<p>I think they should just list the median family income of full-pay entering students, and then they can get rid of most of the subjective measures.</p>
<p>Calmom,</p>
<p>It would be nothing for SL to reguire students to submit any SAT scores they took along with their end of year grades. The money required is trivial and they could add it to their finacial aid packages if they wanted to.</p>
<p>Calmom,</p>
<p>I don't know about you but the data you posted from SL doesn't do much for me one way or the other.</p>
<p>Do movies get to opt out of being reviewed by local newspapers? Can sports teams choose not to be ranked? The market that USNWR serves is not the colleges but the applicants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do movies get to opt out of being reviewed by local newspapers? Can sports teams choose not to be ranked?
[/quote]
LOL!</p>
<p>Even the SL music department, which claims to be a conservatory caliber program, doesn't require competitive auditions. They are for placement only. Marilyn Monk & Yoko Ono are graduates. They value the cutting edge, the non-conformist, the iconclast. SAT scores don't capture that.</p>
<p>The applicants aren't being served however- if data is skewed to boost rank</p>
<p>Schools do attempt at increasing rank- maybe by heavily pressuring alumni to donate $5 to increase percentage of alumni donors- increasing rank- they may also heavily recruit applicants, by sending out tons of mail, making lots of appearances in schools and at college fairs & even making phone calls to potential students who have not applied but are in their targeted demographic.( i.e. or even below their average student numbers)</p>
<p>I don't think those measures are going to affect a students experience much, but they are used as criteria in rankings-</p>
<p>but I don't think rankings are going away- we love to categorize;)</p>
<p>curious</p>
<p>I get your point but are you really serving applicants if you are ranking based on erroneous "data"??? Rhetorical question, btw; the answer is "no".</p>
<p>Let's get back to the important issue, which actually has absolutely nothing to do with Sarah Lawrence or Reed or Harvard.</p>
<p>If US News & World Reports is "making up" data for ONE school, then it is highly likely it is doing the same on same basis for other schools. </p>
<p>Add in the fact that some schools have/are already conveniently "leaving out" data they report on their CDS, in order to "look better" in the rankings. Most actively work to "improve" their peer rankings, further manipulating the "rankings."</p>
<p>One has to wonder, therefore, just how <em>useful</em> the information provided in the U.S. News rankings really is to applicants. In fact, it might actually be doing more harm than good.</p>
<p>So, I'm with Mini. Let's have schools report the data that really matters in a manner that is consistent and that is independently verified by an outside organization. Here are just a few possibilities for data I'd like to see:</p>
<ul>
<li>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)</li>
<li>percentage of pell grant qualifiers who are admitted</li>
<li>number of AP and honor courses taken by admitted students</li>
<li>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.</li>
<li>Require ALL colleges to provide breakdowns of the GPAs of admitted students (interestingly, many "highly selective" schools leave this out)</li>
<li>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)</li>
<li>Average GPA of graduating seniors</li>
<li>percentage of students finding full time employment right out of college</li>
<li>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.</li>
</ul>
<p>THESE are the types of data that students really could use to evaluate their chances at various schools. But, as I said above, to be reliable they'd have to be collected by an independent source. The Federal government does collect some of this, and interestingly, sometimes it doesn't jive with what is reported in the US News. The Common Data Set is not independent - it relies solely on self-reported data, which is easily manipulated. As I said, add in the :manipulation: apparently being done by US News in at least some cases, and one has to wonder just how "useful" this data is to students.</p>
<p>And, one last thought: Perhaps, what is really need is to teach students and parents the pertinent questions to ask as they research schools, rather than encouraging them to rely on "rankings" in the first place. Even a Number 1 ranked school won't be right for every student, so why not teach students and parents how to evaluate what matters to THEM, and then require each school to answer their questions in a consistent manner? Probably not do-able, but that is what students really need in order to make informed decisions about the differences between schools (which, surprisingly, aren't really as big as most people and the "rankings" want us to believe)</p>
<p>bethievt,</p>
<p>I agree. I don't like the idea of substituting bogus data either. I think tossing all non-cooperating schools in an unranked catagory might be OK. I would prefer these schools get off their high horse and cooperate. These schools all demand a ton of information from students. I don't see what's wrong with using the collective bargaining power of USNWR to demand data from the schools.</p>
