Selectivity Rankings

College Search & Selection
1

<p>I know they're probably somewhere in the billions of posts on here, but can someone save me hours of online time and post the USnews selectivity rankings for both universities and lacs? i only have the top 27 universities, would like around top 50 and also top lacs. sorry if i care about something as stupid as the ranking on this, but i just wanted to know.</p>

<p>Edit: if it's easier, just put the numbers in order without school names and i'll match them up with the general rankings for the schools.</p>

2

<p>Go to usnews.com, pay $15, and the world will be revealed unto you.</p>

3

<p>Yeah. Pay the $15 for the sortable on-line database. You are asking someone who did pay the $15 to sit down and retype a long list of 100 schools for you.</p>

4

<p>or just the numbers.</p>

<p>if you don't want to help, then just don't bother posting at all, geez.</p>

5

<p>I was helping -- I was teaching how to solve your own problem. It's what teachers do.</p>

6

<p>I hope you won't place too much importance on selectivity rankings. They are meaningless. There isn't always a connection between selectivity and quality and even if there were, it is very difficult to truly establish how selective a university is because too many variables must be taken into account. This said, here you go:</p>

<p>LACs:</p>

<h1>1 Amherst College</h1>

<h1>1 Harvey Mudd College</h1>

<h1>1 Pomona College</h1>

<h1>4 Swarthmore College</h1>

<h1>4 Williams College</h1>

<h1>6 Haverford College</h1>

<h1>7 Claremont McKenna College</h1>

<h1>8 Middlebury College</h1>

<h1>9 Barnard College</h1>

<h1>10 Bowdoin College</h1>

<h1>11 Davidson College</h1>

<h1>11 Washington & Lee University</h1>

<h1>11 Wellesley College</h1>

<h1>14 Carleton College</h1>

<h1>14 Wesleyan University</h1>

<h1>16 Grinnell College</h1>

<h1>16 Vassar College</h1>

<h1>18 Colgate University</h1>

<h1>19 Hamilton College</h1>

<h1>20 Colby College</h1>

<h1>20 Oberlin College</h1>

<h1>22 Scripps College</h1>

<h1>22 Bucknell University</h1>

<h1>24 Macalester College</h1>

<h1>25 Bard College</h1>

<h1>25 Colorado College</h1>

<h1>27 Bates College</h1>

<h1>28 Gettysburg College</h1>

<h1>29 Bryn Mawr College</h1>

<h1>29 Kenyon College</h1>

<h1>29 Lafayette College</h1>

<h1>29 Whitman College</h1>

<h1>33 Furman University</h1>

<h1>33 University of Richmond</h1>

<h1>35 College of the Holy Cross</h1>

<h1>35 Connecticut College</h1>

<h1>37 Centre College</h1>

<h1>37 Occidental College</h1>

<h1>37 Union College</h1>

<h1>37 Wheaton College</h1>

<h1>41 Illinois Wesleyan University</h1>

<h1>41 Smith College</h1>

<h1>43 Mount Holyoke College</h1>

<h1>43 Reed College</h1>

<h1>45 Dickinson College</h1>

<h1>46 Denison University</h1>

<h1>47 Franklin and Marshall College</h1>

<h1>47 St Olaf College</h1>

<h1>47 Wheaton College</h1>

<h1>47 Wofford College</h1>

<p>RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES</p>

<h1>1 Harvard University</h1>

<h1>2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology</h1>

<h1>2 Yale University</h1>

<h1>4 California Institute of Technology</h1>

<h1>4 Princeton University</h1>

<h1>6 Columbia University</h1>

<h1>6 Washington University-St Louis</h1>

<h1>8 University of Pennsylvania</h1>

<h1>8 Stanford University</h1>

<h1>10 Brown University</h1>

<h1>11 Dartmouth College</h1>

<h1>11 Duke University</h1>

<h1>11 Rice University</h1>

<h1>14 University of California-Berkeley</h1>

<h1>15 Georgetown University</h1>

<h1>15 Emory University</h1>

<h1>17 Northwestern University</h1>

<h1>17 Tufts University</h1>

<h1>17 University of California-Los Angeles</h1>

<h1>17 University of Notre Dame</h1>

<h1>17 University of Southern California</h1>

<h1>22 Cornell University</h1>

<h1>22 Johns Hopkins University</h1>

<h1>22 University of Chicago</h1>

<h1>22 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor</h1>

<h1>26 College of William & Mary</h1>

<h1>26 University of Virginia</h1>

<h1>26 Vanderbilt University</h1>

<h1>29 Boston College</h1>

<h1>29 Brandeis University</h1>

<h1>29 University of California-San Diego</h1>

<h1>32 Carnegie Mellon University</h1>

<h1>32 Lehigh University</h1>

<h1>32 Tulane University</h1>

<h1>35 New York University</h1>

<h1>35 University of North Carolina-Chapell Hill</h1>

<h1>35 University of Rochester</h1>

<h1>38 University of California-Irvine</h1>

<h1>39 University of California-Santa Barbara</h1>

<h1>39 University of Florida</h1>

<h1>39 Wake Forest University</h1>

<h1>42 George Washington University</h1>

<h1>42 Georgia Institute of Technology</h1>

<h1>44 Case Western Reserve University</h1>

<h1>44 University of Tulsa</h1>

<h1>44 University of Wisconsin-Madison</h1>

<h1>47 University of California-Davis</h1>

<h1>47 University of Maryland-College Park</h1>

<h1>49 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute</h1>

<h1>49 University of California-Santa Cruz</h1>

<h1>49 University of Miami</h1>

<h1>49 University of Texas-Austin</h1>

7

<p>"I hope you won't place too much importance on selectivity rankings. They are meaningless."</p>

