<p>bethie:</p>
<p>So? USN publishes its methods. The rankings are useful only in that context. Since the context is published, I don't see a problem.</p>
<p>
How is SLC being arrogant? They don't have the scores so how can the supply them? And I do have a horse in this race; my daughter goes to SLC. She was admitted to two of the USNews top 25 U's and one of its top 5 LACs, was accepted everywhere she applied....except SLC. National Merit Scholar, 800 on the old SAT-II writing, top scores on the CR and Math. They didn't care. Now maybe they figured, as someone said, SLC was being used as a safety, but after a year on dean's list at a top 15 U she applied to SLC and was accepted as a transfer. Best thing she ever did. She loves it there and I can tell they mean what they say about their educational format. Reading the evaluations shows the professors really know the kids, really work with the kids, and the relationship is a healthy sharing among peers. From my one data point (DD), SLC may very well have higher SATs than many of the top-ranked LACs, but USNews will never know and they're playing God with the rankings because of it. They'd better have a huge asterisk ready for any rankings where they've fabricated data...any data...for any school.</p>
<p>I have never heard a college dean or president claim than any ranking system can accurately determine the quality of education offered. Yet they continue to participate in the USNews scam.</p>
<p>Until the overwhelming majority of top tier(ie top 50 univ and lac's) decide to opt out of the game, the colleges' protestations ring just a bit hollow.</p>
<p>Proud Dad, great post. Best post in this thread.</p>
<p>You actually have a daughter in the school. She has actually gone to another school.</p>
<p>I love when people try to tell me how good my daughter's school is or isn't and they have never been there. But they know so much. They read it in a magazine. You know the magazine. The one owned by a real estate developer with a few extra bucks. The one next to National Enquirer and the new version of TV Guide.</p>
<p>Forget what your daughter is actually experiencing. Did you read page 58? ;)</p>
<p>Look, I like Sarah Lawrence. I've had two kids seriously consider the place, though neither attended. I'm sorry they're having difficulties with US News.</p>
<p>Having said that, I believe these attacks on US News are unwarranted. It's a ranking system that is based on a published methodology. Take them for what they're worth based on that.</p>
<p>Does USNews lower Bowdoin, Middlebury and Bates because many of their students don't report SAT scores? Does US News make up SAT scores for these schools?</p>
<p>Or do they only go off of the minority of students that do submit test scores; furthermore, if students decide whether or not they submit test scores at these schools, is it not more likely that only those with great scores will submit them, thereby inflating the college in the rankings?</p>
<p>d:</p>
<p>I suspect that what US News is doing is providing a penalty for not providing data. I can think of at least one sound, motivational reason for that. But that's between US News and SLC. </p>
<p>My issue is with the attack on US News. There's a ranking system. There's a methodology. Take the ranking within the assumptions made by the methodology and relax. The rankings are useful in that context, and only in that context.</p>
<p>brand:</p>
<p>Actually, they do that. Colleges that are SAT optional report only the SATs that they get. Naturally, those are higher than they would be if all students reported. Some schools have been accused of deliberately making SATs optional in order to affect US News rankings. That may be true, but remember that only 7.5% (IIRC) of the rankings is based on standardized test scores. So a modest change in a 7.5% factor has only a minor impact.</p>
<p>Tarhunt, If somebody doesn't like USNews methodology, or how it computes the data, or thinks the data doesn't measure what USNews says it measures, a person can't attack it? That's ridiculous.</p>
<p>I'm waiting to read how USNews interprets scores from schools that don't require SAT scores, but do give SAT scores willingly to USNews.</p>
<p>I have wondered for a long time why Reed's rankings are so low. I had no idea USNews lowers Reed's scores. Is that mentioned in the magazine?</p>
<p>
[quote]
A flawed USNWR ranking system is still better than none.
