Interesting Comparisons Involving USNWR Top 30

<p>I recently did some digging around on the collegeboard.com website and came up with some interesting comparisons on schools ranked in the USNWR Top 30. These might be useful for students looking to measure various schools as the mean is provided and you can compare schools to this number. </p>

<p>SCHOOL UNDERGRAD ENROLLMENT
Average: 8887
Largest: 25,555 (U Michigan), 25,432 (UCLA), 23,863 (UC Berkeley)
Smallest: 864 (Caltech), 3049 (Rice), 4127 (MIT)</p>

<p>% OF IN-STATE STUDENTS
Average: 30%
Highest: 93% (UC Berkeley, UCLA), 85% (U North Carolina)
Lowest: 3% (Dartmouth), 7% (Yale, Notre Dame)</p>

<p>% OF WOMEN
Average: 52.5%
Highest: 60% (U North Carolina), 59% (UCLA), 57% (U Virginia)
Lowest: 28% (Caltech), 39% (Carnegie Mellon), 45% (MIT)</p>

<p>ACCEPTANCE RATE
Average: 24%
Toughest: 9% (Harvard, Yale), 10% (Princeton, Columbia)
Easiest: 47% (U Michigan), 43% (Wake Forest), 38% (U Chicago)</p>

<p>SAT 25/75 AVERAGE FOR CRITICAL READING
Average: 691
Highest: 745 (Harvard, Yale), 740 (Princeton)
Lowest: 630 (UCLA), 635 (U Michigan), 640 (U North Carolina)</p>

<p>SAT 25/75 AVERAGE FOR MATH
Average: 713
Highest: 790 (Caltech), 760 (MIT), 740 (Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Wash U)
Lowest: 655 (U North Carolina), 665 (UCLA), 670 (U Virginia)</p>

<p>SAT 25/75 AVERAGE FOR CR & M COMBINED
Average: 1403
Highest: 1520 (Caltech), 1485 (Harvard), 1480 (Princeton)
Lowest: 1295 (UCLA, U North Carolina), 1315 (U Michigan)</p>

<p>% OF STUDENTS IN TOP 10% OF HIGH SCHOOL CLASS
Average: 88%
Highest: 99% (UC Berkeley), 97% (UCLA, MIT)
Lowest: 63% (Wake Forest), 75% (Carnegie Mellon), 77% (U Virginia)</p>

<p>FRESHMAN RETENTION
Average: 96.6%
Highest: 99% (Yale), 98% (Princeton, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, U Penn, U Chicago, Dartmouth, Notre Dame)
Lowest: 93% (Wake Forest), 94% (Carnegie Mellon, Emory)</p>

<p>Why don't you spend as much time comparing other factors--like the quality of the faculty and other campus resources? The number of alums in leading positions. Otherwise you are just in an endless loop of highest SATs win. Obviously the elite schools win on difficulty of admission--that's why they are considered the elite schools by most people. It's a tautology.</p>

<p>barrons,
I presented a lot more than just acceptance rate and I’m not sure why you're so bent out of shape by the data. But anyway, low acceptance rates are found at more than just the elite schools. For example, Boston College at USNWR #34 has a 28% acceptance rate, Pepperdine at USNWR #54 has a 28% acceptance rate and Northeastern at USNWR #98 has a 45% acceptance rate. </p>

<p>Personally I was more interested in the numbers for women and the confirmation that was provided about how women don't typically show up in large numbers at the engineering dominated schools. I was also a bit surprised to see such a large percentage of women at U North Carolina and UCLA. </p>

<p>I was also struck by how wide the range is for % of Top 10% high school students, even among public universities (22% difference between UC Berkeley and U Virginia). Not sure how to interpret this-do they use the numbers that differently in the admissions process or are the population differences such that this overwhelms those numbers?</p>

<p>It was also interesting to me to see just how closely grouped together the Top 30 schools are for freshman retention (range was only 6% from high to low). This didn't vary much all the way to #50 and beyond. Sort of makes me wonder why USNWR weights this number at 4% (more than acceptance rate at 1.5% and nearly as high as SAT scores at 6%). This does not strike me as much of a value-added consideration.</p>

