<p>columbiahopeful,
You are correct that USC has some statistical similarity to Emory and Vanderbilt as all three have average SATs approaching 1400. Emory (4.0) and Vanderbilt (4.1) have marginally higher PAs. I would argue that they, along with Rice (4.1), are underrated. USC could conceivably equal or go ahead of them here. Emory and Vanderbilt both score higher on Faculty Resources and Financial Resources. Money issues and an institution's ability and willingness to spend and support undergraduates drive these two scores and financially, Emory and Vanderbilt have considerably higher endowment per capita. Personally, I think it would be appropriate to see all four (Rice included) of these schools ranked more highly-Rice in Top 10, Emory and Vanderbilt in Top 15 and USC in Top 20. The hard part is figuring out which schools they would displace-there are a lot of good schools. :)</p>
<p>hawkette, I disagree with you. For Emory and Vandy to be top 15, you would have to 'kick' some schools out of the top 15. There is not one school in the top 15 that Emory and Vandy are superior to.</p>
<p>every school in the top 15 has an sat average that exceeds 1400 besides Cornell.</p>
<p>Hey columbiahopeful,
You're at U Penn and part of the status quo so I don't expect you to say anything different. Everyone there and throughout the Ivy League likes the status quo, but I think there has been a broadening of academic quality across the country that is not reflected in the rankings, particularly in PA. Things like PA work to the benefit of the status quo and against the likes of Emory, Vanderbilt, USC, etc. </p>
<p>On your statement that Emory and Vanderbilt are not as good as those schools now ranked in the Top 15, I think you both underrate Emory and Vanderbilt and overrate those already established in the Top 15. Clearly there are some areas where these schools deliver a higher score than some in the Top 15. For example, on Faculty Resources, Vanderbilt and Emory rank 10th and 12th, respectively. On Financial Resouces, they are 15th and 16th, respectively. Emory is 15th in Alumni Giving (USC is 14th) and Emory is 15th in Selectivity. The Graduation and Retention ranks for Emory and Vanderbilt are only 25th and 30th, but the actual measured difference is minute, eg, Freshman Retention of 95% vs 96% at some Top 15 schools. I have argued elsewhere that the weights given to such measures (4% of total score) are out of scale to their importance and the differences they reveal and work to the benefit of the established academic powers. </p>
<p>So, who goes out of the Top 15 to permit Emory and/or Vanderbilt to enter? Who knows and we could argue endlessly about this, but both schools are both making gains with top students as the demographic swell of excellent high school graduates has given them an opening. And particularly for a Division I school like Vanderbilt (and Rice and USC also), they can offer a compelling alternative to the Ivies in terms of the overall undergraduate experience that they offer.</p>
<p>Let me conclude by saying that I am not looking to start a war on these or other schools, but the demographic facts are undeniable. There are more highly qualified students coming out of high school today than ever before. They have to go somewhere. Schools like Emory, Vanderbilt, USC and others are picking up many of these students and the statistical differences vs the established academic powers have narrowed and, in some cases, reversed. The good news is that 20 years ago, there might only have been 10 or so great schools with statistically superior student bodies. Now there are more than 20. IMO that is a good thing, but I also think that this represents a threat to the status quo as some of these newcomers (eg, Wash U) might displace some of the long established institutions.</p>
<p>It is very difficult to displace any of the top schools.</p>
<p>I'd argue it's quite plausible. I doubt many people would lose sleep if Rice went form 17 to 18 or if John Hopkins went from 16 to 17 ( or if John Hopkins and Rice tied for 17)... which is all it would take to get a school, currently ranked 18 or lower, to enter the top 15. In other words, with ties you can have more than 15 schools in the top 15, i.e. a lot of not too difficult ways to accommodate such changes.</p>
<p>i think northwestern will rise due to increased applications, higher yield.</p>
<p>I think parent2noles is correct that it is very difficult to displace any of the Top 15 schools. </p>
<p>Measures like PA perpetuate the established order as do measures like Graduation & Retention rank. For example, Freshman Retention (4% weight) reflects very, very small differences that translate into critical ranking points. Also, I would guess that this is a self-reinforcing metric as students, even if there were unhappy, would be more likely to stick at a highly ranked institution if only because the prestige of such a school supports their continued attendance. (I'm not saying that the students there are unhappy, but I do think that the prestige associated with Ivy school attendance is powerful). </p>
<p>Elsewhere, others have commented on the lenient grading policies of many Ivy schools which boosts their graduation rate. Perhaps there have been institutional decisions to follow this path (and the fact that the students are very talented). As a result, their 6-year graduation rates (which carry a 16% weighting in the rankings) benefits them vs the likes of Caltech or another school that might take a more demanding approach. I am not saying that this is the wrong approach, but I am saying that this has ranking benefits.</p>
<p>I have posted elsewhere what I thought might be a more effective rankings methodology, but I certainly believe that more weight should be given to what happens on a college campus to undergraduates and the experience that they have. On such measures, I believe that schools from outside the historical powers would compare very favorably against many schools currently in the top 15. </p>
<p>As for schools that might move up, a school like Rice clearly looks too low to me at its current #17 ranking (Graduation & Retention-15th, Faculty Resources-15th, Selectivity-11th, Alumni Giving-13th), but it is held back mostly by its Peer Assessment rank (4.1) which I argue is influenced by the factors that I listed earlier. As for moving down, jkh411 is probably right that few would protest if Hopkins moved down, but I think Rice can make a case for going ahead of both Brown and Cornell and others. I have posted it many times and I will again-IMO if Rice were located in the Northeast, it would be a fixture in the Top 10.</p>
