<p>Curmudgeon, your D's situation is a perfect example of how the US News rankings work. They give you a general idea of what's out there. Now Yale may only send 6% of their grads to med school; but I bet only a small % apply, and of those that do, perhaps 80 or 90% gain med school admissions. If your D wanted to have a taste of more eclectic kids while she prepared for med school, Yale might have been fine. If she wanted more of a tight-knit peer group of science kids shooting for med school admissions, then Rhodes was probably the best choice. Not to mention the lure of big scholarship $$$$....</p>
<p>SS, it was the number attending/applying that I found interesting. (Certainly not bringing in her choice of Rhodes. More her denial of Yale for another , less prestigious address, wherever that may have been . It could have been Scripps, or UMiami. ) I don't even know the number at Rhodes. LOL. I don't think I looked (Rhodes has a scattershot that I basically memorized) but it is NOT like Hendrix or Austin. I just found it interesting , as did at least one guidebook, that Yale's %age of students wanting to attend med school (as measured by those attending) had steadily DROPPED. I neither offer that statement as the truth or know whatthehell it means. I do remember reading it, though. ;) That lack of interest in medical school was what I was commenting on. Not that popular a destination among Yalies, it seems.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with your first paragraph, but have to shake my head at the second. It's a real non-sequitur!</p>
<p>So the rankings are flawed. Your solution would be to add an even more flawed and really impossible to measure criterion?</p>
<p>If the rankings are flawed--and they are--, do not use them. Just look at the usable data, such as SAT ranges, size of classes, graduation rates, etc... Why should it be of importance if Harvard is ranked 1 or 2 or 3, or that Swarthmore, Amherst and Williams change positions every few years?</p>
<p>Marite, </p>
<p>First of all, the criterion is not impossible to measure since other magazines like Business Week and the Wall Street Journal already do it. Just because a ranking is flawed does it mean that you shouldn't try to improve it.</p>
<p>Since I’ve never corresponded with you before, I’d like to know if you’re among the ilk that is anti-ranking or do you like the status quo as to how colleges are currently ranked. If you’re anti-ranking, I’m down with you. I prefer to not use rankings too. But if you’re with the status quo, again you’re missing a big factor – outputs. To not include them is letting these colleges off the hook.</p>
<p>For example, let’s look at how differently US News and Business Week judge undergraduate business schools. For the most part, US News only looks at Peer Assessment provided by deans and department heads from many business schools. Even if they decided to include the same data that they use for their university-wide rankings (i.e. student selectivity, SAT scores & class rank along with Financial/Faculty Resources), how do we know that each school is actually doing its job when it comes educating future business leaders? </p>
<p>Business Week on the other hand goes deeper. Not only does it look into class sizes, student selectivity, and faculty/financial resources, they also look at outputs:</p>
<p>Number of graduates who have jobs upon graduation.
Average starting salary for graduates.
Rating the students themselves give their school.
Rating company recruiters give various schools.
Placement into top MBA programs.</p>
<p>Like "Globalist", I also work in TV, despite having been a French Language and Literature major. Much of my time is spent analyzing statistical data and cost effectiveness/efficiency. I find most of this data highly suspect based on the methodology used to compile it. Still, this is the industry standard that I have to live with to do my job. (Luckily, I am able to use other evaluative techniques, as well.) And, though this standard methodology has undergone some technical revision from time-to-time, most insiders would still agree that it is (and always will be) flawed.</p>
<p>So, USN&WR's college ranking system is certainly not the only statistical data set that is flawed. All are inherently flawed. All one has to do is turn on the news and hear about the latest study on the merits of chocolate. One week it will kill you and the next it will save your life. Subjective opinions based on statistical data sets abound. </p>
<p>Some people will accept USN&WR's data set as valid and others will give it no credence. IMO, rankings do virtually nothing for a student trying to assess the "fit" of a school. It may, in fact, be somewhat detrimental to use it as a college "bible." My D and I have come across many kids on CC who say they want to major in X at prestigious Y university even though the major isn't even offered there. Where's the intelligence in that?</p>
<p>It is, however, despite its flaws, a conveniently packaged listing of mostly "name-brand" schools offering some basic info/guidelines for assessment, and for this reason, I think it maintains it's popularity. IMO, it should be used as a launching pad and not as much else.</p>
