<p>USNews massages the selectivity index (mostly) to produce an expected graduation rate. It then compares the expected grad rates to the real ones and determines an under- or overperformance.</p>
<p>This is a metric that allows low performing schools to almost entirely mitigate the impact of low SAT scores. If you want to see the negative impact of this metric, check the results of the past years for Pomona and Harvey Mudd versus a lower performing school such as Smith. </p>
<p>It counts for 7.5% of the rankings. OTOH, the direct grad rate counts for 16%.</p>
<p>Here’s how USNews describes it:</p>
<p>Graduation rate performance. </p>
<p>The difference between the actual six-year graduation rate for students and the predicted graduation rate. The predicted graduation rate is based upon characteristics of the entering class, as well as characteristics of the institution. This indicator of added value shows the effect of the college’s programs and policies on the graduation rate of students after controlling for spending and student characteristics such as test scores and the proportion receiving Pell grants. If the actual graduation rate is higher than the predicted rate, the college is enhancing achievement or is over performing. If it’s actual graduation is lower than the predicted rate, then it’s underperforming.</p>
<p>This measure is included in the rankings for schools in the national universities and national liberal arts colleges categories only. The more a school’s actual graduation rate is greater than the U.S. News predicted rate, the better it does in the ranking model. The more a school’s actual graduation rate is less than the U.S. News predicted rate, the lower it scores in the ranking model.</p>
<p>or maybe the ARI is just wrongly listed as 93 when it should be listed as 98, but they used 98 in the rankings? It seems far more likely that it was just a typo of 93 vs. 98 than a calculation errors effecting Stanford’s overall score by 2-5 points</p>
<p>When you reduce the weight of PA and replace it by High School Counselor Rating, Stanford is unaffected because both are maxed out. Stanford’s overall score was 92 last year and 92 this year. Columbia is helped a little (because HS councelors rank it 6th while PA ranked it 7th or 8th) and Penn might not be affected, because both PA and HS counselor opinion wasn’t that high.</p>
<p>I calculated 1.125, so 1 to 2. The individual page on Stanford has it corrected (score 93, rank 4), though the overall rankings I guess have not been updated.</p>
<p>EDIT: Scratch the last part. I’m actually not sure what’s going on with the individual college pages. Seems like some of them use this year’s ranks/scores and some use last year’s.</p>
<p>“Stanford’s overall score was 92 last year and 92 this year”</p>
<p>That is not exactly true.</p>
<p>“or maybe the ARI is just wrongly listed as 93 when it should be listed as 98, but they used 98 in the rankings?”</p>
<p>Everything is possible, but they have 93 for the ARI on the PDF document (same as book) and in the online ranking. What is beyond any doubt is that the ARI should be 98 and not 93.</p>
<p>That was my first thought too, but it makes a lot of sense to check here right after the rankings come out. Not only are they probably interested in the reaction to the new methodology, but CC users will quickly notice any flaws (website problems, or misprints, or whatever). </p>
<p>This is the premier college discussion website. It would make a lot of sense for one staffer to scan through it looking for things. </p>
<p>Like I bet the NCAA tourney selection committee, at least some of them, will watch ESPn afterwards or go to the website and look at the popular reactions. It’s human nature.</p>
<p>Well, when the BCS decides to send Oklahoma to the national championship instead of the Lomhorns, I called the BCS … eccentric. Well, a few other things too, but this is a family forum.</p>
<p>And, if geocentric means I think it does, I would agree. I think the USNews is letting plenty of people free reins to show a profound geographical cronyism. Now, you need a good term for the gender cronyism that is back with a vengeance in the LAC rankings. </p>
<p>Stanford has always been ranked around #5 (only fell 1 spot this year). Honestly, why is it such a big surprise? The rankings are perfectly fine. It goes HPY Columbia, Penn, Stanford.</p>
<p>You all INSIST on something being wrong because you’re so used to “HYPSM” when really, the top 5 are variable and questionable. Stanford, MIT, Caltech, etc can easily be exchanged with other ivy league schools. “HYP” is a “set” cluster because they are the big-hitter ivy leagues.</p>
<p>I like how you said “other ivy league schools” as if those were the only schools that could/should replace Stanford, MIT, and Caltech. The fact of the matter is is that things have changed, and the Ivy League no longer has a stronghold on undergraduate education.</p>
<p>This at least holds true in the Midwest, which though slightly partial to the east-coast bias is not blinded by it.</p>
<p>I’d also like to hear your logic as to how Stanford, a school with half the admit rate of many of its peers, with such great disciplinary breadth and depth, with some of the top faculty in the nation (who do teach undergrads), with such a large endowment, can be easily replaced by the middle and lower ivy league schools, and why if Stanford can easily be replaced, HYP on the other hand are untouchable (and saying that they are “big hitter” Ivy Leagues, btw, does not hold much strength).</p>