<p>There is no way Columbia is ranked fourth. I mean it’s a great school and all, but it should be in the 8 to 12 range, not 4th. How does USNWR create these rankings anyways?</p>
<p>i hate how it SEEMS like Brown is ahead of Cornell now even though they’re both the same rank.</p>
<p>I’m personally surprised that Caltech and MIT tied. I think Brown and Cornell are too low.</p>
<p>Warbler or anyone: can you please explain College of the Ozarks? 9% acceptance and 90+% yield, yet low ACTS and GPAs. Do they only let in their cousins or what?</p>
<p>Northeastern rises 11 spots to 69! +11</p>
<p>I love how IPacman is hating right now. Columbia deserves every right to be 4th. Please stop.</p>
<p>ICalculus, they were tied last year. Why in the world are you surprised now?</p>
<p>Crazyforlife & drax12,</p>
<p>California has >1/10 of the population; having a number of the best HS in America doesn’t mean many HS there aren’t crappy.</p>
<p>Look at the SAT ranges for the lower UCs. The SAT 50% ranges are in the low 500s to mid 600s; yet >95% (I vaguely recall something ridiculous like 97/98%) are in the top-10%. This tells me its easy to be in the top-10%. I am just going by what the stats suggest. Schools like TX, Wisconsin don’t have that kind of high percentages yet their SAT ranges are higher.</p>
<p>“Acceptance rate is a measure of popularity and spots available, little more.” +1</p>
<p>Which also reminds of UC common application system for all campuses…</p>
<p>I’m pleased my alma mater, University of Cincinnati (UC to Ohioans) moved way up from 3rd tier to 156th among National unis! Average freshman ACT/SAT scores are up, retention is up, student happiness is up, and even “beautiful architecture” is up, in the form of an award from Forbes magazine. :)</p>
<p>Rutgers has been in the first tier for several years. Not sure about Seton Hall or Hofstra, but George Mason made a huge leap into the first tier, and it’s well deserved. My D is starting her soph year there after transferring from small, private school in NE. She likes the diversity and energy at Mason, and everyone in administration that we’ve dealt with has been extremely helpful. So good for Mason!</p>
<p>
Multiple reasons, actually. It charges no tuition, it has a small enrollment, and it has the highest yield in the country (95%) except Deep Springs.</p>
<p>You’ll always find such anomalies when insisting on using quantitative metrics. U North Dakota has a yield of 63%, for example, on par with Princeton.</p>
<p>“Can you please explain College of the Ozarks? 9% acceptance and 90+% yield, yet low ACTS and GPAs. Do they only let in their cousins or what?”</p>
<p>College of the Ozarks is a strict religious college for which essentially every student must demonstrate financial need as a condition to acceptance and those students accepted get a full ride through donations/qualifying grants, and are required to work on campus or with adjunct religious organizations. Result is they get a lot of applications from those seeking a religious education but accept few.</p>
<p>Way to go, Columbia! :D</p>
<p>I thought MIT would be ahead of Caltech (don’t shank me)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A) Yes, that’s true, and that’s noble, but value to the economic development of the state is not a determiner of “best college.” Arizona State probably employs a lot of people, too – doesn’t make it stellar.</p>
<p>B) What does it matter if the Big Ten publics are undervalued on CC? If you live anywhere in any of those states, you can get to pretty much anyplace you want with one of those diplomas – in fact, you may even be preferred over the fancy-schmancy New England school.</p>
<p>Thanks Drusba and Warbler. Very interesting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Case in point… This quote must be an example of the quality education derived from highschools in CA ;)</p>
<p>Columbia above Stanford. How has CC not imploded?</p>
<p>because it’s not surprising</p>
<p>Wait, USC and Wake are ranked higher than Michigan?</p>
<p>lol really, were they smoking pot?</p>