<p>“generalist tests like GRE/GMAT/LSAT”</p>
<p>That exactly what I mean; just as SAT/ACT are generalist tests, it provides an apple-to-apples comparison of colleges, in this generalist way. The scores must be combined and standardized in the proper way (and I sure wouldn’t know how to do it). It seems that we currently don’t have a way to provide just such a generalist measure of schools. For a HS student undecided on any kind of major, it could be helpful.</p>
<p>this is old data. Some colleges are already a lot more selective in the last year, not even counting THIS year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>looking at the data and selectivity rankings usnews provides, it is pretty clear that this is NOT what usnews is doing in assigning its own selectivity ranks. unfortunately, i cant quite figure out exactly what usnews IS doing. assigning percentages based on either an ideal or the maximal figure, weighing these percentages, and then adding them seems to produce the best results for the top 20 or so schools on each list, but things get a bit wacky as you work your way down, especially for schools with large top decile percentages. there appears to be a problem in terms of act conversion (with those schools coming out lower than they should), as well.</p>
<p>Also, did you do something different to the data than what US News does?</p>
<p>I noticed in the 2009 US News (released in Sept. 2008 using 2007 data) the top 7 LACs in selectivity were:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvey Mudd</li>
<li>Swarthmore</li>
<li>Williams</li>
<li>Pomona</li>
<li>Amherst</li>
<li>Haverford</li>
<li>Bowdoin</li>
<li>Claremont McKenna</li>
</ol>
<p>But you’re order is:
<p>The differences are small, but there are differences so I just wanted to uderstand your methodology.</p>
<p>Whoa wait a sec, Caltech may have an 800 average on the math SAT and everything, but it doesnt deserve number one on your list, a lot of the other schools are definitely more rounded. Maybe between MIT and Princeton?</p>
<p>Otherwise, I like your list :]</p>
<p>…weighted SATs and other factors per the USNews weights as they explain both online & in the mag…came pretty close to their selectivity subranking with the National U and LAC lists.</p>
<p>Isn’t the entire point of a methodology to eliminate preferences? It should matter exactly zilch that Caltech doesn’t “deserve” its spot. JMHO.</p>
<p>What about those universities that follow a “holistic” admission process? How are you going to reconcile that with your formula?</p>
<p>NYU is tied with Bucknell and way below places like UCSD? Whaaaa? </p>
<p>*Woops I didn’t realize this was an old thread…</p>
<p>How does one figure out which college one should opt for. With so much information available, its really inundating</p>
<p>are rating systems a efficient way to decide upon a college.?</p>
<p>^ no.
10 char.</p>
<p>There is something peculiar about this scale. Grinnell, for example, ranks 14 among the LACs according to USNWR, well above Oberlin and Hamilton, and comparable to Vassar, and yet shows up as 55 on this list, well below all of them. With a 27% acceptance rate last year, it much more demanding academically than the other schools in the same grouping, and more demanding than many schools on the list above. That leads me to question the validity of the entire ranking system.</p>
<p>^ He was trying to reproduce the Selectivity Index component of the ranking; not the Overall ranking. Grinnell’s Overall ranking is enhanced substantially by its large endowment per student.</p>
<p>M’s Mom…1st, the validity of the entire ranking system should be questioned, repeatedly. I threw up this subset of the USNews-based ranking purely for academic interest…as many many folks have pontificated here on CC, whats interesting to me are the facts that make up the ranking…that is, I believe a consumer is better informed when the basis for any ranking is well understood - to see if the ranking model fits one’s own model of what one wants in a college.</p>
<p>Any case, you mentioned Grinnell was #14 on the LAC list…I believe that was for the USNews overall LAC ranking. Keep in mind 2 things…first, the list put forth above COMBINES the National U list and the LAC list, so Grinnell or any school is going to have a ranking on this thread’s list lower just because of the increased numbers. 2nd, this list is for the USNews sub-category of SELECTIVITY, not the overall ranking. On the USNews overall LAC ranking, Grinnell ranks better than on USNews Selectivity ranking…that is, Grinnel, by US News standards, is less selective than its overall ranking might imply.</p>
