USNWR Slanted in favor of the Northeast

College Search & Selection
61

<p>The truth? I highly doubt that your conclusions can be classified as "truth". Your argument is silly and weak, especially when you leave out information that doesn't help your point. As for acceptance rates, Julliard has a 5% rate and BYU-Hawaii has an 11% rate, so I guess those two schools are better than Stanford, right?</p>

<p>"Look at Highest Graduation rate (which is an important metric as to school resources that support each student as well as a successful selection process - i.e. a well chosen student body - both in terms of motivation and talent):"</p>

<p>-What the heck? Do you even know what you're talking about????</p>

<p>Oh, and the ACTUAL top 10 most selective according to US News are: </p>

<p>Juilliard School (NY) 5%
Harvard University (MA) 9%
Yale University (CT) 10%
College of the Ozarks (MO) 11%
Princeton University (NJ) 11%
Brigham Young University–Hawaii 11%
Stanford University (CA) 12%
Columbia University (NY) 13%
United States Naval Academy (MD)* 13%
Cooper Union (NY) 13%</p>

<p>Leave your bs somewhere else.</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
I also like how you left schools out on both lists... especially NU, Duke, UVA, and Georgetown out of the second (all have 93% grad rate just like Dartmouth).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>1) First of all, all I did was a simple cut and paste
2) Out of that list only NU belongs in this "East vs. non-East" debate
3) Finally, you are arguing from a position of weakness - i.e. you are, at the end of the day, haggling over the VERY tail end of a Top 10 list (for the Graduation Rate) and are virtually nowhere in the Top 10 in terms of the Most Selective list.</p>

<p>So, again, my position stand firm:</p>

<p>1) Brown, Dartmouth, Duke, Columbia, Penn (as a group)</p>

<p>is hands down better than</p>

<p>2) NU, WUSTL, Emory, Rice, ND (as a group)</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
Oh, and the ACTUAL top 10 most selective according to US News are:</p>

<p>Juilliard School (NY) 5%
Harvard University (MA) 9%
Yale University (CT) 10%
College of the Ozarks (MO) 11%
Princeton University (NJ) 11%
Brigham Young University–Hawaii 11%
Stanford University (CA) 12%
Columbia University (NY) 13%
United States Naval Academy (MD)* 13%
Cooper Union (NY) 13%

[/quote]
</p>

<p>LOL, for National Universities (i believe we can leave out schools such as Julliard, Cooper Union, and College of Dungeons, Wizards and Orks) ... <em>wipes tears from eyes</em> so, again... the Most Selective National Universities are as I stated:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/premium/natudoc_lrate.php%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/premium/natudoc_lrate.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Talk about a weak argument!</p>

64

<p>“LOL, for National Universities (i believe we can leave out schools such as Julliard, Cooper Union, and College of Dungeons, Wizards and Orks)”</p>

<p>Laugh all you like, the fact still remains that those schools still have lower acceptance rates than the likes of Stanford, so, according to your absurd logic, they are better, right?</p>

<p>Now do tell, why in the world is it that you think: lower acceptance rate = better school? What exactly about an acceptance rate (which is simply a function of: class size, expected yield, and number of applicants) determines how good a school is?</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
What exactly about an acceptance rate (which is simply a function of: class size, expected yield, and number of applicants) determines how good a school is?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I think that acceptance rates are fairly self explanatory, but, ok, i'll bite:</p>

<p>1) The acceptance rate doesn't DETERMINE how good a school is, however, it is a clear REFLECTION of how good a school is.</p>

<p>2) Why? It's a simple matter of supply and demand. The more people want something, the higher the value of that "something" goes. </p>

<p>3) Do you think that its a total sheer coincidence that out of the thousands of National Universities in the US, that year in and year out, the top most selective schools are always Harvard, Yale and Princeton?</p>

<p>4) Are you suggesting that there is NO correlation between low acceptance rates and the quality of a school (or a school's student body)? If so, please provide your evidence / rationale... this should be very entertaining reading indeed... <em>awaits anxiously</em></p>

66

<p>2) Why? It's a simple matter of supply and demand. The more people want something, the higher the value of that "something" goes. </p>

<p>3) Do you think that its a total sheer coincidence that out of the thousands of National Universities in the US, that year in and year out, the top most selective schools are always Harvard, Yale and Princeton?”</p>

<p>Again, acceptance rates are functions of: class size, expected yield, and number of applicants. </p>

