Thoughts on school rankings

Prep School Admissions
1

<p>I have given some thoughts to the admittedly flawed and arguably biased, even arbitrary, rankings of “top” US secondary schools.</p>

<p>First, each source below weights various criteria rather whimsically (from the WSJ's minimalist approach of a sole criterion, matriculation at a random set of HPM+5 schools, to Prepreview’s 6 placement ranks + extra ratios and medians):</p>

<p>WSJ.com[/url</a>]
[url=<a href="http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/29/best-prep-schools-2010-opinions-private-education.html%5DAmerica's">http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/29/best-prep-schools-2010-opinions-private-education.html]America's</a> Best Prep Schools - Forbes.com
Prep</a> Review by MIT Oxbridge & Ivy League Educated Insiders
Matriculation</a> Stats</p>

<p>In each case, the mere transposition of 2 weightings across categories significantly re-orders the list, rendering such “rankings” a fool’s errand: meticulously massaging specific (but arbitrary) numbers to gain group meaning. Why 15% to HyP placement and 10% to faculty:student ratio (or vice versa)? Why would St. Hilarius' School's sole Oxford matriculant have virtually the same "weight" as each of its 8 Duke or 5 Wellesley admits? Why would "median SAT" (of an entire graduating class) carry twice as much weight in one ranking as in another? And most importantly, how much should such metrics even matter?</p>

<p>What is it that these “rankings” assess? Assuming that “matriculation at HyP & Cetera” is a major factor in achieving top standing, several large and diverse boarding schools could simply start admitting only at cutoffs of 96+ SSATs, which would virtually assure permanent domination in these rankings (since they get a much larger pool of academically qualified candidates than smaller schools). Like the British league tables gradually abandoned by Eton et al, the rankings above are becoming less and less informative, because they seem to miss the point, or at least a good chunk of it.</p>

<p>Among the top schools, how does one quantify the daily quality of life on, say 2,000 acres of paradise? What value do we place on having over 30 nations represented in a class year? Surely, small day schools with a narrower emphasis on median SAT scores and HyP & cetera “success rate” may dominate simplistic ranking lists, but parents should step back and ask: what does such a list really represent? Certainly not what Johnnie or Katie will achieve, since they cannot be "25% admitted" to "HyP"! So what impact does a school’s carefully massaged overall “success rate” (however capriciously defined) have on the well-being of MY child and on her preparedness to be successful in life? And just as importantly, would she be happy at that school (a good predictor for life as well)?</p>

<p>This is not to say ratings could not be informative. Especially, since we all need to make choices.</p>

<p>However, the above I find extremely simple-minded, as they omit human metrics which would be hard to obtain, but which could be extremely helpful in decision-making by parents, such as: </p>

<p>1) endowment stability and basic patterns of use;</p>

<p>2) decisions on physical plant upkeep, including renovation and expansion; </p>

<p>3) all alumni satisfaction, by now-ubiquitous annual electronic polling (5 min online time); </p>

<p>4) the school's ongoing innovations and leadership in education (perhaps as mentioned in national media); </p>

<p>5) the school's responsiveness to its student body and the parents; </p>

<p>6) even seemingly odd metrics such as variety of college majors pursued two years after graduation (again obtained by confidential, online polling).</p>

<p>“Success” is not easy to quantify, but WSJForbesViewMats-type simplistic approaches (obtain a number or two, weight them somehow, sum them up and put a fancy ribbon around the biggest numbers) are lackluster.</p>

<p>I would have dug deeper, and focused just as much on the stability of the school’s leadership and finances, and its demonstrated devotion to excellence by academic, extracurricular and social initiatives over the past several years, which (to me at least) show continuing commitment to provide the best education (of which academic education is but one sliver) for our children.</p>

<p>Most of the top 50 schools can get a child academically prepared for college – and they will also help her get in to a fine college. However, “getting in” is kind of like “being born”: the journey begins, and to prep right, parents need to turn over more stones than simply accepting that “we have a median 2200 SAT” or “25% of our graduates matriculate at HyP & cetera”.</p>

<p>What else matters at a truly outstanding educational institution?</p>

2

<p>You’re preachin to the choir, man - preachin to the choir.</p>

3

<p>

Please do and post some findings of yours here if possible. I’d be very interested ito know!</p>

