I looked at the enrolled students data from each college and came up with this chart.
I looked at the enrolled students data, not the admitted students data. So some scores may be different from what you know. Also, some schools that do not provide enrolled students data, I looked at previous trends and deduced the numbers from admitted students data.
Again, do not take this too seriously. It’s just for the numbers. There’s so much more to college admission than pure numbers. Enjoy
You appear to have ranked these schools by, with quite a few exceptions, their SAT profiles (though it’s conceivable that your method considered yield as well). However, you seem to have screened out schools that would have placed more highly by these criteria than some of those you included.
I looked at both SAT score and yield rate. CalTech has the highest SAT score but its yield rate is about the same as UVA. Also, I omitted LAC because their applicants pool is totally different from that of universities
U.S. News clearly states its methodology within its own pages. For this reason, I’d have little reason to inquire further. In your case, however, your ranking would have benefited from a thread title and notations that comported with its inclusions.
Not incidentally, I regard LMAO as disrespectful in this context.
All ratings have objective and subjective components. Nobody should have a problem with how US News rates universities unless you believe that they are using bad data or taking poor samples of expert opinion. Also, anyone making a decision based on whether a school is #15 or #25 (as opposed to fit) is misguided. As some of the data relating to resources would negatively impact the LACs, it doesn’t make much sense to rank them with the national universities. If you’re looking for a pure “prestige” ranking, maybe someone can come up with prestige rankings. After all, that’s all many here really care about anyway.
@JohnHopey - your SAT ranges are incorrect. For instance, Duke’s is 1390 to 1580 and Northwestern’s is 1420 to 1560. But more importantly, the majority of students are submitting ACT scores. Even at Duke, it is 70% for ACT and 30% for SAT.
I don’t think it’s spears, the criticism is valid, reasonable, - old data, missing data which means assumptions, no use of ACT in schools where that’s the majority of applicants. These are flaws, not spears.
The above composite scores are inaccurate and/or outdated.
It is very difficult to make an accurate comparison of composite SAT scores because most schools do not report a composite in their class profiles and the CDS only includes section scores, no composite for SAT. Adding 75th percentile section scores together does not yield an accurate 75th composite because many students have one section score higher than the other.
Howard Gardner, a developmental psychologist most well known for his theory of multiple intelligence, would flinch at such ranking as “Smartest Collges in America” entirely based on the average SAT scores. Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence was partially responsible for why so many colleges have now adopted the “holistic” admissions policies today. If HYPS want to vie for the top spot in such ranking all based on the average SAT score, they can easily overthrow Caltech and MIT from the top perch any day. Such ranking is silly at best, as is the OP’s ranking based on average SAT scores and yield rates. Yield rate simply means the school is popular, that’s all. What does popularity has anything to do with the school’s overall educational quality? Harvard of course enjoys the perennial popularity based on the global prestige and name recognition. Stanford is popular based on its unique combination of academic and sports excellence. If Caltech is the “smartest college,” it certainly isn’t all that popular given its rather low yield rate. But then, so what? What’s the point of all these rankings, the world rankings, USNWR, Forbes, Money Magazine, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.? Sure, they’re all entertaining, and I like to take a look at them when I’m sitting on my toilet.