<p>Thus, a school that gets more applications than say, Harvard, but also has a larger class size, will most likely have a higher acceptance rate (unless its yield is perfect). So, I don’t see this as a “simple matter of supply and demand”- it’s a rather complicated supply/demand situation. This would be true if HYP, etc had the lowest acceptance rates AND received the most applications, but they do not, not by far. They are not the most “demanded” schools, just the schools that get enough applications and have small enough class sizes to achieve a low acceptance rate. Example: Julliard. This school has a 5% acceptance rate, but I’m willing to bet its class size is tiny…… or UCLA, which gets 20,000 more applications than Harvard, but also has quite a larger class size and smaller yield.</p>

<p>Now, one could argue that a spot in the class is the “supply”, and thus having fewer spots means that there is a greater demand at a place like Harvard, but then, all a school would have to do is shrink its freshman class to get a smaller yield. Thus, a school like Cornell could drop a few hundred people and see its acceptance rate lower significantly. Or, a school could do what places like Columbia have done and accept a large portion of the class ED- this creates a higher protected yield, allows the school to reject more people RD, and in turn drives down the acceptance rate. If Northwestern or WashU did these things (to a larger extent), they would quickly shoot above many other schools.</p>

<p>4) Are you suggesting that there is NO correlation between low acceptance rates and the quality of a school (or a school's student body)? If so, please provide your evidence / rationale... this should be very entertaining reading indeed... <em>awaits anxiously</em></p>

<p>I’m not saying that there is NO correlation, but I am saying that the old statistics adage that correlation does not imply causation is important in this situation; just because a school has a low acceptance rate does not mean it is a good school. That is, of course, not to say that many good schools do not also have low acceptance rates.</p>

67

<p>KK,</p>

<p>I'm not sure why you continue to want to mix apples and oranges by throwing into the mix a very highly specialized niche music program such as Julliard into the discussion - esp. when this thread is dedicated to the discussion of national universities.</p>

<p>
[quote]
just because a school has a low acceptance rate does not mean it is a good school.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I clearly stated the following:</p>

<p>1) The acceptance rate doesn't DETERMINE how good a school is, however, it is a clear REFLECTION of how good a school is.</p>

<p>Further, you can get into discussions about yield and the nuances of ED and if this school did so and so and this and that, but the fact of the matter is, out of all the NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES in the US, the hardest schools to get into - i.e. the MOST SELECTIVE - are consistently the following schools: Harvard, Yale, Princeton ... followed by Stanford, Columbia, MIT, Brown and Dartmouth.</p>

<p>In terms of what anyone can deduce from these facts, I'll let that list speak for itself.</p>

68

<p>WHY DO YOU PEOPLE CARE?!?!</p>

<p>These are all great schools. Regardless of where they are ranked, EVERYONE knows they are great schools, and if a person doesn't acknowledge that they are great schools, then that person is an idiot.</p>

<p>Please, do something else. Go out and experience sunshine, for the love of god...</p>

69

<p>“I'm not sure why you continue to want to mix apples and oranges by throwing into the mix a very highly specialized niche music program such as Julliard into the discussion - esp. when this thread is dedicated to the discussion of national universities.”</p>

<p>-Whatever… then drop Julliard from my post and add BYU-Hawaii... There, now your whole statement is void. </p>

<p>“I clearly stated the following:</p>

<p>1) The acceptance rate doesn't DETERMINE how good a school is, however, it is a clear REFLECTION of how good a school is.”</p>

<p>-This is exactly what I’m saying is NOT The case. It is not a reflection of how good a school is; it s a reflection of, again: class size, expected yield, and number of applicants, plain and simple. To say it is a reflection of how good a school is would be making a hugely unfounded assumption. The assumption being, yet again, low acceptance rate = good school.</p>

<p>“Further, you can get into discussions about yield and the nuances of ED and if this school did so and so and this and that, but the fact of the matter is, out of all the NATIONAL UNIVERSITIES in the US, the hardest schools to get into - i.e. the MOST SELECTIVE - are consistently the following schools: Harvard, Yale, Princeton ... followed by Stanford, Columbia, MIT, Brown and Dartmouth.”</p>

<ul>
<li>Get into discussions about yields and ED? I mention those things because they are relevant to THIS discussion. You come here and start making grand claims about acceptance rates being indicators of a school’s strength, well, then you should also understand how the system works- that is, the system that goes into making acceptance rates- as it is not one that is as cut-and-dry as you’d like to make it seem. </li>
</ul>

<p>Also, I don’t even believe that the conclusion that these are the “most selective” schools is one that can justifiably be made, but I’ll let it stand. Why? Because it assumes that ANYONE who gets into HYP could also get into EVERY other school in the country, and that's plain silly.... but that's a whole different discussion...</p>

