<p>
</p>
<p>Looked at another way, “baking in” enough affluent people into the pie (who will hopefully turn into affluent and generous alums) in means that you’ll be in a better position to wow with financial aid to the rest.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really sure how to interpret this post. Does it mean that most of the selective schools suffer from the impact of the USNews rankings? From my vantage points, most of the selective schools tend to benefit from their higher rankings, as evidenced by the criticisms usually hurled by the fans of the schools that do … not “perform” as well. </p>
<p>Now, dissecting the impact of the USNews on both schools in discussion here, one has to be make a gargantuan effort to ignore how WELL both Chicago and Northwestern are doing, and especially Chicago after their officials had discussions with USNews that led to a “reorganization” of the presented data. If Chicago does not benefit from the USNews, I doubt that any school in the country could! In the same vein, Northwestern has maintained a pretty stable ranking over the years, and this has surely helped maintaining a higher national profile among applicants, and perhaps avoiding the “best school nobody has ever heard” syndrome. </p>
<p>Perhaps, the negatives of the USNews are viewed as leading schools to seek to maximize (if not outright game) the elements that could benefit them. However, there are more observers than USNews to please, as the bond raters and alumni might even be harder to please.</p>
<p>In the end, as unpleasant (and perhaps unscientific) the dissecting of data might be, it remains that we are better off for having access to “some” data. The return of the “only need-to-know” information that college would gladly espouse would be bad news, really bad news. </p>
<p>As an example, if the conversation between the adcom and the “well-connected” counselor were indeed true, it only reflects the negative side of the admission process where some might have access to “confidential” information while the masses are kept in the dark. The reality is that all of us have benefitted from the “exposés” written by Steinberg and Hernandez (plus perhaps the pig lover at Duke) that helped us demystify the process. And all of us have equally benefitted from the data culled by Robert Morse, despite the occasional lack of integrity and judgment of his office.</p>
<p>Morty Shapiro was fabulous at Williams. S really missed him his last year.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>The name whose name must be the most routinely misspelled in academic circles. :)</p>
<p>[Office</a> of the President: - Northwestern University](<a href=“http://www.northwestern.edu/president/]Office”>Office of the President - Northwestern University)</p>
<p>On December 16, 2008, Morton Schapiro was elected the 16th president of Northwestern University. He began his term on September 1, 2009.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is somewhat true, but you could make similar arguments for plenty of additional elements. You could state that admission rates are defined by early admission policies, as the impact of restrictive early admissions is well known. You could also state that the (ab)use from an extensive WL could have a major impact on the admission. With ED yield easily above 90 percent and “aggressive” WL policies not far off, such admission crutches are an inherent part of most enrollment managers. </p>
<p>Then you could look at the financial aid, especially non-need based. How willing is a school willing to dig deep to attract (buy) talent? </p>
<p>Even it were to play a veiled role in the selectivity index used by USNews, it is nothing more than extremely trivial. How much of a few percentage points could yield make the admission rate vary and how much of that 1.5 percent could it influence? </p>
<p>As we know, there are plenty of other metrics that a school can focus on that pay … much better dividends.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The schools, yes. Society (for those who care), maybe not:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[More</a> Momentum Against ‘U.S. News’ | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/20/usnews#ixzz1vWbB7gkZ]More”>http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/20/usnews#ixzz1vWbB7gkZ)