<p>As "epiphany" suggests, a breakdown of statistical categories would be of more interest to some people. I, myself, being the analytical-type, have charted data by category for my D's working list of two dozen or so colleges of interest. It is labor intensive, and I can certainly understand why most would not want to do this. </p>
<p>We did not use USN&WR as a source. I am, however, a Washington Monthly(mentioned by "xiggi") subscriber, so my D & I did peruse their rankings.</p>
<p>For those unacquainted with their approach:</p>
<p>"Welcome to The Washington Monthly College Rankings. Unlike other college guides, such as U.S. News and World Report, this guide asks not what colleges can do for you, but what colleges are doing for the country. It's a guide for all Americans who are concerned about our institutions of higher learning. Are our colleges making good use of our tax dollars? Are they producing graduates who can keep our nation competitive in a changing world? Are they, in short, doing well by doing good? This is the guide that tells you. "</p>
<p>(WM 2007 rankings will be out in Sept.)</p>
<p>Did they influence her? Only to the extent that she thought Bryn Mawr (ranked # 1 LAC) was "cool" for accepting evidence of a "charitable donation" in lieu of an application fee. Even though schools are "businesses" to a degree and operate as such, it is encouraging to learn that some are "getting it right."</p>
<p>Sarah Lawrence is a business too, and sees a benefit to being on the USN&WR list even though it is an institution that doesn't wish to play the game. </p>
<p>My D considered SLC (mostly because we are "Power of Myth" fans and even though Joseph Campbell is gone his influence remains.) She received the brochures/viewbooks, etc. One of its publications is entitled (th)INK: Prospectus For An Extraordinary Education and comes completes with a removable book jacket which quotes TIME magazine and the Princeton Review. Evidence that SLC is in the business of marketing itself just as all other schools must. SLC, however, is marketing itself to a different and select segment of the population. It is not misrepresenting itself. By and large, I believe, the complaint is that SLC is not included among what it considers its cross-app peer institutions. People don't know what to make of a school like SLC precisely because it is so unique. (Thank you "ProudDad" for pointing out how exceptional SLC students are.)</p>
<p>One of my D's friends, for example, is the SLC type. A different sort of girl with a Nabokovian writing-style that will give you goosebumps and bring tears to your eyes. She can only thrive at a place like SLC where the education is for the passionate and self-directed student. It's a good thing there's a place like SLC for her.</p>
<p>In the app process, SLC places emphasis on its supplemental essays rather than test scores. Here are the latest:</p>
<p>"At Sarah Lawrence, we believe that an educated human being is one who combines skepticism with reverence, who questions everything but the dignity and worth of others, and who recognizes the obligation to serve the larger community. Please choose one of the three options below and write an essay (250-500 words).</p>
<ol>
<li><p>A central part of learning at Sarah Lawrence is conference work, the guided independent study on a topic of the students' choosing that accompanies each seminar course. Conference work is a result of a student's specific area of interest in a class and a teacher's guidance; most often this semester- or year-long course of study culminates in a substantial paper, project, or piece of research. For this essay, we offer you the chance to imagine what you might do for conference work. Is there a topic you've always wanted to learn more about? Has a class in high school rushed past a subject that you found fascinating? The topic can be as broad or narrow as you would like.</p></li>
<li><p>We assume that you have changed throughout your high school years, and we are curious to hear what experiences and challenges in the past four years have influenced who you have become. We are also interested in how these changes have led you to apply to Sarah Lawrence College. What is it about the college and its unique educational structure that leads you to think that you will be a good fit? How will the college help you fulfill your goals?</p></li>
<li><p>Many Sarah Lawrence alumni credit the college for helping them find their voice—whether as scientists, performers, activists, lawyers or simply as educated individuals. Do you feel as if you have found your voice, and, if so, what factors and experiences helped you do so? How do you think Sarah Lawrence and its unique educational structure will help you develop or discover your voice?"</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Any applicant who gives any thought to the college app process will not dwell on rankings but will do some real soul-searching to find what is "right."
