<p>I've been thinking, I wonder why no one has come up with a better system than adding yield/selectivity into the college (and mini-me BS) rankings. I would think people might love this and it can help everyone -- students and parents- move away from admissions hysteria.</p>
<p>When I found out that part of the ranking is based on how many kids apply it just seemed silly. I wonder how much of the ranking this comprises? I do think that part of the ranking might include perceived value of brand -- this would require a survey of employers bkz it wouldn't really matter what parents/students think, there would have to be an effect in the real world, i.e. easier to get employed, get back into the job market over life of the graduate, etc. Anyway, this post is probably just a ramble as I sit here and wonder what our high school world is coming to :).</p>
<p>My comment is define “yield”.
If your only aim is to get your kid into an Ivy or Stanford /MIT then by all means research those stats- see Old1’s post on the SPS vs Groton thread. But if you are concerned about graduating a child who has solid study habits, a love of learning and is prepared for the real world- and more concerned about finding a College that suits their needs, then there is a whole new set of rules for those yields.</p>
<p>I am however amazed and more than a little saddended that people are still defining BS success as admission to an Ivy. Haven’t all the recent analyses proven that this is bogus? State colleges are racking up Fullbrights and sending their graduates to amazing MA and PhD programs. Who cares where you were for Undergrad once you are studying for your MA or PhD?? I can tell you that when I was in my Residency program, students from MIT/Stanford were perceived no differently than those from Wherever State and UF
.
There are many paths to the same end, and it is no longer the case that the only road to success is through an Ivy. If you are spending 50k a year to “guarantee” an Ivy- then you are making a very poor investment</p>
<p>Since male and female students and their parents are the customers, the rankings should include information on sex crimes, factors that include responsiveness to needs of women, etc. </p>
<p>People are drawn to rankings bkz it gives initial assessment of a product (i.e., a college education). There is a need for this and ALWAYS will be. My post was about coming up with better ways to do this.</p>
<p>I know that many people post that you can get a great education many places. I’ve read a little bit about the growth of colleges after WWII in the US. Most colleges are not equal and will not give the kind of education that Upper Middle Class educated parents are seeking. Many so-called universities are former teacher’s colleges without a deep academic tradition. </p>
<p>People are seeking some kind of sifting agent and that is why the US News & World Report rankings are seized upon.</p>
<p>Consumer Reports does this to varied degrees of success for consumer products. However, its purpose of giving the most economical “good” product (I know I am not summarizing this well) is only useful in certain instances. For example, if I am an aspiring amateur chef with the $$$ needed I probably won’t want the stove they recommend bkz it doesn’t have all the features I as an aspiring amateur chef might want even if the professional range manufacturers charge a lot for the additional functionality.</p>
<p>Many people tout the state universities that have honor’s programs. This may or may not be enough for your child depending on their academic level and their future aspirations.</p>
<p>People I think look to the rankings as a way to winnow down what it all means. Frankly, you pay as much in many institutions that may not give the same benefits long term to your child as a known IVY, selective LAC…</p>
<p>For the most part, a focus on ranking is for the weak-minded, it’s for those who need other people to tell them that they’re smart, to reassure them that they’re special, exclusive even. Of course, magazines love to publish rankings because it sells their product to the teaming, climbing masses that desperately seek to have their sense of self coddled and congratulated.</p>
<p>It would be SO interesting if the parents and children on this site had to make their decisions based purely on the direct observation of a School, word of mouth etc, student reviews, faculty biographies, educational philosophies espoused by the School etc. If you took away access to the Newsweeks of the world and took away access to college matriculation data, how many boarding school parents and children would (a) still be interested in the experience at all and (b) if they were interested, would they make different decisions?</p>
<p>Applause, applause. MDMomofTwo is exactly on point.</p>
<p>Any statistician can tell you that absent of the raw data to review the stats are meaningless.</p>
<p>Say - for example - 30% of all students at a HADES go on to IVY. This generates a feeding frenzy among parents desperate to get into the boarding school and achieve the same results. But it negates the fact that 70% --the vast majority – did not go to IVY (either because of rejection or due to preference for other options).</p>
<p>And if - for example - the 30% was comprised mostly of legacies, well-connected students, multi-sport jocks, students who had some unadvertised hook (International Ballroom champion, Sieman’s finalist, etc.) and those who would add to the general diversity (Montana, Iowa, Oklahoma, an obscure island in the South Pacific, etc.) then the chase for an IVY remains elusive.</p>
<p>Stats often send parents and students chasing the wrong goal. Do you know how many times I listen to parents and students tell me - in an interview - that they want MIT for its “excellent reputation” but then can’t tell me one darn unique thing about the school and how they’d fit within it? Then find themselves angry and hurt when they are declined?</p>
<p>Education is the goal - not the specific college. Because - frankly - if your dream college turns you down - and the odds suggest they will - what’s the plan B?</p>
<p>AND to further the point- there are many fine Universities that won’t even PARTICIPATE in the ranking questionnaires because they are so jaundiced in the results they produce.