<p>PS…If I have the energy, I’ll re-calculate this combined selectivity ranking once the new US News data come out later in August.</p>
<p>
Efficient? Sure. What could be more efficient than to go down a ranked list and pick the top schools you think have any realistic chance of accepting you?</p>
<p>Appropriate? No, not really. They are a good tool to help you begin identifying schools that are fairly well matched to your qualifications. Other than that, they don’t tell you much if anything about issues related to “fit”.</p>
<p>Does anyone think WashU is more selective than Stanford? I think USNEWS selectivity is way off.</p>
<p>To your valid point, admitone…Selectivity ranking as defined by US News uses a statistical combination of three measures (as described in the OP)…SATs, % in the top 10% of HS class, & admit rate. That’s a pretty darned limited view of Selectivity, but to US News’ defense, there are few objective & comparable data out there. If those 3 measures & their weightings don’t match your view of Selectivity, then toss the US News Selectivity measure out!</p>
<p>On the comparison between Stanford & Wash U, here are the 3 stats side by side (from the 2009 ranking using the fall 2007 entering class)</p>
<p>Standford / Wash U
SATs: 1340-1550 / 1370-1530
Top 10%: 91% / 95%
Admit %: 10.3% / 17.3%</p>
<p>I suspect its the top 10% numbers (with 40% weight) that are skewing the Selectivity ranking to Wash U over Stanford.</p>
<p>On SATs…pretty close, but with Wash U’s extensive use of waitlist, the cynic in me would say that they happen to give the nod to high scorers over other criteria.
On Top 10%…likewise…but its noteworthy to point out that Stanford’s number here is lower than its high-end competition…perhaps meaning that they genuinely ‘select’ on other non-numeric criteria (thank goodness), i.e., other things (not readily measurable) are more important to them than HS class standing. And there’s plenty of room to argue that the Top 10% number means very little in this group of elite schools anyway (Except, cynically, from a ranking standpoint.)
On Admit rate…this measure IMHO can be a bit misleading because there is a Supply side to the equation. Take Chicago…its admit rate is double other arguably comparable institutions, a phenomenon usualy attributed to the self selection (reduced supply) of the applicant pool (in part because of their essays!) Also, Wash U’s extensive use of waitlist may otherwise help keep their admit number lower than it would be if it employed less use of the waitlist, albeit Stanford’s admit rate is significantly lower anyway.</p>
<p>Bottom line is that Selectivity is usually regarded as a much bigger thing than a statistical reduction of these 3 variables, some of which can be manipulated to a degree and some not exactly comparable schoool to school. But, I say any shopper is better off understanding these factual nuances, even if they are imperfect.</p>
<p>Folks -</p>
<p>I’m obsessive enough to really appreciate the work that the OP did, and I am in so deep looking at colleges right now that I will need a 12 step program to resume normal life once my younger child is accepted, but I do have a question . . . </p>
<p>How are you using these rankings?</p>
<p>Reason I’m asking is that it’s nice to know that one school is #3 in the country and another is #12 but what do you do with those rankings: discard schools that are ranked below #32? Choose a #17 over a #27? Make sure that your kid is only applying to top 25s? Develop a strategy for which schools to apply ED to? </p>
<p>Could you provide examples of how you are using these rankings to make better college application decisions? </p>
<p>Or is all of this just obsessives have a LOT of fun with numbers :-)</p>
<p>utilitarianally,</p>
<p>Kei</p>
<p>don’t forget that Stanford is D1 in sports… it’s easy to see why it’s top 10% would be a few points lower when you factor in both recruited athletes (hooked admit) and walk-ons (tipped-admit).</p>
<p>In addition to the use of the WL, of course, WashU’s admit rate is a result of its “wonderful” marketing program which encourages applicants from kids who have no chance of admittance.</p>