College is a time for discovery and students can discover themselves at Harvard or SLC or any institution and can likewise go on to ''great" things. The importance of these stats and rankings will fade when the "real world" begins to permeate their consciences.</p>
<p>Still, this USN&WR debate is an important one for CC'ers no matter what your particular stance. While there are many HYP types on this site, the "others" shouldn't be made to feel inadequate. These rankings unfortunately create a sort of collegiate caste system. SLC students and their ilk are just as "brilliant" and receive a dynamic education. Thanks to the "Alpha" posters for ressurecting this thread.</p>
<p>I am anti-ranking.</p>
<p>When S1 was applying to colleges, we did not even know there was such a thing as college guides. We got a list of safeties, reaches and matches from the GC, which turned out to be very accurate as the GC knew my S pretty well and had taken into account his preferences (LACs). Later in the process, we did discover USNW&R, but, despite the fact that one college was ranked (slightly) below another one, he chose the first one because of better fit.</p>
<p>For most families, I think the SAT ranges is good to know. Class size, retention rate, graduation rates. all those, too, are good to know; although S2 is preparing to take courses that will range in size from 8 to possibly 800 depending on how popular one class turns out to be (its enrolments have always been in the several hundreds as far as I know). But peer evaluation (nah). Alumni giving (hmmmm....) </p>
<p>I agree with Xiggi's list, by the way.</p>
<p>
Of course it is—for deciding which schools (that use SATs in their acceptance process) your child has a chance of getting in to. But as a major component of ranking the quality of the education, it has little to no bearing. Some people are simply better test-takers than others for reasons having little to do with "intelligence" or even perceptiveness. Test scores can be influenced by tutoring and other preparation that costs money and requires access to advantages not offered or available to everyone. And there are more important factors to consider when assessing a candidate's qualifications. I'm fortunate that my family seems to test well, but I know not all of my kids' friends do, and it has nothing to do with how stimulating, engaging, or "intelligent" they are. </p>
<p>Simply put, SAT results are useful guidelines for choosing a school that might accept your kids if that school puts a lot of stock in such scores. It does not directly correlate with the degree of academic success (not GPA) or future happiness, quality of life, or contribution to society, or the quality of that school or how it should be ranked. I accept the likelihood that we will always have rankings. But there's a difference between how likely your kid is to get in a certain school versus the quality of education at that school.</p>
<p>I have often wondered why I don't hear the education/training/experience/recognition in their field, etc. of professors used as, if not a ranking factor, at least as a consideration here on cc? I suppose it is a given that at the elite schools the faculty is consistently stellar (true/or not?); but I have noticed that many lesser "ranked" institutions have a majority of professors trained at highly regarded universities than one might assume if one didn't take the time to investigate.</p>
<p>I need to elaborate on my earlier post (interrupted by dinner).</p>
<p>SAT ranges are good to know only as a very general yardstick. It is unrealistic to think that being at the 75% percentile will guarantee auto-admission, especially at the very top schools. It is also possible to be admitted despite having SATs below the 25% if there are some compensating strengths. Keep in mind, too, that many students are quite lopsided and that there are colleges that cater to these sorts of students. Among LACs, one could think about Harvey Mudd as being at the opposite end of the spectrum from Sarah Lawrence. The composite SAT scores will not show up these differences.</p>
<p>Percentage of faculty who are ladder (tenured or tenure-track). In general this is a great criterion. A low percentage means that too many profs are adjuncts. While adjuncts can be and often are every bit as qualified as tenured profs, the conditions in which they work (no office and thus little opportunity to hold office hours; no clerical support; no voice in the department and no say in the curriculum) means that they cannot be as effective as profs who enjoy better working conditions (not to mention much much better salaries!). But small differences in percentages should not be made too much of. They may indicate a higher percentage of performers and practitioners, in the arts in particular. </p>
<p>Regarding products; Yes, Business Week can assess how good a training students have had in business programs or econ programs. But we're not talking about a single field. I'm sure Business Week won't be interested in the strength of Sanskrit and Indian Studies or Anthropology or Film Studies or Classics. But all these fields and dozens more are what make an undergraduate institution; not one or two fields. And how to judge the product? By the percentage of students who've gone on to grad school? Got a job? A job in their field? How long after graduation? Can colleges keep track of their alumni and their careers?</p>