<p>To me, ranking itself is a flawed research approach in the first place because it can only take quantifiable parameters into account, but if rankings are unavoidable, then we should know that all the rankings are somewhat skewed and that’s understandable - there’s no universally acceptable ranking formula out there. In a way, the more parameters in a ranking system, the more skewed and contraversial it can get. A single paramenter ranking is straightforward - say if college matriculation is the only factor (which by the way I buy to a certain degree. These are college prep schools after all. To assess whether and how their students are competitive in getting admitted to the most selective colleges IMO is similar to the assessment of employment or graduate school prospects of undergraduate students in colleges), then what you get is a clean cut ranking of that parameter only. I’d rather see a range of rankings with a single parameter, and let me be the judge of how much weight to put on each parameter, which IMO is the only way to blend in some “fit” into the inherently impersonal ranking behavior. What I would probably get in that way is not an absolute ranking but groups of schools I consider excellent, good, above average, etc.</p>

4

<p>In the interest of full disclosure, I’m the author of the matriculationstats website.</p>

<p>With that being said, I’d like to point out that on my website I spend a fair amount of words trying to limit the emphasis that is placed on the statistics that I then go on to develop. I’m well aware of their limitations (though I do think that some of the statistics that I have are less limited than others). You have simplified some of the measures I use of a school’s broader matriculation statistics, looking at groups of approximately 40 and 80 schools, respectively, in addition to the more pointed HYPMS statistic.</p>

<p>Nonetheless, I certainly agree that these statistics show only a slice of the characteristics of a school. Many of the attributes you mention above are very important for students and parents in evaluating which school to attend and provide a fuller picture of a school. The problem is that they are mostly very difficult if not impossible to quantify. I’m not suggesting that applicants ignore them, though, just that they can’t be effectively quantified. Applicants should look the characteristics you mention and form their own conclusion of each school they are considering. It would, of course, be helpful if such information were more easily accessible and comparable.</p>

<p>Because matriculation statistics are easy to quantify, they lend themselves to the type of analysis that I performed. Unfortunately, people then rely too excessively on such statistics and the rankings they generate simply because the numbers stand out in clear black and white. That doesn’t mean they aren’t useful, just that care must be taken in their interpretation.</p>

5

<p>“These are college prep schools after all.” (DAndrew)</p>

<p>Maybe that’s the premise that should should examined. Weren’t such “preparatory schools” undertaken with the idea of preparing their students for LIFE, and all its vicissitudes, rather than to serve as mere stepping stones to another level of formal education?</p>

<p>With that in place, how would it affect the “rankings”?</p>

6

<p>leanid, trust me, boarding school is not the most “efficient” let alone the only way to move on to “another level of formal education”. You don’t spend $45K a year and/or have your precious kids live away from home four years “ahead of time” just to get into a good college. Of course, the ultmiate purpose is to prepare for life, but does it have to be contradictory to prepare them to be competitive for the admission to colleges? Let’s take one step at a time. I don’t supposed to be ready for life means at the expense of getting into a selective college.</p>

7

<p>Personally, I have found your site (matriculationstats) well-organized and very effective at what you set out to do. Yours is probably the most robust methodology and the most open disclosure. Thank you for all your work!</p>

<p>None of my comments have been intended as criticism of the rankings themselves (after all, one could indeed rank schools based on most any criterion); I am digging for more information that could better distinguish between schools, all with excellent reputation, going beyond metrics and “gut feel”. It would be good to know some other facets I listed for all schools, which would make comparisons and discernment more straightforward.</p>

<p>As it stands, it is more an individual undertaking for everyone, which I am quite certain duplicates effort somewhat unnecessarily. How many fathers and mothers have to look up press releases on new developments, initiatives, figures in annual reports about endowment or scholarships, alumni giving etc.?</p>

<p>Once we assume the school is suitable academically, many, many other factors come into play that will sway us one way or another. In all candor, is a difference between 20 or 16% HyP such a marked difference, especially as metrics fluctuate year to year? Once someone can “live with” a range (kind of like S/SAT scores), it becomes a quest for perhaps less tangible but nonetheless crucial factors.</p>

