p>
<p>which '05 top 50 LACs got bumped below top 50? I see that U Richmond switched from region masters to LAC, now 34, so at least one '05 top 50 had to get pushed down.</p>
<p>I think the problem here is that CC'ers, being so competitive, assume selectivity is the most important factor when judging a college. Is Stanford harder to get into Penn or Duke? By a few percentage points, yes. But also take a look at how many people are in each school. </p>
<p>Penn has 9800 undergrads while Stanford has 6500. This gives Penn room to accept many qualified applicants that Stanford would be forced to turn down due to lack of space. </p>
<p>How many times do you hear about people with perfect SAT scores and wonderful extra-curriculars being turned down from great schools for no apparent reason? It's simply because there are more qualified kids out there than available spots. Penn is a bigger school, so they accept more people, but the quality of their student body is by no means sacrificed. </p>
<p>Also, don't dismiss Penn's reputation as being less than Stanford's - Penn's regard by the international community as a school with a "preprofessional" atmosphere is great for job placement straight out of college. Stanford has it's star programs like engineering, but Penn has it's own, like The Wharton School. What puts Penn over the top in a very close race (don't forget that the difference was only one point) was it's student-faculty ratio, high student retention rate (which hurts schools like MIT and CalTech - Yes, they're prestigious, but what good is that when unhappy students choose to leave?) and financial resources (allowing, among other things, a lot of great research opportunities for undergrads). </p>
<p>For those complaining about why MIT and CalTech are so low, keep in mind that in addition to retention rate, graduation rate also works against engineering schools. It is common students at eng. schools need to stay for 5 years to complete the requirements if they don't plan their schedules well or if they change concentrations. The extra year,(and subsequent extra tuition) works against them in rankings. Even if it only counts as 5%, it is enough to hurt them when the numbers are so close to begin with. </p>
<p>Recognize that ranking schools purely on selectivity would be a poor indication of quality, especially given that many schools have a self-selecting applicant pool (in other words, inferior but popular schools may have low acceptance rates, but also have a lower quality of applicants).</p>
<p>who agrees with my very strong opinion that CMU should be ranked higher? academics-wise it's an AWESOME school (business/arts/engineering) and it was ranked the #1 best school to get a job after graduation by kaplan-newsweek. is it the school's relatively high acceptance rate that bumps it down?</p>
<p>How were these rankings leaked? They aren't on the Us news site yet.</p>
<p>A lucky CC member bought an advance copy, ran home and posted the stats.</p>
<p>Vanderbilt was actually ranked 18th in the 2005 rankings too, so it didn't lose a spot, it stayed the same, contrary to what post #59 says</p>
<p>OSU-60
Miami O 66
SUNY Bing 74</p>
<p>It's so funny...EVERYONE says the rankings are subjective and shouldn't be factored in on a decision to attend, BUT the rankings sure seem to get a lot of people angry....especially my school (UPenn). Some people sure get aggressively angry over something that isn't supposed to "matter"....hmmmmm.</p>
<p>Pepp 55..............................</p>
<p>DEVIL, that profile is of ACCEPTED STUDENT, NOT ENROLLED. BIG DIF. I am sure if u did that for Columbia it would be like 1400-1580, but for enrolled, its MUCH MUCH lower.</p>
<p>Wouldn't the enrolled students have tied if not greater stats? Is that not the point?</p>
<p>NO, DMC most likely not. Although I place a much credence in your posts, the enrolled would be slightly less. More bottom accepted students (lets say 1380 for duke) are likely to attend than a 1600 at that given school since the superior student has more top-quality options</p>
<p>CMU students never understand why we're ranked so low...especially compared to vandy/emory, even dartmouth/brown. We have top five CS, top ten engineering & business, top twenty chemistry, architecture, and psychology. We're no. 1 at computational finance and have one of the best drama schools in the nation. <em>shrugs</em>, but we know we're pimp so it's all good:)</p>
<p>Hmmmm....well I am not sure where to get the matriculated student data until they release them for the incoming class of '10. What was the point again? Oh...we are trying to prove how/how not Penn and Duke are so high, no?</p>