Part I: US NEWS RANKINGS 87'-07', plus 11'

College Search & Selection
1

<p>Point #1: US NEWS Rankings 83-07'</p>

<p>U.S</a>. News Rankings Through the Years</p>

<pre><code> This is the link I found that presents the US NEWS College Rankings list from 1983-2007. Unfortunately, the list only stops at 07', but I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find the rankings from 08'-11' on this site.

        A Special Note....
 I hope people will realize that the top 20 universities from 07' are EXACTLY the same as the top 20 in 11'. This shows just how consistent the top universities are.

</code></pre>

<p>Point #2: So What Does The Past Have To Do with the 2011 Rankings?</p>

<p>College Score</p>

<p>(*1)
1. Harvard 100
2. Princeton 99<br>
3. Yale 98</p>

<p>(*2)
4. Columbia 93
5. Stanford 92
5. Un. of Pennsylvania 92
7. CIT 91
7. MIT 91
9. Dartmouth 90
9. Duke 90
9. Un. of Chicago 90
12. Northwestern 89</p>

<p>(*3)
13. Johns Hopkins 86
13. Wash. University in St. Louis 86
15. Brown 85
15. Cornell 85</p>

<p>(*4)
17. Rice 82
17. Vanderbilt 82
19. University of Notre Dame 81
20. Emory 80</p>

<ol>
<li>Georgetown 77</li>
</ol>

<p>METHOLOGY </p>

<pre><code> A. The Point-Value

    The US NEWS rankings orders the colleges according to their point-value score, and if they are tied, in terms of alphabetical order. This point-value, however, is often NOT included in many rankings on this site, and thus many people think school A is better than school B by a long-shot because they are separated by 3 ranks. 
    Note, however, that I did NOT rearrange anything on this list. I only grouped them into sections *1-4, based rather on this point-value system rather than the general consensus that most people have on this site. These tiers were created based on the significant gaps from one school to another. For example, the difference between Harvard and Yale is a measly 2 points. However, the difference between Yale and Columbia now becomes a 5 point difference. Thus, this methology will hopefully present a more objective way at looking at how schools compare to each other. By doing so, I hope both CC members and students that your top universities are all so brilliant in what they do (provide a quality undergraduate education) that it is nearly impossible, as well as useless, to prove that school A is better than school B because it is ranked 4 places higher. I'll further explain this in the next section...

     B. Why I Like and Dislike US NEWS

</code></pre>

<p>The thing I like most about US NEWS rankings is just the sheer exposure to the best universities in the nation. Back when I was applying for college, it was hard to create a list of schools to apply to, mainly because there were so many I was unfamiliar with. (To be honest, I didn't even know of Dartmouth until I viewed the US NEWS list.) This list does a superb job at being your starter point for what colleges you want to look into. From here, I was able to research the individual colleges and find out what environments, programs, and resources I liked most that were unique to each college.
However, I dislike how the list, quite frankly, prompts the majority of the population and CCers to see nothing beyond the rankings. It's almost as if some of these schools have become a number, and of course, the fundamental flaw that "School A" is better than "school B" regardless of the vastly different environments each one posseses.<br>
I am not saying that schools of different tiers are generally similar (ex. I've hardly heard someone argue that the overall undergraduate education at Yale is better than that at Dartmouth). But, can people honestly prove Dartmouth is better than Northwestern, Harvard better than Yale, Rice better than Emory?
The question should not be, "Is Washington University more prestigious than Cornell University?"
The answer should not be, "Of course!" or "Of course not!"
The real question should be, "Is school A a better fit for me in terms of the learning environment, class sizes, research opportunities, weather, etc" The answers to these questions differ with each college, and it's these unknowns you should spend your time looking into.</p>

<hr>

<pre><code> I hope you can come to understand why I grouped the top universities this way, and also how consistent these universities are at being ranked together. In the next part, I hope to give my advice to both parents and high school students about applying to college through the decisions and mistakes I made when I was going through this process.
</code></pre>

<p>Peace, AT_Field</p>

2

<p>Eloquently and meticulously articulated; completely in line with my thoughts. I always thought that USNWR was good for exposure of some of the best, but nothing more - further analysis of the rankings merely does a disservice to some excellent schools. Commended.</p>

3

<p>people still taking these rankings seriously?</p>

4

<p>I really like these tiers and agree completely with the OP. It’s stupid to debate whether Columbia is better than MIT or whether Stanford is better than Penn when they are all just a couple of points apart in the college ranking score.</p>

<p>I just want everyone to note that there is a GIANT gap between Harvard, Yale and Princeton and every other top private school that is discussed on this site according to USNWR.</p>

5

<p>Stanford’s ranking is due to a mistake in the calculation in academic reputation rating. Instead of allocating a rating of 98, the USWNR assigned it a rating of 93. Without that mistake, Stanford would have been the clear #4. In terms of academic reputation, HYPSM are clearly above the rest. They each have academic ratings of 97-98. No other school has an academic reputation rating of better than 93.</p>

6

<p>

</p>

<p>how do you know this is not just a typo of 98 vs. 93 and 98, which is the true value, was used in the calculation? perhaps if stanford were actually ranked using a 93 ARI they’d be behind/with MIT (since the two were tied last year).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>nah 98 vs. 93 = +5 on ARI, which has a 22.5% weight, this translates into a +1.125 in overall score, making stanford probably tie with columbia for 4th.</p>