<p>There is lots of other good data on the collegeboard site to be mined. Students looking at the Top 30 (and other schools) and looking for ways to compare them would be wise to check it out. </p>

<p>As for your comment on measures of faculty, campus resources and leading alumni, these are good suggestions. Maybe you can select some sources that provide objective and relevant data and post it in a way that would be useful to students looking for a college.</p>

<p>Hint--California public school grads may not be the best--even those in the top 10% at many of the schools.</p>

<p>I have posted some of the more objective numbers many times. The rankings by the Center for Measuring University Performance and the SJTU rankings attempt these types of measures. Of course those on the SAT score bus HATE these rankings because some schools don't do as well.</p>

<p>hawkette: What I found interesting are the schools you chose for specific categories/comparisons, which seems arbitrary and a bit selective to me.</p>

<p>For example UNC-CH has a 95% freshman retention rate, yet you chose not to include UNC in that category. When comparing the size of the undergraduate populations, you chose the largest publics to compare with privates. UNC-CH has ~16,700 undergraduates; UVA has something like ~12,000 (I believe). Why not include them in that category? And though I think the top 10% in a high school class is a questionable factor to consider (all high schools and high school courses are not created equal), UNC-CH reports something like 76% in top 10% of their high school class--right in between Carnegie Mellon and UVA, though you chose not to include it. </p>

<p>Also, UNC-CH is 82% in-state (not 85%), and it's been like that for years. That makes me wonder how up-to-date the collegeboard site is. In fact, it was 81.5% for the 2006 class.</p>

<p>So the schools you chose for specific categories seems selective. I have to agree somewhat with Barrons, too; these seem like somewhat superficial comparisons to my mind. I mean, comparing the percentage of in-state students at public universities to the number at private universities? Of course, the publics will have more in-state students; that's part of their mission-- obviously not so with private schools. Anyway, I don't get the point.</p>

<p>Jack, the schools you mentioned were not included because Hawkette chose to list only the 3 (or more, in the case of a tie) highest and three lowest in each category. Also, you should note that Hawkette is following USNWR's lead with her comparisons--it is them, not Hawkette, who chose to compare schools of many sizes and of public and private persuasion on the same list. Hawkette merely borrowed their methodology. </p>

<p>While I don't think that this is an earth-shaking set of comparisons, I enjoly seeing the highs and lows in each category as a quick reference--it's interesting to me.</p>

<p>advantagious: I get it; thanks. Still . . . I think they're pointless comparisons, for the most part. I mean, is anybody surprised that public universities have more in-state students than private schools? </p>

<p>Glad the comparisons help you, though. Again--at least one of those figures (in-state percentage for NC) was wrong, so who knows what else is, too. I just don't think prospective students base decisions on rather superficial information like this, but I could be wrong . . .</p>

<p>Hey, hey, hey--we seem to be getting pretty snippy, here. Sorry if I assumed incorrectly, Jack, but your previous comments indicated to me that you were looking at something different than Hawkette was, so I saw fit to point that out. Plus, all I said was that I found the data interesting--not that it helped me. I'm past that point right now. </p>

<p>Also, while the in-state % for UNC is slightly off, it isn't egregiously incorrect, either. I don't understand why you and Joshua seem so hell-bent on jumping all over people who simply are interested in a little bit of harmless comparisons....</p>

<p>advantagious: I said, "thanks," didn't I? You seem rather easily offended, if you thought my above post was "snippy." I can show you snippy if you like; that wasn't it, though. ;)</p>

<p>The UNC in-state percentage, while not "egregiously incorrect," is simply wrong and should be corrected. If one is looking at these figures as fact, then if one is wrong, others probably are as well. </p>

<p>I'm not "hell-bent on jumping" on anybody, but as I said before, these just seem like superficial and rather pointless comparisons to me. I still don't get it, but then again, I don't get why people find reality shows interesting, or why anyone would want to own a pit bull, or why people continue to smoke, or . . . well, I could go on and on. Again, seems pointless to me. Just my 2 cents.</p>

