<p>Cayton, a difference of 10 or 15 spots in global rankings is completely negligible. Not that those rankings make sense in the first place. Is Imperial really better than Yale or Columbia? It is according to most of those international rankings. </p>
<p>In several measurable ways (endowment, quality of several programs etc…), Michigan edges UCLA. The opposite is almost never true. Both are excellent universities, but I think Michigan is sturdier/more robust. </p>
<p>I also think that UCLA gets a boost in the international rankings because of its ranking at USNWR. </p>
<p>@Alexandre</p>
<p>That may be.</p>
<p>But give UCLA more time! The school isn’t even 100 years old yet. 
That it has accomplished so much in the 95 years of its existence is extremely impressive in my opinion(It’s worth noting that it couldn’t even grant doctorate degrees until 1936 because UC Berkeley wouldn’t allow it and because it started off as Berkeley’s satellite campus, so its graduate programs are only 78 years old at most. They’re ranked very, very highly given how young they are). It isn’t even the primary flagship of the University of California system, although many would argue that it has effectively gained flagship status and shares that with Berkeley(If you look on college confidential, you’ll find a couple of threads where people ask whether UCLA or Berkeley is the flagship of the UC system. That some people even have to ask this speaks volumes about how much prestige UCLA has acquired in its relatively short existence), so I think UCLA has accomplished a great deal in its short history and will continue to improve. </p>
<p>Of course, I don’t expect Michigan to stagnate or anything; it too will likely use its resources to improve its programs and such. The balance of power isn’t likely to change much among the top public universities anytime soon.</p>
<p>@billcsho </p>
<p>A good question, and one that presents a problem for all college ranking systems. Each one that I know of has endured lengthy criticisms because of what they did and did not factor in and how much weight they gave to each factor.</p>
<p>@rjkofnovi </p>
<p>USC is ranked #25 in the USNWR rankings, but doesn’t do nearly as well in other ranking systems. Just saying.</p>
<p>
There is an error in the US News data. Michigan’s “Freshmen in top 10% of high school class” is listed as 65% with footnote #4 which indicates that this is “data reported to US News in previous years”. Well, the last time Michigan reported top 10% data to US News was in 2011, as reported by US News 2013 ranking as 95%. US News 2012, 2011, and 2010 rankings all showed Michigan’s “freshmen in top 10%” as 92%, which are consistent with what Michigan reported in the Common Data Set.</p>
<p>Where in the world did US News get the “65%” figure?</p>
<p>Student Selectivity accounts for 12.5% of the total score, 25% of which is from the “top 10%” data. On a 100 point scale, a 30% increase in “top 10%” score will add almost a full point … not enough to catch Carnegie Mellon and USC by itself, but perhaps enough to pass Tufts and Wake Forest.</p>
<p>Someone from Michigan’s Office of Budget and Planning should talk to Bob Morse about this.</p>
<p>There are other “peculiar data behavior” in the US News ranking, such as the “Faculty Resource Rank”. Will post my questions after I’ve done some more analysis.</p>
<p>Michigan’s student selectivity ranks in US News from 2013 to 2010 were 24, 27, 26 and 24 respectively (top 10% at 95%, 92%, 92% and 92%), compared to 39 this year.</p>
<p>“There is an error in the US News data. Michigan’s “Freshmen in top 10% of high school class” is listed as 65% with footnote #4 which indicates that this is “data reported to US News in previous years”. Well, the last time Michigan reported top 10% data to US News was in 2011, as reported by US News 2013 ranking as 95%. US News 2012, 2011, and 2010 rankings all showed Michigan’s “freshmen in top 10%” as 92%, which are consistent with what Michigan reported in the Common Data Set.”</p>
<p>This doesn’t surprise me one bit. </p>
<p>Student selectivity shouldn’t be a factor in these rankings; it says nothing about the quality of the school.</p>
<p>Michigan can afford to be less selective than schools like UCLA, Berkeley, and other top-25 schools because it doesn’t have as many applicants. They shouldn’t be penalized for it.</p>
<p>Cayton, I agree with you. However, Michigan’s student body is just as selective as UCLA and Berkeley, even according to US News. In the 2013 US News ranking (before the data entry error), Michigan’s selectivity rank was 24, compared to 25 of UCLA and 14 of Berkeley.</p>
<p>novi, I agree with you that there are significant data integrity problems with the US News ranking … however, this one is a blatant data entry error that US News should fix right away.</p>
