<p>How is this for outcomes? </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.whdh.com/story/26452995/fbi-says-northeastern-university-grad-may-be-working-for-isis”>http://www.whdh.com/story/26452995/fbi-says-northeastern-university-grad-may-be-working-for-isis</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>US News stopped using Yield back in 2003. Acceptance rate makes up about 1.25% of the score (it’s 10% of the Student selectivity score, which makes up 12.5% of the final overall ranking).</p>
<p>From US News:
</p>
<p>And that’s the issue, it’s US News’ view on what matters in education. However, everyone has a different idea of what “matters”. It’s why we’ll never agree on a methodology for ranking colleges. Because there is no “right” way to do it. </p>
<p>I was curious about transfer applicants at some of the highly selective schools (amid thoughts that schools use transfer programs to ‘sneak’ students in) so I looked up the Common Data Sets (only could find 2012-2013 for a few of them but the rest are 2013-2014):</p>
<p>(# Apps / # Admitted / # Enrolled)
UC Berkeley (15,993/3,392/2,241)
UCLA (19,105/4,945/2,822)
Washington University in St. Louis (1389/81/38)
Brown (1769/109/68)
Duke (370/36/17)
Dartmouth (683/57/27)
Yale (1013/31/26)
University of Pennsylvania (2,096/197/127)
Northwestern (1435/177/108)
Cornell (3554/741/542)
Stanford (1,663/33/28)</p>
<p>Couldn’t find Harvard’s, Columbia’s, or Chicago’s data and Princeton doesn’t have transfers.</p>
<p>Anyways, I think this means, excluding the UC schools (which have explicit instructions to encourage transfers from the CA CCs I think), the transfer admission rates at these schools are very selective and the incoming transfer classes seem quite small, actually, ranging from 17 (Duke) to 542 (Cornell). </p>
<p>And of course, the school in the title: Northeastern (3,099/1,382/656)</p>
<p>In other words…I don’t think there is as much transfer scheming is going on as people think. At least at these type of schools. But maybe I am naive!</p>
<p>And for some LACs:</p>
<p>Amherst ((471/20/13))
Williams (225/9/3)
Wellesley (170/37/13)
Bowdoin (171/8/5)
Carleton (250/6/2)
Swarthmore (188/22/11)</p>
<p>Jeeeeez. Look at those Carleton numbers!</p>
<p>Well heck, if you call taking in transfers as scheming, what do you call what Columbia does? A substantial percentage of their undergraduate body is in the School of General Studies (meant for non-trads) which is far less selective than their out-of-HS intake (and which includes a lot of transfers). Yet they only report the numbers of their HS applicants to USNews, not their non-trad applicants.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For 2014, UC systemwide took in in about 2.40 new frosh for every new transfer (based on SIR counts). The individual campuses vary from 1.72 (Davis) to 12.48 (Merced; next highest was 3.63 at Santa Cruz).</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2014/frosh_trsirs_table1.1.pdf”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2014/frosh_trsirs_table1.1.pdf</a>
<a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2014/frosh_trsirs_table1.2.pdf”>http://www.ucop.edu/news/factsheets/2014/frosh_trsirs_table1.2.pdf</a></p>
<p>CSU systemwide took in even more transfers in relation to frosh, with 1.11 new frosh for every new transfer. Many of the campuses took in more new transfers than new frosh. San Luis Obispo is an outlier, with 4.39 new frosh for every new transfer. Somehow, it is hard to believe that CSUs are doing that to game the USNWR rankings (most of them are barely on the USNWR radar, and USNWR rankings are probably not on the radar of most of the students).</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2013-2014/fnse23.htm”>http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2013-2014/fnse23.htm</a>
<a href=“http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2013-2014/fnse40.htm”>http://www.calstate.edu/as/stat_reports/2013-2014/fnse40.htm</a></p>
<p>Note that the 1960 California Master Plan of Higher Education at <a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/MasterPlan1960.pdf”>http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/MasterPlan1960.pdf</a> (page 23 of the PDF, page 6 of Chapter I) targeted a reduction in lower division enrollment at UC and CSU to ten percentage points lower than the then-current 51% – i.e. target of 41%. The target enrollment of 40% lower division and 60% upper division is still part of the plan today, as described at <a href=“Major Features of the California Master Plan for Higher Education”>http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/mpsummary.htm</a> . Hence the relatively high volume of transfer students at UC and CSU.</p>
<p>Seems to me, all the features NEU improved are just what is needed to improve the students’ experience and prepare them for better outcomes. If we start with the assumption that the ranking prefers good over bad, and good means good for the student, then nothing is wrong with “gaming” the system, now, is there?</p>
<p>@Dooglar : Many of the changes are for the better, but it’s hard to argue that capping class sizes at 19, dropping international SAT scores, more spring enrollment, and chatting up college presidents really improves the students’ experience.</p>
<p>I’d be happy to argue those points. I think that more small classes is an improvement all around, particularly at a large university – and particularly one that is built around a co-op model, as I think students who have been taught in a participatory rather than lecture environment might be better prepared for the work world. I think spring enrollment can be a great thing and I am thinking that a crop of incoming freshman who have all spent a semester living and studying in another country is a value-added enhancement, not a detriment. I sent my daughter abroad for a semester at age 16 and she came home a changed person – more poised, more mature, more confident, and with a broader and more nuanced world view - so I would expect that the kids coming in from study abroad at NU are probably a very interesting bunch. They probably add a lot to the classes that are now small enough to benefit from a more diverse set of voices. </p>
