<p>Following what Globalist & MarathonMan said, we are one of ( probably majority of ) families who find some --but limited--use in "official" rankings, only because we have clear priorities about what's important to us & what is not. It would probably be too cumbersome to do this, but I would love rankings --or simply information-- broken out by category, not by school. (Financial Aid, Retention Rate, GPA/score ranges, etc.)</p>
<p>Globalist--good point about output metrics. It's crazy to invest capital without having some idea of the ROI. There was an alternative ratings schema a couple of years ago--I know I saw a thread here about it, but it's probably dead and buried, and I can't remember the source, but they at least tried to rank based on contributions of graduates as measured by the percentages who went on to serve society in roles such as Peace Corps, military, etc. I'll see if I can dig it up.</p>
<p>I haven't read this entire thread, so apologies if I echo anyone else.</p>
<p>I don't know why this needs to be an either/or proposition. Why can't the USNWR list coexist with other lists -- perhaps other lists compiled in book form, or in an article for a competing national magazine.</p>
<p>Perhaps there could be a college-ranking list of these criteria by carolyn:</p>
<p>
[quote]
- All data on test scores and GPAs should be for ADMITTED students, not enrolled students as it currently is (enrolled stats tend to be artificially lower than what an actual applicant needs to get in)
- percentage of pell grant qualifiers who are admitted
- number of AP and honor courses taken by admitted students
- percentage of "special admit" students - legacies, developmental admits, minorities, first generation, athletes, special talents -- and, while we're at it, some data about the test scores and GPAs for each group would be nice as well.
- Require ALL colleges to provide breakdowns of the GPAs of admitted students (interestingly, many "highly selective" schools leave this out)
- percentage of students going directly to graduate school (and breakdowns by type of school), test score ranges on graduate school standardized tests (and percentages of those taking)
- Average GPA of graduating seniors
- percentage of students finding full time employment right out of college
- Finally, REQUIRE all schools to publish the above on their websites, instead of forcing students and parents to sort through information from other sources like US News which apparently uses its own "criteria" to make up data when it is not available.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...compiled by carolyn and other highly intelligent parents? "The College Confidential List of Top Colleges in the U.S"</p>
<p>Why not?</p>
<p>Re: the subject of the USNWR list -- I don't think it should be abolished. It should be one tool among many in the college search. In my opinion, there is a far more pernicious entity that we deal with: The College Board.</p>
<p>Isn't it time that the 'powers that be' take a hard look at the amount of information that the College Board controls? Their hegemony on the college process is downright Microsoft-ish. Let's see -- they keep lists of our children's college choices and inform schools accordingly, they control the SAT, the SAT II, and keep private financial records of our entire family for the CSSP.</p>
<p>So I don't have a problem with USNWR, I have real issues with the dominance of the SAT as a powerful property of the College Board. Who can forget the devastation of thousands of test-takers last year, whose dashed hopes of acceptances and scholarships were the result of a "flaw" in the CB system? Why wasn't the CB shut down by a giant class-action lawsuit?</p>
<p>As to SL, my S#2 is so impressed by the courage of Dr. Myers, that he will definitely be an applicant this fall. I hope many other CC students do the same! Let's vote for Sarah Lawrence by the numbers!</p>
<p>AnudduhMom
p.s. for anyone who thinks that SL's gesture will only attract the 'weaker' candidates, S#2 has an A/A+ average, 2360 combined SAT, 800/800/780 SATIIs, and all 5s on APs taken so far.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know it is fashionable to beat up on the US news. When we were looking for colleges, the listing was very handy. Here are the categories US news judges a school, and what each categories meant to us. Folks we were making a $200 k decision.</p>
