I understand that JHU has always been well known and respected but it appears the school is still making great strides in its growth.
1)Take for instance rankings, according us news JHU rankings have went from 2008-15th, 2009-14th, 2010-13th, 2011-13th, 2012-13th, 2013-tied for 12th with Northwestern, and now alone at 12th. Rankings shouldn’t be given too much weight but a constant increase can’t be ignored.
2)The acceptance rate has significantly decreased (around 20% several years ago to now 15%)
3)Average sat scores have went up as well(now 2120-2310).
4)They have maintained a relatively small undergrad population with under 7k. All schools in the top eleven with the exception of Penn have way under 10,000. Maintaining a small student body prevents diluting the degree and countless other problems associated with a large undergrad(too many TAs, huge classes)
5)Take into account JHU’s endowment of over 3 billion, having only 6,215 undergrad. In terms of raising money, JHU is consistently in the top ten, even out raising Yale and Duke in 2013.
Agree? Disagree? Where do you see Johns Hopkins in the next 5, 10 years? Better? Worse?
15th to 12th isn’t a great stride. Don’t talk about it as such. Also, USNews rankings are pointless anyways.
This has no impact on the quality of the university. It’s simply caused by online applications and more kids applying due to the added convenience. Pretty much every school’s application rate has decreased significantly.
Factor of #2. More kids applying = more high SAT scores = higher SAT scores.
What does this have to do with anything? Your analysis sucks, honestly. There is no “diluting” of a degree at a larger university.
So? How do they use it? Because I can assure you that it’s not on improving the campus. The place is a hive for crime.
I don’t see it as much different than the changes in other school. I don’t really see it as on the rise, but it is just as well respected as it was in the past, it certainly isn’t slipping. I’d challenge you to find one top school that hasn’t had #2 and #3 going on over the past several years. Point #4 means nothing… and it isn’t any different at any of these schools than it was 10-15 years ago.
It sounds like you an unreasonable bias against the school. 15th to 12th is a HUGE gain. Very few schools who are in the teens move. Take Cornell and Brown for example, they have been 14-16 for over a decade.
Us news isn’t a main factor but it gives you a point of reference. A degree CAN be diluted at a larger university. At large schools, it is more difficult to accommodate the students’ needs than smaller ones. Certain classes are tough to get, less established teacher, and less individualized attention, just to name a few.
No, it’s not. 96 to 42 is a huge gain, 15 to 12 is not. Most of the top 20 schools don’t care about their rank, why would YOU? And again, USNews is pointless, anyways. And let me repeat this: A degree is NOT diluted at a larger university. Try to tell a Berkeley student that their degree is “diluted” because of how big the school is. None of the problems that you put out in any way “dilute” a degree, and all exist at EVERY school.
15th-12th isnt a huge gain, and ranking systems like US News are known to switch up a university’s placing a couple of spots each year, while keepinf them in the same tier.
Otherwise, there would be no reason to look at them every year.
a 3 ranking gain isn’t particularly significant. Caltech’s been as high as #1 on US News and was around 10 or so last time I checked. This doesn’t mean Caltech’s experienced a significantl drop in quality. All it means is that the criteria US News originally used to rank the schools have changed (and they tweak the criteria with almost every ranking.)
If you want to look at schools with big changes, look at Chicago. However, Chicago’s notorious for playing the rankings game to boost its placement. Chicago hasn’t experienced a significant increase in quality, and neither has JHU.
The acceptance rate of every top university has also decreased. JHU is not unique in this regard.
I don’t particularly keep up with average SAT scores, but I would think that other top universities’ averages have increased as well.
Maintaining a small undergraduate population isn’t a feat. A university can only educate so many students. And hence, it needs to adjust its acceptance rate when its matriculation rate is too high. This screwed over UCLA a few years ago. It’s matriculation was significantly higher than expected because Berkeley rejected a lot of students that year. And so, those rejected students enrolled at UCLA. So the universities need to be careful to not overenroll themselves. If they don’t, they’ll be scrambling at the last minute trying to get resources for the extra students attending their universities.
3 billion’s kind of low in the endowment game. I think Harvard has +30B; The University of Texas (system) has like $25B; Yale and Stanford have like $20B; Michigan and MIT have like $10B, etc. $3B’s not really in the same league with the others.
