<p>The Big 3 national, most widely read, undergraduate rankings have differences in criteria but similarities in conclusion. A look at their top selections:</p>
<p>Well, generally, yes, the three rankings, as far as the top tier goes, are quite consistent with each other. Following slipper's ex, US News does rank Penn as #4, but Princeton review ranks it as #6, and AM as #8. Since the differences between "ranking scores" at the top are going to very minimal at best between schools, the top 10-15 are going to be pretty similar.<br>
Then again, of course, the problem with rankings is that people do tend to have some strong opinions, biased or not, especially in this forum as to what they think the rankings should be. <em>shrugs</em> Rankings shouldn't be impt in college decisions, so it is quite funny when the longest thread in a given forum are people arguing about which ranking they think is right when it really is all about opinion. :)</p>
<p>Give it a break. Go to Princeton Review, and add together the Admissions scores, the Academic scores, the Financial Aid scores, and the Quality of Life score, and you might have something a lot more meaningful.</p>
<ol>
<li> Princeton</li>
<li> Harvard</li>
<li> Yale</li>
<li> University of Pennsylvania<br></li>
<li> Duke University (NC)
Massachusetts Inst. of Technology<br>
Stanford University (CA) </li>
<li> California Institute of Technology<br></li>
<li> Columbia University (NY)
Dartmouth College (NH) </li>
<li>Northwestern University (IL)
Washington University in St. Louis<br></li>
<li>Brown University (RI) </li>
<li>Cornell University (NY)
Johns Hopkins University (MD)
University of Chicago<br></li>
<li>Rice University (TX) </li>
<li>University of Notre Dame (IN)
Vanderbilt University (TN) </li>
<li>Emory University (GA) </li>
</ol>
<p>So here are the Princeton Review ACTUAL rankings, an addition of their own scores for selectivity, academic quality, campus life, and scholarships/financial aid. In other words, this is what happens when they rely on their own ranking system. Make of them what you will (I'm sure you will ;)): (highest possible score is 396)</p>
<p>Carleton - 391
Amherst - 390
Smith - 390
Pomona - 390
Haverford - 390
Williams - 388
Stanford - 388
Mount Holyoke - 388
Reed - 388
Princeton - 387
Davidson - 387
Dartmouth -387
Swarthmore - 387
Bryn Mawr - 387
Wellesley - 387
Bowdoin - 386
Grinnell - 386
Chicago - 384
Harvard - 382
MIT - 381
Washington U. - 381
Brown - 380
Yale - 379
Wesleyan 379
Columbia - 377
Caltech - 376
Vanderbilt - 374
Cornell - 373
Northwestern - 372
Duke - 371
Penn - 371</p>
<p>Hey, they're not my numbers - they come right out of the Princeton Review. ;) (The fact that I happen to think they are surprisingly accurate is wholly immaterial.)</p>
<p>how can you call the Atlantic Monthly ranking one of the "big three" if it was only done once, the last time being a couple years ago, and even the people who made it admit that it was just to show up USNews?</p>
<p>Plus, this whole thing is silly. HMMMMM, If I compare these rankings, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, and MIT all seem to come out at the top.... there must be something there....</p>
<p>do we really need three separate "rankings" to tell us that these are top schools?</p>
<p>stop trying to rub it in!
<sobs uncontrollably=""></sobs></p>
<p>"Plus, this whole thing is silly. HMMMMM, If I compare these rankings, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton, Yale, and MIT all seem to come out at the top.... there must be something there...."
why does everyone forget CALTECH? its right there!</p>
<p>Sorry! That ties it with Princeton and Dartmouth, and puts it well above HY, MIT and Caltech.</p>
<p>I happen to think that the Princeton Review rankings are very accurate for undergraduate education, (and the fact that HYPS MIT CALT don't break the top 5 has nothing to do with it.)</p>
<p>Mini, that is why I think last years selectivity ranks should be used. This year any reasonably selective school gets a rating of 97+, but since the Ivies were already at 100 or 99 they didnt go up. Its an unfair boost for everyone but the top. </p>
<p>Do this same analysis from last years book and you will see Princeton and Dartmouth and the top LACs far and away at the top with the other Ivies close behind. Places like Smith and Mt. Holyoke then fall to reasonable levels.</p>
<p>Princeton Review wrote why they changed the levels, and they are sticking by them. These aren't MY rankings. I didn't give any school a boost. These are Princeton Review's rankings. Here' what they say:</p>
<p>"User's Guide to Our College Ratings </p>
<p>Every college on PrincetonReview.com has at least two ratings, and some have as many as seven. Wondering what these numbers are all about? The mystery ends here. Below we explain what factors each rating takes into account, what it measures, and how it is scaled. </p>
<p>But first, here's something you should keep in mind about ALL of our ratings:</p>
<p>Each individual rating places each college on a continuum for purposes of comparing all colleges within the 2004-2005 academic year only. Though similar, these ratings are not intended to be compared directly to those that appeared on PrincetonReview.com in any prior academic year or within any Princeton Review publication, except for Complete Book of Colleges, 2005 Edition, and The Best 357 Colleges, 2005 Edition, as our ratings computations are refined and change somewhat annually. </p>
<p>"Admissions Selectivity Rating
This rating measures how competitive admissions are at the school. This rating is determined by several institutionally-reported factors, including: the class rank, average standardized test scores, and average high school GPA of entering freshmen; the percentage of students who hail from out-of-state; and the percentage of applicants accepted. By incorporating all these factors, our Admissions Selectivity Rating adjusts for "self-selecting" applicant pools. University of Chicago, for example, has a very high rating, even though it admits a surprisingly large proportion of its applicants. Chicago's applicant pool is self-selecting; that is, nearly all the school's applicants are exceptional students." </p>
<p>(For obvious reasons, "self-selection" works at women's colleges -- and historic Black colleges -- as well. At the women's colleges, one half the population can't apply. One half (or so) of the rest won't select an all-female institution.)</p>
<p>There have been multiple threads discussing how ridiculous the jumps were. And its not based on self selection alone, places like Northeastern went from a high 70s to a 91! Also, a ceiling is inherently is a disadvantage to the top schools when every school gets a ten point boost since there is no room to go up. </p>
<p>Emory and Harvard both get a 99 in selectivity, yeah right!! It does not take much argument to see a flaw here. </p>
<p>One can post rankings, but it doesnt mean they are right.</p>
<p>Hey, at least they provided a basis for them, which is more than can be said for The Atlantic Monthly and "the other" Princeton Review rankings.</p>
<p>Wouldn't matter in academic quality or campus life ratings either - According to the Princeton Review, Carleton, Amherst, Pomona, Smith, and, I think, Mount Holyoke and Haverford do better than ALL of the Ivies in that regard. Rankings wouldn't change even if you took selectivity bias out (remember, selectivity is what happens BEFORE someone goes to a college, not what happens while you are there.)</p>
<p>So let's just do that - how does Princeton Review rank schools based on academic quality and quality of life? Here's a sample:</p>