7

<p>

I can’t speak for the mistake that USNWR but I definitely agree with your statement that HYPSM have the best “academic reputation”. However, USNWR is trying to measure the “quality of undergraduate education” and not “academic reputation”. For what USNWR is trying to accomplish with its ranking, HYP are in their own class.</p>

8

<p>The Us News Selectivity ratings this years are:

  1. Yale, Caltech
  2. Princeton, Harvard, MIT, Columbia
  3. Penn, Washington U
  4. Brown, Dartmouth, Stanford
  5. Georgetown</p>

<p>In view of this, it seems that Stanford should go about recruiting smarter students a compared to other schools if it wants to rise in the US News rankings, since this must be a major component of the overall rank.</p>

9

<p>

</p>

<p>Why go through the trouble of recruiting “smarter” students when all that is needed is simply reporting the numbers to USNews that get the job done. Something Chicago and Columbia discovered a few years ago. </p>

<p>All Stanford needs to do is fiddling with the top 10 percent class rank and report numbers that are just as believable as … Columbia’s. In the 2003 edition of the rankings, Columbia reported a high school top 10% of 84 percent. Does anyone believe the numbers improved THAT much! ;)</p>

10

<p>People who believe that the Stanford (&MIT) this year is not as prestigious as the one last year are seriously misinformed. Stanford has a relatively low selectivity ranking due to its relatively low SAT ranges caused by its commitment to excellence in athletics its huge undergraduate athletic population. Harvard has the same issue. Dartmouth also suffers due to the fact that its so small; therefore athletes make up a very high percentage of the overall student population.</p>

<p>@8, although Stanford may not match up well against Harvard, but a student is just as likely to choose Stanford as Yale & Princeton given the opportunity.</p>

<p>@7, USNWR is trying to make money, and it tries to achieve that by coming up with something that seems to measure the “quality of undergraduate education.” I would not call peer assessment, counselor’s ranking, alumni givings rate, etc. criteria for quality of undergraduate education.</p>

11

<p>The selectivity may better be measured by the Yield to Admit Ratio</p>

<p>Yield to Admit Ratio for Class of 2014</p>

<p>(Yield/Admit-rate)</p>

<p>10.7 Harvard<br>
9.8 Stanford<br>
8.7 Yale
6.5 Princeton
6.3 M.I.T.<br>
6.1 Columbia<br>
5.7 Brown<br>
4.6 Dartmouth<br>
4.4 Penn<br>
3.0 Caltech
2.7 Duke</p>

<p>

I think that Stanford might have done better against Harvard and MIT for Class of 2014, a little off against Yale and Princeton.</p>

12

<p>“Stanford has a relatively low selectivity ranking due to its relatively low SAT ranges caused by its commitment to excellence in athletics in its huge undergraduate athletic population.” In other words it has more relative “duds”(less smarter students) than other schools at that level. This is a policy decision by Stanford that US News should not be blamed for and that should not be whined about. It is what it is. So what?</p>

<p>Stanford believes that a higher athletic profile will benefit it beyond “hits” it might take in venues like US News. It can change its policy at any time.</p>

13

<p>

</p>

<p>Relative is relative.</p>

<p>While Stanford SAT scores are “relatively” lower (for the reasons you highlighted), that small difference is erased by the lower admittance rates. On the other hand, look at the reported high school ranks … that is where the differences come from. </p>

<p>Tracking the changes in the selectivity index in the editions of 2003, 2007, 2010, and 2011 allows one to see clearly what happens in the comparison of Stanford and Columbia, including the strange impact of the expected graduation rates that is supposed to be influenced by the selectivity indexes of the past. A higher EXPECTED graduation rate should result from a better selectivity and from higher SAT scores.</p>

14

<p>"Why go through the trouble of recruiting “smarter” students when all that is needed is simply reporting the numbers to USNews that get the job done. Something Chicago and Columbia discovered a few years ago. "</p>

<p>witness the seemingly invisible College of General Studies…</p>

15

<p>High school ranks carry an inordinate amount of weight over SAT scores.</p>

<p>1) It only includes schools that disclose rank, of which at the many top schools means almost 50% of the class doesn’t count. </p>

<p>2) It has far more influence and can fluctuate much more. For example a 6% change in top 10% class rank (say a 90% to 96%) is not that big a deal and schools can jump this much in a couple years. But a 5% shift in M+V SAT scores means almost a 100 point drop which is HUGE when it comes to SAT score differences among the elite schools.</p>

16

<p>"…almost 50% of the class doesn’t count. "</p>

<p>IIRC, Cornell said only 35% reported class rank.</p>

17

<p>I love the Stanford offense that pasted USC for 55 points last years. Hopefully, nothing in this discussion will lead to any policy decisions that will deplete the Stanford line or backfield. I’ll take the US News number 5 any day of the week for the joy it gave me last November. Go Cardinal! It isn’t every school that can be AP top 25 and US News top 5!</p>

18

<p>I think there are people at Stanford that would even tolerate the farm falling to number 6 if the Cardinal could win a Rose Bowl.</p>