<p>National</a> Liberal Arts Rankings - Best Colleges - Education - US News</p>
<p>Yes, Smith is moving up! Rank 14. Hey, maybe by the time us '14ers graduate, we'll be rank 1. ;)</p>
<p>Wow! Such a big jump! I wonder why Smith got bumped up this year.</p>
<p>Where’s the “Like” button?</p>
<p>Haha, you WOULD say that, kwu. </p>
<p>CarolynB: good question. I usually don’t follow the rankings (for obvious reasons) but kwu sent it to me and I was really giddy (also for obvious reasons). Haha. :D</p>
<p>Maybe USNWR is getting wise to the copious Fulbrights, the science grants, Ford Hall, and the engineering program that Smith offers. Since my daughter’s a sophomore this year, I’m not aware of the rankings anymore, but I do remember it hovered around #25 for most of my daughter’s high school career. I’ve been told it was #13 several years ago, so Miss_Murd3r, you’ll get your wish!</p>
<p>Oops! My goof! I must have been thinking of Mount Holyoke and Bryn Mawr as they’ve been around the #25 position for a while. I’ve been told Smith has never been lower than #19.</p>
<p>Does anyone know how the engineering program ranks? It only lists the top 10 unless you pay.</p>
<p>^ It was tied for 21; the ranking went down to 42.</p>
<p>We were also #1 among liberal arts colleges for % of students receiving Pell grants (25%; Amherst was 2nd with 17%). Only 2 research universities (UCLA and Berkeley) had more than 25%.</p>
<p>It’s because they made a big change to the metrics they use this year. Peer-rankings by college admins used to be one of the most important factors but they discovered that some college admins were purposefully scoring down their peers. I believe this year is the first year they included high school counselors’ opinions as a way to counter potential bias from peer-reviews.</p>
<p>.
</p>
<p>Where did you read that? If true, it would render the rankings meaningless. Not that that would be a bad thing :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As you correctly stated, high school counselors’ opinions are now 7.5% of the 22.5% peer assessment score. The peer assessment was 25% with no high school counselor input</p>
<p>Before this year, peer assessment was scored on a scale of 1-5, with Smith consistently scoring 4.3 (86%) The peer assessment is now scored on a scale of 1-100. Smith scored 87%…No meaningful difference.</p>
<p>@CrewDad: I know what baublestrinkets is talking about–there was an article a while back in which the president of Clemson admitted that he deliberately gave all of his peers the lowest possible ranking to boost his university’s standings. It is probably on this site somewhere, actually.</p>
<p>Correct you are. Thanks.</p>
<p>[News:</a> ‘Manipulating,’ Er, Influencing ‘U.S. News’ - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/03/rankings]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/03/rankings)</p>
<p>[News:</a> Reputation Without Rigor - Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/19/rankings]News:”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/19/rankings)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>NB: Cathy Sams’, Chief Public Affairs Officer at Clemson, rebuttal to the alleged manipulations by Clemson in the comment section. If the audit is to be believed, there was no manipulation.</p>
<p>
</p>