70

<p>I have two questions/points I want to throw into the mix? </p>

<ol>
<li><p>I don't think that acceptance rates are a reflection of the quality of a school. Look at UChicago, their acceptance rate is about 38-40% right? However, they are one of the best schools in the world, no doubt?</p></li>
<li><p>Do the graduation rankings posted reflect percent of students that graduate in four years or less? I somewhat question the validity of using those rankings as a reflection of how good a school's resources are, how motivated it students are, or how well it picked it student pool because of these factors:</p></li>
</ol>

<p>-The rankings don't reflect students who might be enrolled in a five year dual degree pogram or something like that. WUSTL has a program where students can earn two different bachelors degrees; however, it has to be done in 5 years.</p>

<p>-It unfairly assumes that students who don't graduate in four years are only not doing so because they are slacking or falling behind or not doing as well as others. Many students take a year off from school to do service in other countries. Not everyone is concerned with rushing through life to make it to Goldman Sachs and retire by the age of 35. The argument made in this thread is that rankings like these and media bias has shaped our culture into believing that type of misconception and to devalue students any student who does not go to a professional school within 2 years of graduation.</p>

71

<p>One attractive thing about elite non-Ivy schools is that they have attracted students who have not bought into the Ivy hype machine's propaganda. They would seem to be a less superficial bunch than the ones who are desperate to bolster a sagging ego by attaching themselves to a group of colleges that have a very prominent profile. In other words, a lot of the students at Northwestern, Chicago, MIT, Stanford, Williams, Pomona, Wellesley,etc. could have gotten into some of the Ivies; the fact that they didn't beg, borrow, and steal their way to Ithaca or Hanover or Providence indicates they have priorities other than pure prestige. I have known a number of Ivy grads, and I never noticed anything about them that put them above other smart people I knew who went to places like Penn State, Central Michigan, or Colorado. By the way, The_Prestige seems like an interesting fellow, as does KK.</p>

72

<p>
[quote]
One attractive thing about elite non-Ivy schools is that they have attracted students who have not bought into the Ivy hype machine's propaganda. They would seem to be a less superficial bunch than the ones who are desperate to bolster a sagging ego by attaching themselves to a group of colleges that have a very prominent profile.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>TG, with all due respect, this is one of the very reasons I was first compelled to join this site - the seemingly (and I'll admit surprising) knee-jerk-like "anti-Ivy" sentiment that is so prevalent on this board.</p>

<p>Let's take a step back and ask a simple question: "Is it really fair to be paint a group (any group) with such a broad brush - to dish out labels like being superficial in such a matter of fact manner just because one attends(ed) an Ivy?"</p>

<p>Is it possible that a person chooses to attend one of these schools for reasons other than name recognition, ego boosting, was duped by hyper-propoganda or otherwise (e.g. could it be that the prospect of receiving an incredible education, access to a wealth of resources, a generous financial package, the possibility of opportunities, perhaps just felt it was "better" etc. were the main drivers of this decision)?</p>

<p>At the margin I'd argue there are superficial people at every college, but perhaps the main difference is simply the fact that Ivy folks just have a higher profile (for better or worse, something that many people, I'll grant, leverage and enjoy) but, on the flip side - the fact that they are at an Ivy – also lends oneself to become an easy target - i.e. who is going to feel sorry or feel obliged to defend the "poor" Harvard guy? <a href="%20cue%20the%20sound%20of%20chirping%20crickets%20">i</a>* – yeah, not many, but I figured I may as well give it a shot - and to be frank, I just don't feel a need to apologize for it. </p>

<p>In the end, I'm just looking for a little bit of balance vs. the tsunami-like wave of anti-Ivy sentiment around here… Hey, I know its easy to pick on the Ivy guy – I get that. In this same vein, I realize that being such an outspoken critic against the "anti-establishment" makes me a higher profile target – I get that as well. So I expect the obvious label of "prestige whore" (frankly, my handle is a tongue-in-cheek tribute to this very charge) – but you know what? So be it. (boo-f-n-hoo, right?) I know I'm not going to win any popularity contests – I'll leave that to more charming and wittier folks than I.</p>

73

<p>To anyone who continues to say that "Maybe HYP and co. are 'just better'":
I want to ask you one thing.
Why have you not at all considered how long these schools have been around? It sounds great to say, for example, than Nathaniel Hale went to Yale, but this was at a time when Northwestern wasn't even established. Thus, there are more famous alumni at HYP, et. al, and the starry-eyed college applicant need only gaze at the mile-long list of alumni ("This one served in the Continental Congress!") to make his/her choice.
Also, let's think of population. More people live on the East Coast. Many people choose to attend college near where they live. That's why I live near Northwestern and my school sends many there. But back to the East Coast, obviously the population and the population density both make for more colleges and institutions to serve a greater need for education. Thus, you have top-tier colleges concentrated on one coast. Are people in the Midwest less interested in learning? No. There are simply FEWER people, and there are fewer colleges. Assuming the same proportions of "good schools" to "all schools" (however nebulous the first definition may be), there will be fewer "good schools" in a region with fewer people!
There are plenty of underrated schools that aren't located on a coast, if you can widen your myopic lens just a bit.</p>