[/quote]
I, for one, think any one-size-fits-all ranking is worse than none. The data US News collects is great, but forming such a ranking is nonsense and does no one any good.</p>
<p>d:</p>
<p>Feel free to recommend a better data set or better way to rank. But think of US News as an "if/then" statement. IF these data are useful ways to look at various aspects of colleges, and IF we weight the data this way, THEN it produces this ranking.</p>
<p>That's all it is. So many people get all worked up over these rankings as if they're measuring the gravitational constant or something and there's some way to get an absolute number.</p>
<p>I have my own ranking sysyem. It's different than yours and everyone else. We don't have the same kids.</p>
<p>If I developed a ranking system for the masses, I would have to charge. :)</p>
<p>d:</p>
<p>Then by all means, CHARGE!!! ;-)</p>
<p>But understand that your system will have to compete in the marketplace of ideas.</p>
<p>I also disagree with Carolyn's suggestion about other data points -- none of those criteria are of interest to me. If colleges want to provide that fine -- but to mandate it? No way. </p>
<p>I found US News data on selectivity to be highly misleading anyway, precisely because they rely too heavily on SAT scores ... the same mistake that just about everyone who uses this board makes. If my daughter had paid attention to that data...... yikes! </p>
<p>The US News ranking of selectivity historically was misleading about Sarah Lawrence, anyway. The SAT numbers never told the story. Maybe kids lie Proud Dad's daughter get rejected sometimes simply because they don't realize they need to put extra effort into the SLC application; I'll bet there are some who just forward the same common app the submitted to Ivy U and are utterly shocked by the SLC rejection. </p>
<p>The idea of requiring more standardized data based on criteria that many families don't care about or that don't apply to particular schools makes little sense. I do see the value of publishing some data in an unranked chart form -- it can be helpful to be able to click on an area of interest to us and get the list reordered. The colleges could easily be listed in alphabetical order for that to work, though - and a college without specific data would just show up on the bottom of any such re-ordered list as N/A. </p>
<p>To me, the suggestion of additional objective data points would be equivalent to setting up an evaluation form for the curator of the Museum of Modern Art to use for selecting works based on criteria applying to evaluation of renaissance art. Let's start ranking the works of Picasso and Van Gogh by giving all art points for accuracy, perspective, realism, light and shadow. </p>
<p>The stats I posted before from SLC show that more than 1/3 of its grads and up with careers in the arts and 1/4 of the grads are self-employed. Do these kids really care that much about the percentage of kids who get jobs straight out of college? (That's kind of a silly criteria anyway; I can attest to the fact that 20-year-old college dropouts find perfectly good jobs, too - the college doesn't have all that much to do with it.). </p>
<p>In the end it seem part of a campaign to rob colleges of their vitality and individuality. We want them all to be the same -- to use identical criteria for admissions and all take identical students who can be arrayed neatly in a line based on their SAT scores. What does the college get with heavy reliance on scores? A process that winnows out creative thinkers and innovators, in favor of the type of students who would spend hours prepping and retaking an exam (see "Is this obsession healthy" thread) -- rather than the kid who would spend his spare time following his passions to see where they might lead. </p>
<p>I guess the irony is that the posters who want to see SLC produce test scores it doesn't consider are demonstrating the same sort of concrete, rule-oriented thinking that SLC is trying to avoid in its applicants. Go to their web site -- look at their adjectives: "singular" "self-directed" "expressive" "individual" "personal". You can't miss them -- they all kind of fly out at you on the <a href="http://www.slc.edu%5B/url%5D">www.slc.edu</a>. You want your kid to be accepted? Encourage the kid to do something original. </p>
<p>To me, the really sad thing is that many other highly selective colleges are actually looking for the same thing....students who stand out from the pack by their willingness to take risks in the pursuit of their individual passions. The test-obsessed environment merely encourages the students to move more towards conformity. The "advice" generally given on this board reflects this: if the kid spends all their free time playing music, they are told they need more community service EC's; too much community service, and someone is bound to suggest they need to take up a sport. A kid with a passion for music is told she needs to add AP Chem. Future psych major wants to take AP Stats? No way -- she must have Calc, because that's what everyone else has and the colleges want to see. Anything less than a 700 on an SAT requires a retake. </p>
<p>The ad coms at the elites must be bored out of their minds by the sameness of all the apps -- how many kids have the SAME high scores and the SAME set of courses with the SAME A's in all the courses... and probably pretty much the SAME letters of rec and essays, because no one would dare say anything that might hurt the poor kid's "chances". </p>
<p>The SATs are useless at this point at the elite schools. They have been rendered useless by the fact that they are all clustered around such a high number that they no longer offer any way to differentiate among students. If you can't tell what an individual's kid weakness is, it becomes hard to spot the strength as well. </p>
<p>Sarah Lawrence wants kids who are different and proud of it. The problem with the US News rankings and the clamor for more data and "transparency" in admissions is that SLC is not the only college that is looking for a few good kids who don't always fit the mold.</p>