<p>
Actually, acceptance rate IS factored in (albeit not very heavily):</p>
<p>
[quote]
Student selectivity (15 percent). A school's academic atmosphere is determined in part by the abilities and ambitions of the student body. We therefore factor in test scores of enrollees on the SAT or ACT tests (50 percent of the selectivity score); the proportion of enrolled freshmen (for all national universities and liberal arts colleges) who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high school classes and (for institutions in the universities-master's and comprehensive colleges-bachelor's categories) the top 25 percent (40 percent); **and the acceptance rate, or the ratio of students admitted to applicants<a href="10%20percent">/b</a>.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And Penn's acceptance rate fell from 20.8% in 2005 to 17.7% in 2006 (the relevant year for the '08 USNWR ranking), and fell again to 15.9% in 2007 (relevant for the '09 ranking).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, I would guess that this is a self-reinforcing metric as students, even if there were unhappy, would be more likely to stick at a highly ranked institution if only because the prestige of such a school supports their continued attendance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You make it seem as though this is an isolated incident. This is a common phenomenon that occurs throughout society:</p>
<p>for example people aspire for (or stay on at) jobs they otherwise would have quit long ago if it weren't for prestige and / or other benefits (monetary, power or otherwise).</p>
<p>i'm not sure why a job (or a school for that matter) that enjoys a high level of prestige / reputation should be punished merely because of the fact that it has a high level of prestige.</p>
<p>the other thing that undermines your logic is the underlying assumption that there is a large number of people who are unhappy at prestigious schools -- i haven't seen any ranking / study that would suggest that students are any unhappier at prestigious schools vs. those that aren't, in point of fact, rankings such as "Happiest Students" and "Best Quality of Life" are often occupied by Ivies at the top spots (e.g. Princeton, Brown and Dartmouth appear on those rankings perennially).</p>
<p>prestige,
You are correct on all points except that I do not assume that there are large numbers of unhappy students at prestigious schools. I have no idea beyond reading the handful of anecdotes here on CC that give that impression. I will also agree that students at many of these schools LOVE their school, eg, Princeton, Dartmouth, Brown. </p>
<p>Re ranking and methodology, I'm not saying punish the Ivies for their prestige, but understand what the methodology is, how it might be affected by issues related to prestige, how much weight it carries, and which schools benefit most from this weighting.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Re ranking and methodology, I'm not saying punish the Ivies for their prestige, but understand what the methodology is, how it might be affected by issues related to prestige, how much weight it carries, and which schools benefit most from this weighting.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But as this pertains to graduation rates, I don't see why this is a "bad" thing. i.e. you contend that at prestigious schools --> graduation rates are higher than on average --> this is due to people who stick it out because its a prestigious school who may have otherwise dropped out of a lesser prestigious school... to that i say, yeah, its possible, but i don't see why that is a "bad" thing.</p>
<p>Sakky makes this point much more eloquently than i but basically, at the end of the day, a low graduation rate is a lose/lose --> no one wins. the school doesn't win, the potential other people who were passed over for the person who drops out don't win and the dropout certainly doesn't win. which is precisely why a school with a higher graduation rate should be more appealing... whether its because the school does a better job selecting from its applicant pool, whether its because the school does a better job guiding the student once he enrolls, whether the student stays who otherwise wouldn't have simply because it was "Harvard" --> who really cares? its a win/win. the guy who would have otherwise dropped out graduates with a Harvard degree, and i just don't see how that in the larger sense (i.e. high graduation rate) isn't anything but a "good" thing.</p>
<p>"every school in the top 15 has an sat average that exceeds 1400 besides Cornell."</p>
<p>Umm, what are you talking about?!?!
Cornell for the Class of 2011, out of accepted students, has an average SAT verbal of 700 and an average SAT math of 720. (point something). I don't know, but that sure looks like its past a 1400 SAT average.</p>
<p>hawkette, I have to be honest, it's nice to see someone stick up for Vanderbilt! But, like you said, there are so many top schools out there that I don't think it would be possible for Vanderbilt or Emory to crack the Top 15.</p>
<p>mrsopresident... You'd be right if Cornell had a 100% yield... however, this is not the case and so according to collegeboard.com.... the SAT average is sadly 1385.</p>
<p>LoL... Sadly.... please.... :rolleyes:</p>
<p>mrsopresident,
Virtually all colleges will have a higher average SAT score for the ADMITTED students than for their ENROLLED students. Be careful when looking at a college's website that you understand how they report their scores. Many colleges will post the scores for their admitted students and people incorrectly judge this as the strength of the incoming student body. With yields at many of even the top privates running around 40%, you can see how the data for the enrolled student body will likely be different (and lower).</p>
<p>jkh411 and avant garde,
You may be aware, but I think that the main colleges for Cornell and Vanderbilt both have average SAT scores for their enrollled student bodies over 1400.</p>
<p>How about schools in the big 10 minus NW? Anyone think that Wisconsin will crack the top 30?</p>
<p>I think Georgetown will crack the Top 20 this year, and knock Notre Dame out as the primer Catholic School. Just a thought</p>
<p>^^ georgetown already is the premier catholic school :p</p>