<p>All I know is, Northwestern better stay best in the Midwest!</p>
<p>"Many college seniors adhere solely to US news and view it as the ultimate ranking on college education. That is how US news pays the bills. Penn and Duke will continue to receive more apps and MIT will continue to be a great school despite its "abysmal" rank."</p>
<p>Obviously not. If US News is a leading indicator about the popularity of schools in the minds of college seniors, and if indeed more people will apply to Duke and UPenn as a result of US News, then the Revealed Preference Ranking would reflect that. The Pref ranking is a lagging indicator because it shows what unversities these college seniors actually choose. Last year Duke and UPenn were ranked just as high by US News but their revealed pref ranking was still low. That is just one piece of evidence that shows that US News has little affect whatsoever on the choices of the top students. Maybe a bunch of low quality students will start to apply to schools that moved up on US News but the high quality students who are actually ADMITTED to these schools don't seem to care about US News when they make their actual college choices (i.e. the overwhelming majority of students admitted to both Caltech and UPenn would still choose Caltech even though US News ranks UPenn 3 spots higher.)</p>
<p>...didn't someone mention that the data used for the study predates the study itself by several years?</p>
<p>And I'd like to think that the students are smart enough to not regard US News as a defining factor in their college decisions. It's just an interesting conglomeration of statistics and info. I seriously doubt anyone would drop or change a school because <em>gasp!</em> it's dropped two ranks, or suddenly, their top choice is one rank behind their second choice!</p>
<p>Colgate Mac
15,25</p>
<p>Obviously, you can't expect a school to jump that much in the revealed preference ranking. However, to dismiss the effect of USnews would be short sighted. Penn had the highest yield in its history this year, as well as the highest app number and lower acceptance rate. So it is having an effect.</p>
<p>Though your location gives a strong hint as to why you seem to prefer the methodology of the "Revealed Preferences" study, may I just quote from the last two sentences of that study:</p>
<p>"We close by reminding readers that measures of revealed preference are just that: measures of desirability based on students and families making college choices. They do not necessarily correspond to educational quality."</p>
<p>The valid criticism (and one that even the authors seem to have accepted) of this study is that it is little more than a popularity poll dressed up in an outfit of questionable statistical analysis. It is also based on data that are now quite a bit older than the U.S. News rankings. It is the equivalent of looking in a statistical 'mirror'. In other words, the conclusions of the study reinforce the public perceptions on which the study is based. Put another way, the study itself modifies the base data on which the study is founded.</p>
<p>That having been said, Stanford is a fine school regardless of its precise 'rank' in any of these schemes.</p>
<p>But Flavian, I think the interest in Penn started moving upward first, and the US News higher ranking just reflected that. The interest wasnt a resuly of the ranking as you insinuate.</p>
<p>Wasn't the "revealed preference ranking" just a compilation of a bunch of data that was statistically manipulated from a single survey conducted in the year 2000? How could that be a lagging indicator of anything?
I could be wrong....</p>
<p>And yes Rooster it does show Stanford to be ranked very high. So does US News!</p>
<p>barrons-- any clue on my 227 post?......lots to respond to I know with this crowd</p>
<p>No, the USNews ranking is not affected very much by interest. It doesn't not include yield rate, and the selectivity ranking in USNews is not entirely based on acceptance rates either. (for example, Penn was ranked higher in selectivity than Columbia, despite having twice the acceptance percentage).</p>
<p>Futhermore, the releaved pref this year has not been released yet. So we'll see when it is.</p>
<p>While I do not think that it entirely correct to normalize the size of the schools, it does provide a different way to look at the admissions process among the Ivies. Penn and Cornell are a combination of different schools. It is hard to focus on the entire school as opposed to segregate Wharton of the Engineering program at Cornell. </p>
<p>I may not agree with the conclusion but it is still a worthwhile and imaginative exercise. Let's give proper credit to Bern ... after all, many of us will end up paying for his talent at statistical analyses when he graduates from Wharton! :)</p>
<p>PS The reason why I think that "controlling" the size of the school is that the reliance on ED programs has different impacts on yield.</p>
<p>You want to know an easy way to solve this? Wait until tomorrow when the rankings are released, then argue and think that what you say shall actually change how people feel.</p>
<p>"The valid criticism (and one that even the authors seem to have accepted) of this study is that it is little more than a popularity poll dressed up in an outfit of questionable statistical analysis. It is also based on data that are now quite a bit older than the U.S. News rankings. It is the equivalent of looking in a statistical 'mirror'. In other words, the conclusions of the study reinforce the public perceptions on which the study is based. Put another way, the study itself modifies the base data on which the study is founded."</p>
<p>I never tried to send the message that the Revealed Pref Ranking measures educational quality. That is simply an absurd goal to have. No ranking could EVER measure educational quality. The fact that US News implies that it can measure such an elusive characteristic is outright hilarious. What I tried to get across by using the Revealed Pref ranking is to show you exactly what the pref ranking was designed to show--which schools win the most top students in cross admit battles and therefore which schools attract the highest quality student body. Yes the Revealed Pref ranking is a popularity contest. I never said it wasn't. But then again, the most core American values are also based on a popularity contest. What do you call good ol democracy? In the Revealed Pref ranking, people invest $160,000 and their future in their "vote." I would think that they made their choices quite carefully. </p>
<p>Anyway, what I am trying to show is that US News has little affect on the choices of top students. Therefore even though a lot of us are hyping up US News there may be the possibility that the rank has no bearing whatsoever.</p>
<p>How is Bates not a top LAC!?</p>
<p>of course changing the class size is going to affect other factors...maybe less applicants will apply, etc. Yield I don't think would be affected that much because it is already based on how people chose one school as compared to the other...the factor that would change the most would be applicant pool size but we really can't know how it will affect it so I just kept it constant. Yes it's a flaw but there isn't a better way of doing it and I really wasn't trying to make a perfect analysis I just merely wanted to show that althought admissions rate vary from school to school they don't necessarily match selectivity...i really just wanted to show people that they can't really know how selective a school is just by the admissions rate. The best way to probably look at selectivity would be to compare GPA,RANK,SAT,APs,SATII,etc. of the admitted students...</p>
<p>Bates is 21</p>
<p>WUSL-10th NU 11th. Scores 88-87. Peer NU 4.4 WU 4.1</p>
<p>what is the ranking for Bucknell, Holy Cross, Wake Forest, if anyone knows?
Thanks</p>
<p>Xiggi I wouldn't even pay myself to do a statistical analysis :)...I'm more of a management type than a finance guy. If you ever need help with corporate strategy decisions I'm your man but definitely not for a statistical analysis (I do ok I got an A in the class but it's just not my favorite).</p>
<p>"Wasn't the "revealed preference ranking" just a compilation of a bunch of data that was statistically manipulated from a single survey conducted in the year 2000? How could that be a lagging indicator of anything?
I could be wrong....</p>
<p>And yes Rooster it does show Stanford to be ranked very high. So does US News!"</p>
<p>I am interested to see how you reached that conclusion sokkermom. Have you read the study in extreme detail and figured out when they got their data? I must admit that I did not read every page of that very lengthy study, so if you can back up your remarks with some evidence I would be genuinely interested.</p>
<p>Yes the revealed pref ranking and US News both rank Stanford pretty high. However, I do not care. I am not promoting either ranking just to promote my own school.</p>