<p>The point is not whether or not there's validity to the USNews rankings, but whether or not they're telling the truth. I don't recall seeing anything in their results about their substituting data for data points they're missing. If they're doing it they should be up-front about how they're concocting the data. If it's SAT data and they're simply taking some range and deducting a factor because of some contrivance they feel is defensible, they should not hide that fact. For many the use of these rankings is not to pick the "best" school by the rankings, but to help determine if the student "qualifies" based on those statistics. I would hope people are smart enough to choose a school for what the school can offer the students and how it fits with that student's interests and goals. Only then should the statistics mean anything and then only to assess realistic chances for admission. To choose a school solely on its "rank" is just wrong....commonly done, but still wrong on so many levels. If a student has selected a school for all the right reasons and that school doesn't use SATs for admission, then it's an irrelevant data point for that student anyway. The frustration encountered by SLC over the USNews rankings is because we as parents (and therefor our kids) place too much emphasis on "status" of schools over what they can offer our kids. There are at least 200 colleges in the U.S. capable of offering as challenging an educational experience as HYP, but we focus on primarily 25 or so. The very real fear of SLC is that because so much credence is given to these rankings, that qualified kids won't put SLC on their short list. My D's GC had never heard of SLC or knew little about it. That's probably as much the fault of "ranking" as anything. It was the unique mailing from SLC saying, "You're different; so are we." that got her intrigued enough to find out more, visit, apply, and apply again. </p>
<p>I'd hope whatever your kids choose as their next step beyond their undergraduate degree, they're selected for it (or not) by the success they've made of school so far, not just the name of the school on the piece of paper. Yes, I'm naive, and proud my kids are, too. Life should be about living.</p>
<p>Obviously, Calmom, we agree on much of this. My kids chose what they liked to do and followed that in H-S, even if taking an art class and getting an A meant their weighted GPA would have been better had they just taken a study hall. Art, music, theater, computer design, film making---all are areas that require and reward intense commitment to the detriment of other activities like volunteer work or athletics. My 2 Ds both decided they'd had enough math by their senior year in H-S (equivalent of four-years based on middle-school math level) and chose not to take math their senior year. The faculty and GCs were shocked! "You'll never get into the top colleges!" they decreed. My Ds didn't care. AP art portfolio was more important, and plays, and studio time. Guess what? The GCs were wrong. Why? Because my Ds selected top schools where passion for what they love is thought of at least as highly as how well they do in core classes and how many APs they take. No, it's not for everyone. I'm glad it worked out for my kids. D #2 is three-for-three so far in the admissions process. Fingers still crossed for the rest.</p>
<p>I am amazed at the number of colleges and posters that simultaneously contend that the ratings in USN do not matter and yet are indignant that their schools are not rated higher. As long as USN discloses the method, and they have in the past, then what's the problem? Sarah L is a little college that is trying to bolster applications and admissions by using this to get attention. So if you like what you read about Sarah L and want to send your daughter there, go ahead ... no one is stopping you. If you really think that USN does not matter then ignore USN ...that's your choice.</p>
<p>If you think USN is invalid, DO NOT PURCHASE A COPY OF USN and move on in your lives.</p>
<p>why do we even need to "rank" colleges?</p>
<p>
Well, isn't that really the problem? That USNews isn't forthcoming about how they rank schools with no, or not enough, SAT data? I've never seen USNews do all of these: 1). indicate which schools have submitted incomplete data, 2). say why (school policy, philosophy, not required, etc.), 3). be up-front on to what extent USNews has concocted (interpolated, if you'd rather) data from conjecture, 4). and show the basis for, or calculation of, those fabricated data points and how it effects ultimate rank. </p>
<p>I certainly don't agree with you that SLC is doing this to gain attention. The school is too small, has little room to grow, and this has been a part of their philosophy and process for quite some time already. But then, "a measurer", I understand how this might be a concept foreign to a statistician though I don't understand why you can't attribute altruism to SLC's indignation; all they want is the truth about the stats to be known, not to have their efforts downgraded arbitrarily based on the prejudice and conjecture of a self-proclaimed deity such as USNews. If SLC's choices to ensure accurate reporting are to either send figures they don't have or drop out of the rankings, that's just stupid. I think SLC's assessment of the importance of the rankings to many kids and parents looking for colleges is realistic, but it isn't disingenuous of SLC to admit the reality and still disagree with it philosophically.</p>
<p>I'll continue to look at USNews stats, if that's okay with you, but I'll suggest you quit taking pot-shots at a school you don't understand just because you don't agree with their view of statistics---your profession, apparently.</p>
<p>"If everything was black and white God wouldn't have made gray."--Kenny White Symphony in Sixteen Bars</p>