<p>Can someone place it here, thanks.</p>
<h1>1 Yale University</h1>
<h1>2 Massachusetts Institute of Technology</h1>
<h1>2 Princeton University</h1>
<h1>4 California Institute of Technology</h1>
<h1>4 Harvard University</h1>
<h1>6 Stanford University</h1>
<h1>7 University of Pennsylvania</h1>
<h1>8 Duke University</h1>
<h1>8 Washington University-St Louis</h1>
<h1>10 Brown University</h1>
<h1>10 Dartmouth College</h1>
<h1>10 Rice University</h1>
<h1>13 Columbia University</h1>
<h1>13 University of California-Berkeley</h1>
<h1>15 Emory University</h1>
<h1>16 Cornell University</h1>
<h1>16 Georgetown University</h1>
<h1>18 Northwestern University</h1>
<h1>18 University of California-Los Angeles</h1>
<h1>18 University of Michigan-Ann Arbor</h1>
<h1>21 College of William and Mary</h1>
<h1>21 University of Notre Dame</h1>
<h1>21 University of Southern California</h1>
<h1>24 Johns Hopkins University</h1>
<h1>24 University of Chicago</h1>
<p>That's only for doctoral universities, doesn't include LACs, I know that there are many LACs that are more selective than the schools from #15-24 on that list, Amherst was 18%, Georgetown 23%, Northwestern 33%</p>
<p>does this list go any further than that? Im looking for schools like tufts, vandy, usc, uva etc...thanks.</p>
<p>Cre8tive, the LACs are not listed in the same ranking and it is not possible to mix and match. </p>
<p>ACA, here's a continuation of the selectivity rankings...as per the USNWR. </p>
<h1>26 University of Virginia</h1>
<h1>27 Vanderbilt University</h1>
<h1>28 Carnegie Mellon University</h1>
<h1>28 Tufts University</h1>
<h1>30 Boston College</h1>
<h1>31 University of California-San Diego</h1>
<h1>32 University of California-Irvine</h1>
<h1>33 Brandeis University</h1>
<h1>33 New York University</h1>
<h1>33 University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill</h1>
<h1>33 University of Rochester</h1>
<h1>33 Wake Forest University</h1>
<h1>38 University of California-Davis</h1>
<h1>38 University of California-Santa Barbara</h1>
<h1>40 Tulane University</h1>
<h1>40 University of Florida</h1>
<p>Emory is more selective than Cornell, since when? U of Chicago 24th?</p>
<p>The USNWR places the most weight on class rank and GPA...the least on % accepted. That explains why there are some bizarre results.</p>
<p>Cal Berk more selective than Cornell, JHU, Chicago, NW....since WHEN??</p>
<p>Collegekid, nobody is trying to validate the rank. I personally think the USNWR selectivity ranking is severely flawed. Columbia is more selective than #13. Michigan is not quite as selective as Northwestern and it certainly isn't more selective than Chicago and Johns Hopkins. But the OP was not asking for us to validate the rank, he was merely asking for the USNWR selectivity ranking. </p>
<p>And yes, given USNWR's selectivity formula, Cal is indeed slightly more selective than Chicago, Cornell, JHU and Northwestern. Higher mean GPAs, better class ranks, lower % accepted. Mean SAT at Cal is about 40-60 points lower than it is at the other schools, but the USNWR does not weigh SATs as heavily as class rank.</p>
<p>What's your incredulity about? Maybe you misunderstand what "selectivity" means in this context.</p>
<p>Selectivity is driven by the numbers. Lots of applicants? Higher selectivity. It doesn't mean (necessarily) that their students are higher calibre or have a higher academic profile.</p>
<p>At a school that is specialized, or is known as having such a distinctive environment, the applicant pool tends to be pretty self-selective (like Chicago, it's a perfect example). Same would be true for a school with a rigorous application process. It's no mystery that the selectivity may not be high. Berkeley, being THE flagship public of the most populous state in the nation, with a world-class reputation and a bargain tuition rate, is obviously going to have a lot of applicants and thus have an extremely high selectivity.</p>
<p>Michigan is another example. When it added essays to the application a few years ago, it dissuaded a lot of applicants. Apps went way down, but class size didn't, so Michigan took a higher percentage of applicants. But the smaller applicant pool was not poorer in quality than previous years--not by a long shot. The profile was similar. If you measured Michigan's "selectivity" this way you'd see that its "place" on such a list would have varied wildly from one year to the next--with almost no change in the quality of the applicant pool or the admitted class. It's an example of the limitations of this kind of "selectivity" measure.</p>
<p>and is there a selectivity ranking for LACs?</p>