Ivy Adcoms Still Promoting--why??

[placido240]

<p>^^ I agree with the natural indifference shown by HYPMS, et. al. Will people think less of Harvard if it drops to 20 on the USNWR? No. Actually, they will think less of USNWR, because, well, Harvard is Harvard. Harvard knows this. If USNWR moved the top chess pieces too far, USNWR would lose its credibility overnight and then no one would take them seriously again. Kind of like the total fail with Forbes doing its rankings and a place called “Centre College” in Kentucky came up #1 or something. After that, any future Forbes rankings were toast. USNWR reflects common sense and public opinion and can only game itself so far. Throwing a UChicago up there this year was ambitious, but not craven. As long as USNWR keeps the order of the universe the way people in their gut knows the universe is ordered (the top ten or so), it can play with the rest of the rankings all it wants. More to the point, do people “care” that Brown is #15 or Cornell even lower? NO! These are Ivies, and Ivies will always get tons and tons of applications. I don’t even think Brown or Cornell cares, either (they are above it all, like HYPMS they are Ivies). I short, USNWR can have it little contretemps from 20 on down, and push around WashU as its little pinata so that people actually believe that USNWR is cutting edge, but most people know who’s who and what’s what. The only prediction I will make for the next 5 or 10 years is that if USC really raises its $6 billion, then WashU and perhaps Notre Dame’s spots are vulnerable. USC is already getting new and prestigious headline faculty and is competing with Stanford for the best kids in Cali.</p>

[annasdad]

<p>

USNWR would lose its credibility overnight and then no one would take them seriously again

</p>

<p>No one with a semblance of a clue gives them any credibility now or has taken them seriously ever.</p>

<p>

push around WashU as its little pinata

</p>

<p>^My nomination for CC turn-of-phrase-of-the-year! Bravo!</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

I think you’ll see that most respondents to this conversation topic who reject the cynicism are insiders with those colleges while those who ascribe the cynical view generally are not.

Proving what exactly? This could mean they have inside knowledge about the process, or that they are a group of overly pompous cheerleaders “drinking the KoolAid” as another poster commented. Or a combination of both.</p>

<p>That said, even as a formerly rejected outsider I would also find it hard to believe that these top schools really care much about some outside rankings. In some cases they’ve spent centuries establishing a reputation, and they would have to completely and obviously screw up their admissions criteria to lose it. THe reputation of the top Ivy League schools is too ingrained in popular culture. As someone else pointed out, if the staff at USNEWS found Harvard at #10 in the rankings after applying its formula, the magazine would likely delay release of the issue and modify the formula.</p>

<p>That’s why all the complaints about elite admissions (affirimative action, legacy admits, and other hooks) are pretty much wasted energy. Short of legal action compelling these schools to change, they just have no reason to do so.</p>

<p>And from my perception of paperwork processing at large bureaucracies, I think it is far-fetched to think they profit substantially off of application fees.</p>

[annasdad]

<p>

I would also find it hard to believe that these top schools really care much about some outside rankings.

</p>

<p>The Dean of Admissions at Yale appears to disagree with you:</p>

<p>

Rankings are also bad for colleges. They encourage schools to expend resources on things that move their ranking rather than things that serve their students.

</p>

<p>Notice that he does not even add, “Except at Yale, of course.”</p>

<p>[Looking</a> Beyond the College Rankings | Yale College Admissions](<a href=“http://admissions.yale.edu/looking-beyond-college-rankings]Looking”>http://admissions.yale.edu/looking-beyond-college-rankings)</p>

[bovertine]

<p>^^^^
If you read his commentary, he seems to care about them only to the extent that he believes they are overemphasized and not particularly important. Which is in total agreement with what I wrote. </p>

<p>

I am writing to tell you that there are many excellent reasons to apply to Yale, but Yale’s position in the rankings is not one of them.

</p>

<p>

Notice that he does not even add, “Except at Yale, of course.”

