The Big 3 National Rankings and The Top Tier

College Search & Selection
41

<p>Byerly says, "The PR "toughest to get into" list - styled a "ranking" - is based in part on their silly, non-scientific "surveys."</p>

<p>Well, then it must be a coincidence that the Atlantic Montly ranking came out with the exact top 5 order! Gee, what a coincidence.</p>

<p>Byerly, you need to check the very explicit criteria for choosing schools in that category "The Toughest Schools to Get Into". The sole criteria is as follows:</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. This rating is given on a scale of 60-99. Please note that if a school has an Admissions Selectivity Rating of 60*, it means that the school did not report to us all of the statistics that go into the rating by our deadline. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankingDetails.asp?categoryID=1&topicID=10%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankingDetails.asp?categoryID=1&topicID=10&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

42

<p>Yup. It's how Carleton, Amherst, Smith, Pomona, and Haverford turn out to be the 5 best undergraduate schools in the country. (I haven't heard any compelling arguments that they're not. ;))</p>

43

<p>You keep stubbornly and stupidly quoting from that partial definition of the "Admissions Selectivity" formula, rather than the full (if you can call it that) definition in the 2005 "Best 357 Colleges" which I have open in front of me as I type this. I call your attention to pp. 16-17, and to p.25.</p>

<p>First I note that the entire list of factors, and the weight given to each of them, is nowhere stated. (Compare USNews o this score.)</p>

<p>It does say that "this rating is determined by :several factors", including the class rank of entering freshmen, test scores, and percentage of applicants accepted. It goes on to explain that "by incorporating all these factors (and a few others) our admissions selectivity rating adjusts for 'self selecting' applicant pools."</p>

<p>Nowhere is it spelled out what the "few other" factors are, or how they are utilized, or where the data is obtained. PR warns (as it must, given the annual shuffling of the numbers - far beyond what you ever see in USNews) that: "Though similar, these rankings are not intended to be compared directly to those within any prior edition, as our ratings computations are refined and changed somewhat annually."</p>

<p>Nowhere is it explained what these "changes" and "refinements" are. (Again, compare the full disclosure by USNews as to how all their rankings are compiled, what all the factors are, how factors are weighted, and the precise nature of any "changes" or "refinements" from the year preceeding.)</p>

<p>Finally, on p. 25, it is acknowledged, somewhat defensively, that "fifty-eight of these lists are based entirely on either individual questions from our student surveys or are compiled from responses to several survey questions." It is then explained that "six other lists include computations BASED 0N BOTH STUDENT SURVEY RESPONSES AND STATISTICAL DATA SUPPLIED BY THE COLLEGES." (Emphasis supplied.)</p>

<hr>

<p>I invite you to compare the "toughest to get into" rankings in the 2002 edition, which I also have before me:</p>

<ol>
<li>Coper Union</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>US Air Force Academy</li>
<li>US Military Academy</li>
<li>US Naval Academy</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Amherst</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Williams</li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>Swarthmore</li>
<li>Bates</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>Notre Dame</li>
</ol>

<p>The "toughest to get into" rankings from other years show the same kind of churning, and the same reluctance to explain the factors utilized to determine those "rankings".</p>

44

<p>I'm really curious if Byerly would still be making the same argument about PR if it engaged in fellating Harvard worship like it's supposed to.</p>

45

<p>The silly PR rankings have virtually no impact - beyond the media frenzy about who is named the "best party school."</p>

<p>No scholars, for example, will be charging off to Brigham Young next fall based on PR's declaration that it has the "best college library" - whereas Harvard's - the world's largest college library - is only ranked #5, and Yale's - the second largest - is only ranked #7. Amazingly, Brigham Young has rocketted to the top despite not even being among the top 20 in the preceeding edition!</p>

<p>Harvard's standing with the nation's top applicants - and the relative standing of Stanford, Princeton, Yale, MIT etc. - is not affected in the slightest by these silly PR rankings.</p>

<p>The USNews rankings can have ENORMOUS impact on subsequent admissions numbers for some schools, but less so for the top elites - for which the demand is fairly inelastic.</p>

<p>Cross-admit numbers have stayed remarkably similar for many years among the top elites. The pecking order is well estabished, and is reflected, to a degree, in the so-called "Revealed Preference" rankings.</p>

<p>See also: "Higher Ecducation: The Ulitimate Winner Take All Market",
by Professor Robert Frank of Yale -</p>