<p>• Peer assess- ment score (5.0=highest) - interesting
• Average freshman retention rate - useful
• 2006 actual graduation rate - useful
• Faculty resources rank - very useful
• % of classes w/50 or more ('06) - extremely useful
• % faculty who are full time ('06) - extremely useful
• SAT/ACT 25th-75th percentile ('06) - EXTREMELY USEFUL
• Acceptance rate ('06) - very useful
• Alumni giving rank - who cares
• Overall score - interesting
• Graduation & retention rank - useful
• 2006 predicted graduation rate - useful
• 2006 overperf.(+)/ underperf.(-) - interesting info
• % of classes w/fewer than 20 ('06) - extremely useful
• Student/ faculty ratio ('06) - extremely useful
• Selectivity rank - useful
• Freshmen in top 10% of HS class - very useful
• Financial resources rank - useful
• Avg. alumni giving rate - who cares
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think that Simba's post should be adopted by everyone who discusses the USNews as an ... introduction of one's frame of mind. </p>
<p>Here's mine from when I started in 2002 and TODAY</p>
<p>Ranked in level of usefulness (1 lowest and 5 highest)</p>
<p>• Peer assessment score (5.0=highest) - 4 then - 2 now (being generous)
• Overall score - 3 and 1</p>
<p>• Average freshman retention rate - 4 then - 2 now
• 2006 actual graduation rate - 3 and 3
• Graduation & retention rank - 2 and 3
• 2006 predicted graduation rate - 4 and 1 (see below)
• 2006 overperf.(+)/ underperf.(-) - 4 and 1 this element is based on the past selectivity scores and is ... counter-productive for several schools. A bad tool as implemented. Check Harvey Mudd for a glimpse</p>
<p>• Faculty resources rank - 4 and 4
• % of classes w/50 or more ('06) - 4 and 5
• % faculty who are full time ('06) - 3 and 1
(wish it would be % faculty who teaches) for a 5
• % of classes w/fewer than 20 ('06) - 3 then, 5 now
• Student/ faculty ratio ('06) - 3 and 5 (wish it was TRUE faculty for a 7)</p>
<p>• SAT/ACT 25th-75th percentile ('06) - 4 and 4
• Acceptance rate ('06) - 4 and 5
• Selectivity rank - 4 and 4
• Freshmen in top 10% of HS class - 4 and 2 (see UC stats)</p>
<p>• Financial resources rank - 3 and 3
• Avg. alumni giving rate - 1 and 1
• Alumni giving rank - 1 and 1</p>
<p>Cars do not make decisions. College graduates do. </p>
<p>Sorry, but people are not "outputs." They belong to the species, homo sapiens, stress on sapiens.</p>
<p>
Exactly: SLC's motto,"You are differentso are we." really does apply here. I don't know of very many LACs with such a self-selected applicant pool. Sure, those schools aren't for everyone, but for those who value a true LA education, go for it!</p>
<p>But then what do I know? I attended two top-25 national universities only to have my two oldest attend Sarah Lawrence and Bard! (With their Dad's full encouragement and support.)</p>
<p>Here's my take on the alternative list:</p>
<p>- All data on test scores and GPAs should be for ADMITTED students, not enrolled students as it currently is (enrolled stats tend to be artificially lower than what an actual applicant needs to get in)</p>
<p>Nope - this would only skew admissions' data even further by providing schools a tool to boost their statistics with unverifiable data. Serves no purpose whatsoever.</p>
<p>- percentage of pell grant qualifiers who are admitted
One can find this information if ... important to him. USNews has incorporated the Pell grantee in the expected graduation rates. Serves little purpose in the context of USNews.</p>
<ul>
<li>number of AP and honor courses taken by admitted students
Somewhat valuable as general information. Worthless in the context of admission and choice of colleges. See Jay Matthews' Utterly ridiculous rankings of AP schools to understand<br></li>
</ul>
<p>- percentage of "special admit" students - legacies, developmental admits, minorities, first generation, athletes, special talents -- and, while we're at it, some data about the test scores and GPAs for each group would be nice as well.
