<p>I don't think Georgetown, Colgate, Bates or Colby, which all didn't make the lists, are really considered any better schools today among the general populace than in 1988, it's just that it took the use of a more objective approach to identify them as belonging (and in in many cases being more worthy) of being on these lists than certain other schools. Especially, in looking at some LACs though, it's amazing that Earlham, St. John's (MD), St. Olaf, Centre could possibly be listed based on any criteria or notoreity before Colgate, Colby, Bates.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MIT even has undergrad business now, which is unbelievable to me.
[/quote]
Um, MIT has had an undergrad business major since 1917.</p>
<p>I guess I wasn't interested in undergrad business and didn't even know Wharton had an undergrad until my first job, but didn't know MIT had undergrad business until very recently. Their degree wasn't even called an MBA for grad school before the last seven or so years, but was instead called in MS in Management or something like that.</p>
<p>I actually would absolutely have Penn and Dartmouth on the same list, both being "social Ivies." NYU and Dartmouth is another story, applying to both of those makes no sense to me.</p>
<p>Indiana U 15 74 -15</p>
<p>Something wrong with that math?</p>
<p>I guess I wasn't deciding where to apply based on which schools were Ivys. The fascination to be associated with the Ivy League didn't exist nearly to the same extent as it appears to now. I feel the concept of using the word 'prestige' to describe colleges never entered people's audible conscience and doing so would be superficially embarassing. Now, it seems people are are brazenly smitten with this concept. </p>
<p>I wanted no part of any city school no matter how good it was considered. I always especially hated Penn and never really thought it was that great, which seems to have changed a lot in the last 15 years (at least its SAT avg and acceptance rate has), but I don't see them changing their location any time soon.</p>
<p>oops typo
should be:
college, rank in 1983, rank in 2006, change
Indiana U 15 74 -59</p>
<p>thanks for catching that</p>
<p>great post #19 gellino- i too am amazed when people apply to two drastically different schools (such as columbia and williams). it becomes quite obvious that they are not as concerned about 'fit' as they are about public perception.</p>
<p>15 to 74 isn't a change of 15 ranks, lol.</p>
<p>All the schools collegehelp listed have very high peer assessments in the current US News ranking, and if you look at the peer assessment, they will be rated about the same. You've got to wonder if the current formula truly is accurate, and if it's being taken advantage of by certain schools.</p>
<p>Is this formula (1988) solely peer assessment collegehelp?</p>
<p>I think the 1988 ranking and earlier rankings by US News were based on peer assessment or a precursor to the peer assessment rating. The ranking method in the early years was based on a survey of about 1300 college presidents (60% of whom responded to the survey). The presidents were asked to choose the top 10 schools from among the schools in the same Carnegie classification (e.g. national universities). The ranking was determined by how many times a school was named in the top ten by presidents of peer institutions. So, yes, I would say it is soley peer assessment.</p>
<p>Okay, well that explains the similarities.</p>
<p>I'm not that familiar with the components of the USNWR rankings. Does that mean that Centre, St. Olaf, Earlham and St. John's (MD) still have higher peer assessments today than Colgate, Colby, Bates, Hamilton, W&L, Trinity, Connecticut College or has it changed? One reason these other four schools may have done in the past is that the president of a school in Missouri may know Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore and then fill out the next seven with schools he would know better in his region (Earlham, St. Olaf, Carleton, Centre). A disproportionate amount of the survey may have (and may still) be filled out this way (depending on who is responding). The only difference is now this approach is not determining 100% of the ranking. This may explain why good schools in the midwest like Carleton and Oberlin did so much better than similar SAT and lower acceptance rate schools in the east like Bowdoin, Middlebury, Colgate, Bates, W&L. </p>
