Fall 2005 USNEWS Rankings!

College Search & Selection
81

<p>"I smell conspiracy..."</p>

<p>Smell This......</p>

<p>Princeton Review Scores
(random schools):</p>

<p>Smith—390
Dartmouth—387
Princeton—387
Swarthmore—387
Stanford—386
Rice—386
Chicago—384
Harvard—382
Brown—380
Tufts—378
Cornell—373
Northwestern—372
Penn—371
Berkeley--360
UCLA—346
Syracuse—338
UMass—306</p>

82

<p>What are those ranked on and what does the number mean?</p>

83

<p>hey Calidan,</p>

<p>these are the combinded totals of the four categories that Princeton Review Uses to rate the specific attributes of a college.</p>

<p>Georgetown's score is 378</p>

<p>Princeton Review Scores
(random schools):</p>

<p>Smith—390
Dartmouth—387
Princeton—387
Swarthmore—387
Stanford—386
Rice—386
Chicago—384
Harvard—382
Brown—380
Georgetown--378
Tufts—378
Cornell—373
Northwestern—372
Penn—371
Berkeley--360
UCLA—346
Syracuse—338
UMass—306</p>

84

<p>Hi, if anyone who has a USNews login and doesn't mind, could you send me your login info so I could check out the detailed rankings for myself? I won't give out your information to anyone else. Just PM me...thanks a lot!</p>

85

<p>A large component of these Princeton Review rankings seem fairly subjective so I find it hard to say that Smith (with a score of 390) any way offers a better education than Harvard (with a score of 382). A 2% difference in a subjective score really doesn't give much credit to the argument that LACs offer better educations than the Ivy League.</p>

86

<p>Yeah, pimpdaddy(no offense but I feel stupid just writing that) is right. Any ranking that say smith, a school that I don't believe I ever heard of, is the best school in the country is full of bull-hockey. By the way, smith? That has to be the worst name ever. What, were the names Jones and Johnson already taken? Sorry, I'm sure its a fine school but c'mon, smith?</p>

87

<p>It's the best all-women's liberal arts school in the country, in Northampton, Massachusetts. And it very well could offer a better education than Harvard- after all, prestige does not directly translate to quality of education.</p>

88

<p>
[quote]
Actually Hoedown, the Michigan operating budget (not including the medical program and hospital) is roughly $2.3 Billion.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't know where you are getting your numbers. The GF budget is 1.2 billion.</p>

89

<p>
[quote]
A large component of these Princeton Review rankings seem fairly subjective

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And even the quantitative, objective parts are weighted subjectively. I mean, someone at US News decided to make selectivity count for 15% instead of 5%, or 25%. That's somewhat arbitrary in itself.</p>

90

<p>I strongly doubt that princeton is going to trump Harvard. Harvard has been number 1 and will always be number 1.</p>

91

<p>maybe u are too young to remember the year that caltech was #1.</p>

92

<p>That happened? My world just turned upside down. ;)</p>

93

<p>dethinker's right. I believe that happened in 2000...</p>

94

<p>i dont think smith is the "best"... its actually just "funner" to go there, now u say that, i almost feel like, maybe i should've given smith a second consideration before turning in my deposit to wellesley, but academicly, wellesley beats smith by far. thats y i chose it</p>

95

<p>bean - princeton has trumped harvard a number of times, most namely in 2002 and 2001</p>

<p>and ever since has been tied with harvard</p>

96

<p>This thread is pure comedy. </p>

<p>First, you have someone like West Sidee who attempts to show a bit of erudition by posting this gem:</p>

<p>Problems with US News</p>

<ol>
<li>Different method of counting SAT for public and private schools.</li>
<li>Faulty method of overstating endowment for privates. Doesn't count all of public school endowment especially items like patent revenue, etc...</li>
<li>Use of statistics that has zero correlation with student education such as "yield rate" which studies have shown can be managed. </li>
<li>Ignores vital component of Baynesian econometrics, KISS (Keep it Simple </li>
</ol>

<p>Well, most everyone on CC knows that USNEWS dropped yield as an element of comparison a few years ago. But that is OK, his point number 3 is not worse than the other pseudo-scientific babble he posted in this thread. So, West Sidee, spare us the histrionics and do some research on the issues. </p>

