U of C's 6 place jump by manipulation shows how small the dif is among top schools

College Search & Selection
21

<p>I know of at least one case where a HS student wanted to apply to Reed, but was having trouble with parents who balked at Reed's position on the list, so it can have an detrimental effect. Nonetheless, Reed has thrived since the 1995 decision to not participate, so overall it would appear that Reed's reputation has indeed not been soiled.</p>

<p>As for quality of academics (as measured soley by the percentage of graduates who go on to earn a PhD, so a very narrow measure, self-selecting, all the usual caveats) since 1995, Reed has moved from fourth to third in the country, now behind CalTech and Harvey Mudd (<a href="http://web.reed.edu/ir/phdrank.html)%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.reed.edu/ir/phdrank.html)&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p>

<p>Here is Reed's opinion on college rankings:
<a href="http://web.reed.edu/apply/news_and_articles/college_rankings.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://web.reed.edu/apply/news_and_articles/college_rankings.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

22

<p>''When I eyeball the rankings, it has always struck me that [Chicago] is undervalued,'' Kelly said. ''It was just an interesting coincidence to have them come in and say, 'We don't think we're doing this right.'"</p>

<p>^ so says U.S. News</p>

23

<p>Werner,</p>

<p>I don't think we disagree on that issue. I merely disagree with the way you seem to be characterizing Chicago's effort to change the way it reported the numbers as something dishonest and shady... the USNWR editors claimed that the way Chicago was doing it in the past was actually very poor, and they certainly made sure that Chicago's - and all schools - current practices matched their desired definitions.</p>

<p>Regarding the value of the ranking and what it means to a school like Chicago, I wholeheartedly agree... this is what I posted somewhere else:</p>

<p>Hey everyone, </p>

<p>First of all, let me apologize for the thread I started a couple days ago indicating that Chicago had dropped to the 16th spot... clearly that source was bogus and it has become pretty evident that the actual rankings have us in 9th tied with Columbia and Dartmouth. </p>

<p>I think that the title of this thread indicates a lot of what I think the discussions among deans and admissions reps. at Chicago will consist of over these next couple of months: what does this NEW ranking mean to the school, and why/how is it important? </p>

<p>I think that it is important to consider the rise that the University of Chicago has had in these rankings.. our ascendancy to the top is indeed spectacular. Yet, at the same time, I would like to point out a specific statistic in the 1999 issue. Chicago's acceptance rate? 72%!!!! </p>

<p>Here's my point: </p>

<p>When we applied, were admitted, or chose to attend, we came across this term called "self-selectivity" - often used to describe our applicant pool. It tried to explain to us how a school like Chicago managed to accept around 50% of their applicants last year, yet still have a higher SAT average for the entering class than four of the ivy league schools. This explained to us how we were a school who only attracted kids who truly knew about it, who were committed to its ideals of education, and who would further those ideals during their time at the school. Thus, the school could afford to admit so many of its applicant, 'cause those seeking admittance into Chicago were, for the most part, kids who truly wanted to be here. </p>

<p>I constrast that with today's environment, recent events, and things stated on this forum. First, I want to mention the overnights that some of us had in April. It has been widely stated that the University was/is trying to agressively combat the image that Chicago was not a fun place, and many people I talked to said that this effort was reflected during the overnights. The problem, in my opinion, was when I heard comments that this was, in some part, trying to mask what the actual REALITY was like at the University of Chicago. Secondly, I'd like to point out how we stand in terms of selectivity today. Our class was, by the numbers, the most selective one... 36% admission rate. Lastly, some in this thread have already expressed how they wouldn't mind if we were considered on the same footing as other more popularly-famous American Universities. </p>

<p>When I add all of this up I get a little bit concerned. </p>

<p>Chicago has built its worldwide reputation not by the kinds of numbers we are seeing today. It was known for its incredibly strict core (which has watered down, and would've watered down even more if it weren't for student efforts), full committment to academics, and, most of all, very unique student body. These past developments, though good for the school's day-to-day image, seem to be distancing the school from these characteristics. </p>

<p>I think that when we applied to college a lot of us felt that many of the schools on our list were like the ones in everyone else's list. The difference was simply on how high on that list you'd be able to climb - and consequently, how high on that list would you be able to brag. Chicago, however, was different. When applying to college I found that it was a school with no real subsitute. It had its own thing going on... and I liked that. </p>

