<p>Placed Williams in top 10 "Braniac Schools": actually at number #6. Condolences to all those Ivies that didn't make the cut...</p>
<p>[College</a> Rankings 2011: Brainiacs - The Daily Beast](<a href=“http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/features/college-rankings/2011/brainiacs.all.html]College”>http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/features/college-rankings/2011/brainiacs.all.html)</p>
<p>Such lists are more delusional rather than helpful.</p>
<p>^
Can you point me to a ranking that isn’t? I thought that these rankings actually gave some interesting information regarding how schools fared winning prestigious scholarships like the Rhodes and Marshall.</p>
<p>Schools who receive “dull perfect SAT or ACT scores” are expected to top this list. And you just can’t compare a school that receives 6000 applicants each year with a school that receives more than 20k applicants.</p>
<p>Uh, no. Did you look at the methodology? SAT/ACT scores of the incoming class is only part of the equation. The majority of the ranking comes from winning prestigious scholarships during college. </p>
<p>And as to your point about application pools (and undergraduate enrollment by extension), that is why it is so important to prorate. If we are talking about the sheer number of students who have gone on to win Rhodes, Truman, Marshall, etc., Harvard should have been on the top of that list. But, Harvard was not even though it has about a hundred more Rhodes winners than Yale or Princeton and the reason why certain LACs were able to score high was because they took undergraduate enrollment into account.</p>