<p>Then, we have some who cling to the apparent validity of the peer assessment ranking. Yes, that is the famous first column of the rankings that is also known as the great equalizer. Whenever one of the 'favorite" schools -just the advertisements and articles in the report to find them- slips a bit too much in the ranking, the "statisticians" shake their magic wand and use this category to maintain the order, with just a bit of organized chaos to keep the summer readers waiting with bated breath. The peer assessment is a huge testament to blatant manipulation as the surveys are a simple exercise in geographical and historical cronyism. They could as well rank the colleges by the year of creation and it would change very little to that part of the rankings. This portion of the survey has been exposed by past participants who have since refused to participate in protest, as well as by the former lead statistician of US News. Further, if that was not enough, USNews has also added some dubious categories such as expected graduation rates. This catehory has no other purpose than to mitigate the impact of a strong selectivity ratio. </p>

<ol>
<li>Speaking about selectivity, this goes to the few luminaries who see ANY validity in the Princeton Review rankings. To add some credibility to their asinine surveys that fail every integrity test possible -since someone can vote several times- they add a selectivity index to the subjective quality indexes. Let's take a look at the selectivity indexes for a few schools. As expected Princeton earns a truly respectable 99. Next, to evaluate the University of Chicago, Princeton Review will use a refine scientific model to correctly weigh the higher acceptance numbers, and some other mumbo-jumbo of their own creation. The result: a stellar 98. So far, so good ... until you look at that bastion of selectivity, that juggernaut of academic excellence, that shining star of the UC system that is none else than UC-Davis. Yes, UC-Davis scores a 99 in selectivity. Now, I am truly impressed by the integrity of PR. No doubt that one can find enough ammunition to develop a ranking that propels a school that accepts 80% of its applicants in a decision round to the top of the undergraduate world. Well, of course, 80% acceptance is still worth a 97 in selectivity according to PR. Nuff said!<br></li>
</ol>

<p>The published rankings are a joke, but the information that matters is at your fingertips. Build a ranking using the elements that are measurable and verifiable, and toss away the products of a bunch of misguided souls who are blinded by ulterior motives.</p>

97

<p>^ ok, sure I understand. Also "alumni donation rate" seems to have zero correlation with academic excellence (faculty reputation). </p>

<p>But my points 1, 2, 3 (I just copied and pasted, I should have put "alumni donation rate" instead of yield), and 4 are all still correct.</p>

<p>Xiggi, just admit that US News has statistical flaws with them. Im not even talking about the political criteria, im talking about STATISTICAL FLAWS.</p>

<p>Also the problem with US News rankings is that people mistakenly associate undergraduate reputation with UNIVERSITY REPUTATION.</p>

98

<p>Ouch, West Sidee got torched.</p>

99

<p>Your complaints aren't new, xiggi. Colleges hate these damned rankings. But since alumni pay attention, and students seem obsessed with them, they pretty much have to play along. I think only dental schools, as a group, have successfully shut down rankings via nonparticipation. Other schools which refuse to provide data have been burned by US News making disadvantageous data substitutions on their behalf.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Further, if that was not enough, USNews has also added some dubious categories such as expected graduation rates. This catehory has no other purpose than to mitigate the impact of a strong selectivity ratio.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, now, this part, I thought US News didn't come up with themselves. Sandy Astin and his folk promoted that measure (not necessarily to U.S. News, but to the higher ed community) and US News picked up on it. I didn't think US News even came up with their own formulas but rather used HERIs. I could be wrong--do you know a lot about it?</p>

100

<p>The measures at Princeton Review are no more "subjective" than those at USNWR, and, unlike USNWR, provide a mechanism for comparing overall undergraduate education at the LACs and uni.s. Like USNWR, they are quite open about how they derived the measures. Folks may not like the results (and, after all, one can only attend one school at a time), or the methodology, or not like the rankings business at all (I don't.) But "facts" are facts. That is what they found - and have done so consistently. (By the way, they rank Carleton first, not Smith, which is tied with Pomona, Amherst, and Haverford.)</p>

<p>(xokandykyssesox: PR give both Wellesley and Smith the same "academic rating" - the difference between the two is in the campus quality of life, which lots of folks attest to.)</p>