<p>
[quote-hopeful_gtb]
i know they do it b/c they've got to, but still seems a little unethical to me.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, they don't need to. It's a voluntary choice on their part. They just do it because they want to boost their applications so they can reject more people and boast about how selective they are. I mean seriously, if they stopped doing this, do you think they'd no longer get enough qualified applicants to fill all the places in their freshman class with extremely well qualified students? It's a little game they play to make themselves look even more impressive in US News and elsewhere.</p>
<p>You're right: it is unethical. And it's shameful.</p>
<p>^ the worst part is we're all feeding into this ranking frenzy b/c no matter what we say, I think there's always a tiny part of us that wants to know how they rank and that cares about the rank.</p>
<p>^ Sure. I absolutely hate it, but I've already bought the online edition of the 2009 rankings. </p>
<p>The schools themselves hate it even more. The schools that don't make the top of the rankings hate it because it makes them look weak and potentially drives away applicants and/or admits in the direction of higher-ranked schools. The highly ranked schools hate it because, with the exception of a single school each year (well, two, one research university and one LAC), there's always some arch-rival ranked above them. And the school at the top hates it because they know it's likely that if not next year then certainly the year after that, some arch-rival is going to knock them off their perch and the students and alumni will start wondering if Princeton or Williams is slipping. But they play into it, too, often going to great lengths to spend resources in ways that will marginally help their US News rankings, hoping to move up a couple of notches or at least to keep some upstart rival from overtaking them.</p>
<p>College administrators often talk about boycotting US News or even starting their own rankings. It won't happen. I think the better alternative is for a couple of other organizations to develop their own rankings, using methodologies that are at least as defensible as US News'. (There are a few other rankings out there, but none credible enough to offer a real challenge to US News' virtual monopoly). There's a lot that can be improved upon here. The competition might force US News to get better. At a minimum, it would break the stranglehold that US News currently has on the thinking of too many prospective and current students, parents, and college administrators. And there's obviously money to be made here; there's room in the market for at least one major competitor, and possibly more.</p>
<p>My guess is some of the very top schools---HYPS---would rank very high under just about any methodology. But it would be interesting to see what would happen under another ranking system to some schools that have built up their US News rankings by investing heavily in US News-specific factors.</p>
<p>About the rankings, why can't you just go to a Barnes & Noble and look at the rankings without buying the newspaper/magazine?</p>
<p>^ you could, but i don't think the newspaper wants you to know that...then they won't get any money, which is the whole point.</p>
<p>It's not the HYPS that annoy me. They will get applicants under any circumstances. It is that group generally ranked between 10-50 that spot strong candidates that fit somewhere in the middle of their applicant pool. They get enough of them to apply and then reject most of them due to no room, even though they clearly have the stats to compete. They are basically using you to enhance their chances of moving into that top 10. Now the next tier is doing the same, we are number 62, let's try to crack the top 50 next year. Of course, the rapid increasing of costs/fees has added to the issue as incoming students apply to more and more schools in hopes of adequate financial aid. Many of these schools now have no application fees as a further enticement to increase applications and ultimately rejections.</p>
<p>There are other factors as well that play into the rankings. Top faculty get attracted to higher ranked schools hoping to get more resources or teaching more brilliant students. Conversely, it may be tough to hire away a top faculty member at a higher ranked school, even with a promise of higher pay. Universities also need to borrow money from banks and their bond rating is directly tied to their selectivity. Alumni are incented to give more money to a higher ranked school, because it is in their interest to have it stay at the top and because alumni giving is a factor in the rankings. </p>
<p>The whole system becomes permeated by the rankings and despite occasional threats by some to drop out of the ranking system, a college that does so may pay a very heavy price.</p>