<p>I probably should have added it is not just honors colleges. The minimum standard for entry into UCLA or UCSD is top 12.5% of students statewide, or top 4% of your high school. If you don't meet that minimum qualification, that's the end of your application, with the exception of about 8% of the student body made up of older students, or who have "special life challenges". HYP have hundreds of admitted students who don't meet that standard.</p>
<p>I've been reading the study, and I think it is useful to buyers and sellers, to borrow the terms in use on this forum lately. For buyers it shows some sense of how other buyers are behaving, which is interesting (but not compelling) in itself. It also offers a few insights into the admissions strategy of a few of the top schools, which is also interesting.</p>
<p>For sellers, as Marite noted, it is much more to the point: this is a very, very interesting piece of competitor analysis.</p>
<p>I would really like to see the CB take its data, solicit choice information from its pool of test-takers each year, and replicate this study with one million data points. It could supplement (replace?) US News' product as the first magazine to buy.</p>
<p>In terms of weaknesses of the study (ignoring the financial-aid impact already discussed), I am struck by the basic oddity of comparing preferences without regard for area of study. To illustrate my point, I think I just have to say that for a single science/math kid one could immediately discern that Yale is not Cal Tech, and that Harvard is not MIT.</p>
<p>Now please, before you Yale and Harvard partisans begin to flame me, let me note that for other majors the reverse is true...yet the study "bundles" all students together as if their preferences could be met by each school equally since they are all high-caliber institutions, and we just have to determine "preference." This ignores the basic issue of the size of the pool that would, under any conditions, be interested in specialized schools like Cal Tech or MIT, and the much larger pool that would be interested in Harvard or Yale. How was the sample normalized?</p>
<p>I have known many high-caliber student who applied to Cal Tech or MIT, but not to Harvard or Yale because the schools are not substitutes for one another. But the basic premise of the study is that all of the schools are, to some degree, substitutes. I don't think this is a good assumption.</p>
<p>But as I said, this could be corrected in the next round (if there is one) if the CB did the study with a million data points...</p>
<p>Does anyone else notice that the discussion of a study like this on CC is so much more interesting than what one will read in the media?</p>
<p>"On your other point, if some students do not give a hoot about HYP then they will not be involved in the kind of tournaments that the authors studied. That's fine. Really, the study is not trying to capture all colleges and every last student! It has much more limited goals than that."</p>
<p>My point is that the authors captured even less than they thought. They thought they were capturing "revealed preferences". Actually, they were capturing revealed preferences among a tiny, tiny subset of the population economically speaking (we're not talking "every last student here" but a huge, majority of them who do not attend private colleges), not necessarily capturing the most gifted students, with a caveat for students with special needs and interests (everything from Caltech to BYU), and ignoring the thousands of students whose actual "revealed preferences", as exemplified by actual applications and admissions at everything from Honors Colleges to UCSD, don't even put HYP in the game.</p>
<p>(UCLA and UCSD could do exactly the same thing HYP do in throwing out their class of admits, but what would be the point? I don't think UCSD is losing much sleep about the two or three students they lose every year to Princeton.)</p>
<p>Reasonabledad:</p>
<p>I believe the authors accounted for the fact that MIT and Caltech have a self-selected pool of applicants. In particular, that has an impact on Caltech's yield. Self-selection is also used to explain Notre Dame's high yield.
What I think may not be factored in (besides financial considerations) is students' reaction to the presence or absence of a rigorous core curriculum (such as Columbia's or Chicago's) since these universities are otherwise more similar to HYP than MIT or Caltech. The curriculum, unlike geography, is something a university or college can control (viz Harvard's current curricular review).</p>
<p>Marite, how do you think they account for the self selection? I'm missing the "how"...</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>I think you make too much of the study. The authors are trying out a model--the chess tournament--on the easiest set of comparisons. Once you bring in the UC system and try to compare it with HYP, you introduce too many variables for the model to work.