<p>Carolyn, as usual, hits the homerun: rankings are going to vary wildly depending on what criteria you use and how you weight them. Thus, for any one set of rankings, they're going to be salient for a relatively small group of students. </p>
<p>USNews kinda reminds me of astrology...some people think that because it has a lot of numbers and everything there must be some underlying validity.</p>
<p>I like Carolyn's list (since she attributes it to me. ;)) I'd add binge drinking data, which is already collected in a standardized fashion, and every college has it. It has a major impact on academic quality.</p>
<p>I'd also add student assessments of academic quality and quality of campus life. All the Consortium on Financing of Higher Education (COFHE) schools have it, though they prefer to keep it secret. (Harvard ranks 27th out of 31 schools.)</p>
<p>Finally, I'd eliminate the peer assessment as currently configured. The Dean of Bowdoin who got his degrees at Boston College and Yale likely can't even find Albertson College on a map.</p>
<p>curious</p>
<p>I think you're missing the point. SL and some other colleges as well, don't think SATs are a good predictor for what they're looking for in students. If they are not interested in these scores, why in heaven's name should they be requiring their students to report them? For the benefit of US News and their bogus ranking system? Why jump through hoops for them unless they do as Carolyn suggests and come up with a more authentic and meaningful system. Why should colleges buy unto this garbage? Another rhetorical question; the answer is "they needn't".</p>
<p>
[quote]
If US News & World Reports is "making up" data for ONE school, then it is highly likely it is doing the same on same basis for other schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As I recall, US News provides footnotes saying that it has incomplete data on some schools. You seem to indicate that this practice is widespread without footnotes. Do you have any evidence of this?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Add in the fact that some schools have/are already conveniently "leaving out" data they report on their CDS, in order to "look better" in the rankings. Most actively work to "improve" their peer rankings, further manipulating the "rankings."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No one has any idea if attempts to improve peer rankings work in the slightest, nor does every school engage in it. Schools leave out data on their common data sets? I've run into that so rarely that I can't remember running into that at all. Do you have any examples? There is no question in my mind that there is gamesmanship with the numbers, but I haven't found leaving out data on the CDS to be one of them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, I'm with Mini. Let's have schools report the data that really matters in a manner that is consistent and that is independently verified by an outside organization.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with the issue of outside verification, but the schools would need to take the cost of this auditing on themselves, in the same way that circulation numbers are audited in the publishing/advertising field.</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)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This would be every bit as misleading, I'm afraid. Most admissions departments admit large numbers of the most highly qualified students, knowing that their yield from those students will be relatively small. They admit smaller numbers of students whom they believe will have a 90% chance of attending if admitted. So, what you get are admitted numbers that are inflated by the scores/class ranks/GPAs or what have you of top stats students who have no intention of attending unless it's a safety situation. </p>
<p>Let's put this another way. Old Ivy University has an average SAT score of 1490 from the people it admits, but 1390 from the people who matriculate. The 1390 gives a clearer indication of a given applicant's chances, since the Old Ivy ad. dept. isn't stupid. The actual matriculating class is almost always the one that most closely fits its yield model. The 90% of kids with SATs above 1500 who didn't matriculate don't count. They weren't counted as actually filling slots in the matriculating class, anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
- percentage of pell grant qualifiers who are admitted
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is useful for what reason? And actually, I think I've seen that data, so they do exist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
- number of AP and honor courses taken by admitted students
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And if a school takes a lot of rural kids where APs and honors are either rare or unavailable, what does this tell us? And what does it tell us if a given ad. dept. cares not a whit about how many APs have been taken, but cares instead (as most say they do) about how many kids took the most rigorous courses of study available at their high schools? Wouldn't an AP number be extraneous, if not misleading?</p>
<p>
[quote]
