<p>The 10 “most selective” schools according to the 2007 USNews formula</p>
<li><p>Harvard University (MA)</p></li>
<li><p>Yale University (CT)</p></li>
<li><p>Massachusetts Inst. of Technology</p></li>
<li><p>Princeton University (NJ)</p></li>
<li><p>California Institute of Technology</p></li>
<li><p>Columbia University (NY)</p></li>
<li><p>Washington University in St. Louis</p></li>
<li><p>Stanford University (CA)</p></li>
<li><p>University of Pennsylvania</p></li>
<li><p>Brown University (RI)</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I don't see how Wash U could be more selective than Stanford or Brown. What exactly is the methodology US News uses for determing selectivity?</p>
<p>Every "ranking" seems to have its own take on selectivity. The Princeton Review just ranked the schools as follows:</p>
<p>1) MIT
2) Princeton
3) Harvard
4) Brown
5) Yale</p>
<p>"Instead of student surveys, author Robert Franek said he looked at the school's admission rate, SAT entrance exams and high school applicants' class rankings."</p>
<p>
[quote]
but i thought yale had a lower % admitted this year? im confused
[/quote]
The selectivity rank is based on the 2004-2005 admissions cycle: that is, the class of 2009. Moreover, admissions rate is not the only factor considered.
[quote]
I don't see how Wash U is so selective. What exactly is the methodology for determing selectivity?
[/quote]
It involves some combination of admit rate, SAT scores of matriculating students, and percentage of matriculating students in the top 10 % of their class.</p>
<p>yale also admitted more from the waitlist and harvard's yield is pretty high, and technically, I think harvard had to reject more actual applicants. Regardless, both schools are extremely selective. I do not think anyone doubts that.</p>
<p>So Franek of the Princeton Review and US News used essentially the same factors--admit rate, SATs, & class rankings--yet came up with completely different results?...</p>
<p>
[quote]
It involves some combination of admit rate, SAT scores of matriculating students, and percentage of matriculating students in the top 10 % of their class.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It seems as if none of those criteria even determine selectivity. Admit rate? Well, that's a bit humorous. Perhaps if the same student pool applied to every single college in the nation, but that doesn't happen. Why even mention matriculating scores at all? It seems like SAT scores of admitted students would be a better option. Matriculating students in the top 10% of their class? Wow. That stat isn't misleading at all. Yeah, right.</p>
<p>It's as if they didn't have any real information to off of so they just got a bunch of information which correlates to selectivity in order to make their rankings. And WashU at #6, that is just <em>hilarious</em>.</p>
<p>I don't base all my college shopping on the U.S. News lists either, but I am a subscriber to the internal email list for users and compilers of the Common Data Set, and it is clear that U.S. News is an industry leader in nudging colleges toward reporting data in a consistent, well defined manner. On my part, if I were ranking colleges by selectivity, I might add in SAT II scores (or AP scores, or both) and reduce the weighting of high school class ranks, but the U.S. News people make clear what their criteria are, take care to gather data from each college according to consistent definitions, and "show their work" more than most other publishers of college guides. An imperfect enterprise, to be sure, but one they are working harder on than most of their competitors.</p>
<p>Washington U. in the top ten at all seems anomalous to many of us (to me, too), but Wash. U. outranking Stanford may be explained by a simple phrase: R-E-C-R-U-I-T-E-D A-T-H-L-E-T-E-S. It is clear that Wash. U. keeps a close eye on the criteria used in U.S. News rankings and adjusts many of its marketing and admission policies so as to rise in those rankings--with aftereffects that we could debate, I suppose, on the college-specific forum for that college.</p>
<p>Agree with Byerly on the SAT scores of matriculated students being more important than the scores of those admitted. It speaks to the caliber of the students at the university (not just its applicants). Also, tokenadult makes a good point about athletes. Wash U's sports program for the most part is nothing special. If it became like a Stanford or Duke and did heavy recruiting, the scores would drop. Wash U's case is, in this sense, like MIT versus some of the Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>No, Mr Payne, selectivity implies the caliber of the student academically speaking: SAT scores, class ranking, GPA--all the factors we already discussed. The more difficult the admissions, the more kids you find at said school with the highest SATs/ranking/GPA. So a more selective university will generally have more academically distinguished students.</p>
<p>Byerly: apparently, you do not understand the definition of the word "selective". A party that has only 5 guests but invited 100 is not selective. It's not who shows up to the party - it's who you invite.</p>
<p>Maybe you're thinking of a "popularity contest" instead.</p>