You may say the study is worthless because it is not worth as much as you think it should be. I think it has worth (beyond the purely scholarly satisfaction of working out a model), but it is limited. If I were a Princeton adcom, I'd take another look at my various policies in light of the revealed preferences of the students. As the parent of a prospective applicant, I find it fun to argue about it, but not to use it as a yardstick to guide my S in selecting which colleges to apply to.</p>
<p>Reasonabledad:</p>
<p>I cannot copy and paste the relevant passage. It's on p. 27 of the study (link provided on p. 1 of this thread). There's an earlier section of the study that deals with self-selection. The authors note that there is little overlap between Caltech and the other schools involved in the study (except for MIT) though there is considerable overlap between MIT and those schools.</p>
<p>Marite, I'm looking at the study, and my read says that the authors recognize that the point I make is a very serious point, but do nothing to correct for it because they don't have enough sample size. On the printed version, the key passages are on page 15. After all the discussion, they assume that alpha sub-one is identical across schools, even though this baises the results, exactly as I suggested.</p>
<p>I could be wrong here, but I think the authors see it as I do: multiple studies are needed with a much larger sample size.</p>
<p>You are right. I really meant they explain it, but they cannot devise a formula to account for it. </p>
<p>This is why I think the study must be part of a larger project and that the tournament model has limited utility.</p>
<p>It is probably inevitable, with any study or list that ranks 100 or so institutions, that interest centers on the top of the list: few get upset by being ranked #56, when they feel they deserve to be ahead of their rival #51, but both can agree that lists are a pile of crap, and with some justification. In the case of this study, it seems inevitable that there is much more data for the top schools: there are way more Harvard/Princeton or Yale/Williams cross admits than Stanford/Furman or Wellesley/Georgia Tech, though the regional tables at the end indicate serious effort to account for some variables. Honors colleges at State schools present a problem because of their relationship with their mother institutions. Mini seems to dislike the way this list (which contains few major surprises) seem to reinforce the hegemony of top ranked institutions. Interesteddad observes that an emphasis on uber-elite colleges distorts the picture for 99% of colleges. Good points, but the real focus is on the top of the list here. But that's certainly harmless to those who recognize that their interests will best be served at one of the many brilliant institutions not at the top of the list, where competition to get in is not so hysterically fierce, and admission, as ID says, is much more predictable and rational. But for those who, whether irrationally or not, maintain an interst in the names at the top of nearly every college ranking list, this study sheds light</p>
<p>Marite,
I agree with you on the many factors of self selection not considered, including curricular issues. I think very few students apply to all of the "top ten," or the "top five." Many also make the application decision along the urban vs suburban or rural split. Therefore, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Chicago. But not Princeton.<br>
To get back to the issue of whether or not Harvard worries about competing with Podunk U. I was very interested by the long letter included in the Harvard admissions packet that presented an argument for why students should choose Harvard. Its main focus appeared to be that an increasing number of institutions are offering special programs for scholars (presumably honors colleges, and some of the merit award programs) but that at Harvard, every student is treated the same and no one is a "special" scholar. Now, this could just be a kind of false humility -- attempting to not appear to take their yield for granted. But, I think it may actually be the case that Harvard does worry about increasing competition from at least some Podunk U's.</p>
<p>Sac, I agree about the increasing competition for Harvard - especially among students that they are eager to get - vals, URMs, and geographic diversity. It is only anecdotal evidence, but multiplied times 100 (that's just twice per state) equals real numbers - in my area last spring there were 3 HYPS admits that I know of (this stuff makes the papers, so I doubt there were any more), 2 Harvard, 1 Yale, 2 URMs, 1 white, 2 vals, don't know about the other person, all girls :). Both Harvard admits went elsewhere for financial reasons. Interestingly, again according to the papers, the girl who went to Yale was probably the "low income person" of the 3 - single parent family, received "full ride" - fits some of the discussions we've had on the board, middle to low 6 figure income people have the hardest time affording the elite schools.</p>
<p>Harvard doesn't stay on top by resting on laurels, I think about the ton of unsolicited mail they sent my child.</p>
<p>Oh, both Harvard admits went for Honors programs.</p>
<p>Sac and Cangel:</p>
<p>Interesting. Perhaps I am naive in my interpretation of information such as this. I know that Harvard has fought hard for certain students (stars) and shrugged when others chose to go elsewhere. I was, for example, impressed when reading about the USA Today All-Star scholars (or some such), how many of these "cured cancer before they were 18" types chose to go to Harvard. From experience with specific students, I am sure that Harvard matched or bettered offers from competing institutions.