OK- have to let this go now before I start ranting around the house and scaring the dog!</p>
<p>I agree that some people may use the rankings to reinforce their shaky self-esteem (i.e., “the weakminded” ). However, since WWII and even 1970 more and more people have college aspirations. This is from memory, it was something like 30% of people went to college in 1970 and by 1990 it was something like 70%. I’m assuming that the people who went to college in 1970 had multi-generational knowledge of the colleges/institutions that they sought to attend. But due to the huge influx of people seeking college educations now, these people are trying to figure out what will work for them. That is why I think the rankings have taken on such importance that the colleges/universities themselves seek to exploit them.</p>
<p>I think the first step would be for the colleges/univ. to refuse to release this data. I think a handful of select LACs might already do this. Also I’ve read that for purposes of boosting their rankings colleges are cherry-picking top scores for verbal, math on the SAT instead of taking results from one session. I think that the buck needs to stop somewhere. I’d think that since the rankings are creating such trouble, the schools need to back out of participating.</p>
<p>Exie: </p>
<p>I agree with what you said above! But I think that people will take the easy route and I think many realize by now that they will need a plan B!</p>
<p>To get back to the original poster’s first point, I agree that the inclusion of selectivity in the rankings (i.e., what fraction of those who apply are admitted) gives colleges an incentive to encourage applications even when those applying haven’t a chance of getting in, and are thus being set up for disappointment. And the marketing that goes into getting those kids to apply costs the colleges a lot of money that could be better spent for educational purposes. (What I don’t know is whether the cost of getting someone to apply and evaluating the application is more or less than the application fee—my bet is that colleges aren’t making much of a profit on the fee but I don’t have any data). </p>
<p>Yield is when the tables are turned: of those accepted, how many choose to attend? A college could manipulate that by not accepting students unlikely to attend (so-called Tufts effect), but that wouldn’t really be in the best interest of the college, which wants the best qualified student body, so again I’m not sure what to think about yield.</p>
<p>My husband thinks that all these apps. are a money maker for the colleges since he thinks that they can just program rejections if the basic stats are not even in the range. For example, the SAT/ACT scores are not even in the ball park for the school without any other statistic (first time college app, legacy, URM, etc.) that would merit inclusion despite out of range scores. He thinks this process is easily automated and they can just pocket the $$ from those apps. I don’t know if this is true but it sounds plausible.</p>
<p>I am not sure application fees are what colleges are after by increasing the number of applications. To get more applications, they travel exensively and spend a ton of money marketing. Compared with the application fees they are colleting, it’s at least a washout. I guess the major drive for boosting selectivity is still trying to find the best students they can find, which is why it’s a parameter in most of the ranking systems. Although college admission just like BS admission is not a stats game only, colleges do publish their student profiles. Students who have significantly lower stats wouldn’t or at least they shouldn’t apply in the first place. In that respect, I don’t think the colleges are trying to trick obvisouly unqualified students into a hopeless contest. The problem I see is that HS gradutes are applying to more and more colleges and their stats are getting better, so colleges have to turn down a lot of applicants with great stats (isn’t how it is in BS too?).</p>
<p>I think I’m with Parlabane on this one (Is that a first? ). The problem with a uniform ranking system, a la Consumer Reports–even one that weeds out all the silly manipulated stuff like admit rate and yield–is that there is no basic “customer” when it comes to colleges. And really, once a kid considers what he/she is looking for in a school (large or small? faculty in the departments he/she is most interested in? rural or urban? Grad school matriculation data in fields student might be interested in pursuing? Sports/service/organization/arts? Diversity of student body? Geographical location? Financial aid opportunities?), the schools will start to winnow themselves out pretty quickly. </p>
<p>Instead of a of ranking system, I’d be interested to know what kinds of qualities people think are most important to get a first-class college education. </p>
<p>My list would include:</p>
<p>Good grant-based financial aid opportunities
faculty-undergraduate connections
number of classes taught by grad. students
emphasis on writing/problem solvin vs. objective, scantron methods of evaluation
college surroundings/social environment–the party scene
grad school matriculation in ______________
arts/outside speakers/programming</p>
<p>observing that ranking and matriculation data is not completely revealing of what the boarding school experience is or college placement will be proves what? no method of examination is without epistemological problems. yet, examination of all kinds does yield sources of explanation. at the very least, it is positive that a school is highly ranked or sends greater percentage of graduates to ivy league schools. there is no reason to assume that only gladchems school students are rich, recruitable athletes, ivy legacy, urm, or otherwise hooked. Hooked kids are to be found in every boarding school in outsize numbers. Without ranking, we are to do what to choose schools? My impression is that some here would have us divine the best schools with a tree switch or rely on self proclaimed cognoscenti.</p>
<p>Those were two of the initial indicators we looked at for our kids selection process. I looked particularly at the increase, if any, between ssat at acceptance and sat mean when seniors. In my way of thinking, a school which has an outsize increase between these in and out test scores has done something right with its students. Once we had a group of schools in the correct test and matriculation range, we tried to gauge where the students were happiest, by actually asking them.</p>
<p>Tetus: If you’d let me trade in my tree switch for Google search and my laptop, then yup, I’m pretty sure I could help my kid find a great school without so much as a glance at US News and World Report. Everyone needs good, solid facts and statistics to make the college decision, but, when you get right down to it, I don’t think that someone else’s criteria and ranking should matter to my kid. </p>
<p>(maybe I’ve just finally seen the light, Parlabane…)</p>
). However, since WWII and even 1970 more and more people have college aspirations. This is from memory, it was something like 30% of people went to college in 1970 and by 1990 it was something like 70%. I’m assuming that the people who went to college in 1970 had multi-generational knowledge of the colleges/institutions that they sought to attend. But due to the huge influx of people seeking college educations now, these people are trying to figure out what will work for them. That is why I think the rankings have taken on such importance that the colleges/universities themselves seek to exploit them.</p>
). The problem with a uniform ranking system, a la Consumer Reports–even one that weeds out all the silly manipulated stuff like admit rate and yield–is that there is no basic “customer” when it comes to colleges. And really, once a kid considers what he/she is looking for in a school (large or small? faculty in the departments he/she is most interested in? rural or urban? Grad school matriculation data in fields student might be interested in pursuing? Sports/service/organization/arts? Diversity of student body? Geographical location? Financial aid opportunities?), the schools will start to winnow themselves out pretty quickly. </p>