Neither does he add that pursuitof higher rankings is a big concern at Yale, a place about which he supposedly has intimate information he could expose if he so desired. </p>

<p>When he writes they are bad for colleges he could also mean “they are bad for colleges so therefore we at Yale don’t worry about them.” Nothing in the article you posted indicates that Yale is modifying anything in pursuit of higher rankings.</p>

<p>Please provide a peer reviewed statistical study of elite admissions offices and their attitudes towards rankings.</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>Please provide a peer reviewed statistical study of elite admissions offices and their attitudes towards rankings.</p>

<p>

Some members ask families and students to keep in mind that there are good colleges in the lower tiers and that good colleges are sometimes not included in the rankings at all, often by choice. Others ask students to remember that the rankings are used to sell magazines and
as a marketing tool for a magazine. One member deemphasized the importance of the rankings, saying, “I have come to a realization that success
is much more dependent on what they [students], themselves, do and take advantage of at a university than the university’s ranking.”

</p>

<p>

According to survey results released Thursday by the National Association for College Admission Counseling, or NACAC, a majority of admissions professionals believe that U.S. News & World Report‘s annual ranking of colleges relies on flawed methodology, bears an inaccurate title (“Best Colleges”), and confuses students and parents.

[Gaming</a> the Rankings? Not on Our Campus! - Head Count - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/blogs/headcount/gaming-the-rankings-not-on-our-campus/28274]Gaming”>http://chronicle.com/blogs/headcount/gaming-the-rankings-not-on-our-campus/28274)</p>

<p>[Survey report from the National Association for College Admission Counseling Ad Hoc Committee on U.S. News & World Report Rankings](<a href=“http://www.nacacnet.org/AboutNACAC/Governance/Comm/Documents/USNewRankingsReport.pdf”>http://www.nacacnet.org/AboutNACAC/Governance/Comm/Documents/USNewRankingsReport.pdf&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

[ttparent]

<p>Bovertine, we are not talking about attitude towards ranking and measurements or whether the practice is a problem. We are talking about whether these measurements has anything to do with any of the behavior of the admission offices. In that article, the Yale officer said basically it does have an effect. I wonder whether it is not a big problem for Yale because of the fact that Yale is one of the school at the top.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

Please provide a peer reviewed statistical study of elite admissions offices and their attitudes towards rankings.

</p>

<p>Close but no cigar witrh the NACAC business. </p>

<p>Besides, I have no disagreement with the study results you posted. I don’t know why I am arguing with people who agree with me. It is because of this attitude in admissions offices that I do not believe schools at the very top end of the rankings change anything in pursuit of higher rankings. And I have yet to see anyone post any real evidence to contradict that.</p>

<p>

Bovertine, we are not talking about attitude towards ranking and measurements or whether the practice is a problem.

Yes. you’re right. I should have been clearer and said show me a study showing that the most elite schools change their admissions practices based on rankings. Of course, there is no such study, nor would I expect there to be one.</p>

<p>

In that article, the Yale officer said basically it does have an effect.** I wonder whether it is not a big problem for Yale because of the fact that Yale is one of the school at the top.**

Yes, this is what I’m saying.</p>

<p>But I give up. I’m not going to expend a lot of effort debating actions and decisions in admissions offices that none of us really know about. I’ll let all the Ivy League brainiacs give their position on how their alma maters respond or not respond to US News.</p>

[ttparent]

<p>If the schools do not care for the rankings and in fact believe it is counter productive, then I say it is very simple, just do not publish any of these stats. The schools that don’t will not be in the ranking because there is not enough data, but they don’t really care about it anyway, right?</p>

[emeraldkity4]

<p>The schools that don’t will not be in the ranking because there is not enough data, but they don’t really care about it anyway, right?</p>

<p>Reed college and a few others don’t participate in us news rankings, but they are in it anyway.</p>

<p>

For ten years Reed has declined to fill out the annual peer evaluations and statistical surveys that U.S. News uses to compile its rankings. It has three primary reasons for doing so. First, one-size-fits-all ranking schemes undermine the institutional diversity that characterizes American higher education. The urge to improve one’s ranking creates an irresistible pressure toward homogeneity, and schools that, like Reed, strive to be different are almost inevitably penalized. Second, the rankings reinforce a view of education as strictly instrumental to extrinsic goals such as prestige or wealth; this is antithetical to Reed’s philosophy that higher education should produce intrinsic rewards such as liberation and self-realization. Third, rankings create powerful incentives to manipulate data and distort institutional behavior for the sole or primary purpose of inflating one’s score. Because the rankings depend heavily on unaudited, self-reported data, there is no way to ensure either the accuracy of the information or the reliability of the resulting rankings.