<p>Any insight from members is welcome.</p>

8

<p>If I had to come up with a list of criteria with which to rank schools, it probably wouldn’t even include matriculations or average sat scores. It would include things like alumni support, guidestar’s score, attrition rates for both students and faculty, published works of faculty, % of students involved in non-mandated community service, flexibility within graduation requirements (which would tie into number of course offerings)…things like that. In other words, I would look to the things that will matter to the student while they are there. Most current “rankings” use things that describe incoming students or graduating students, leaving a big blank about what it’s like for current students.</p>

<p>I agree the lvillegrad’s site is very good at what it does and I commend him for the work. I just don’t personally find that info particularly useful (interesting, yes) simply because I have no set college or group of colleges that I want my kids to get into. I just want them to have a decent shot at whatever their top choice turns out to be.</p>

9

<p>No offense meant in any way to the OP, but after being on this site for a couple of years, I actually feel the energy drain out of my body when I see the subject of rankings come up.</p>

10

<p>College matriculation stats over time: is it about obssesing over a few big name colleges, or is it about how the BS students perform in the competition with the best students from the bigger world vying for admission to the most selective colleges? Is it about likes or dislikes of HYP, or is it about what options one may have upon graduation (do you choose to or do you “have to” go to a certain college?) </p>

<p>It’s true that college matriculation outcome is partly a reflection of what kinds of students a school admits, but first of all, the quality of the student body is one of the most important aspects of a fine school, and secondly, taking in the best raw material doesn’t always mean outputting the fine products. College outcome is one way to audit the school’s work. I don’t intend to debate over this, but just to sortof further explain why I think college matriculation is still a good indicator of the quality of a school.</p>

11

<p>

</p>

<p>Nicely put. After all, what happens in that “middle part” (which is measured in years, as opposed to months) to a well-selected start group will much impact how they end up – both individually and overall (as a school class).</p>

12

<p>

</p>

<p>Precisely - to get into HyP, getting a 2300 as opposed to a 2100 SAT will not do the trick. The SAT is too easy to discriminate at the high end, plus HyP etc. weigh many other factors in the process. I think most, if not all, of the best schools (private, public, day, boarding) will prepare smart students to get into a good college. However, the process of doing so vastly differs. As an experience, each outstanding school is unique. To find the right fit, statistics on college matriculation and SAT scores are just the beginning. What else sets them apart - from each other?</p>

13

<p>Here’s an interesting chart from the MIT website (this info is for the class that entered MIT Fall 2010), that once again highlights that test scores are just part of the picture:</p>

<p>Middle 50% score range of admitted students (25th and 75th percentiles):</p>

<p>SAT Reasoning Test - Math [750,800]
SAT Reasoning Test - Critical Reading [680, 770]
SAT Reasoning Test - Writing [680, 780]
ACT Math [33, 36]
ACT English [32, 35]
ACT Composite [32, 35]
SAT Subject Test - Math [750, 800]
SAT Subject Test - Science [730,800]
Distribution of SAT Reasoning Test Scores (Math)</p>

<pre><code> Applicants Admits Admit rate
</code></pre>

<p>750-800 7,718 1,172 15%
700-740 2,701 269 10%
650-690 1,847 108 6%
600-640 807 2 0%
< 600 610 0 0%</p>

14

<p>wow! nearly 60% of the mit applicants have sat scores in the 750-800 range!</p>

15

<p>Yes, and you have to assume that there are a lot of kids with perfect scores who are not admitted. (I personally know of a Presidential Scholar, with a perfect 2400, who was waitlisted at MIT a few years ago . . . )</p>

16

<p>^^When a certain ‘threshold’ has been reached, a perfect score or a very high score (e.g. 760 vs. 800) is not a differentiator any more, but for most successful applicants, a very high score is still expected.</p>

17

<p>JayPeeh: *wow! nearly 60% of the mit applicants have sat scores in the 750-800 range! *</p>

<p>@JayPeeh: I’m more surprised by the 20% of applicants with math SAT scores below 700. If I had a math SAT score below 700, I’d probably be intimidated by MIT (and CalTech). On the other hand, MIT does take some of those applicants, so what do I know?</p>

18

<p>It also occurred to me how the following and similar schools figure in the rankings, and what weight does an admit get when they qualify for Deep Springs or the Curtis Institute? Juilliard or the Cooper Union? Do RISDE or challenging military schools like Annapolis or West Point get high points? Any points at all?</p>