Inside Higher Ed</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let’s take this at face value and say that these schools (or other elite schools) are impacted by USNWR. This causes them to do what, exactly, that is “bad”? Seems to me a school wanting to improve its stature in USNWR isn’t going to be tossing out high-stats kids right and left - they’re going to want to accept them in hopes that some will come and drive their stats up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What’s wrong with a college offering merit scholarships to students who might not need the aid? If they want to lure higher-stat students to their campus, why shouldn’t they? It’s their money. I confess, I don’t see the problem here. What, do higher-stat students really mess up a campus or something?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s real easy to place “blame” on USNews; it’s an easy bogeyman.</p>
<p>But as the recent incident at Claremont McKenna demonstrates, colleges want to raise their numbers ‘just because’. It’s good for alumni, it’s good for recruitment, it’s good for bond holders. One way to “compete” is to attract those high stat kids. (Even departmental faculty want Admissions to recruit really smart kids so they can assist the faculty with research.)</p>
<p>No college Prez wants to tell his/her Board & alums that s/he is happy being in the second/third/fourth tier.</p>
<p>Annasdad, take a closer look at the 2007 article, and identify the schools that signed the Thacker declaration. </p>
<p>Douglas C. Bennett, Earlham College
William G. Durden, Dickinson College
Jackie Jenkins-Scott, Wheelock College
Ellen McCulloch-Lovell, Marlboro College
Patricia McGuire, Trinity (D.C.) University
Christopher Nelson, St. John’s College (Annapolis)
Michael Peters, St. John’s College (Santa Fe)
Kathleen Ross, Heritage University
Jake Schrum, Southwestern University
G. T. “Buck” Smith, Bethany College
Robert Weisbuch, Drew University</p>
<h2>Daniel H. Weiss, Lafayette College </h2>
<p>William Bloodworth, Augusta State University
Walter M. Bortz III, Hampden-Sydney College
R. Judson Carlberg, Gordon College
F. Javier Cevallos, Kutztown University
Thomas V. Chema, Hiram College
J. Timothy Cloyd, Hendrix College
Joan Develin Coley, McDaniel College
Thomas B. Coburn, Naropa University
Robert A. Corrigan, San Francisco State University
Alan S. Cureton, Northwestern College (MN)
Gary Dill, College of the Southwest
Donald R. Eastman III, Eckerd College
Mark Erickson, Wittenberg University
Julius E. Erlenbach, University of Wisconsin-Superior
Brother Ronald Gallagher, Saint Mary’s College of California
Philip A. Glotzbach, Skidmore College
John V. Griffith, Presbyterian College
George J. Hagerty, Franklin Pierce College
Tori Haring-Smith, Washington and Jefferson College
Peyton R. Helm, Muhlenberg College
Ralph Hexter, Hampshire College
Dean Hubbard, Northwest Missouri State University
Mark W. Huddleston, University of New Hampshire
James F. Jones, Trinity College (CT)
David C. Joyce, Ripon College
Walter Kimbrough, Philander Smith College
Stuart Kirk, College of Santa Fe
Dale Thomas Knobel, Denison University
Ruth A. Knox, Wesleyan College
Alton Lacey, Missouri Baptist University
Sylvia Manning, University of Illinois at Chicago
Michael McFarland, College of the Holy Cross
Lex O. McMillan III, Albright College
Carolyn W. Meyers, Norfolk State University
John W. Mills, Paul Smiths College
Elisabeth Muhlenfeld, Sweet Briar College
S. Georgia Nugent, Kenyon College
Oscar C. Page, Austin College
James Phifer, Coe College
G. David Pollick, Birmingham-Southern College
William Craig Rice, Shimer College, Chicago
Stephen D. Schutt, Lake Forest College
Rebecca Sherrick, Aurora University
David Shi, Furman University
Larry Shinn, Berea College
John Strassburger, Ursinus College
Tim Summerlin, Schreiner University
Christopher M. Thomforde, Moravian College
Baird Tipson, Washington College
Richard L. Torgerson, Luther College
Mitchell Thomashow, Unity College (ME)
Saundra Tracy, Alma College
W. Craig Turner, Hardin-Simmons University
Sanford Ungar, Goucher College</p>
<p>What is that I said about the schools not doing well hurling the criticisms? And except for the hypoxritical “support” of the “movement” by Yale’s hiring of a mercenart like Thacker, what has been done exactly? </p>
<p>I am surprised you did not quote Gerhard Casper:
[Criticism</a> of College Rankings - September 23, 1996](<a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/961206gcfallow.html]Criticism”>Criticism of College Rankings - September 23, 1996)</p>
<p>It is only 16 years old!</p>
<p>Fwiw, there ARE plenty of criticisms that the USNews deserves, starting with their total lack of integrity in monitoring the contents of the Peer Assessment survey and their lack of scrutiny of data provided by schools that obfuscate part of the admission pool. </p>
<p>In the end, when you close the loop, the only conclusion you can reach is that the worst offenders are the … schools. Not the outsiders that rate them!</p>
