<p>I would think Princeton considering as how their waitlist was closed and their acceptance rate dropped to lke 9%, didn't it? Wow that's insane. </p>
<p>Columbia might skyrocket to top 5 b/c RD was chaos this year and apps increased like they never have before. </p>
<p>Duke received 18,000 apps this year opposed to the normal 16,000.</p>
<p>The data used for the ranking is from last year, Class of 2008, so all the app chaos that you're talking about won't affect the ranking until next year. That's why a popular prediction now is that Yale will be #1, considering the massacre that occurred last year after it switched to SCEA.</p>
<p>Here's an idea. Why don't we wait for U.S. News to come out with its rankings!</p>
<p>A lot of those schools had increases in their applications because they switched to the Common App, which Penn will not do. That automatically decreases their acceptance rate.</p>
<p>So will Penn undoubtedly go down? What factors do these rankings use?</p>
<p>I think if you go to the USNews site it will tell you what they use to determine rankings. In the end they are all silly, but clearly our society cherishes them.</p>
<p>My thoughts about Penn are that it is an underrated school in the eyes of the public (although USNews gives us props), mostly because people are still hung up on the reputation it had 10 years ago. Unfortunately those people lose out because if they actually get more information about Penn they will see how great a university it is.</p>
<p>The predominatly ivy grads change the rankings as they see fit, creating controversy and selling many a magazine. It's like rolling stone and the "best cd" rankings- in many ways, they are just trying to be controversial to sell. Lets not speculate about what these fools will say, and instead talk about what should be ranked higher or something like that.</p>
<p>um...two most underrrated schools by US News is U of Chicago and Cornell. RU kidding, Chicago is one of the best schools in the country if not the world.</p>
<p>Chicago sucks so much. They are all NERDZ!</p>
<p>Because a bunch of high school students and some college students (who are, by all means, not the most objective of the bunch even compared to the "fools" at US News) are suddenly experts on colleges. Please.</p>
<p>I am not saying that we are the experts, rhys1118, but what gives them the authority? I gues you could say the money that people spend on their products, but that is little justification of the accuracy of their products. These businessmen are very smart and feeding off of the fear and insecurity of many to make a lot of money. They are not fools in the least. Most are rich, ivy educated journalists. Wouldn't you think that they are biased? How about for the ivy league, against publics, ect. Is their bias less than ours?</p>
<p>I don't think anyone really has "authority" when it comes to colleges except the students who are deciding between colleges themselves. There's so many intangible factors in the appeal of a college, factors that go way beyond any numbers that US News or any other rankings machine can come up with. Student faculty ratio or acceptance rates or even peer assessment scores aren't surefire ways to make me happier at one college versus another. In the end, college is a purely personal and subjective choice. That's it.</p>
<p>I think, to some degree we all (well, some people are a little dubious) know to take US News as what it really is: not an authority but just a tool, a bunch of statistics and numbers that take all the measurable factors in colleges and adds them up to help us with our decisions. US News is a whole lot better than some other rankings and is probably the most clear as to their criteria for ranking the schools like they do. The people there have access to a whole lotta more statistics and evidence than we do, and even if you suspect them of twisting the truth, it's gotta be more accurate than the perceptions of teenagers who think <em>they</em> are the authority on colleges now. </p>
<p>Whether they are biased or not, no one here can prove. And the fact that they are "rich, ivy-educated" journalists isn't a factor, in my opinion. Wanting to sell magazines is a incentive for muddling up the rankings, but I mean, really, if that's the case, then let's put Notre Dame or whatever school as number 1. That would certainly catch people's interest. But US News does have a reputation to uphold; no one's going to believe them if they put a school clearly out of it's caliber. It's been consistent with rankings for years now, with the same 8 or 10 schools holding the top positions, and any rising schools (Penn/Wash U/Duke/etc) have risen not because of getting sales up but because each school has genuinely improved over the past years. Besides, why is everyone so worked up over what school is #1 or #3 or even #6? Who cares? Is the difference going to be <em>that</em> big? No. Bottom line: don't make ridiculous claims (ie: Penn rising because the editor is a WHarton grad? Please, what a baseless claim. How stupid do you think people are?)</p>
<p>Lastly, because I have typed <em>way</em> too much, and god help anyone who read through all that, the discrepancy between ivy league and public schools is reasonable if you take into consideration the factors that US news considers. Student faculty ratio, funding, class size, whatever. The education at any of the really good public schools is certainly not inferior to any ivy league, but it is a lot harder to get the same attention in bigger public schools. For one, classes are harder to get into, bigger classes, more tas, less funding (relatively), harder (relatively) access to professors (esp. the really renowned ones), etc etc etc. But in the end, ivy league superiority is perpetuated by the very people who dislike them. Why do I see so many threads about the ivy league here? Why are people so obsessed with demeaning the ivy league schools if they really didn't matter? It's free publicity and it just makes people look spiteful. Maybe if people weren't so ivy obsessed ( in the good or bad way), this whole discussion forum would make a lot more sense.</p>
<p>i aint no holla back girl</p>
<p>I hate that song with a passion! How does Gwen Stefani get work? :confused:</p>
<p>Anyways, I wonder how many threads there will be about this once the rankings come out.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think anyone really has "authority" when it comes to colleges except the students who are deciding between colleges themselves.