<p>Sorry...that was more in reference to Joshua, whose post was right above mine, but I was unsure as to whether or not your thanks was serious or sarcastic--I see now that you were being serious, so I apologize for my comments to you. Still not so sure about joshua...</p>

<p>advantagious: Oh. I missed Joshua's rather astute post. Hmm . . . I have no idea why others can't see as clearly as I do; I've often wondered about that myself. </p>

<p>My "thanks" was serious.</p>

<p>Dartmouth has fewer undergraduates than MIT.</p>

<p>Barrons, are you kidding about the SJTU rankings - they rank the quality of scientific research, which is completely irrelevant to the vast majority of people who traffic this site and for undergrads in general</p>

<p>"I was also struck by how wide the range is for % of Top 10% high school students, even among public universities (22% difference between UC Berkeley and U Virginia)." </p>

<hr>

<p>Perhaps because one of the main paths for acceptance into the UC system is through ELC which requires, as a minimum standard, a top 4% rank. </p>

<p>Frankly, these numbers games aggravate me....and encouraging prospective students to create initial impressions and preferences based on numbers, especially inaccurate numbers, can be a huge disservice.</p>

<p>Jack,
Sorry if you felt that I was slighting UNC in my earlier posts. Advantagious chivalrously and correctly points out that I was just listing the first and last three in each of the categories. </p>

<p>Re the number on U North Carolina for OOS students, I think that you have previously indicated that it is 18% (right?). collegeboard.com reports it at 15% as shown below:
Student Body
1st-year students:
 85% In-state students
 15% Out-of-state students </p>

<p>One measure that I will add and which will hopefully make you smile is cost (tuition and fees). UNC is a star here, even for OOS students.</p>

<p>TUITION & FEES
Average (including IS): $30,058
Average (OOS only): $33,073
Most Expensive: $36,700 (Tufts), $36,400 (J Hopkins), $36,342 (Brown)
Least Expensive (including IS): $5034 (U North Carolina), $6522 (UCLA), $6654 (UC Berkeley)
Least Expensive (OOS only): $19,682 (U North Carolina), $25,206 (UCLA), $25,338 (UC Berkeley) (btw, least expensive private in Top 30 is Rice at $26,974)</p>

<p>Personally I think the fact that cost is completely ignored by USNWR is a major shortcoming of their ranking system. It costs a heckuva lot to attend college these days and the cost deserves greater prominence in the comparisons. However, there is a great amount of discounting that goes on (see the recently released article from The Chronicle of Higher Education about enrollment management) so the sticker prices often are not relevant. </p>

<p>When I first began pulling these numbers together, I was going to use only the USNWR Top 20 because that is where a lot of the cross admits occur and a lot of the comparisons are made. But that included no public universities and I thought people might want comparisons involving some of these schools. So I went up to 30 and that brought 5 publics into the matrix (UC Berkeley, U Virginia, U Michigan, UCLA and U North Carolina). </p>

<p>barrons,
I think that the Top 10% numbers leave a lot to be desired and I agree with your observation about the California schools. Not sure how to correct for this in making comparisons with other schools. I personally prefer SAT scores as more telling about student body strength than Top 10% scorers. </p>

<p>Joshua007,
I’m not entirely sure how to interpret your comment, but most of the time I agree with your thinking that the public schools should be evaluated separately. But posters and readers regularly compare the publics to the privates so I combined them just as USNWR does. As there are many apply to both publics and privates, the data has some use, but I agree that such comparisons will often favor one type of school over another. </p>

<p>Re the categories that I chose, what else would you like for me to publish? I actually chose the Retention number to show that I don’t consider it a very useful number for comparisons as nearly all of the Top 50 retain 90% or more of their freshman. The differences are small and IMO certainly not worth 4% of the USNWR weight. I was not aware that UC Berkeley and U Michigan are known as “cutthroat.” Their freshman retention (each at 96%) would not indicate that to me nor would their 6-year graduation rate (which collegeboard does not report, but USNWR shows them at 87% and 86% respectively). </p>