<p>As we now enter the realm of top schools that the American public knows, I am worried that we won't gravitate towards becoming just another one of those schools that were on our college list. I think that Peter's "I hope it doesn't lose that" explains much of my concern. I decided to come here becomes we were indeed a special place. A place which few knew, but those who did respected it... a place which, since its founding, prided itself in being an unique institution. My concern is that this new ranking in USNWR will attract to Chicago more of those buckshot-approach applicants. I fear that Ted O'Neill's vision of "love letters" will become mass mailing-lists. I think that although some may celebrate this, I see it as the end of the days in which Chicago just attracted the bright and intelectually motivated... let us hope that Chicago, at the very least, only accepts the bright and intelectually motivated...</p>

24

<p>again, just as further evidence that chicago has only done what is RIGHT...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08/18/college.rankings.chicago.ap/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08/18/college.rankings.chicago.ap/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

25

<p>Trust me felipecocco, U of C is much more concerned about being top 10 than worrying that somehow being ranked so high is going to cause undesireable applicants who are only concerned about rankings to apply. This is somewhat naive and self-aggrandizing and overstating U of C's so-called "self-selectivity" as their yield rate would be higher than it is. Wash U's yield rate is also fairly low, are they "self-selecting"?</p>

<p>BTW, I think U of C is a great school but these rankings can obviously be manipulated and do enter the conciouness of the applicants desire to attend.</p>

26

<p>The magazine would fall apart if the Ivies refused to participate, but they do.</p>

27

<p>felipecocco: "again, just as further evidence that chicago has only done what is RIGHT..."</p>

<p>Well then, they should come out and say what they did and not be afraid of helping their competitors. Also, US News should produce lengthy guidelines for what schools can and can not do so they won't have to resort to flying to DC to understand where and how they can categorize things. Again, obviously the guidelines are not 100% clear.</p>

28

<p>A week ago, most people thought Chicago was underrated by U.S. News, for good reason too. Now it's finally gone up, and comparisons are being made between Chicago and WashU?! Yes, Chicago cares about its rankings, just like every other Top 10 school. It's finally catching up -- it's not doing anything out of the ordinary.</p>

29

<p>Maybe other schools are underrated in the top 15 and they need to make sure their data is correct too and all possible "improvements" have been made. US News needs to prepare better guidelines so private meetings with secretive data adjustments aren't needed,</p>

30

<p>Regarding gaming the system, another data that you can easily manipulate is financial resource. If you just go by the definition seen on US News, it looks like you can, though you know you shouldn't, include federal money for medical research; I believe that's what WashU did; otherwise, I don't see how they can be at #3, above schools like Stanford which year in and year out has <em>relatively</em> large amount of money for at least engineering/science research. I used "relatively" because those money is small when compared to what's used for medical research in top med schools like WashU. In 2004, WashU had over $400 millions, but only 60+ millioins were for non-medical research. At $400+ million, they would be in top-10, possibly top-5 but at $60+ millions, they would probably be outside top-50. Maybe every other school is including it but the benefit/impact isn't the same since most schools have much smaller med research programs.</p>

31

<p>....Because of a gnawing compulsion to set everyone straight.</p>

<p>U of C was as high as top-5 in the early years of the USNWR survey. It fell due to heavy marketing by significantly less-rigorous universities such as Penn, Northwestern and Duke. Northwestern for one grew significantly in the rankings due to the exposure that came from its trip to the Rose Bowl in 1997. As a university with well-regarded journalism and marketing departments, it understood the importance of publicity and manipulated its image accordingly. U of C simply lacked the publicity savvy and sensitivity to the prestige factor. It was the others that truly gamed the system, not Chicago.</p>

<p>I have nothing against the other schools I mentioned. I've always said I should have gone to Wharton (Penn) and Duke seems like a cool place to go to school. In either case, I would have had a more social experience, something that you realize is a very important part of the college experience. My wife--who is arguably smarter than me--graduated from Northwestern. She made a great choice in attending NU. And all our friends who went to UofIllinois are now wealthy tech and business types who cherish their college experiences. But in terms of academic and intellectual intensity, almost no college matches the intensity of UofC. And that has to count for a lot in a college ranking, arguably everything. There is no manipulation by UofC here; only setting the record straight.</p>

<p>-A UofC graduate</p>