[quote]
</p>
<p>Well, what about all the factors that affect this decision? For instance, what rankings say about the prospective school? That certainly affects where many people apply and eventually enroll.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wanting to sell magazines is a incentive for muddling up the rankings, but I mean, really, if that's the case, then let's put Notre Dame or whatever school as number 1. That would certainly catch people's interest. But US News does have a reputation to uphold; no one's going to believe them if they put a school clearly out of it's caliber.
[quote]
</p>
<p>Rolling stone isn't going to put the first backstreet boys album as the best album of all time, but they are going to throw a few "controversial" things in the mix. </p>
<p>I agree with your generally apathy about the #1 vs #6.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lastly, because I have typed <em>way</em> too much, and god help anyone who read through all that, the discrepancy between ivy league and public schools is reasonable if you take into consideration the factors that US news considers.
[quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if you know that public schools follow a certain trend, and privates follow a different one (in terms of specific data), then one can easily manipulate the rankings to show whatever you want. I'm not ivy obsessed, and i don't think the world should be either. In many ways we agree.</p>
<p>Why isn't the quote feature working with me?</p>
<p>all i have to say is func!</p>
<p>Psh, ignore all my other points, why don't you.</p>
<p>Just because some people are unduly affected by US News doens't mean that somehow, US News has become the authority on college choice. I highly doubt the people at US News spend nights planning on how to twist the data to promote one school or demean another.
Look, I mentioned before that the ranking system is a <em>helping tool</em>, there's <strong>other factors</strong> in college decisions, which is why so many people do college visits. I think our main disagreement stems from the fact that you think the rankings are inaccurate and I don't. In the magazine, they give you a rank and they give you statistics (such <em>as</em> student-professor ratio, graduation rate, etc etc) and that <em>does</em> tell you things about the school and it might influence people, if one of the factors is important to them. Those are tangible, relevant facts that <em>should</em> be factors, and you cannot manipulate those. You seem to think that rankings are done by a small group of people. There are many many people who work together to gather, calculate and formulate the rankings; they can't all have some ulterior motive in mind to push ivy league schools up and other schools or whatnot down. If you still want to believe that they are being dishonest with their evidence, then fine, but (and this is to everyone) please please don't accuse without giving proof. </p>
<p>Besides, being controversial doesn't always mean being wrong. I mean, <strong>example</strong> scenario, let's just say that the people at US News are twisting the data. So what? Most of the controversy, as far as I can tell from the threads here, are between schools that are already in the top 10 or top 12. You just said that the difference between schools in the top ten is miniscule. So who cares if a school drops from 5 to 8 or whatever? Are people seriously going to be influenced by that? Is that what you mean when you refer to the factors that mess up applicants' minds? I mean, if a school that clearly should be top 10 is ranking in the thirties, then something is suspicious about that and it will influence people's minds, but I don't see too much debate about any school out of the top 20.<br>
Not everyone decides not to apply to a school because it dropped a rank or two. I mean, really, those kids at MIT <em>must</em> be planning mass suicide because their school is suddenly below Penn. Psh. Even if there are people who are like that, it's not a reflection of the incompetency of the ranking, but of the individual. </p>
<p>And for public schools vs. private? I don't get your reasoning on how it would make it easier to manipulate the data. I agree that sometimes, the factors are not fair to public schools because they just do not have the funding and advantages that private schools do, but what are you going to do with that except rank them separately? It's not a deliberate manipulation, it just reflects the fact that private schools have advantages over public schools. </p>
<p>Bottom line: US News is one of the more accurate rankings systems because you know the factors that they consider in their rankings, factors that, for the most part, are indicative, to some point, of what a school can provide, in the measurable sense. Rankings are here to stay, and if <em>you</em> think you have an idea for a better ranking system, then work hard in school, become an editor, and then you can carry the flaming torch to enlighten the collective minds of all the poor kids who won't apply to a school because it's #12 0r #13 instead of in the top 10. </p>
<p>This thead is already getting old, isn't it? Lol, whatever. Knock yourselves out.</p>
<p>wow, thats a big post</p>
<p>i agree that the differences between the schools at the top are small and shouldn't be a decision in picking and choosing</p>
<p>Actually Devil, Columbia had one of the lower application increases among the Ivies, surpassed by Brown, Dartmouth, Princeton, Harvard, and Cornell in percentage increase.</p>
<p>Really? Oh wow.</p>