That’s fine, @PurpleTitan, if you’re expressing your opinion. We all have them. You stated is so matter-of-factly, that I thought there was some evidence I wasn’t aware of. Alumni accomplishments are in the eye of the beholder, I would think, but I forgot that you’d done your own analysis a while back. You’re talking about outcomes; I was thinking more in terms of quality of the education.
I recently attended an admissions session at a national LAC that is in the top 100 but not in the top 20. The Director of Ad. said they’d switched directions completely in the last 2 years since he took over. He said they used to try to get more applications so they could move up in the rankings by being more selective.
He said - no more. I am only targeting students I think actually want to come here and would do well. No emails/literature to everyone who took the SAT/ACT, only to those with x score. No response after a few mailings, we drop it. More personal phone calls, less mail.
I liked it. I wanted D to apply and go there. 
She didn’t like the school in general but I loved his philosophy.
Now, will that hurt the school in the end?
^^^ @VickiSoCal , if you had no objection, any chance you could name or hint to the school? You certainly makes it sound appealing! No problem if you would rather not, thanks in advance if you do.
Ursinus pretty famously made a point of that approach several years ago, to much ballyhoo. I was wondering if that was the school.
If Northeastern cut its student population in half, its per capita endowment goes from 40k per student to 80k per student. It still doesn’t remotely come close to making it out of the Knockoff-Handbag category.
I really respect that approach @LucieTheLakie but also wonder how it’s worked out. My kid visited but did not apply to Ursinus. They started sending him emails encouraging him to apply for a fall spot over the summer AFTER senior year… long after decisions were done. Only one tiny anecdotal detail, but it leads me to suspect that their yield THIS year at least has not been what they were hoping for. I’ve heard positive things, though, so that’s not meant as a slam to the school, just a comment on how managing yield may or may not be working out for them right now.
I agree, @porcupine98.
We visited several LAC’s in the 35-50 USNWR range. At one of them, I actually spoke personally with an admissions counselor who was an old high school friend. She told me that her school and its peers were having some trouble filling their classes lately. They are selective and don’t want to lower their academic standards to fill their yearly quota (since that would of course ding them in the rankings), but as expensive private schools they are feeling the pinch due to people not wanting to/ being able to to fork over $64,000 a year for a decent but not top college. I think enrollment, operation costs, price and selectivity are in a very delicate balance for these good but not top LAC’s that is not easy to manipulate.
The main problem with the US News rankings is that it is mainly based upon inputs into a college and not outputs.
For instance, they reward high spending. That penalizes cost-effective colleges. Also, the colleges with the highest spending per student often are in places with a very high cost of living, which means they need to pay staff higher salaries.
They also give points for the percentage of alums who contribute to the college. Public college alums are less likely to contribute than private college alums, because they sometimes figure that their tax dollars are already subsidizing the college each year.
http://undergraduate.umbc.edu/quicklinks/fast-facts.php
The author is probably right that colleges such as UMBC need more consideration by more people. I never knew much about it, but I just checked it, and it seems to have a nice campus with lots of on-campus housing and modern buildings. It is near the interchange of I-95 and the northern part of the Baltimore Beltway.
Biggest problems with the US News rankings (and all other rankings) is they try to make objective what is subjective. Change the factors considered and/or the weight given to each and you get very different results. Is one better or worse? No, just different.
And no school is the same for each kid who goes there.
Good news is that it really doesn’t matter. Very few kids (contrary to how CC may make it appear) give much weight to any of the rankings when deciding where to go to college.
@TheGFG, yes, tough time for LACs outside the tippy-top. Expect more of them to play games (go heavily to the waitlist for full-pays with acceptable stats; take in more full-pay transfers; send full-pays with weak stats on study-abroad first semester; more merit money and less fin aid) to keep their rankings up yet make enough money to keep going.
^^^ Interesting, and unfortunate! Can anyone name the schools being referred to? I can understand how @thegfg might not want to because of the personal relationship…
He lost me somewhere around an effective UMBC advertisement and openness of gay professors.
@PurpleTitan Immigrant and internationals are a very small percentage, these ranking myths are very American.
67% of Berkely undergrads are first or second generation immigrant. They aren’t exactly a tiny fraction.
@WorryHurry411, very small percentage of applicants to elite colleges? Not exactly.
Nor are kids from competitive school districts or well-to-do families.
All those added together are likely a big percentage of the applicant pool.
Now and in some schools but rankings are around for longer. Secondly, other elite schools have a quota for Asians, majority comes from rest of the population.
Oh here we go…
Got proof of a quota? If not, please don’t derail or tank this thread.
Whether there is a quota or not actually doesn’t matter when it comes to the issue of what percentage of the applicant base pays attention to rankings.