The US News Prestige Rankings

College Search & Selection
141

<p>Thethoughtprocess provides a link to the NCSApowerrankings in post # 87. The stats used in those rankings are pretty bizarre.</p>

<p>For example, they take the US News ranking right from whatever list the school happens to be on. So Trinity U. in Texas has a #1 US News ranking (because it's #1 in the ranking of Texas colleges with 3-syllable names or whatever), while MIT has a US News Ranking of #7, becuse it is #7 on the list it is on (National Universities).</p>

<p>Also, some of the Division I schools that play in the junior varsity circuit of Div. 1 football (all the Ivies) are ranked against the schools that play ACTUAL football, which doesn't seem entirely kosher. In other words, that whole ranking is rank.</p>

142

<p>
[quote]
Let me get this straight, academe in its entirety, all of the professors in America's top universities are "wrong and misinformed"? I guess those presidents, provosts, deans of admissions, researchers and professors are clueless as to the type of education their peer institutions are providing and the calibre of students they are graduating and sending off to graduate school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Alexandre, Alexandre! Wow! Finally we reach an agreement on the PA! :) Sarcams and rethorical posturing set aside, replacing the "clueless" with "mostly clueless and lacking objectivity," would make the statement truer to reality. </p>

<p>Sorry, but there is simply no way to overlook the abject manipulation, cynicism, and cronyism that is evident in the peer assessment. If you feel that my often repeated judgment negatively impacts the University of Michigan, or Cal, or UVA, feel free to dismiss it. However, allow me to seek your commentary on the validity of the peer assessment at schools where you have lesser of an emotional attachment: let's start with Pomona versus Wellesley on the one hand, and Washington and Lee versus Smith.</p>

143

<p>
[quote]
If a private school wishes to have a great faculty resources rating, all it needs to do is include its Law and Medical school faculties, its purely-for-research faculties and its part time and asistant professors into the mix, something many universities, particularly the publics, cannot do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Humm, how about forcing the large research universities to stop counting the faculty that has not seen the inside of an undergraduate classroom in ages, the faculty that is on sabbatical, or teaching at another school, or simply doing anything but ... teaching. That would give a HUGE hit to those illusory single digit faculty/student reported with glee by some.</p>

<p>As far playing with budgets, I do not see why private have more freedom to play with budgets. Would you call the budgets at large public schools anything but indecipherable, and beyond the grasp of outsiders. Does anyone really check if the fuel bills are allocated correctly, or if the construction of a new pool or student center has been expensed accordingly to the USNews methodology.</p>

144

<p>
[quote]
kazz, what evidence do you have for that?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'll use Harvard and Michigan as examples</p>

<p>Harvard:</p>

<p>
[quote]
If a student takes the required tests more than once, which results does Harvard consider?</p>

<p>We consider a student's best test scores, but it is generally our experience that taking tests more than twice offers diminishing returns.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/utilities/faq/admissions/tests/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/utilities/faq/admissions/tests/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Michigan:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Is it possible to request that the SAT /ACT requirement be waived?</p>

<p>Either the ACT or the SAT is required for all freshmen. It does not matter which test you take or how many times you take it, we take the highest total test score in one sitting.

[/quote]
</p>

<p><a href="https://umich.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/umich.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=117&p_created=1053016056&p_sid=k78gGQfi&p_accessibility=0&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9NSZwX3Byb2RzPSZwX2NhdHM9MCZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PXRlc3Qgc2NvcmUgc2l0dGluZw**&p_li=&p_topview=1%5B/url%5D"&gt;https://umich.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/umich.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=117&p_created=1053016056&p_sid=k78gGQfi&p_accessibility=0&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9NSZwX3Byb2RzPSZwX2NhdHM9MCZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PXRlc3Qgc2NvcmUgc2l0dGluZw**&p_li=&p_topview=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>this is pretty consistent among privates and publics</p>

145

<p>How exactly is that different???? </p>

<p>“We consider a student's best test scores”</p>

<p>“we take the highest total test score in one sitting”</p>

<p>I know that some schools consider the highest sections of the tests, but unless I’m reading this incorrectly, both of these statements say the same thing.</p>

146

<p>As Alexandre has explained about a thousand times, the privates take the best math score you ever achieved, and the best verbal you ever achieved, even if you achieved them on different days. The publics take the best total score you ever got on one day.</p>

147

<p>Is there any data on how much that increases someones SAT scores?</p>

148

<p>“As Alexandre has explained about a thousand times, the privates take the best math score you ever achieved, and the best verbal you ever achieved, even if you achieved them on different days. The publics take the best total score you ever got on one day.”</p>

<p>--That’s fine, but I still want some data or proof showing that. I also would like to see just how much of a disparity this causes between public and private scores.</p>

149

<p>
[quote]
I still want some data or proof showing that

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Me too. there is a difference between an assertion and evidence. Does anyone have on-the-record statements from directors of institutional research at one of the publics and one of the privates on how they report their SAT data?</p>

150

<p>Did you check out the links in post #144?</p>

151

<p>Did you check out post #145?</p>

152

<p>I know you're a little dizzy from Ballerina's haymaker last night, but did you check out post#146?</p>

153

<p>Again, there is a distinction between how the university uses the SAT scores for admissions purposes, and how the university reports SAT scores to USNews. Both links refer to the former, neither refers to the latter. I am asking about the latter, since that is the subject of this discussion.</p>

