<p>The same 25, in very close to the same order as last year, with the biggest change being Davidson from tied for 7th to 10th, most being 0-1 spots different from last year. Shrug. </p>
<p>Personally, there are at least four schools ahead of Smith that I'd discount. Lot of other people probably would discount four schools, too, but would disagree on which four. </p>
<p>All of which begs the point that differences of a place or five or even ten is pretty inconsequential relative to the value of "fit." 15-20 spaces, yeah, maybe.</p>
<p>Ho-Hum!! Same old, same old! For prospective students and families looking at these for the first time, they provide some insight. For those of us who have watched this over the course of years, it's the same old, same old. I still don't agree with how these rankings are made, and most of the data is so "transferable" from college admissions office to college admissions office. Numbers are what you make them to be, particularly admissions numbers. Kudos to Smith for holding to their true beliefs that ALL women deserve a chance to be recognized and admitted into a great school if they earn it; regardless of race, creed, or class standing!</p>
<p>TD...91 by whom? WS, RP???? Oops, here we go with the rankings again! Besides, give me a big barolo or brunello anyday.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Personally, there are at least four schools ahead of Smith that I'd discount. Lot of other people probably would discount four schools, too, but would disagree on which four.
[/quote]
Agreed! I would even go deeper than four. Lots of ties as well; kind of a cheasy way out of making a decision. I do think that Smith belongs in the top 10-12, but the way these things are computed, doesn't jive with the way Smith does business. Again, kudos to Smith!</p>
<p>TD- I get the last laugh. You predicted a while ago that Smith would get a big jump because of the admissions for class of 2009. 2 places :) <em>winks</em></p>
<p>TMP, looking at the rankings, I'd say they're at least four under. I'll call it a draw. I mean, Colgate, fergawdsake? Colgate!!!? Toothpaste Tech??? <walks away,="" whistling="" tunelessly=""></walks></p>
<p>Should you not wait until the 18th to have this conversation? In only two days, the USNews will unveil its yearly rankings--the real ones, that is-- with its contingent of regular over-protected schools, and just sufficient changes to keep people talking. Last year's treatment of a few LACs was sufficient evidence that the current ranking methodology is a fraud. This year should not be different as I suspect some questionable movements in the schools that are just between AWS and the schools listed in the 8th position. The only question will be about the size of the payoff for the statistics' manipulators. </p>
<p>The ONLY value of the rankings is found in the neatly collated columns filled with trivial information that takes a long time to gather from CDS reports. From there, everyone can pick and choose the columns he or she likes the best. Speaking about Best, as in best college, that is something that the USNews should not include in the title of its report. </p>
<p>Too bad they can't measure the most satisfied students and families, at least correctly.</p>
<p>I am on repeated record of regarding the US News ratings as not adequate to line the cage of dyspeptic parrot. Somewhere in the dusty archives is TheDad's College ratings, which had a coherent [but masked] algorithm that wasn't completely absurd and yet which demonstrated the foolishness of arbitrary rankings. There were, as I recall, five steps to produce the rankings. Step #5 was: If Harvard not equal 1, then set Harvard = 1 and increment all other rankings by 1.</p>
<p>{{I'd say they're at least four under. I'll call it a draw. I mean, Colgate}}</p>
<p>Colgate, as well as many colleges, dropped the SAT requirement.
I’m amazed US News doesn’t issue a disclaimer stating the statistics used to compute the rankings vary from college to college. If Smith became an SAT optional college their mid 50% range would be 10-15% higher and equal to most colleges above it.</p>
<p>When the rankings were released twenty four months ago Smith was rated #13….And <em>what</em> has changed so drastically in 104 weeks? Nothing!!</p>
<p>It might behoove those who use the rankings for bragging rights to read the following article. That includes Smithies and parents (yup, I'm guilty too) who like to politely point out Smith is ranked higher than a few other women’s colleges. :)</p>
<p>"Even the drive to abolish SAT scores from college admissions-a campaign that seems to go hand in hand with a distaste for rankings-has been tainted with accusations that the real purpose of dropping SATs is to raise the school's average SAT score in the U.S. News rankings. If SATs are optional, only high scorers submit them, thus increasing the average score a school can faithfully report. Schools also benefit from an increased number of applications from students who see their SATs as a barrier to other institutions, thus driving up the school's selectivity along with its application rate."</p>
<p>“There are also colleges that discriminate against good applicants who might lower the school's yield by taking an offer from a more prestigious school. "I actually know of institutions-I have been told by the people who make the decisions," says Geof Stone, "that they have adopted a policy of not admitting the strongest applicants, entirely dictated by U.S. News and World Report. This is a practice which could never be defended in any substantive way."</p>
<p>Whenever I read a list like this it reminds me of when someone asks me what my favorite movie is. I have a list of top 10 movies but I'd be hard pressed to put them in rank order.</p>
<p>Is any of this subjective? Where does the data come from to make such a list? The schools? Are they being honest?</p>
<p>No really, I have no idea. Maybe this stuff is "real?"</p>
<p>[Is any of this subjective? Where does the data come from to make such a list? The schools? Are they being honest?]</p>
<p>"The data sent by colleges to U.S. News are self-reported and unaudited.
Also, many of the factors are entirely subjective to begin with. One dean told me that when she rates reputations of other comparable graduate schools, she hasn't a clue how to rate more than a few. There is also the all-too-human temptation to downgrade the near competition."</p>
<p>I'm aware of the SAT-optional effect but am virtually in the dark as to which schools have gone that route; I do know that it's a creeping phenomenon, particularly with LAC's it seems.</p>
<p>"I'm aware of the SAT-optional effect but am virtually in the dark as to which schools have gone that route"</p>
<p>I know you're familiar with the SAT-optional effect. I meant in relation to Colgate. But you're correct; it's hard to keep up. I didn't realize until recently Holy Cross became SAT optional.</p>