<p><a href="http://www.inequality.com/publications/working_papers/RobertFrank1.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.inequality.com/publications/working_papers/RobertFrank1.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

46

<p>Still haven't heard any compelling arguments....;) (And it doesn't matter if you include selectivity in or take it out, the top 5 remain virtually the same....)</p>

<p>(The head-to-head stuff doesn't do much if many of the colleges on the list accept low-income students in such small numbers to begin with.)</p>

47

<p>I am puzzled as to what your point is.</p>

<p>The significance of the "Revealed Preference" ranking is that it tells us what choices are made by the BEST students - when they have a choice among elites based on multiple admissions.</p>

48

<p>When you take out the small colleges from the rankings, it is amazing, given the universe of universities, how the Big 3 national ranking publications are so close in their conclusions (PR and Atlantic Monthly being virtually identical at the top tier). It is interesting to note how differing criteria produces similar results.</p>

49

<p>Notice that UC Riverside is not mentioned here.</p>

50

<p>SmogTown wrote "Notice that UC Riverside is not mentioned here."</p>

<p>That's because U.C. Riverside is a "10th tier" school. This thread is only about the "top tier" schools.</p>

<p>Stay out of Riverside</p>

51

<p>Stayoutofriverside, bad-mouthing UC Riverside on this site is about as productive as telling people "Harvard is a good school"....</p>

52

<p>BigBrother wrote: Stayoutofriverside, bad-mouthing UC Riverside on this site is about as productive as telling people "Harvard is a good school"....</p>

<p>Interesting thought. In other words, you feel that UC Riverside's mediocrity should be just as self-evident as Harvard's greatness. I disagree. I think there are many disgruntled students at UCR, as evidenced by their #12 spot (out of ~350) on Princeton Reviews ranking of student unhappiness. I'll bet that there's a fraction of those unhappy students who were not fully aware of Riverside's crappiness prior to arrival... If I can prevent just one individual from suffering 4+ years of misery in this repugnant place, I've done my job. It is my hope that you support me in my mission to reduce suffering.</p>

<p>Stay out of Riverside</p>

53

<p>Have to admire your dedication...</p>

54

<p>"The significance of the "Revealed Preference" ranking is that it tells us what choices are made by the BEST students - when they have a choice among elites based on multiple admissions."</p>

<p>"Best" students as defined by "admitted". When you have 25 of the finest colleges in the country accepting fewer than 10% Pell Grant recipients (those with incomes at the 35th percentile and below), and where more than 50% of the student body comes from families with incomes of $155k or above (often far above), the revealed preference (at this level) is simply weighted as a revealed preference of the rich. Hey, remember, that's what prestige is all about - it is not a bad thing, or a good thing, it is just a representation of what the ranking actually means.</p>

<p>But, regardless, my point still stands. As a factual matter rather than one based on opinion, Princeton Review, which you can decide you like or not, and whether you include selectivity or not, ranks Carleton, Smith, Pomona, Haverford, and Amherst as the top 5 undergraduate colleges in the country, and HYPS, Caltech, and MIT don't crack the top 5, (and Harvard, Yale, and Caltech, according to Princeton Review, don't crack the top 20.) I still have yet to hear a compelling argument that this isn't true.</p>

55

<p>HYPS, Caltech hand MIT may not crack this top 5 but when everything in the top 20 is separated by a few points (which have been determined pretty subjectively), I don't really know if that would imply that Carleton is better than Yale .</p>

56

<p>I don't disagree. I am merely trying to point out that it is not true that HYPSM are the top in all 3 National Rankings, and whether you include the selectivity ranking or not, none of them crack the top 5. This is a factual matter, not a subjective one. </p>

<p>Subjectively, I'd likely come with a different set of 5 altogether (in fact, I know I would.) So could anyone else. My response is aimed at a factual matter, not a subjective. So there it is: Carleton, Pomona, Smith, Amherst, and Haverford. (It's fun to write. ;))</p>

57

<p>mini--I actually think that Williams is in your top 5 PR compilation, not that it matters. As one intimately familiar with Princetonreview's ranking and survey methodology, I can confidently say that they're pure BS. I agree that the USNWR rankings aren't perfect, but they're far, far better than PR's rankings.</p>

58

<p>Actually, I don't think USNWR rankings are worth valid at all...
<a href="http://www.nspe.org/etweb/13-03collegerankings.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nspe.org/etweb/13-03collegerankings.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

59

<p>worth anything*</p>