<p>Those rankings are always unpredictable. Obviously, yours mirrors the rankings as they have been for the last 4 or 5 years witha few wrinkles added here and there. One thing is clear, no State university is going to make it into the top 20...the USNWR formula is designed to keep state school out of the top 20. But with the exception of Cal, I can see your prediction materializing.</p>
<p>If USC doesn't budge from its current #30 I'll be quite surprised.</p>
<p>This year's avg. SAT was about 1400, avg. GPA was 4.0 and acceptance rate down to 25%. Sample is getting agressive and serious about 'SC academics. Thank you, Sample. </p>
<p>And isn't it true that USC jumped from #41 to #30 in the past five years? That's pretty darn good. Get the Bruins and Cal kids nervous. :)</p>
<p>Don't underrate 'SC. It'll take time to get to a better spot, but even now I'd be surprised if it doesn't pass #30.</p>
<p>Mean SAT scores do not really improve a university's overall ranking. They help, but not that much. I doubt Wake and USC are going to jump too much as a result of the higher mean SAT score.</p>
<p>Yes, and selectivity isn't going into next years ranking, either.</p>
<p>Places like WashU are going to drop like a stone.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Those rankings are always unpredictable. Obviously, yours mirrors the rankings as they have been for the last 4 or 5 years witha few wrinkles added here and there. One thing is clear, no State university is going to make it into the top 20...the USNWR formula is designed to keep state school out of the top 20. But with the exception of Cal, I can see your prediction materializing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I would say that UVA, UM, and UCB have a chance next year. Not that any of this really matters, but selectivity was one of the major things holding these schools down, and it won't be counted next year.</p>
<p>Hope these are better... they seem more plausible to me, at least. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. Princeton</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Harvard</p></li>
<li><p>Yale</p></li>
<li><p>Stanford
MIT</p></li>
<li><p>UPenn
Columbia</p></li>
<li><p>Duke
Dartmouth
CalTech</p></li>
<li><p>Brown</p></li>
<li><p>Northwestern
UChicago
Cornell</p></li>
<li><p>Johns Hopkins</p></li>
</ol>
<p>16.Vanderbilt
Rice
WUSTL</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Emory
Georgetown
Berkeley</p></li>
<li><p>Virginia
UCLA</p></li>
<li><p>Notre Dame
Michigan
Carnegie Mellon
Tufts</p></li>
<li><p>USC
Wake Forest
[/quote]
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>BTW- maize&blue- what do you mean that selectivity isn't going into next year's rankings?</p>
<p>yield rates, admit rates, etc</p>
<p>This will hurt some places with low admit/high yield that don't have much fanfare (Brown, WUSL, Notre Dame etc) and help some places like the good publics, Uchicago etc.</p>
<p>wow i think your prediction and mine are almost exactly alike; i think dartmouth should be a bit lower. how come pton is so high up? (jw)</p>
<p>hmmm i wonder if Bob Jones University will make top 5 this year?
and i would love to see Deep Springs University make it onto the top 10 list... i doubt its possible though =T</p>
<p>But things like top 10% of class, average SAT, etc. will still be used, right?</p>
<p>And BTW- how do you think this will affect Georgetown? Do you know if it falls under the "Brown/WUSL" category or the "UChicago" category?</p>
<p>asfsamurai, Deep Springs College (not university) is a two-year, non-dregree-giving institution with fewer than 5 faculty and fewer than 30 students. There is no way it could ever make any ranking.</p>
<p>Calidan, selectivity will still be used, but in the following degree of importance:
1) Class rank
2) Mean SAT
3) % accepted</p>
<p>Georgetown will remain between 20 and 25.</p>
<p>what about UNC chapel hill?</p>
<p>About the only things more meaningless than the rankings themselves are someone's PREDICTIONS about what the rankings are going to be.</p>
<p>why isnt yale ever number 1???</p>
<p>so everyone thinks Princeton will be #1? :)</p>
<p>You guys are forgetting the lag. They collect this data NOW, before final numbers are complete for Fall 2005 recruiting. So college will be reporting (and U.S. News will be using) numbers for Fall 2004, not for Fall 2005. All the admissions trends you're observing this year won't come into play except perhaps indirectly.</p>
<p>I'm real curious about Michigan, because its Fall 2004 numbers were very unusual</p>
<p>How do you think the results of 2004 will affect Michigan's USNWR placement?</p>
<p>Actually, now that I look at it, I see that they don't factor yield into it after all, and if they are planning to drop selectivity for next fall's issue, then it may have little effect at all.</p>
<p>Actually, I think dropping selectivity will actually help Michigan.</p>
<p>The formula change may help Michigan, true. I was simply saying that the actual figures from FA2004 can't have an impact if they're not used in the ranking.</p>
<p>While I don't see this occuring in the next few years, what would it take for wisconsin to crack the top 25? They have been in the low 30s (31 or 32) the past few years and have always had a high academic index ranking. Selectivity fell from the mid 60s to low 50s (comparable to UM) this year and the ACT 25-75% range is 26-30.</p>
<p>eh, Michigan will never break top 20, unless we become privatized. which means more money from tuition, less instate dumb people. then we will instantly(give it 2 years) break into top 15 easily. Our acceptance rates are ridiculously high, it almost seems to be easier and easier to get in michigan.
I don't think USC will be that high, US news rankings usually use old data( 1 year old).as much as people dislike washu, its gonna be top 10.i think duke will drop. but all of this is speculating something totally random.</p>