At the same time, Harvard tries to reassure other students that all who are accepted will be treated the same. Indeed, this was what a junior faculty told me about the math department when I inquired about how students who were not involved in the Putnam competition were treated. My S has felt very comfortable so far in his courses, though he is only an auditor. This must be why he is applying EA there.</p>
<p>Cangel: Would you believe that we have only received one piece of mail from Harvard? It was a letter inviting local students to attend an info session.
But we've received 5 or 6 pieces from UT-Dallas and Davidson within the last two months.</p>
<p>Of course there's another way to rank colleges which is what the town fathers did in the early 1900s for University City, Missouri, near WUSTL, when they laid out the town and gave 17 of its streets names of the most prominent and elite colleges and universities of the time. In alphabetical order, they are as follows:</p>
<p>Amherst
Babson
Cambridge (UK)
Colgate
Columbia
Cornell
Dartmouth
Harvard
Pennsylvania
Princeton
Purdue
Trinity
Tulane
Vassar
West Point
Yale</p>
<p>All of this was long before the Ivy League was formed in 1954. Also, Stanford, founded in 1891, was less than 15 years old as was the name Princeton which had changed its name from the College of New Jersey in 1896. Also, I mention Pennsylvania here which may refer to the state (like Maryland which is also a street in the area), but think it UPenn as opposed to Penn State since it is an extension of Vassar Ave.</p>
<p>Anyway, all of this is offered FWIW as part of any ranking discussion.</p>
<p>I saw the rankings on the research paper. I think the first six rankings are plausible, but there are still over- and underrated universities/colleges.
Overrated:
Cornell
Amherst
Brown
Georgia Tech
Lehigh(what IS good about this school?)
Florida and Arizona State
and other not-well know colleges like Oberlin, Bowdoin,Wesleyan, Furman etc.(never even heard of these schools in my ENTIRE life b4)</p>
<p>Underrated:
Univ. Michigan(why in the 40s? It's as good as an IVY!)
Penn State(why only 92nd??! It is a good school!)
Berkeley(this one should be ranked higher than Cornell. Why? Harder to get in, better academics, smarter students(99% of freshmen are top 10% of their class, but Cornell is much less than that. If you apply to Cornell ED, your chance of admission is more than 60%), etc.
UCLA
Washington Univ.
U Wisconsin</p>
<p>This is what I think about the college rankings. What are your opinions? Let us hear.</p>
<p>The study does not seek to rank in order of excellence but in order of preference of students who have been admitted to more than one. Some great schools may be passed up in favor of some other schools for reasons other than quality or even reputation.
To give an example, my older S passed up Amherst (not at all over-rated: considered a"little Ivy" and has one of the best history departments in the country) because it was too cold (ditto Williams and a few others). My younger son is passing up Cornell because it is too far and too cold. In both cases, the excellence of the schools did not factor in their choice (except to make them regret they could not realistically consider them).
As for the schools that you have not heard in your entire life before, some are ranked very highly in USNWR, and are very very popular in my part of the country (the NE).</p>
<p>I agree with maritie who said:</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>The study does not seek to rank in order of excellence but in order of preference of students who have been admitted to more than one. <<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>This report on the rankings of U.S. undergraduate programs is based on the students' revealed preferences with cross-admits to multiple schools. It shows the top choices of the students when they are GIVEN a choice of multiple admissions.</p>
<p>Collegeparent - that was very interesting. But as the old Sesame Street song goes, "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong...."</p>
<p>I mean, Babson? BABSON??? They should have picked Bowdoin, founded in 1794 and alma mater of Longfellow, Hawthorne, and Joshua Chamberlain!</p>
<p>(Full disclosure: my kids don't go to Bowdoin but a nephew does, and I am apparently the only advocate for the school on these boards! I think it is the most underrated LAC in the country and I cannot say enough good things about it!) </p>
<p>:-)</p>
<p>Voronwe:</p>
<p>My S almost chose to go to Bowdoin. He hesitated to the very last day. In the end, he decided to go to Wesleyan because it was larger and he thought he would get a larger range of choices, and being south, it would be a little less cold. But we all loved Bowdoin, and if he had gone, we would all have been happy.
Babson benefits from the Caltech effect: self-selection of applicants. They know what they want and who they are. Bowdoin, by comparison, attracts applicants like my S who are as likely to go to another, similar LAC as to matriculate at Bowdoin.</p>