<p>So, colleges are suppose to report the sat mid-50% range for enrolled students, not the mid-50% range for admitted students. However, UChicago's range printed in usnews looks more like one for admitted students. UChicago's own website says the sat mid-50% range for enrolled students is 1340-1510. Is this just a printing mistake on usnews' part, or a reporting mistake on UChicago's part? Can someone with premium usnews account check the online stats?</p>
<p>Sounds pretty fishy to me!</p>
<p>[U</a>. of C. jumps to 9th place in ranking of universities](<a href=“http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/1096600551.html?dids=1096600551:1096600551&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug+18,+2006&author=Jodi+S+Cohen,+Tribune+higher+education+reporter&pub=Chicago+Tribune&edition=&startpage=8&desc=U.+of+C.+jumps+to+9th+place+in+ranking+of+universities+;+New+look+at+numbers+boosts+its+standing]U”>http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/1096600551.html?dids=1096600551:1096600551&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug+18,+2006&author=Jodi+S+Cohen,+Tribune+higher+education+reporter&pub=Chicago+Tribune&edition=&startpage=8&desc=U.+of+C.+jumps+to+9th+place+in+ranking+of+universities+;+New+look+at+numbers+boosts+its+standing)</p>
<p>elsijfdl, can you summarize that article? the website charges for it, and the abstract says nothing specific. it doesn’t explain the surprisingly high sat mid-50% range reported by usnews and the discrepancy between that and UChicago’s self reported range.</p>
<p>^“Michael Behnke, the vice president for university relations and dean of college enrollment, went to Washington, D.C., with other top officials to meet with magazine researchers and editors.”</p>
<p>lol wow chicago seems pretty rankings obsessed…</p>
<p>^All colleges these days are, precisely because of the obsessiveness you see on this post and the rest of CC/the general public.</p>
<p>aabbcc1789 - it makes me wonder if they are obsessed enough to mistakenly report the sat mid-50% for admitted students to usnews.</p>
<p>Johntonishi// I can understand why you might be suspicious, but the folks at USNews check and recheck and triple-check these facts. After all, they make millions of dollars out of this. When it’s so out in the public, I’d think that they’d catch the error if it truly was that.</p>
<p>pnb2002 - usnews cannot catch mistakes that are made intentionally by schools.</p>
<p>“All colleges these days are, precisely because of the obsessiveness you see on this post and the rest of CC/the general public.”</p>
<p>can you support that statement with actual evidence?? ALL colleges?</p>
<p>Johntonishi-- yes they can with a simple google search. The stat for the class of 2012 have been up forever on the UChicago college admissions site. I happen to know this for sure, because I look precisely at those stats when I was applying half a year ago.</p>
<p>pnb2002 - and those are much lower than the one reported.</p>
<p>pnb2002 - get real, 25% of students scored above 1560, impossible. only HYPC has that kind of number. Students enrolled at UChicago have had lower sat mid-50% range than even Columbia and Brown over the years.</p>
<p>That still doesn’t disprove my argument that Chicago couldn’t have intentionally reported higher median scores, as you’re accusing. You’re questioning the ethics of a school on a completely irrational basis. I never argued that those two were the same, just that Chicago couldn’t have just made up some high numbers and sent them. The world isn’t that simple.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It basically talked about how the UChicago administrators talked with USNews to determine how they could “change” the way they reported numbers, e.g. who counts as “full-time faculty,” what can actually be counted as a “class” (freshman seminars, etc), who they can include for “donating alumni” (or, particularly, EXCLUDE instead of counting as a “non-donating alumni”). The article didn’t specifically mention anything about “admitted” vs. “enrolled” statistics but it does provide context for that kind of leeway.</p>
<p>I don’t have to “get real.” I’m not the one who’s obsessing over every little details of a ranking–a ranking of colleges in different settings, with different things to offer to different students. You can question the US News “misprint” all you want–that’s not what I care about. What I do not want to hear is your accusing of an institution of releasing false information without any factual basis.</p>
<p>pnb2002 - if you read my question correctly, you would have noticed that I was wondering if there is a “printing mistake on usnews’ part, or a reporting mistake on UChicago’s part.” That’s why I want to know if someone who has premium account is getting the same stats. I never specified that UChicago would intentionally mis-report.</p>
<p>That’s certainly what you were implying later in the thread. For example, when I provided you evidence that they couldn’t have possibly fabricated the info b/c they were released on their own website, you still said “they wouldn’t be able to tell if UChicago submitted false information.” That’s where your first thought went to, and I responded. </p>
<p>Good luck on your investigation regardless.</p>
<p>pnb2002 - I never specified that UChicago would intentionally mis-report, and I don’t question the integrity of any institutions. What I do question is the individuals within institutions (whether it is Ivy, UChicago, Northwestern, WashU, Stanford, etc). You are insinuating that elite institutions are infallible. What you don’t realize is that however prestigious an institution may be, it may have people lacking integrity in high positions within. MIT and its former lying director of admissions is a perfect example of how individuals lacking integrity may be high level administrators.</p>
<p>pnb2002 - show some integrity by not putting words in my mouth. I said “usnews cannot catch mistakes that are made intentionally by schools,” where schools include all colleges, not just the University of Chicago. Read what I write, and don’t assume too much.</p>