<p>Can presidents vote for their own school and is there any game theory going on like Amherst president giving a low score to Williams so Amherst can beat out Williams in the rankings? What stops this from happening?</p>
<p>
[quote]
great post #19 gellino- i too am amazed when people apply to two drastically different schools (such as columbia and williams). it becomes quite obvious that they are not as concerned about 'fit' as they are about public perception.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe they just liked different things about the two schools but nevertheless liked both of them and would be happy attending either one of them, so they applied to both hoping to get in one of them. It doesn't sound that ridiculous.</p>
<p>Columbia is the biggest gainer! This really reflects the spectacular comeback the school has made since 1968, particularly in the 1980s. Considering its discernable rise between 1983 and '88, when New York was still not seen as particularly desirable, it's not solely attributable to the improvement of urban conditions.</p>
<p>what the heck happened to oberlin?</p>
<p>Could it be true that nothing really happened to Oberlin, but the change in methodology just disfavored them?</p>
<p>My guess is that Oberlin really benefitted from the rankings being determined solely by the opinions of college presidents, since it is one of the most well known in the midwest. As a result, it was probably mentioned much more frequently on a majority of surveys than lesser known east coast schools that actually had better objective stats like Bowdoin, Middlebury, Colgate, Washington & Lee.</p>
<p>acceptance rates 1988 versus 2006 (2004 data) US News</p>
<p>national universities
(1)Stanford 15 13 -2
(2)Harvard 15 11 -4
(3)Yale 17 10 -7
(4)Princeton 16 13 -3
(5)UC Berkeley 37 25 -12
(6)Dartmouth 20 19 -1
(7)Duke 21 24 +3
(8)U Chicago 45 40 -5
(8)U Michigan 52 62 +10
(10)Brown 20 17 -3
(11)Cornell 29 29 0
(11)MIT 28 16 -12
(11)UNC Chapel Hill 33 36 +3
(14)Rice 30 22 -8
(15)UVA 34 39 +5
(16)Johns Hopkins 53 30 -23
(17)Northwestern 41 30 -9
(18)Columbia 25 13 -12
(19)U Penn 35 21 -14
(20)U Illinois 70 68 -2
(21)Caltech 28 21 -7
(22)William and Mary 26 35 +9
(23)U Wisconsin 78 66 -12
(23)Washington U St Louis 62 22 -40
(25)Emory 49 39 -10
(25)U Texas 65 51 -14</p>
<p>national liberal arts colleges
(1)Williams 24 19 -5
(2)Swarthmore 28 25 -3
(3)Carleton 43 29 -4
(4)Amherst 21 21 0
(5)Oberlin 48 37 -11
(6)Pomona 34 20 -14
(6)Wesleyan 32 28 -10
(8)Wellesley 49 37 -12
(9)Haverford 31 29 -2
(10)Grinnell 61 51 -10
(11)Bryn Mawr 50 47 -3
(12)Bowdoin 23 24 +1
(12)Reed 63 47 -16
(14)Smith 57 57 0
(15)Davidson 31 27 -4
(16)Earlham 70 72 +2
(17)Middlebury 25 26 +1
(17)Mount Holyoke 56 56 0
(19)St John's (MD) 75 67 -8
(20)Colorado Coll 44 44 0
(20)St Olaf 59 64 +5
(22)Centre 80 69 -11
(23)Claremont McKenna 49 22 -27
(24)Vassar 39 29 -10
(25)Hamilton 42 34 -8
(25)Washington and Lee 29 30 +1</p>
<p>What in god's name did Wash U do to increase its applicant number so much? Just advertising? (I know they're very aggressive with the mailbox ads...)</p>
<p>gellino made several good points regarding how flawed/ slanted the peer assessment system was if in fact it was a majority factor in determining these early rankings. i can see absolutely NO other reason as to how st. olaf, earlham, centre, smith, st. john's could ever rank ahead of washington and lee, claremont, colby, and bates.</p>
<p>although the national u ranking seemed a bit more accurate (as in what we think today), there are still a few surprises. (illinois, texas in the top 25 and MIT not in the top 10.)</p>