??? And how does that help ... someone evaluating a school, except if one of the chosen few of that group!</p>
<p>- Require ALL colleges to provide breakdowns of the GPAs of admitted students (interestingly, many "highly selective" schools leave this out)</p>
<p>Okay - and how would one compare a GPA from one of the Carolinas with Exter's GPA, or compare a GPA based on a private ultra selective unweighted 0-100 to next door public school where students get 2 grades boosts for PARTICIPAING in a watered down AP class? </p>
<p>- percentage of students going directly to graduate school (and breakdowns by type of school), test score ranges on graduate school standardized tests (and percentages of those taking)</p>
<p>And how do you separate the students who go within 24-36 months after going abroad for a Fulbright, work for Teach America, or simply have to save for Business, Law, or Medical school? </p>
<p>*- Average GPA of graduating seniors * </p>
<p>YAWN!</p>
<p>- percentage of students finding full time employment right out of college</p>
<p>Iffy to define what is full time employment </p>
<p>- Finally, REQUIRE all schools to publish the above on their websites, instead of forcing students and parents to sort through information from other sources like US News which apparently uses its own "criteria" to make up data when it is not available.</p>
<p>Yes, more transparency is warranted, but not the data of the above list.</p>
<p>Marite, of course people aren't outputs like cars, but come on now, don't you think it's important to look at how well one's college degree has helped improve one's life? No ranking will be perfect. That's why I don't like them in general, but in order for US News to do a better job, they have to also look at outputs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't know why this needs to be an either/or proposition. Why can't the USNWR list coexist with other lists -- perhaps other lists compiled in book form, or in an article for a competing national magazine.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>USNews DOES co-exist with numerous alternative lists. Washington Montly comes to mind and a few others that have shown interest in the information and ... the dollars made by USNews. As far as books, there are many available. None of them are exactly like USNews and that is probably good!</p>
<p>As far as the courage of Dr. Myers, I'd like to take a wait and see attitude before glorifying her "defiance" of USNews. From my vantage point, we do not know if she asked for SLC to be unranked or USNews simply slammed the door shut. </p>
<p>The situation is extremely simple: schools that want to participate in an annual ranking should have the data available; the ones that don't have or don't want to make available should NOT be ranked. </p>
<p>SLC should not be ranked and USNews did the right thing. For once! </p>
<p>PS
[quote]
for anyone who thinks that SL's gesture will only attract the 'weaker' candidates, S#2 has an A/A+ average, 2360 combined SAT, 800/800/780 SATIIs, and all 5s on APs taken so far.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But will they attend?</p>
<p>
[quote]
And how do you separate the students who go within 24-36 months after going abroad for a Fulbright, work for Teach America, or simply have to save for Business, Law, or Medical school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Xiggi, it's not the time period after college that you look at, because it varies so much. You look at the schools who have the most scholars like Fulbrights - that's one factor. Another output factor is to look at the list of admitted students at the top graduate programs and see where they went undergrad. The Wall Street Journal already does an undergraduate ranking like this. So, it wouldn't be hard for US News to simply include that as an output metric factor.</p>
<p>ADDENDUM:
Yes, I agree that it's not an either/or situation. Students should use all factors when determining where to go to school.</p>
<p>Globalist, I was addressing the proposal of measuring the percentage of - percentage of students going directly to graduate school and voicing an opinion that such a yardtick would be impossible to define. The last year(s) of undergraduate and the first year of graduate schools can be a very fluid period as one can take 5 or 6 years to graduate in preparation of graduate schools. Studying or researching abroad can be part of the UG or immediately follow. </p>
<p>Students might also decide that graduate school looks a lot better in June than it did in the Fall of their senior year. Such students might not be able to join a graduate school in the Fall and have to apply later. Why would that change the "reputation" of the UG program? </p>