<p>Not to mention that not a single criterion used to rank schools has ever been shown to have anything to do with educational results.</p>
<p>Inasmuch as one could say that graduation rates do measure an educational “result,” it is a fact that USNews does not focus on that angle. What the magazine actually offers, in a reasonably easy to follow format, is plenty of comparative data describing the resources of a school, and the relative selectivity of the students who enrolled. It also offers an insight into the basic popularity of a school among academicians, or their … secretaries!</p>
<p>OF COURSE the presidents of the high-ranked colleges didn’t sign it. You think they’re going to bite Bob Morse’s hand whilst he’s feeding them?</p>
<p>Anyone care to speculate about how increasing use of ED/SCEA to manage yield will impact the hunt for need-based aid? </p>
<p>Possibilities off the top of my head: students aiming at highly selective schools grit their teeth and accept less-than-optimal FA packages in exchange for the advantages of ED, bumping up student levels of indebtedness. Or, the percentage of students searching for good FA increases even more in the RD pool, meaning that those students have to send out even more applications in the hopes of finding an acceptance and good FA. Or, more able-but-non-full-pay students discover the allure of less selective schools and merit aid. </p>
<p>Maybe we’ll see the start of Extra-Early Action and Extra-Early Decision. Submit your app at the end of your junior year. Find out if you’ve been accepted prior to starting 12th grade. Should be good for at least one NYT article, creating even more buzz. (debating–do I want to smiley this? Not sure… 
).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, aren’t we coming full circle? Isn’t that the point I made, namely </p>
<p>*Not really sure how to interpret this post. Does it mean that most of the selective schools suffer from the impact of the USNews rankings? From my vantage points, most of the selective schools tend to benefit from their higher rankings, as evidenced by the criticisms usually hurled by the fans of the schools that do … not “perform” as well. *</p>
<p>The above was in direct reply to “other than to decry the impact of USNWR on both, which is something they unfortunately share with most of the other highly selective colleges in the United States.”</p>
<p>Is Morse’s feeding a negative?</p>
<p>“not a single criterion used to rank schools has ever been shown to have anything to do with educational results.”</p>
<p>That may be an overstatement. You don’t think a school’s graduation rate has anything to do with “educational results”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Yale has a (much) higher graduation rate than Cleveland State. Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that Yale admits a (much) higher achieving and (much) more academically inclined freshman than Cleveland State does?</p>
<p>In fact, if William Deresciewicz is to be believed, getting into Yale is the hard part - graduating isn’t all that difficult. (But of course he was denied tenure, so nothing he says has any validity at all.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, then, if the top schools really aren’t any “better” than the ones lower in the pile, then why the heck do you care so much what they do, or what admissions strategy games they may or may not play, or how they allocate their financial aid? If just-as-good can be gotten lower on the food chain, then what do you care what the top schools do? </p>
<p>It’s sort of the like the classic “Elite School X lets in those low performing athletes, legacies, URM’s, etc.” Well, really? Then don’t apply there if the student body is so inferior and not good enough for your precious, problem solved.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which creates an environment that is more conducive to learning - both in terms of the capabilities of the students that surround you, and their ability to dedicate time to their studies versus having to work or juggle other commitments. Which is not putting down the students at Cleveland State - indeed, students who are juggling work, a family, etc. and are also going to school command my praise.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then why has there been not a single controlled, replicable study that shows that that type of environment leads to a superior educational outcome - and a number of controlled, replicated studies that show that it does not?</p>
<p>EDIT: Or maybe there has been? Can you cite it?</p>