154

<p>Afan, it should be obvious that the way a considers a candidate's SAT is the way that university records the SAT in their system and in turn, is the way it reports its SAT on their website, common data set and on all other official document, including those used by the USNWR. </p>

<p>Harvard's example was not clear. Dartmouth is probably the most explicit when explaining how it approaches the SAT. </p>

<p>From Dartmouth's website:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dartmouth.edu/apply/admissions/testing.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dartmouth.edu/apply/admissions/testing.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"It is our intent to evaluate our applicants’ best performance on standardized exams. Accordingly, and recognizing this is a transition year for the new SAT, our evaluation will consider each applicant’s best scores in each area regardless of whether the scores are from the old exam or the new one."</p>

<p>It is common knowledge that state universities and private universities consider SAT scores differently. Nobody is questioning whether one way is better than the other, but if we are to judge universities with so supperficial and meaningless a standard as SAT scores, we should at least be sure to look at the scores fairly.</p>

155

<p>Another comment: the "take the best combined score from different section" policy is used by schools such as Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Cornell, Yale, Princeton, Duke, U Penn, Brown, and others. In other words, all the elite private schools.</p>

<p>The "take the best ONE SITTING score" policy is not only used by the University of Michigan but also by all nine UCs in the UC system: UC Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, UCI, UCD, UCSC, UCSB, UCR, UCM, which are some of the best public universities in the nation.</p>

156

<p>That's correct. In general, the vast majority of elite private universities mix and match. The majority of elite state schools only consider the highest score in one sitting. According to a pretty reliable survey, that adds an additional 30-50 (40 points on average) points in favor of the private universities. In 2002 and 2003, I recall Michigan, Cal and UVa have mean SAT scores of 1330 or so compared to 1390-1400 at Brown, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Duke and Penn. If you add the 40 points to the state school averages in order to adjust for the difference in reporting, we are talking about a 20-30 point difference between the state schools and the private elites. </p>

<p>In 2004 and 2005, the private elites mean SAT scores jumped from 1390-1400 to a slightly higher 1420-1440 whereas publics remained at 1330. However, in 2006, early indications point to the publics having leaped from 1330 to 1370, which once again, if you take the 40 point advantage that is inherent to the way private universities consider and report SAT scores and ranges, means that the elite publics have mean SAT scores that are roughly 10-30 points lower than those at the elite privates...in real terms.</p>

157

<p>
[quote]
it should be obvious that the way a considers a candidate's SAT is the way that university records the SAT in their system and in turn, is the way it reports its SAT on their website

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Not at all obvious I am afraid. It is trivial to record every test score received, and then to generate a report of highest single-sitting, highest individual component, or any other way. This is not done with pencil and paper. </p>

<p>How they are reported need not be the same as how they are used. If USNews were to impose a standardized reporting for this metric that would not require colleges to change how they used the scores. Remember, some colleges do not require the SAT at all, but they still report the scores to USNews. </p>

<p>So either there is a statement from the colleges about how they report the scores, or there is not. Apparently there is not, and the idea that the publics report differently than the privates is speculation, not fact.</p>

<p>Similarly, is there evidence of how large the difference in combined score is when one looks at highest single-sitting vs best combination? Or is this more speculation?</p>

158

<p>That's a good point Afan. But just as we cannot assume that private universities report their SAT averages and ranges as they used them to admit their students, we cannot assume that they report them differently either.</p>

159

<p>I agree. So the answer is "we dont' know". The answer is not "they must report them as they use them". That means we don't know whether any adjustment in SAT scores is appropriate.</p>

160

<p>As to overall strength of student bodies, if the elite publics are essentially equal to the elite privates, then why do the privates do so much better on their students winning prestigious fellowships? <a href="http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/NewsReleases/accomplishmentsindex.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/NewsReleases/accomplishmentsindex.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Top ten= 9 privates, the usual suspects (Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Duke Brown, Chicago, Cornell, MIT), one public. The publics are much larger, and therefore their performance on a per-student basis is even lower. This makes sense if the student bodies are not equivalent, but it is hard to explain if they are. </p>

<p>Similarly, the large difference in the proportion of graduates who get advanced degrees is in part explained by financial considerations, but the gap is so large that it is difficult to accept that this is the only reason. Differences in academic preparation at entrance to college seems a natural additional factor distinguishing the colleges. </p>

<p>Or let's take performance on the Putnam math competition. <a href="http://www.unl.edu/amc/a-activities/a7-problems/putnam/-html/putnam2005results.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.unl.edu/amc/a-activities/a7-problems/putnam/-html/putnam2005results.html&lt;/a>
Again compare the large elite publics to the much smaller privates. UC Berkeley's (23,482 undergraduates) recognition consisted of placing one individual in the honorable mention category. This ties it with Williams College (2,041 undergraduates), and places it well behind MIT (23 students were recognized, including 3 of the top 6, with 4,066 undergraduates). Of the top six scores, all came from elite privates (MIT, Harvard , Princeton). The only public to place among the top ten teams was University of Waterloo. These results make sense if there is a large difference between the student bodies, and are almost impossible to explain if there is not.</p>

<p>This is not a criticism of the publics. They are great places. But let's keep the facts straight. The average academic preparation of students at the elite privates is higher than at the publics. All the evidence points this way. Instead of trying to explain this away, why not focus on the strengths of the publics, and how much they accomplish, given the constraints they face-lower endowments, political meddling by legislatures, mandate to educate large numbers of students, inability to cherry pick only the top candidates...</p>