<p>I think this is incorrect. While they're not the most important statistics in the world, selectivity rankings are not "meaningless." They do tell you something about the college and its pool of applicants, especially if you know the algorithm used to give the ranks to the schools.</p>

8

<p>No, selectivity on its own is meaningless. A university is selective because it is good, not the other way around. But how selective it is does not determine the quality of the university. All one need be concerned with is the quality of the university. Once the quality is established, one is sure to realize that the university or college in question is selective. </p>

<p>And I would not throw words like "algorithm" around. My own math skills are quite advanced and I certainly cannot assign values to the university ranking equation. I am pretty certain that there is not mathematical method to measure the quality of a university, although many on this forum seem to claim that there are such methods. A university's quality cannot be measured mathematically or statistically. Education is about environment and learning, and cannot be measured using statistically flawed data. </p>

<p>Now we can both agree that the quality of a student body is an important factor. But quality of student body and selectivity aren't necessarily related either.</p>

9

<p>exactly alexandre,</p>

<p>remember for this "selectivity ranking," there was an arbitrary formula chosen. one could easily change the factors in this formula to affect the selectivity of a school. no one factor (sat, students in 10%, least of all % admitted) will tell you how good or selective a school is.</p>

<p>you could easily say top 10% is the most important criteria, worth say 50% - SATs worth 25% and % admitted worth 25% and get a different list of "most selective." Or one could think that SATs are the most important criteria - placing 60% focus on it, 30% focus on top 10%, and only 10% on % admitted and get a different list of "most selective."</p>

<p>USnews rankings are great for a ballpark account of how good or selective or whatever a school is - but when arbitrary factors are chosen and given arbitrary values - you must take it with a heavy grain of salt.</p>

10

<p>How come UCLA ranked higher than USC in selectiviry ranking when USc has got higher SAT and GPA average???</p>

11

<p>MABUHAY, maybe my Math ain't 20/20 no more, but last time I checked, #17 was = to #17. In other words, UCLA and USC have identical selectivity rankings. </p>

<p>As for the difference in SAT and GPAs, I am pretty sure they are not too far apart in those two criteria and UCLA makes up for it with have a slighly higher % ranked in the top 10% of their graduating HS class and a slightly lower acceptance rate.</p>

12

<p>Alexandre:</p>

<p>Are you really saying that there is "no relationship" between selectivity rankings and the quality of the student body? None whatsoever? An R squared of zero?</p>

13

<p>Whoa, I knew WUStL had become very selective, but it's a bit of a shocker to see it ranked more selective than Stanford. :eek: I had always thought of Barnard as one of the less selective women's colleges (i.e. less so than Wellesley).</p>

14

<p>No, typically, there is a correlation between selectivity and quality of student body, but not always.</p>

15

<p>Alexandre:</p>

<p>OK, then just to be sure, this statement of yours:</p>

<p>
[quote]
No, selectivity on its own is meaningless.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>... is inaccurate, correct? I would agree that it is not wise to look at selectivity alone, but it is not completely meaningless because there IS a relationship in a majority of cases (and note that unlike you, I did NOT say "correlation" because I don't know if there is a correlation, even if there is a relationship).</p>

16

<p>My point is quite simple. On its own, selectivity is meaningless. One should not focus on selectivity rankings at all. One should only care about quality and fit. If a university is good, it will necessarily mean that the university will have a strong student body. That's a given. I challenge you to find a university that is consdered excellent that does not have a talented student body. </p>

<p>Academic quality, a strong reputation and a good fit are what students should focus on. Selectivity is a given.</p>

17

<p>Alexandre:</p>

<p>Now wait a minute. Your latest comment is this:</p>

<p>
[quote]
My point is quite simple. On its own, selectivity is meaningless.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet, just before that, your quote is this:</p>

<p>
[quote]
No, typically, there is a correlation between selectivity and quality of student body, but not always.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Now, what your first quote implies is that, if you had NO other datum/a than selectivity to evaluate a college, you might as well make your selection by throwing darts at a board while blindfolded. In other words, a completely random choice would be every bit as good as making a choice based on selectivity. Right?</p>

<p>BUT, you also have the second quote which implies that, in fact, there is "typically" a "correlation between selectivity and quality of student body." I would NEVER go as far as to say there's a correlation, because I have no idea how one would measure quality of student body so precisely that one could hope to find a correlation that would stand up to scrutiny, but I will agree that there is certainly a relationship.</p>

<p>So, which is it? Is selectivity "meaningless" on it own? Really? It has every bit as much meaning as, say, a roulette wheel? Or is there a relationship (NOT correlation) between quality of institution and quality of student body?</p>

<p>Which is it to be?</p>

18

<p>There is no reason to be confused. Go back and read carefuly. It is quite simple I assure you. But try to leave statistics out of it. This is a verbal exercize.</p>

19

<p>. . . before this one gets too contentious: I'd bet that the OP wasn't interested in the selectivity stats in order to evaluate overall quality, but probably wanted to do some comparision shopping and evaluate his relative chances of admission. Sorting the data by selectivity is fun because it helps highlight schools where it's considerably easier/harder to get in than you might think (as some of the previous posts show).</p>

20

<p>How good is a school? Consider the "delta" between the level of those admitted and of those who graduate; the greater the delta, the better the school, for a given student. Of course, measuring the two levels is a challenge, but we do our best. The bulk of students will be admitted to "match" schools, so the goal should be to find the matches with the greatest deltas.</p>

<p>If you're a top student, checking selectivity is fine, but also consider the education you are likely to receive; the most selective schools are not all alike.</p>