<p>For selectivity rank, how does Cornell only have a 98 selectivity rank when schools such as JHU, Emory, and NW have a 99. Even Cal Berkeley has a 99 selectivity rank. Schools such as NYU, Michigan, and a few others have a 98 rank. I do not understand this. I got in 7 schools that have a 99 selectivity rank, so it shows that this is ridicuously not valid.</p>
<p>Cornell, U of Chicago, Wash U should all move up to 99, don't u think, maybe not Chicago, but definetely Cornell and Wash U.</p>
<p>because some schools have more applicants that may be because of location or cost or something like that</p>
<p>Is a 98% selectivity rating not good enough for you? I mean, when we're talking about 98 and 99%, is the difference really that great? I mean, it could be like a 98.4444444 and a 98.4444445 and they round the second one up. I really wouldn't worry too much about a difference of 1%, especially in the selectivity rating, as this has NOTHING to do with the quality of education. And as pjv said, some schools have more applicants relative to their student body size. Cornell has a HUGE student body, so selectivity is "less," simply due to class size.</p>
<p>Hahaha, dont even bother with princeton review's selectivity ranking. Honestly, rankings are bull for undergrad level anyway. You can only rank a graduate program based on its reputation. You really can't rank an undergraduate experience by some mass media ranking. Just go to the school you like the most. Cornell's acceptance rate is now 26%, which is lower than JHU, NU and Emory. I think that's enough.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I mean, it could be like a 98.4444444 and a 98.4444445 and they round the second one up.
[/quote]
Am I the only one who remembers being taught to round erroneously like that in early school?</p>