<p>Chronicidal,
You’re right. I overlooked Dartmouth with 4085 students. It indeed is smaller than MIT (4127) and Dartmouth should be listed as the school with the third smallest enrollment in this group. Sorry.</p>

<p>Idmom,
Sorry you feel that the numbers that I provided are a disservice. What numbers would you suggest? If you’ve got other numbers that can make potentially enlightening comparisons, then I hope you will share them.</p>

<p>hawkette: I realize you got your numbers from collegeboard. I was simply pointing out that they are incorrect about that instate/oos percentage. If they're wrong about that, then other numbers are probably incorrect as well. That out-of-state cap was raised from 15% to 18% 20+ years ago. In fact, the oos percentage is slightly higher than that, based on some recent legislative changes.</p>

<p>As I stated before, comparing the percentage of in-state students among public universities and private universities borders on -- I don't know-- moronic. I just don't it.</p>

<p>Again, I think these particular comparisons seem rather superficial and pointless to me, but to each his own.</p>

<p>thoughtprocess--you might want to look at today's Chronicle of Higher Ed. In the rest of the world it is given high respect.
Also I happen to think grad rankings are a very good indicator of program quality for undergrads too. Just because it does not follow the elite school line as closely does not mean it is incorrect.</p>

<p>"When a small group of researchers at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, in China, started comparing the world's top research universities, their aim was to help China develop world-class institutions of its own. But their annual "Academic Rankings of World Universities," first published in 2003, quickly became a popular international reference.</p>

<p>The ranking is based almost entirely on measures of strength in research. It looks at such indicators as the number of faculty members whose papers are highly cited, and the number of faculty members and alumni who win Nobel Prizes. The result is a list of what Shanghai Jiao Tong says are the world's 500 best institutions.</p>

<p>In 2004 The Times Higher Education Supplement, a British weekly, introduced its annual World University Rankings, which list 200 institutions. Those rankings are based half on the opinions of faculty members and company recruiters, and half on the ratio of full-time academic staff members to students and on how often faculty members' papers are cited.</p>

<p>Although the ranking has not achieved the influence of its Chinese competitor, the two lists have had considerable impact in just a few years, especially outside the United States."</p>

<p>jack,
I'm not 100% sure where collegeboard.com gets it numbers, but others have stated that they come from the latest CDS of each school and I think this is the case for U North Carolina’s numbers that I have posted above. </p>

<p>I looked at the latest CDS from the U North Carolina link provided in College Search and went to Section F (Student Life) where they list the numbers for State Residency. For freshman admittance, the number shown is 15.39%. For all undergraduates, the number shown is 16.99%. Both of these exclude international/non-resident aliens from the numerator and the denominator.</p>

<p>hawkette, I saw that on the CDS listed for 2006 freshmen. However, on their website, they list that oos percentage, for the class of 2006, as 18.5%. This includes internationals (who are, as we know, out of state). See below. To list that the way you did initially is misleading; what else might be?</p>

<p>Fall 2006 Enrolling Class - Demographics </p>

<p>81.5% North Carolina residents
18.5% residents of other states and countries</p>

<p>As I'm opening a top notch hot dog stand in NYC, I only have 10 openings for staff. Therefore I'm only accepting applications from those with the highest of high SAT scores. I invite Hawkette and others who naively believe that selectivity and small class size primarily determine the quality of education at any given institution of higher learning to apply. Unfortunately, Hawkette and others have bought into this propaganda that the USN&WR has been pushing for years. In fact, Michigan is a much larger school than most of the other institutions ranked in the top 30 of the USN&WR undergrad poll. It also has many, many more programs and offerings than most of the schools ranked in the top 30. </p>