- 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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First off, I'm not even sure my university could do this. For one thing, in only rare cases is someone considered solely a special admit. In most cases, these factors are only tips, and sometimes they are relatively weak tips. Also, you imply that all minorities, athletes, legacies, first generations, etc. are special admits. This is far from the case, I assure you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
- Require ALL colleges to provide breakdowns of the GPAs of admitted students (interestingly, many "highly selective" schools leave this out)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why on earth is this relevant? My undergrad alma mater reports an average GPA above 4.0 for the entering class. What does this tell me? It tells me that they let in a lot of students who are on weighted grading systems. How would that be useful from district to district? The availability of weighted grades varies from one district to another. The weighting system varies. Even the way that colleges recompute GPAs varies widely from college to college.</p>
<p>Talk about misleading data.</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)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think knowing the percentage that go on to grad schools is useful, but I suspect that the test scores simply mirror those of the entering SAT scores in almost all cases, adjusting for the fact that it is most likely the most skilled students who tend to go on to grad school.</p>
<p>
[quote]
- average GPA of graduating seniors
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why would I want to take this into account when choosing a college? It's all in the context of grade inflation. If I know that East South North Montana State has an average graduation GPA of 3.6, and North South East Wyoming State has one of 3.45, what does this tell me?</p>
<p>
[quote]
- percentage of students finding full time employment right out of college
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So, if cocktail waitress is full-time employment, what does this tell me about the school, itself, especially if said school tends to send a lot of kids on to grad school. What would this tell me about Juilliard, for instance?</p>
<p>
[quote]
- 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>And who should make this requirement? The federal government? The President by executive order?</p>
<p>Obviously SL puts student education first!! The school puts BS, college ranking, foot on the back of the neck of the students LAST. I have never been to the school but have always heard great things about it. GO SL GO. Now there is one gutsy real President of a College! Most of them are just glorified fundraisers concerned with status.</p>
<p>bethievt,</p>
<p>But the SAT's and other data might be of value to the student in evaluating SL. You know this process is supposed to be a two way street and the student can't leave off a required item on the app just because he disagrees with it philosophically.</p>
<p>Tarhunt,
I certainly understand that this is a touchy subject for college administrators such as yourself. No one wants to be forced to do extra paperwork. </p>
<p>But, these are the questions that I find students and parents most often want to know about individual colleges and universities. While you may not agree with the data points I suggested (I am merely brainstorming), perhaps you do agree that students and parents could benefit from a greater transparancy and consistency in admissions and educational data? Some of the items I mentioned (GPA breakdowns) ARE already asked for on the CDS form, but some colleges conveniently "forget" to provide them.</p>
<p>Of course, no need to worry. As events this week showed, the higher education lobby has enough sway to keep things the way they are. (By the way, I would <em>not</em> want to see standardized testing for colleges as Spellings was hinting at -- but greater availability of data, and perhaps some education to help students/parents compare the data, would be useful.)</p>
<p>As for your last question, one would hope that colleges and universities would be happy to provide students with consistent data voluntarily, and trust them to make their own decisions. After all, what do they have to hide?</p>
<p>Curious, Hmmm...good point. If you ask for data, that means colleges can't opt out of providing it.</p>
<p>"...a student can't just leave off a required item on the app just because he disagrees with it philosophically."</p>
<p>Can too - lots of 'em. My d. had no high school courses, no less high school grades. Took no AP classes (though she did take AP tests.) While she didn't put "200 meters" for race, she may have put "Mongol-Semitic" (I mean, if they really want to know.) We have a friend who entered H. at 14 and never took a school class in his life, and hence didn't have a single teacher recommendation.</p>
<p>You can leave off anything you like. Whether the school considers that acceptable is totally up to them.</p>
<p>Data on admitted as opposed to enrolled students is pretty worthless. But some colleges try to pass it off as real data and would get away with it were it not for CDS and USNWR.</p>