<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe an issue for Harvard, but at least Penn lets its undergrads take courses in Penn Law. So for Penn the excellence of its grad programs, if it is boosting the perception of the undergraduates, is at least giving them concrete benefits too ;)</p>
<p>I feel like I should defend CA’s high schools. At least here in Silicon Valley, there are quite a few cutthroat public high schools turning out uber-competitive high achievers who go on to a variety of challenging unis and colleges. I also hear anecdotally about some top schools in LA and San Diego region, too.</p>
<p>Just sayin: any ratings system that has the UC “also rans” (Davis, Ir. and SB) ahead of state flagships like UF, UT, Wisc., etc. and privates like Tulane, GW and Miami is a joke. </p>
<p>Also, where do these schools get off listing 100% top 10 percent students? From where? — substandard California public schools, presumably.</p>
<p>And, why are these schools, with substandard SAT/ACT scores, going up in the USNWR rankings? Well, I already answered that, the USNWR methodology is a joke.</p>
<p>Stanford…BISH NO!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree! Penn is so awesome. My greatest regret was not having applied to this wonderful university when I was in college. I really wished I applied.</p>
<p>
But its been this way for 10~ years. Brown has the highest acceptance out of the 4, but Duke is 2nd, then Cornell, and Northwestern. But yes, at the undergrad level, they’re all peers. I know plenty of Duke kids when I attended who have turned down Brown and Cornell to go there. As warblersrule puts it, its arguable that Cornell is better, but it is as it is.
All 4 are awesome schools anyway.</p>
<p>TheSay, please tell us what is it about Penn that you find to be “so awesome”?</p>
<p>^Its biomedical engineering program is excellent, so is its medical facility. I majored in biomedical engineering in Duke, so I visited Penn back in the days to visit my sister, who also majored in biomedical engineering.
I stayed there for fall break, and I must say I’m impressed with the profs, the facilities, and the students. I loved the town too as I’m mostly a city person. :)</p>
<p>Why ask? Do you not like Penn as your voice insinuates?</p>
<p>Is that correct, that USNWR uses top 10% of high school class for 6% of the calculation? If so, that is the biggest joke yet. Well, biggest joke after PA and HSGCA. Everyone knows (except, apparently for the rating agencies) that schools fudge this all the time via selective “non-reporting” for lower performing students. UC Davis reports 100% of students in top 10% of their high school class. I can’t believe they do this with a straight face. Not even the Ivies claim this. They even contradict themselves in their own CDS, unless you believe that the 12+% of students having a GPA between 3.00-3.49 were all in the top 10% of their high school class, including the 2.5% between 3.00-3.24. It is also almost impossible that the average of all students was 3.9 when “only” 2/3 of the class was between 3.75-4.00. And all this is assuming they used UW GPA, which most of the UC schools do not. No wonder that, for example, UC Davis has average SAT scores almost 200 points(!!) less than Tulane (about 1780 vs. 1965), yet is ranked 11 places higher.</p>
<p>I know it isn’t worth getting really upset about this fraud, but it is rather distressing to see that USNWR turns a blind eye to this obviously “cooked” data. Between this and the completely absurd PA and HSGCA scores, this idiocy should be put to a merciful death.</p>
<p>USNWR is about making money. If allowing cooked data to pass means they’ll do better cashing out, then that’s what they’ll do.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with you to an extent. However, i feel USNWR is still better than Forbes. Their rankings are downright ludicrous.</p>
<p>Actually, the basic Forbes concept is better than USNWR as it correctly includes both LAC’s and the undergraduate colleges within universities in the same list: e.g. Williams outranks Princeton, rather than being segregated to a separate list of LACs. Note there is some overlap: Williams was #1 on both lists and Princeton #2. BTW, schools that “game the system” to up their USNWR rank don’t fool the folks at Forbes (e.g. Wash. U.). For more on that one, read the current edition of Washington Monthly.</p>
<p>^^^ … “and the undergraduate colleges within universities.” Nicely put. And I agree with the rest of the post. What I don’t like about Forbes is the “rate my professor” and the “who’s who” bit; I wish they would find something better.</p>
<p>Using Who’s Who in America and Rate My Professors damages the credibility of the rankings immeasurably.
Institutions in which students don’t bother to rate their professors will not be well-represented in this survey. Happy students spend their time having quality learning experiences, not rating their professors on websites.
From PayScale.com’s methodology: "Only employees who possess a Bachelor’s Degree and no higher degrees are included. This means Bachelor graduates who go on to earn a Master’s degree, MBA, MD, JD, PhD, or other advanced degree are not included.</p>
<p>Cost, that already falls under value is also factored in. If a school charges more and spends more per student, they get penalized.</p>
<p>And frankly, placing Stanford, one of the greatest institutions of higher learning, at no. 23, goes a long way in speaking of how much their rankings are to be believed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is correct. </p>
<p>The selectivity index represents 15% of the total score, and is divided as follow:</p>
<p>50% - SAT/ACT scores for 7.5 % of total score
40% - Top 10% HS for 6 % of total score
10% - Acceptance Rate for 1.5 % of total score</p>
<p>Fwiw, HS reporting has always been suspect. If we were to believe the College Board data, about 40 percents of the students taking the SAT have an A average (A- to A+ average.) </p>
<p>The result of schools reporting that 98 to 100 percent of their students were in the top percent of their class is that one should wonder how many of the students come from highly competitive and highly performing high schools. All cannot be explained by the lack of ranking at many top HS.</p>
<p>Regarding the Ivies, while they do not fall in the trap of reporting the highly questionable 100%, they are hardly innocent of the crime of fudging. Just as UC Berkeley finds it “acceptable” to ESTIMATE this figure, so does the good folks of the Ivy League. </p>
<p>Fwiw, it will be interesting to see how the CDS of Stanford will change next year and how different the “estimated” figures will appear. With the hiring of a new Dean of Admission from across the Bay, Stanford will have access to an expert in estimating the reportable strength of the student body. :)</p>
<p>^Actually, the Dean of Admission, Richard Shaw, is still fully in charge of admissions at Stanford, though his chief deputy, the Director of Admission, has recently been replaced by the guy who worked in Berkeley admissions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thats because Columbia pwns everything. Columbia rules.</p>
<p>Don’t feed the ■■■■■■.</p>
<p>It always surprises me how Reed College is so low on the LAC list. It seems to be held in high regard among people I know, and among high school counselors. It’s weird how certain schools kind of fall through the holes of the methodology.<br>
I was sad to see UCLA fall a few spots - it’s my parents’ alma mater. I’ll always be sort of a Tar Heel fan.</p>
<p>Reed refuses to participate in the US News surveys foolishness and so they get greatly penalized in the rankings as a result. Makes me respect the school more.</p>
<p>oh no!!!
what happened to UW and university of michigan
glad penn did great
planning to go there</p>