<p>Just a thought. Since schools like Emory, Brandeis or Tulane (randomly pulled from the USNWR list) merit mention (and earn matriculation statistics points), it would behoove us to ask rankmeisters to award some points to students who went on to some of the most demanding, most selective, most amazing arts or professional schools. Because it likely takes more to make it to the Curtis Insitute or the Cooper Union than it takes to get in to Tufts or the College of William and Mary. There are probably other remarkable places I have not thought of, where academically well-qualified, top prep-school-educated gifted students get admitted, but no credit is given to them on “rankings”.</p>

<p>And in terms of “life success”? I would not worry about graduates being able to “earn a living” after joining a leading symphony orchestra, the Navy SEALS or Industrial Light & Magic (again, these are graduates of top US prep schools, so they are unlikely to get lost in the crowd, wherever they end up).</p>

<p>Just a thought.</p>

19

<p>

</p>

<p>Lvillegrad, since MIT majors range from aerospace engineering to writing, with liberal doses of non-math majors thrown in there (African Studies, American Studies, Visual Arts, History, Music and various languages), this is hardly surprising. MIT, after all, is a large academic institution, irrespective of its reputation as an intense technical school. Hope this clarifies things a bit.</p>

<p>[MIT</a> Admissions: Majors & Minors](<a href=“http://www.mitadmissions.org/topics/learning/majors_minors/index.shtml]MIT”>Majors & minors | MIT Admissions)</p>

20

<p>Usually I steer clear of all the ranking discussions, fear not, I will not enter that morass now either. </p>

<p>But a story might be interesting. After boarding school and college I decided to get an MBA. I applied to 3, was admitted to 3 and went to Dartmouth. 1st year, over a beer (ironically), I was takling to the Director of Admissions. The discussion went as follows <a href=“all%20true”>u</a>:</p>

<p>Admissions Director Roger: “You know I almost didn’t admit you.”
Me: " I’m shocked. Why?"
Roger: “Because you had the highest math score of anyone applying”
Me: <what? high=“” is=“” good.=“” highest=“” best=“”> “Roger I thought the goal was to get the best possible grades and board scores? Why would you reject me for that?”
Roger: “I had a mental picture of a nerd with a pocket protector and a calculator.”
Me: “So?”
Roger: “There is not only no correlation between scores and success as a business executive, there is actually an inverse correlation”
Me: “Come off it. You are kidding. The dumb are more successful?”
Roger: “Not quite. But while we can train any reasonably bright person to analyze numbers, learn operations, understand accounting, and taxes we CANNOT give someone the interpersonal skills they need to succeed. They either have those or they don’t. In some ways the social chairman of a fraternity would be the ideal CEO. The extremely high scoring student may make a great staff person, but will never make CEO without a range of interpersonal skills.”
Me: “So why was I admitted?”
Roger: " I met you and you were so outgoing I realized you had the skills. So I admitted you DESPITE your board scores."
[color=blue]<i then=“” admitted=“” i=“” had=“” been=“” on=“” campus=“” for=“” 5=“” hours=“” and=“” taught=“” to=“” play=“” ‘beer=“” pong’=“” at=“” a=“” fraternity=“” that=“” morning=“” by=“” fellow=“” sps=“” grad.=“” he=“” said=“” ‘that=“” proves=“” my=“” point!’=“” [=“” color]=“” do=“” not=“” suggest=“” approach=“” admissions.=“”></i></what?></p><i then=“” admitted=“” i=“” had=“” been=“” on=“” campus=“” for=“” 5=“” hours=“” and=“” taught=“” to=“” play=“” ‘beer=“” pong’=“” at=“” a=“” fraternity=“” that=“” morning=“” by=“” fellow=“” sps=“” grad.=“” he=“” said=“” ‘that=“” proves=“” my=“” point!’=“” [=“” color]=“” do=“” not=“” suggest=“” approach=“” admissions.=“”>

<p>So… when finished analyzing SSAT’s, SAT’s, grades, AP’s offered, college admissions and endowment stewardship, ** never forget the individual matters. The whole person, not just the numerical statistics.** Some will go to MIT and others will find different paths to success. Find the school that is right for your teen (actually let Them find it), or keep them home if that is right for them.<br>
Good luck with your analysis, decisions and rankings. :slight_smile: </p>

<p>Oh, I did okay and retired from Wall Street at 39.</p>
</i>