Probably in a similar place to where it is now: It’ll be a highly respected university in the east coast that’s strong in the health sciences.
Not necessarily true. At small schools, there may be insufficient student demand and/or faculty to teach a course that only a small number of students wants to take. Too bad if you happen to be one of the students who wants to take that course, and it is an important course for your interests and post-graduation plans.
I agree.
Have a look at research on the financial ROI of attending a more prestigious, more selective, or higher-ranked college. I think the jury is still out. However, if there is any preliminary finding, it would appear to be this:
significant advantages in post-graduate financial outcomes aren’t seen until you compare across fairly big ranking/selectivity differences (as in: top 20 v. unranked).
I’m not among those who believe all rankings are completely meaningless. The highest-ranking schools generally do offer excellent academics, relatively small classes, good facilities, relatively generous need-based aid, etc. etc. But again, within the top 20, the differences aren’t all that big and consistent across all quality factors. If Hopkins at #12 is a better fit than Brown, well then it must have been a better fit when it was #15, too.
@tk21769, I know you’re being a bit facetious with your jury comment, but I’m curious as to your reasoning when you say
“significant advantages in post-graduate financial outcomes aren’t seen until you compare across fairly big ranking/selectivity differences (as in: top 20 v. unranked)”
Is this information you’ve personally accrued over the years or has it been studied?
Johns Hopkins is an elite institution; it has been such for quite a while and will probably continue to be such for the forseeable future. I don’t see any significant “rise” - three places on U.S. News is basically nothing; a 5 point acceptance rate decrease probably just means they managed to convince more unqualified applicants to apply; and the size of thes tudent body does not necessarily correlate with the quality of the academcs. If that was the case, tiny colleges could outrank Harvard and Yale, and huge schools like Penn State, Michigan and UCLA wouldn’t have the reputations they do. Schools as flush with money and prestige as JHU could simply hire more faculty to keep their student to faculty ratio low.
@1600mPenn, see the Krueger and Dale study. You can Google for it.
I would say (and so do they) that there are exceptions. If you are from a URM/disadvantaged background, for instance. I would also add: if you are the smart-but-lazy type, you’d get more second chances to reach your potential at an elite than at a large sink-or-swim state school.
Actually, if you are from a poor/disadvantaged background, one study said a directional full of commuters and folks already working full time may be better than a large flagship with lots of partying.
But if you’re smart, hard-working, driven, and from a middle-class or higher background, there’s usually no difference where you go to college. Maybe if you are aiming for MBB consulting or the Street, a target school is better, but even that is open to question.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt in that Hopkins may manipulate acceptance rates but I do think tiny colleges like Williams, swartmore, and Amherst can match up to Harvard and Yale
Yup, JHU is absolutely on the rise. The entering class statistics have been stagnant for a while, but their recent admissions lead hired away from Penn has been increasing the emphasis on test scores. The entering class profile is now at 88% ranked in top 10 and with an enrolled 1360 - 1530 SAT range. Compare this to 2 to 7 years ago, which saw the enrolled Hopkins SAT consistently in the 1300 - 1490 range and 80% of freshman ranked in the top 10. Compare this with cornell and brown which has seen limited traction with enrolled student test scores. This is what may help drive the ranking increases further (something I don’t care for nor agree with).
There are other campus improvement initiatives underway including construction of several new academic buildings, majors, and interdisciplinary programs. Momentum is there contrary to many ill informed opinions on here such as those from hungryteenager (show me objective stats that indicate campus crime has been increasing instead of decreasing - I’ll wait for your “rigorous” analysis).
Beyphy: 3.5 billion in endowment is quite a bit (it’s among the top 25 schools in the country and greater than other comparable elite privates like Brown, Carnegie Mellon, Georgetown) - it doesn’t compare to Stanford, however (with $25 billion which still calls me for donations), but few other schools do. It also makes little sense to compare the endowment to the entire University of Texas system as a whole or University of California system (distributed amongst 10s of campuses) to Hopkins, however. UT austin itself has 3 billion flat for instance. Unlike some of Hopkins’ peers though, the endowment return rate is amongst the most aggressive in positive return.
Hopkins has traction for sure. But so do a lot of peers in this regard.