<p>@GoBlue81</p>
<p>How do they calculate selectivity rankings? Do they incorporate the admissions standards of these schools(The kinds of standardized test scores and GPA needed to be competitive, for example) in these rankings?</p>
<p>According to US News, the student selectivity metric has three components –
<p><a href=“http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2014/09/08/how-us-news-calculated-the-2015-best-colleges-rankings?page=3”>http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2014/09/08/how-us-news-calculated-the-2015-best-colleges-rankings?page=3</a></p>
<p>“Student selectivity shouldn’t be a factor in these rankings; it says nothing about the quality of the school.”</p>
<p>Agreed 110%. Unfortunately, the USNWR introduced it as part of the rankings and this has been a primary reason why private universities have been in a mad rush to increase selectivity. </p>
<p>Many private universities have been manipulating admissions data, while some have lied outright and some have even stooped so low as to encourage substandard students to apply in order to lower acceptance rates. I am amazed at how some of the best and most selective universities send emails of encouragement to students who have no chance of getting in. </p>
<p>Fortunately, public universities have resisted, although they have recently been forced to become a lot more selective as a result of the large increase in OOS and international applicant pools. Michigan’s OOS and international applicant pool used to be less than 7,000 a mere 15 years ago. Last year, 35,000 OOS and international students applied. That’s a 500% increase!</p>
<p>Some public university would even send out invitation with application fee waived to attract more OOS students to apply. It is a cheap way to increase applicant pool size and lower the admission rate.</p>
<p>" Last year, 35,000 OOS and international students applied. That’s a 500% increase!"</p>
<p>I believe that the total cohort was order of 49,750 and the OOS cohort was 39,000 of that total</p>
<p>It’s amazing to me how quickly USNWR corrected its obvious error in regards to the business school rankings. Does anyone think that they will do anything about the error Goblue81 noted in regards to percentage of top ten class ranking student enrollment? I personally doubt it! I wonder how many years that error has been going on? </p>
<p>rjk, I believe this is the first year that the USNWR used incorrect data for Michigan. The correction could actually give Michigan a boost in the USNWR ranking, but to #27. But it still does not address the flaws of the overall ranking, particularly those of the financial and faculty rankings.</p>
<p>I think you are right blue85. Which means the OOS and international applicant pool grew by close to 600% in the last 15-20 years. I anticipate that trend to continue, and for the OOS/international student population to continue to grow. When I was at Michigan, it made up 30% of the total undergraduate student body. Not, it is roughly 40%. I think it will eventually hit 50%.</p>
<p>@Alexandre </p>
<p>I personally don’t mind the fact that my school is increasing the number of OOS applicants it admits(For financial reasons), and I believe it adds to the diversity of a school. What I wonder is, do you oppose Michigan’s increased enrollment of OOS students? Support it? Or don’t care one way or another?</p>
<p>As the number of in state high school graduates is going down, it is inevitably to have a higher percentage of OOS students unless the school shrinks the class or lower the standard. I think it has already hit 42% right now. For California, it is the opposite. The population is still growing there.</p>
<p>
I suspect Bob Morse follows Alexandre’s tweets.</p>
<p>
The error first appeared on last year’s ranking. It’s incredible the US News data entry system would allow a data item to drop 30% year-over-year without flagging a possible error!</p>
<p>Someone from Michigan’s Budget and Planning Office should write Bob Morse and ask him to fix the error. We used to have someone working in that office active on the Michigan forum, but I haven’t seen her for quite a while now.</p>
<p>“The error first appeared on last year’s ranking. It’s incredible the US News data entry system woul” allow a data item to drop 30% year-over-year without flagging a possible error!</p>
<p>Someone from Michigan’s Budget and Planning Office should write Bob Morse and ask him to fix the error. We used to have someone working in that office active on the Michigan forum, but I haven’t seen her for quite a while now."</p>
<p>It would have been corrected quickly if Michigan were a top private school. </p>