<p>
[quote]
- percentage of students going directly to graduate school (and breakdowns by type of school), test score ranges on graduate school standardized tests (and percentages of those taking)</p>
<p>And how do you separate the students who go within 24-36 months after going abroad for a Fulbright, work for Teach America, or simply have to save for Business, Law, or Medical school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
Of course we know the answer; SLC didn't want to be not-ranked, they just wanted to not have trumped-up SAT metrics used to rank them. But don't take it from me, here's what SLC says about it:
[quote]
August 17, 2007</p>
<p>Memorandum To: The Sarah Lawrence Community</p>
<p>Re: U.S. News Rankings</p>
<p>From: Karen Lawrence</p>
<p>Today, U.S. News & World Report will release for public distribution its 2008
edition of America's Best Colleges, the magazine's annual ranking of colleges
and universities. In recent years, U.S. News ranked Sarah Lawrence College
among the top-50 liberal arts colleges in the nation. While we do not place
much stock in the rankings and the questionable methodology that backs them
up, they do influence public perceptions at the margins and therefore merit
attention.</p>
<p>As you probably know, this past year U.S. News indicated that it was uncertain
how it would score and rank Sarah Lawrence College given that the College no
longer collects and reports SAT data for first-year students. An initial
proposal by U.S. News involved a fallacious assumption that our first-year
students would post SAT scores substantially below the average score reported
for students at all national liberal arts colleges. This led to a somewhat
acrimonious exchange between the College and Bob Morse, editor of the
rankings.</p>
<p>Ultimately, U.S. News disengaged from the dialogue and we were left to wait to
see how the magazine would handle the SAT question. Now we know.</p>
<p>The college received a pre-release version of the rankings on Wednesday. It
shows that U.S. News created a new category -- 'unranked schools' – for
colleges unable to provide data required by the magazine's ranking formula or
for which there were insufficient responses to the magazine's peer reputation
survey. Consequently, Sarah Lawrence is no longer listed among the first four
tiers of ranked liberal arts colleges. Instead, we are grouped among a small,
unusual assortment of unranked schools.</p>
<p>On the face of it, U.S. News' decision to create an 'unranked school' category
that is buried at the end of the rankings, rather than to amend its
methodology, seems somewhat vindictive. It certainly verifies that the
magazine's approach to evaluating schools is flawed: one of the finest liberal
arts colleges in the nation has been artificially extracted from its peer
group and hidden in a made up category.</p>
<p>The question now is how best to respond to this development. We are taking a
number of steps:</p>
<p>1) In preparation for media inquiries, we have assembled talking points that
address concerns about the U.S. News ranking methodology, explain the
College's policy on SAT scores and the reasons U.S. News placed the College in
the 'unranked' category.</p>
<p>2) We have aligned with the National Association of Independent Colleges and
Universities as a participant in the "U-CAN" initiative, a Web-based system
for providing consumers with comparative college data in detail without
resorting to rankings. U-CAN is a competitor to U.S. News. When it rolls out
in mid-September, more than 400 of the nation's leading colleges and
universities will be taking part.</p>
<p>3) The College will remain aligned with the Annapolis Group, an assocciation
of liberal arts colleges, in its efforts to modify or supplant the U.S. News
rankings.</p>
<p>4) We are updating, revising and expanding the amount of quantitative
descriptive data that we publish on the SLC Website to help consumers get a
more complete profile of the College than that provided by U.S. News.</p>
<p>5) Admission is posting an addition to its Frequently Asked Questions Webpage,
with answers to questions that prospective students might have about the U.S.
News classification.</p>
<p>6) The College continues to work closely with other guidebooks that provide
students with narrative descriptions and more complete data about schools.
These include the most popular guides used by prospective students: Fiske,
Princeton Review, Kaplan and Petersons.</p>
<p>7) We will continue to evaluate internally the options for persuading U.S.
