<p>i dont know the point, but honestly every school's enrolled SAT is lower than the accepted. however, this discrepancy approaches 0 as the quality of the school improves. For instance, a third tier school loses nearly every 1500+ scorer, thus their enrolled average will be lower than the accepted. As you approach schools of Dukes caliber, the difference between the two become smaller but the gap remains nonetheless</p>
<p>AHh what is this, lehigh jumped so high..why?!? </p>
<p>a quick question:
these rankings are based on the c/o 2008? not 2009?</p>
<p>thanks.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
</p>
<p>self-selecting, thy name is Chicago</p>
<p>Wow I see the Cornell board is in a frenzy over these rankings. Maybe MIT and Duke should have switched places.</p>
<p>Barrons:</p>
<p>Rutgers?</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>Sokkermom, since the post was addressed to me, I'll respond. </p>
<p>First, I do not go out of my way to discuss -or diss- Duke and Penn. Both schools are truly fine institutions. However, the question is if they are deserving to be ranked just below HYP and in front of the rest of the country. You asked for a rationale of the opinion that Penn and Duke are ranked too high. My answer was that the schools are not as selective as many school ranked well below it. For instance, if you were to rank Penn among the Ivies, how would go about showing Penn in any other place than 7th out of 8th? It is pretty simple to read a listing of admittance rates and selectivity of students. If you were to add Duke to the eight Ivies and make it a 9 way race, where do you think it would rank? </p>
<p>Rather than asking people to explain their "relative" negative opinions, why don't YOU tell us why the ranking is accurate and why the schools deserve to be ranked that high. At least, the board would be blessed to read the opinion of someone who is not a self-proclaimed college expert.</p>
<p>You know, no matter how many people try to bring this up, it's ALWAYS ignored. The factors in the rankings go way beyond selectivity and admittance rates. I'm sick of explaining this and reminding people, that low acceptance rates do not mean the school should be automatically ranked higher without regards to other, very important factors, and high acceptance rates means lower ranking (again, I bring up Chicago, if we only looked at selectivity, even with the self-selecting pool, it's admit rate would be enough to bump it down several spaces if we only looked at the factors xiggi mentioned).
I'm sick of typing any more of this, so I'm going to paste something eighteenforluck wrote, because most people seemed to have missed it in their search for the rationale of Penn and Duke's high rankings. </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>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>Xiggi, selectivity is not indicative of prestige. If it were, Georgetown would be in the top 10. In terms of grad placement, Duke IS higher ranked than most ivies. I measure prestige like that (how other great schools view your school).</p>
<p>And from everything I've heard/seen from Penn, it is a school on the move and still rising, I know they have just completed their new Wharton building within the last few years and are improving their campus. I'm not as familiar with Duke, but from what I know HYPPSM certainly makes sense to me. </p>
<p>(My daughter chose Princeton over Penn, but because of other factors than prestige)</p>
<p>Depauw droppd 8 spots (42-50) and I believe either Wabash or Denison has been bumped down to the second tier (50+)</p>
<p>Why is WUSTL better than Northwestern?!?!?!?!</p>
<p>One slot child, calm down!</p>
<p>HYPPSMD now. haha</p>
<p><em>runs</em></p>
<p>I did not read all 13 pages here, so if this has come up, I'm sorry. But does anybody know how many schools US News actually looks at when they do their rankings?</p>
<p>Cover says "over 1400"</p>
<p>this is not official, right?</p>
<p>Well, it's from the new book. But no, I am not an official of US News. Just a buyer.</p>
<p>I think we should start using the acronym PHY.</p>
<p>barrons: St. Mary's College of Maryland</p>
<p>oh so the book is out?</p>