</p>

<p>[Is</a> There Life After Rankings? - Magazine - The Atlantic](<a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/is-there-life-after-rankings/4308/]Is”>Is There Life After Rankings? - The Atlantic)</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

If the schools do not care for the rankings and in fact believe it is counter productive, then I say it is very simple, just do not publish any of these stats.

My last comment. I believe most of the data comes from the common data set, which is used by all sorts of appplicants, organizations, counselors, and other organizations to plan admissions strategy. There are plenty of reasons to publish your admission data other than attempting to climb the rankings ladder. For one thing, it can give applicants a somewhat better idea of who should not bother to apply.</p>

<p>Besides, if these schools didn’t publish some of their data for general consumption I can only imagine the outcry of elitism, nepotism, and special arrangements with prep schools etc. Especially emanating from this website.</p>

[starbright]

<p>

The rankings and stuff that outsiders harp about? For HYPMS, Amherst, Williams: we really don’t care. Frankly, we’re above the conversation. Our primary goal is to promote what benefits our own vision of the welfare of our college, our directors, our faculty students and alumni. How outsiders view us, our methods, and how we place on some list – is just not in the conversation. We don’t care.

</p>

<p>Oh pullease. You are just an interviewer/alum. As a former faculty member of the equivalent, I can also say that faculty could not possibly care less either. They too feel entirely above it. But so what? The administration, especially the deans, care very very very much. And they run the show.</p>

<p>We are interviewing for a Dean right now, I’m on the committee. Every single candidate in the Dean’s career path- there are hundreds- reports on their resume nowadays how ‘their school moved’ (and it shows up in the letters of recommendation on the resume and so forth). It’s the bread and butter. </p>

<p>And I can’t begin to tell you about the dog and pony shows they push faculty to play when it comes to the numbers. </p>

<p>If HYPS was above it all, they would not be participating at all in promoting a magazine by offering up their numbers and they do provide that information. There would not be a cry of elitism at all because they can take a strong stand that is student focused and be the leaders, and call out the industry for what its become. NOTHING about these rankings and what schools do for them has anything to do with education. But they do care to play, very much so.</p>

<p>In Canada, a national magazine ran rankings for years…trying to copy USNWR. But after a decade or so the top universities themselves decided it was detrimental and agreed together to stop participating. The magazine still gathers public data, but it simply not at all the same machine it used to be. The universities made the right choice.</p>

[ttparent]

<p>My impression of Reed just went way up for some reasons.</p>

[bovertine]

<p>

Oh pullease. You are just an interviewer/alum. As a former faculty member of the equivalent, I can also say that faculty could not possible care less. They too feel entirely above it. BUT administration, especially deans care very very very much. And they run the show.

I change my mind.
This is convincing until I see a better opposing argument.</p>

[performersmom]

<p>“my daughter, who was at the time in college at Harvard, was asked along with the other Harvard students who live in the area to attend a special reception being given to recruit him and convince him to pick Harvard”</p>

<p>Fascinating story, coureur… Wonder if the candidate also received a Likely Letter.
My Q: WHO asked your D to do this???
I was unaware that students were ever asked to help with recruiting.</p>

[coureur]

<p>^^I don’t know the individual who asked her. As I recall the request came to her on her Harvard e-mail account. I believe the reception was jointly put on by some representatives of the Admissions office and the local chapter of the Harvard Club.</p>

[texaspg]

<p>For just one kid? How did he turn out?</p>

[annasdad]

<p>Okay, bovertine. What alternative hypothesis can you advance that explains the over-the-top application gathering practices by some of the most highly ranked universities?</p>

[mathmom]

<p>I agree that there may be a handful of academic superstars that HYP etc may be competing for, but it’s really only a handful - and the schools know who they are. I don’t think that’s who the mass mailings are going after. I don’t think anyone can afford to rest on their laurels, and Harvard doesn’t really like being number 2 to Princeton the years it has been, but I also think that the attitude T26E4 describes is about right.</p>

[coureur]

<br>

<blockquote>
<p>For just one kid? How did he turn out?<<</p>
</blockquote>

<br>

<p>He graduated last year, Summa Cum Laude. I presume he is in grad school somewhere.</p>