<p>Regarding post 388: The realities of the job market is that Ph.D.s from top programs will not all find jobs at the top universities. So you are right about the high quality of faculty to be found at a wide range of colleges. By the same token, not all qualified applicants to top schools can be admitted to top schools. So the quality of the student bodies of many other colleges can be comparable to the top schools.</p>
<p>There are more quality job market candidates than available jobs at the top universities. One of the stars on the job market (she has already publish in the most prestigiuos journal in the profession) this year got an offer from the University of Maryland in addition to offers from other highely ranked universities. She chose Maryland to the surprise of everyone.</p>
<p>You can find good scholars at all places even at places like BYU!.</p>
<p>Prouddad</p>
<p>I am not in love with the SATs, either, as amply demonstrated on the thread about top scorers. High school GPAs are also unreliable measures of students' abilities and levels of preparation and are particularly deficient as means of comparing different students or groups of students. SAT+ GPA alone is a better but still imperfect yardstick and does not do justice to students with unusual profiles. A holistic approach to admissions is far better in my opinion, and SLC takes it. The problem likes in the signalling to prospective applicants. Suppose a student is thinking about colleges, and drawing up a list of reaches, safeties, matches. How will s/he know whether s/he is competitive for SLC? What would be a good replacement for the SAT range?</p>
<p>As far as SLC is concerned, the college is quite clear about what it wants in a student -- it wants students who are creative and independent minded. The school also has intense writing requirements -- and the primary criteria for selection is probably the essay. </p>
<p>If the kid wants to know their "chances" at SLC they might ask themselves: "do I enjoy writing?" and "do I like to immerse myself in projects?" If the answer to both questions is yes, the student has as good a chance as any other of being admitted. Between 1/2 to 1/3 of all SLC applicants get in - it is competitive but certainly not crazy. </p>
<p>The point is... no replacement is needed. One can learn from the web site that the average high school GPA of enrolled students is 3.6 - see: <a href="http://slc.edu/admission/SLC_Quick_Facts.php%5B/url%5D">http://slc.edu/admission/SLC_Quick_Facts.php</a> -- and that it may be a bit of a hook to be male. </p>
<p>The college provides detailed info about its evaluation process on its web site:
[quote]
How is the application evaluated?
We consider transcripts and essays to be the two most crucial parts of the application. On transcripts, we hope to see at least four academic "solids" (English, math, history, science or foreign language) each semester in the context of a challenging academic curriculum that includes advanced placement or honors courses (if offered at your school). From the essays we are seeking evidence of strong writing and independent thought from applicants who are not afraid to explore a subject in depth. We also carefully consider counselor and teacher recommendations. This is where such important details as your classroom contributions, academic relationships and intellectual appetite emerge. Our recent decision to remove all standardized testing from the admission process reflects the Colleges emphasis on writing rather than testing.
[/quote]
See: <a href="http://slc.edu/admission/Frequently_Asked_Questions.php%5B/url%5D">http://slc.edu/admission/Frequently_Asked_Questions.php</a></p>
<p>I know its hard for some to grasp -- but any kid with a reasonably strong academic transcript in terms of course load who writes well has as good a "chance" as any other at admissions. People who are stuck on the idea of a numerical qualifier may struggle with that -- but then those are probably the type of people who aren't good fits for SLC anyway -- after all, once a student is there, they are going to have to function in a academic environment built around independent projects and research.</p>
<p>
I believe you're right. And, just to help prove the point here's a random draw from Bard College's (USNews #37 LAC) faculty page, some verbiage (and names) cut to save space but I included all eleven in alpha order omitting no one, starting in the "B"s for Bard: ;)
[quote]
B.A., Stanford University; M.A., Ph.D., Harvard University. Assistant professor, Department of Philosophy, Yale University (198188); associate professor of humanities, Scripps College (198890). Assistant director, Whitney Humanities Center, Yale University (198284); director,Scripps College Humanities Institute (198890).</p>
<p>B.F.A., Rhode Island School of Design; M.F.A., Yale School of Art. Awards: MTA Arts-for-Transit commission, National Endowment for the Arts grant, MacDowell Colony residency in painting, Fulbright Scholarship (Cairo)</p>