<p>Another fact is that Michigan has relatively strong departments and programs across the board compared to many of the other schools. Yes, many of the schools ranked ahead of Michigan in the USN&WR undergrad poll have much weaker departments and programs overall. Michigan is a "superuniversity" which contributes much more to the international community and has much greater impact on the world than a Dartmouth, Brown, Swarthmore, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Vanderbilt, Rice, Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, etc. This is exactly why Michigan is more highly regarded in polls of the best universities in the world than the aforementioned schools. </p>

<p>It seems that every time I come to this board, I'm forced to read the same naive propaganda. Sorry, but just because you attended some highly selective, elitist school does NOT mean that you're better educated than those that attended a top public university. As a matter of fact, the guy that graduated last in my medical school class at UVA was a Harvard grad. Yes, the poor guy failed both Steps 1 & 2 of the USMLE on his initial attempts as well. Seriously, I still don't understand how he ever got into UVA medical school. It must've been the good name of Harvard that helped push him over the top. By the same token, it must've been the good name of Yale that helped George W. Bush become President of the U.S. Yale is also the alma mater of one highly enlightened Pat Robertson. </p>

<p>As a Michigan alumnus, I can tell you that Michigan undergrad prepared me very well for medical school. Med school may be tough, but the rigorous undergrad curriculum at Michigan will prepare you very well for any grad or professional program. BTW, those of you who choose to turn your noses up at the top public schools like Michigan need to get over yourselves and get a life. Unfortunately, it appears that you feel the need to put down other schools to help you feel better about yourselves and your alleged "superior" education. Not only are you delusional, but the basis of your delusion is the USN&WR undergrad ranking. Only a naive person would put so much emphasis on one academic ranking. </p>

<p>Unfortunately, people on this board are quoting the USN&WR undergrad ranking as if it's gospel truth or set in stone. It must've driven some of the "elitists" crazy a few years back when Gourman ranked Michigan's undergrad program 3rd in the nation a few years back. It's not like I hold the Gourman Report in high regard either, as I realize that it's just another for-profit publication like the USN&WR. As a matter of fact, the only prestigious academic ranking in existence is the National Research Council Report or NRC Report which only ranks grad programs. However, as any given department is only as strong as its faculty or grad program, it's also accepted by many in academe as a departmental ranking. To my knowledge, it hasn't been updated since '95. However, it remains the gold standard for academe: <a href="http://www.stat.tamu.edu/%7Ejnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc1.html#TOP60%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jnewton/nrc_rankings/nrc1.html#TOP60&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>If you don't think that the USN&WR ranking has its share of critics in academia, you best think again. Further, there are studies regarding class size and learning that refute the Carnegie Foundation's finding that class size is a primary factor in learning. Ironically, large class size doesn't appear to be a major deterrent to learning in Asia. The implication appears to be that bright, motivated Westerners are less disciplined and less capable of focusing their attention in the classroom. Further, Westerners "obviously" require more individualized attention from their instructors. BTW, I found a letter written by former Stanford Univ. President, Gerhard Casper, to the editor of USN&WR in criticism of its undergrad ranking. Of course, this letter was written back in '95. Obviously, there was alot more movement within the ranking and even more controversy back in the 90's: <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Further "insignificant" polls for your interest or entertainment:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/2006/topresearch.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com/2006/topresearch.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://mup.asu.edu/research2006.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://mup.asu.edu/research2006.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/07/top_research_un.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2004/07/top_research_un.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.sciencewatch.com/sept-oct/science-watch_sept-oct98_page1.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.sciencewatch.com/sept-oct/science-watch_sept-oct98_page1.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/23/pf/richest_colleges_get_richer/index.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/23/pf/richest_colleges_get_richer/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Universities with Highest Number of Programs in the Top 10 according to the NRC Report:</p>

<ol>
<li>Cal-Berkeley</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Cornell & Yale</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Cal-San Diego</li>
<li>Columbia, Michigan, & Wisconsin</li>
</ol>

<p>Universities with Highest Number of Distinguished Programs according to the NRC Report:</p>

<ol>
<li>Cal-Berkeley</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Cornell & Yale</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>Cal Tech, UC-San Diego, Penn, & UCLA</li>
</ol>