<p>Big jump up in % classes < 20 may help, but loss of FT faculty may hurt (only counts for 1% of overall ranking though). Other numbers pretty stable. Peer assessment, at 25% of the overall ranking, remains the secret 800 pound gorilla. Suspect Pomona will end up in about the same place ranking-wise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Besides the fact that these rankings are nonsense. It's the same east coast "bias" you find in sports rankings etc. Pomona was up to 2 or 3 a few years ago and the school only keeps improving as it falls down these ridiculous rankings.
[/quote]
Pomona has never been ranked second or third. The highest ranking it has received is fourth, in both 1990 and 2004.</p>
<p>As a another poster mentioned, peer-assessment affects the overall prestige of Pomona, which in turn affects the matriculation decisions of the best and brightest students in the country. It's self perpetuating: Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, with comparable stats but far more overall prestige, receive more national recognition and thus attract an elite student body, further cementing the ratings. And I don't know if anyone has considered this, but the ratings of US world report might in fact be helping, not hurting Pomona--as a west coast LAC without the recognition of Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore, wesleyan, etc, Pomona might never have entered the radars of smart applicants nationwide without US News. The emphasis on numbers--SAT scores, endowment, acceptance rates and whatnot help Pomona immensely. If anything, I'd say that the peer assessment is a far more accurate indication of where Pomona really stands in the minds of people around the nation: remember, they didn't just survey joe Avg. Sixpack around the street; these are college professors and presidents--the people who guide the academic futures of millions around the US--who are responding. After all, I'm sure somewhere out there is an obscure, middle sized college with a higher avg SAT score than Stanford, but what distinguishes Stanford from podunk U. is the established prestige that has very real consequences upon grad school placement, hiring rates, salaries, quality of faculty, and other crucial factors.</p>
<p>So is there really such a thing as East Coast Bias? What incentive would college presidents and deans of admissions have to rate their neighbors higher? And as Hungryman said, which is more important when evaluating a college - the hard numbers (SAT scores, acceptance rate etc) or the peer assessment?</p>
<p>Example:
Pomona has better hard numbers than Williams, but a lower peer assessment. However, you'd be splitting hairs to say that one is better than the other (same with Amherst, Swarthmore).</p>
<p>When looking at LACs, peer assessment shouldn't be of much value because name recognition among LACs is more regional, and students are NOT going to these schools to impress the average person on the street with a fancy name on their diploma.</p>
<p>Except, sadly, chances are that "Amherst" on your diploma will impress employers more than "Pomona", even though Pomona is a more selective school.</p>
<p>I do believe that there is an East Coast bias. When we went through the admissions process, lots of other parents, including those whom I met at UCLA (where S went), asked why we would send our kids so far away when there were such good schools closer to home. (How about weather? ;) ) Yes, there are lots of good schools on the East Coast, but there are equally good schools that might prove to be a better fit on the West Coast or anywhere else in the country.</p>
<p>The only incentive that comes to mind is increasing the application rate that result in a lower acceptance rate that, in turn, affects the ratings.</p>
<p>Nobody at Pomona really cares though; we all know we're getting the best undergraduate experience of any college students on the planet. How meaningful is a number seven without a four in front of it anyway?</p>