<p>B.A., Magdalen College, Oxford University; Ph.D. candidate, Princeton University. Taught literature, philosophy, and German at Princeton.</p>
<p>B.A., McGill University; D. Phil., St. Antonys College, Oxford University. Specialization in Soviet, Russian, and Eastern European politics; media and politics. Taught at Central European University, University of Kiev Mohyla Academy, Wesleyan University, Yale University</p>
<p>Director of the Geospatial Technology Section for the Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN) of Columbia University's Earth Institute.</p>
<p>B.A., Harvard University; M.M., Columbia University. Recipient, National Endowment for the Arts grants for music composition (1977, 1980), visual arts (1983), and interarts</p>
<p>L.L., University of Paris; M.Phil., University of Warwick; Ph.D., Dartington College of Arts. </p>
<p>B.A., Amherst College; J.D., Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley; Ph.D., UC Berkeley.</p>
<p>B.A., SUNY Buffalo; M.F.A., Brooklyn College. Has taught at Brooklyn College, Rutgers University, Naropa University, and the Poetry Project</p>
<p>B.A., M.A., Johns Hopkins University; Ph.D., Yale University</p>
<p>B.A., Columbia College; Ph.D., Columbia University.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Calmom:</p>
<p>Granted, but SLC wants the publicity that comes with being on the USN&WR list. The ranked list, not the Siberia of unranked colleges. And it does so for quite good reasons: it wants to be known to students looking for colleges to which to apply, to be put on a list of 8-10 colleges out of the 3,000+ that exist in the US. Once an applicants has had a quick look at the basic information provided through USN&WR,, s/he can then investigate further, go to the SLC website and see what SLC looks for in applicants. But it is the quick look that is the issue here. One cannot expect USN&WR to include all the verbiage you posted from SLC.<br>
Disclosure: The only reason I know anything about SLC besides what I learned from CC, is that a good friend of mine, an editor who attended SLC many years ago, was considering it as a safety for her son who is very good at writing and is math phobic. He did get into SLC but decided to attend another college. The funny thing is that my friend was absolutely obsessed with SAT scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ProudDad, thank you for confirming what I thought about the "courage" of Myers. It also confirms what I wrote when the SLC protest first came out.</p>
<p>I maintain that USNews should be more vindictive if that gets rid of the remaining gamers that play their SAT optional policies for all their worth. While there is nothing wrong for schools to establish their individual admissions policies, it is wrong to expect a magazine to make adjustments for the same policies. </p>
<p>Further, since a number of schools profess their distaste for the rankings, there seem to some a rather diplomatic poetic justice in placing them in a special category where they can enjoy the company of true peers. Astute readers who are fans of this type of institutions still have access to the data and do not have to suffer from the taxing imposition of an unfair ranking. </p>
<p>Fwiw, it is pretty easy to understand what the school wanted: eliminating the criteria where they are NOT competitive and remain ranked using data that simply not exist. </p>
<p>Let's hope that USNews finds the courage to keep this policy active and extend its reach and scope.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>SLC could double its number of applications without changing its selectivity index by more than a few places, as it takes a lot more than decreasing the admit ratio. A school needs to raise the SAT/ACT of its enrolled students as well as the percentage of top 10%. And speaking about 10%, that is exactly the percentage of the admit ratio in the selectivity index.</p>
<p>Marite, US News has all the information it needs to know where SLC "fits" on the spectrum, just as it knows where a college like Reed ought to fit. In their pursuit of numbers, they have blinded themselves to reality. This has lead to the insanity of the US Military academies now being listed among the LACs. I mean, is there really any logic to putting Oberlin and Annapolis on the same spot on the same list? Do they have anything in common other than both being situated in towns with names beginning with a vowel?</p>
<p>Everyone else can do it. Fiske & Princeton Review don't have any difficulty with the concept of simply providing detailed information and assigning some sort of star rating to qualities like selectivity or academic environment -- or figuring out which colleges belong in their "best colleges" book and which colleges don't quite make the grade. </p>
<p>What US News does is affirmatively misleading in part because of their focus on test scores -- which are not the primary consideration for admission at most of top tier school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sarah Lawrence is a business too, and sees a benefit to being on the USN&WR list even though it is an institution that doesn't wish to play the game.
