<p>Following is the formula/methodology behind the ranking:</p>
<p>"Admissions Selectivity Rating
This rating measures how competitive admissions are at the school. This rating is determined by several institutionally-reported factors, including: the class rank, average standardized test scores, and average high school GPA of entering freshmen; the percentage of students who hail from out-of-state; and the percentage of applicants accepted. By incorporating all these factors, our Admissions Selectivity Rating adjusts for "self-selecting" applicant pools. University of Chicago, for example, has a very high rating, even though it admits a surprisingly large proportion of its applicants. Chicago's applicant pool is self-selecting; that is, nearly all the school's applicants are exceptional students. This rating is given on a scale of 60-99. Please note that if a school has an Admissions Selectivity Rating of 60*, it means that the school did not report to us all of the statistics that go into the rating by our deadline."</p>
<p>Another ranking that does not take yield rate into account.
The acceptance rate of Chicago is relatively high (38%), but its yield rate is surprisingly low, only about 34%. With Cornell's yield rate (47%) it's acceptance rate would be 28%. With UPenn's yield rate (66%), Chicago's acceptance rate would drop down to 20%.
I don't think that Chicago's applicant pool is significantly more self-selecting than most other top universities'.</p>
<p>Yield rate is not used by any major publication because it is so easy to manipulate. If you want a high yield, you simply admit less talented students who would jump at the chance at entering your school. Also, "yield" rewards schools that spend huge dollars on marketing to teens.
US News, PR, etc. realized this long ago and reacted appropriately by eliminating it from consideration.
In the restaurant business, McDonalds enjoys the highest "yield" among teens. Does that mean it's the best restaurant? I think not.</p>
<p>PS. Everyone knows Chicago, like MIT, has a very select applicant pool. Both schools spend little if anything on marketing. Not all accepted applicants may attend but that has nothing to do with the quality of their applicant pool.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Everyone knows Chicago, like MIT, has a very select applicant pool.
[/quote]
500 years ago, everyone knew that the world is a disk...</p>
<p>I didn't say self-selecting applicant pools do not exist; in fact, every school has one. Does everyone apply to Princeton? No. To Wellesley? No. To Caltech? No. To Chicago? No. To Robert Morris? No. To your state school? No.
I don't think yield rates were removed from rankings because they were so easy to manipulate. Admitting less qualified students would result in lower SAT scores, class ranks, ..., and that would hurt your rank more than a low yield. Imo, the use of yield rates generally hurts (average) public schools, but that doesn't matter for a ranking like "America's Most Difficult Colleges to Enter".
But what the yield rate does tell you is the desirability of a school. 2 out of 3 successful applicants to Chicago prefer to attend another school. What do these schools offer that Chicago doesn't? I am sure those students are smart enough to make a sensible decision which school to attend.</p>
<p>You don't have to lower SAT scores much, if any at all, to raise yield. Many schools can actually raise scores if they wish to ignore ECs and other parts of an application. For example, we all know Yale can fill its entire class with 800 (SAT) scorers, but they choose to consider other factors. Princeton rejects 3 out of 4 class valedictorians, etc., etc.</p>
<p>What does McDonald's teen yield supremecy among restaurants tell you about the quality of its restaurants???? Nothing, other than it is one heck of a marketer? Instead, I prefer a ranking that actually measures service, cleanliness and the QUALITY of its food.</p>
<p>So what does US News rankings tell you about schools?
They take acceptance rates into account (which tells you nothing about what a university has to offer), and the salary of its faculty (more money does not mean better teachers; higher degrees do not mean better teachers; and great researchers are not great teachers either) and the average alumni giving rate (which might tell you how much alumni liked their undergrad experience 30 years ago and how successful they are today, but tells you nothing about the school right now).</p>
<p>I like your reference to Mc Donald's btw. I wouldn't specify McDonalds though but rather fast food restaurants in general (most students at the US high school I attended preferred Wendy's). Why do teens like fast food restaurants? Because they meet the teens' needs by offering cheap food fast. You could try to find the best restaurant for teens with your "service, cleanliness and the QUALITY of its food" ranking, but the top spots would go to exclusive restaurants that are completely useless for most teens.
The yield, however, shows you what teens/students finally prefer for their food/education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But what the yield rate does tell you is the desirability of a school. 2 out of 3 successful applicants to Chicago prefer to attend another school. What do these schools offer that Chicago doesn't?
[/quote]
Financial Aid. I friend of mine(US citizen) got admitted into Chicago, CMU, U of Pittsburg and Case western reserve university. She chose Case western reserve university because it gave great aid. Correct me if wrong but Chicago's not very generous in giving aid even to domestics applicants.</p>
<p>b@r!um,
Whether you or your friends like Wendy's doesn't matter. It is McDonalds that is the king of yield among teens. McDonalds is a restaurant. Period. McDonalds serves poor quality food but is great at marketing the stuff. You can stick to McDonalds or Wendys, but I prefer to live longer with more quality.</p>
<p>PS. US news has 19 criteria. You mentioned only 3. You should take a closer look. PR's "Toughest Schools to Get Into" ranking similarly is the most comprehensive selectivity ranking out there. None other comes even close. I suggest you do a little more research before coming to hasty conclusions.</p>
<p>I spent the last 15 minutes trying to find a source suggesting that McDonald's is the single most popular fast food restaurant among teens in the US, but I have not found one. Would you have the courtesy to share your source?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I suggest you do a little more research before coming to hasty conclusions.
[/quote]
Which hasty conclusion are you talking about?
All I was saying is that I think that yield rates should be considered along with the other 19 criteria.
And I don't like the article you quoted. It suggests that Chicago's "high" acceptance rate is due to its self-selecting applicant pool which is only a half-truth.</p>
<p>Did you say you lived in Germany or another planet?? LOL. Do you think there is a restaurant on the planet earth which teens frequent more than McDonalds?? </p>
<p>The article you dispute is wriiten by PR, perhaps the largest education consulting business in the United States. Give them a little more credit. They have been very successful at what they do.</p>
<p>As I already said above, I have different experiences with McDonald's than you do. In the (US) region I am familiar with, Wendy's, KFC, and a few other fast food chains are (or at least were in 2005) more popular among teens than McDonald's. I don't know about the rest of the States.</p>