News to position Sarah Lawrence appropriately within the constellation of
national liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>The Board of Trustees, alumnae/i and parents have been informed of these
developments.</p>
<p>Also, later today, the College plans to release a formal news statement on its
Website. In the meantime, you may wish to read coverage of the rankings issue
that appeared this morning in InsideHigherEd.com. The link to the article is
as follows:</p>
<p>Of course, we are disappointed with U.S. News' actions, but we believe the
appropriate course of action at this time is to stand firm regarding our
principled decision to exclude the SAT from our admission process.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See SLC's press release here</p>
<p>Xiggi, okay. Got it. ;)</p>
<p>Globalist:</p>
<p>Don't you think that the guy who decided to be a carpenter was enriched by having majored in East Asian studies at Harvard? I sure do. But Harvard did not teach him to be a carpenter.</p>
<p>And what has this to do with ranking colleges? How is it going to be of any benefit to learn that Harvard has produced great carpenters, actors, musicians, or a baker? Joanne Chang, who graduated summa in economics is now a famous baker in Boston). Maybe the econ summa has helped Chang run her business profitably, but I doubt her Harvard education helped her make better dough (and I mean it literally rather than metaphorically as in dollar). Another young man I knew decided to become an apprentice chef in NYC after graduation, much to his parents' dismay. They had envisioned him as a lawyer. He later became the chef for the corporate dining room of a major company. What his Harvard education made possible was frequent trips to Chinatown and local restaurants.</p>
<p>What I object to in the use of measurements of proportion of students going on to law. med. bus school or Ph.D. programs is the assumption that these are the only valid gauges of the quality of an undergraduate education. By extension, it implies that those who do not choose to go into such programs are academically weaker. If say, 40% of a college's graduate population do go into post graduate programs, it does not follow that the other 60% are not capable of being admitted if they so chose. We just don't know the reasons for the choices they made. And by and large, these are choices not fall positions they fell back on because they did not get into grad school.</p>
<p>Look, I'm a TV producer. Did I learn my professional skills in college? No. Nonetheless, I'm still happy that I studied econ and politics. I know that there is more to college than getting into top grad schools and becoming CEOs of companies. This is why I don't like rankings at all because no ranking can capture the true essence of each school and an educational experience. </p>
<p>But, since US News is going to rank whether not we like it, I feel it must include some sort of outputs otherwise its rankings are highly flawed. I don't have a perfect formula of what outputs to use, nor do I claim to. I was just listing a number of options.</p>
<p>xiggi:
[quote]
USNews DOES co-exist with numerous alternative lists.
[/quote]
Indeed. But the USNWR list is the one that keeps colleges up at night. To say otherwise is disingenuous. An alternative list, as I am imagining, by College Confidential members, would be equally valid -- if anyone here has the time for such an ambitious project (perhaps some cc posters with >4,000 posts?) </p>
<p>
[quote]
Quote:
for anyone who thinks that SL's gesture will only attract the 'weaker' candidates, S#2 has an A/A+ average, 2360 combined SAT, 800/800/780 SATIIs, and all 5s on APs taken so far.
But will they attend?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are missing the point a bit. I am talking about peaceful protest here! (forgive me, I just finished watching "Gandhi" again). If Sarah Lawrence gets a mountain of applications from highly qualified candidates, that could push one of the criteria through the roof: the Selectivity Rank. Students could make a statement about their right to change the system.</p>
<p>But several points if you are asking about my S's particular case:
-- There are several other colleges that he likes as well as SL
-- He might not even be accepted, who knows
-- And sadly, there's the matter of cold, hard cash (even superannuated hippies have to pay their kids' tuition bills)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It might be interesting to note that my D's take on this was that her desire to be a doc was what kept her from going to Yale in the first place. Well, that and the whole "$ thang". She'll tell you that had her desire been to do a number of other things (law, politics, government service, business, banking, anything else where the terminal degree was a bachelors, ......) she would have gone to Yale. </p>
<p>I have a feeling THAT attitude is not picked up in the rankings. LOL. But I do want to point out that , if my failing memory isn't tricking me, there are LAC's ranked 50-100 that have 15-20% of their entire class accepted to med school (Hendrix and Austin College for two). I still find that amazing. Yale was (again on memory) 6%. Maybe lots of kids make the same kind of decision. Who knows?</p>
<p>Thanks for the SL memo Proud Dad. That seemed to me powerful testimony to the sway that the rankings hold in higher ed.: If ever I've seen a memo that says, "we're in crisis mode here" that was it. </p>
<p>BTW, I agree with the memo's characterization of U.S. New's move as vindictive. Have you ever noticed how many footnotes there are at the bottom of the rankings explaining how they've fudged numbers that weren't provided for various metrics by lots of schools?</p>
<p>Marite: Great post (#374.)</p>
<p>They should make a separate designation for schools that are unrankable because data are not available.</p>