[/quote]
Yup. They want to have their cake & eat it, too. The press release, as Marathon stated, did scream crisis mode. If SL truly places no value on rankings, then the college should ignore their exile to the unranked list. But of course they do need a spot in the rankings to keep the applications flowing. </p>
<p>The press release made it clear that SL administrators are very peeved that they have to mingle with hoi polloi. I see nothing courageous about their anti-US News campaign; I think it was a business strategy that failed. Perhaps they will win the next battle. SL is a unique school, but anyone familiar with it knows it is heavily populated with lopsided kids. In fact, the tour guides promote the fact that the math phobic kid will be at home there. If you gather enough math phobic kids to form a critical mass, it stands to reason that average SAT composite scores will drop lower than more balanced LACs. So what? If a student is a good fit for SL, it will come out in the holistic admissions process.</p>
<p>The Carnegie Classifications have been the basis of the Best Colleges ranking categories since at least 1987 and are generally considered the standard for higher-education research. For example, the U.S. Department of Education and many associations use them to organize their data and to determine the colleges eligibility for grant money. In short, the Carnegie categories are the accepted standard in higher education. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The purpose of grouping colleges into ranking categories is to compare schools with similar missions: national universities against national universities, liberal arts colleges against liberal arts colleges.</p>
<p>To sort colleges and universities into the appropriate categories for the upcoming Best Colleges rankings, we will use the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teachings recently announced 2006 Basic classification system. This new classification will be the first change in Carnegie categories since 2000 and will surely result in some schools changing from one ranking category to another and other schools being ranked for the very first time. For example, some universities have added doctoral programs--which could move a school previously listed in the Universities-Masters category into the National category. And other institutions have become bachelors-granting schools for the first time.</p>
<p>The Carnegie Classifications have been the basis of the Best Colleges ranking categories since at least 1987 and are generally considered the standard for higher-education research. For example, the U.S. Department of Education and many associations use them to organize their data and to determine the colleges eligibility for grant money. In short, the Carnegie categories are the accepted standard in higher education.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do Fiske and PR rank? How do they list the colleges? Alphabetically? By region? Size? Thank goodness the GC was familiar with these guides. Their size looked daunting to me when I espied them in her office. I never bothered to open them.</p>
<p>People want their information not in paragraphs but in numbers, on spreadsheets, in graph form, in pie charts, what have you, but they want in numbers. Five paragraph essays come later. And that's why USN&WR sells so many copies and is so influential.<br>
So SLC wants to be ranked but does not want to provide the information.<br>
Yes, USN&WR has enough information to rank SLC. Trouble is, SLC does not like its place on USN&WR's list. But it does not want to supply the information that might make a difference.</p>
<p>But why obsess with rankings? I don't. I'd be perfectly happy if USN&WR listed colleges in sections of 15 or 25 and alphabetically therein. I could not care less whether a particular college was #10 or 25. If I had another child to put through college, I would like a list of colleges where her stats would be in the ball park. That might be a list of 25 or so. To me as a parent, the SAT range would be of interest. If my hypothetical D had SATs in the 1200s and no outstanding strengths, I would look at colleges that had SAT ranges in the 1400s and up in her list. I'd be looking at another section of the USN&WR rankings. Then I would whittle the list of 25 down to a more manageable length by striking out those that did not fit her needs in terms of size, location, etc...<br>
To me, the SAT range is one of the most interesting statistics used by USN&WR. Most of the stats used by USN&WR are about the college: how many tenured profs? how large are the classes? The SAT range is different. It helps students determine: Do I have a chance? Should I even bother to apply there? As long as one keeps in mind that it has no absolute predictive value (of acceptance or rejection) but functions as a general guideline, it is a very useful metric. And if people don't like it, they can suggest a replacement. But not in 5 paragraphs unless they want USN&WR to turn into the Fiske Guide or something else. And since the Fiske Guide already exists, why bother?</p>
<p>One change I would like to suggest, however: breaking down the composite SAT score into Verbal and Math components. So students would see what SAT ranges would be acceptable for Harvey Mudd (heavy on math) and SLC (heavy on verbal).</p>