<p>I’m thinking that NU might have a different agenda at work. I don’t know, but if they are need-aware in admissions, and the entering freshman going abroad aren’t eligible for federal aid because of their enrollment status, and that semester costs even more than a regular semester – them maybe that program serves as sort of a magnet for full payers. Since the school now has enough applicants to be choosy about who it admits, it’s possible that many of the student invited to that program have perfectly good stats-- but NU also has yield problems, and a student with a good SAT who turns down a spot is not going to benefit them either. Do they extend that international semester offer to students who have applied to all programs? Or it is something they are more likely to offer to prospective international affairs majors? </p>
<p>How does attracting more full-payers enhance the quality of the school? It frees up funds for more aid dollars for other students. So maybe the school uses merit aid and need-based grants to lock in students admitted in the fall, and uses the international program to attract full payers who are excited at the prospect of spending time abroad. In the spring they benefit from an influx of somewhat more worldly and mature students.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Why is so hard to understand that the issue is that the rankings --again the context of this thread-- are allowing schools to present SKEWED and MISLEADING data. Be it Midd with Spring admits, Columbia with creative reporting, and the UC system with massive numbers of deferred students and guesstimates of high school numbers. </p>
<br>
<br>
<p>No, you just drew the Incorrect conclusions after presenting the numbers. You noted that many selective schools are not very active in terms of transfers. Yet, SOME are! And aggressively so! </p>
<p>The problem is that the ranking methodology allows for the obfuscation of a part of the students’s data. In so many words, the data REPORTED by the USNews for schools such as Cal is as valid as a three dollar bill. And for about every column of the rankings! </p>
<p>Deliberately so! </p>
<p>@xiggi:</p>
<p>Not hard to understand. Just don’t think it’s as big a concern (especially when you consider that some schools did and some schools still do flat-out lie about the numbers they report to USN).</p>
<p>If people want to rely on USN to make decisions without understanding the details, well, suckers do what suckers do.</p>
<p>I actually would like to see a school full-on game like you suggested, taking in only 10% of the class through regular admissions and filling 90% through transfers, spring admits, and nontrads who’s numbers don’t get reported. That would be hilarious.
The only reason why that may not work is because not all people are sheep. The word may get out and top students may decide to not go to such a school.</p>
<p>@calmom: OK, but what makes a class with a cap on 19 so much better than a class with a cap on 20 or 25?</p>
<p>And you actually didn’t argue that chatting up college presidents and dropping international SAT scores made the student experience better.</p>
<p>I think 19 students is pretty close to the upper limit to have a seminar work - probably better to have less-- 15-18. </p>
<p>When you move to 20+ you are shifting from a situation that is conducive to round table discussion to one a classroom that will probably be mostly lecture some opportunity for questions and discussion, possibly a lot of give and take between the professor and selected students. Beyond 45 or so, you’ve probably moved into pretty much straight lecture format.</p>
<p>So yes, I can see the point of a 19 student cutoff I I were running the school I would probably make it 18. But then again, I don’t have to run the budget to figure out how many instructors salaries I need to pay with cutoffs at 19 v. 18. </p>
<p>The point is that smaller classes provide a better, more personalized learning environment. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not all people make college decisions based on a flawed ranking system, either.</p>
<p>NYU is another school that has been accused of selectively including some programs and not others. The liberal studies program accepts lower-stats kids (although some much stronger ones, too) and forces them to apply to one of the university’s other programs as juniors. Apparently the LSP stats are not included in the overall numbers for NYU.</p>
<p>Does Northeastern have a Co-op arrangement with them?</p>
<p>USC takes in 3000 freshmen a year (200 or so starting in the spring) and has a student body of over 18K undergrads. You do the math (about 80% 4-year grad rate and 90% 6-year grad rate, FYI). They also have a guaranteed transfer scheme for all legacies.</p>
<p>Mind you, I’m impressed by the sense of pride that Trojans have in their school.</p>
<p>I wonder why USN is doing it “deliberately” (as someone upthread put it). They should know as much as we do that colleges could game the system by “manipulating” spring and transfer enrollment. Are they just being “considerate” to colleges that are filling out their multi-page (I imagine) surveys every year, or is it otherwise logistically difficult to include all admission/enrollment data? </p>
<p>@Benley: You’re assuming that USNews actually cares or something. They don’t have the resources to vet every number, and their primary motive is to sell magazines and ads. They don’t have a dog in the fight about what schools are ahead or what schools don’t game. That’s why I say that folks who rely heavily on USN to pick colleges are suckers.</p>
<p>deleted</p>
<p>Benley:</p>
<p>I think the issue is that you have to draw a line somewhere, and USNews - and the feds for that matter – draw that line during October, and include only October enrollees. Sure, they could draw the line in the Spring – to capture Spring admits – but that would then just ignore those kids that flunk out after the fall term. Or, maybe they could average the terms, or perform some other statistical manipulation (and watch the naysayers cry ‘foul’.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, they probably do want their rankings to be “believable” to most people. I.e. the ranking criteria are arranged so that well known schools that are considered to be “good schools” show up high in the rankings.</p>
<p>Of course, there are colleges that game the USNWR system. However, there are schools with policies regarding tests being optional, transfer student admissions, and spring admissions that were implemented for reasons other than gaming the USNWR system (sometimes before USNWR was ranking colleges). Indeed, much of this discussion carries an implied assumption about how inferior transfer students are, as if one’s high school achievements and test scores are the sole arbiter of one’s college worthiness (as opposed to performance in college courses taken prior to transfer).</p>