<p>No Mojojo, they are tied at #24. Michigan comes first alpabetically.</p>
<p>Yes, two schools listed at the same number are considered a true tie, and one cannot extrapolate which one may have been "above" the other</p>
<p>whoa....WUSTL is ranked that high? I haven't looked at rankings in a while and I never knew it was that good....I thought michigan was better</p>
<p>"I never knew it was that good"</p>
<p>Most people agree that the ranking is inflated and it's not nearly that good of a school.</p>
<p>WUSTL in the eyes of many is overrated. I also think the ranking is a bit inflated, but it's still a pretty good school.</p>
<p>I agree with Alexandre on the UChicago.</p>
<p>WUSTL SUCKS! they should be in the 20s if you ask me</p>
<p>And of course the USNWR rankings are for the preceding year (2005 admissions) so Michigan's significant jump up this past year won't be reflected until next year (as far as I know, the lowest acceptance rate yet at 47% -- 15 point drop, as well as ACT range of 27-31 for middle-50%), right?</p>
<p>princeton beat out harvard? what the........</p>
<p>W00t!!!!!!!</p>
<p>GO STANFORD!!!
GO STANFORS!!!</p>
<p>Oh yeah!!!!</p>
<p>Well, the changes this year make more sense- last year's was a lot of crap if you ask me (Most of them already pointed them out- UPenn Duke at 4,5, Chicago so low, WUSL in a total BS spot). Well, I think the rankings in general aren't that great, but at least it makes slightly more sense this year.</p>
<p>Agreed with sv3a. Last year was pretty crazy, this year is still strange -- but getting toward the path of reality.</p>
<p>Has everyone seen Time magazine's article on the 25 New Ivies? I was very please to see UMich among them.</p>
<p>Oops. I meant Newsweek!</p>
<p>the 25 new ivies from newsweek wasn't a big deal at all. they just considered the top 25 schools that aren't an ivy league and that isn't a top private such as uchicago, northwestern, and hopkins.</p>
<p>If the 2007 rankings are based on 2005 statistics, then I guess they didn't consider the new 3-year business program for those rankings.</p>
<p>Michigan would have moved up more except that it dropped from 60 to 69 in faculty resources, which accounts for 20% of the ranking.</p>
<p>I am also pleased that Chicago went up and Penn went down. Still not entirely sure how Harvard can't be #1, but I'll live with that for now. They at least picked a good school to replace it. I also think Caltech is a bit high. They are more often a backup plan for MIT than vice-versa (so say the yield percentages). Not to mention, it's not as well-rounded as MIT (as you guys mentioned). It does not have the great econ/business program MIT does. I think after USNWR records Michigan's much lower acceptance percentages from this year and next, we will get a push into the top 20.</p>
<p>Acceptance rates aren't factored in as far as I know. However, the 50 point improvement in the SAT range and mean will probably propel Michigan's selectivity rank into the top 20 and that will help us. However, that alone will not push Michigan into the top 20 overall. If Michigan really wants to make a strong push, it needs to work on its faculty resources rank. It counts for 20% of the total ranking and Michigan was ranked #66 in the nation (down from #60 last year and #55 two years ago). That is unacceptable. If the University could somehow fix that problem and jump from #66 to #26, Michigan's overall ranking would be in the top 15.</p>
<p>What exactly is "faculty resources" ? Quality of Professors?</p>