74

<p>
[quote]
Why have you not at all considered how long these schools have been around? Also, let's think of population. More people live on the East Coast.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, take a quick look at William & Mary and Rutgers for a moment.</p>

<p>Out of the 9 colleges founded in the Colonial Era (i.e. pre-American Revolution - i.e. the 9 oldest colleges in America) those two are the only non-Ivy schools and are both public - the rest being:</p>

<ul>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>UPenn</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>Dartmouth</li>
</ul>

<p>Yet the Ivy schools continue to excel to this day, whereas William & Mary and Rutgers are hardly Ivy League material.</p>

<p>William & Mary is the second oldest college in America - second only to Harvard. It's on the East Coast. It has famous alumni from days past (e.g. three U.S. Presidents: Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and John Tyler) - so why don't we talk about HWP?</p>

<p>Obviously founding dates and location explain only so much. Conversely, the fact that every single Ivy founded in the Colonial Era (e.g. every school except Cornell) still excels in attracting the best and the brightest to this very day is nothing to take for granted.</p>

75

<p>KK,</p>

<p>does % acceptance rate determine how good a school is? yes and no. acceptance rate does give you somewhat of an indicator of how good a school is. bringing up outlier schools like BYU-Hawaii, Julliard, and UChicago don't really help your case. the facts are that if you look at schools ranked 1-50 in the USNews and then schools ranked 100-150, almost every school 1-50 will have a lower acceptance rate. of course that doesn't mean that a school with a 30% a.r. is worse than a school with a 15% a.r., but you have to realize that a low acceptance rate does indicate that a school is in demand and selective. Crappy schools generally arn't in demand, unless they offer something to a niche group, a la Pensacola Christian College, and therefore accept a high number of student in order to fill the incoming class. However, the quality of the student body attending is a far more important than a % number.</p>

<p>Schools like UCLA get many more applications than schools like Harvard because 1) its a state school in the most populated state 2) its more accessible to people 3) its a much larger school that appeals to a broader range of people. Remember, only the very top students get into schools like Harvard (and everyone knows this) so that will limit who will apply. However UCLA, also a very difficult school to get into, is seen as more accessible to people which will draw more applications. It costs half as much as a Harvard. Also, a wider variety of people will want to apply to a UCLA rather than a Harvard. How many Harvard football or basketball fans are there out there? How many UCLA fans? A smaller group of people will be interested in a school like Harvard than a school like UCLA.</p>

<p>Prestige,</p>

<p>i agree with you - and I am on the anti-ivy bandwagon; however, not in the same way you speak of. My issue with the Ivy league is that people talk about then as a group - when no one really speaks of any other colleges in terms of "groups" - with the possible exception of the UCs (even so to a much lesser extent). No one is going crazy over PAC-10 schools. What about the ACC? Hows the Big East doing? The facts are the Ivy League schools range from the tiny dartmouth in middle of nowhere new hampshire, to ginormous penn in the middle of philly. the schools in it of themselves are nothing alike, yet people constantly feel the need to categorize them as the same. I personally feel that is just stupid.</p>

<p>also, while i wouldn't say w&m is "ivy level" (whatever that means) in the grad schools, it definately offers an similar undergraduate educational experience. ;-)</p>

76

<p>
[quote]
It costs half as much as a Harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Only if you're in-state...</p>

77

<p>well over 90% of students at UCLA are instate so its a safe assumption</p>

78

<p>Prestige, I'm a big fan of yours. And I don't "hate" the Ivies. I think they're all great. I even applied to Brown for grad school at least once, and got rejected quicker than you can say "riff-raff." I hope one of my daughters can someday go to Dartmouth. But the Ivies fit in with my overall theory that I've stated on this site before...that places with obvious glamour (cities like NYC, LA, Miami, Las Vegas), and colleges with obvious prestige (like the Ivies) tend to attract people who are in need of something to make them interesting, seeing as how their own personalities aren't. That's not to say that EVERBODY who goes to Columbia or EVERYBODY that lives in Miami is a superficial dork. But they might have more than you'd think.</p>

<p>Life is all about forks in the road, and the choices one makes. I chose to live near Detroit; I'm sure you chose to live somewhere with a lot more cachet. But I didn't choose to live near Detroit just for the hell of it. I previously lived in Boston, Toronto, Honolulu, Chicago, San Francisco, Newport, RI, Athens Greece, St. Andrews Scotland, and whole bunch of other places. And what I found in terms of interesting people in these glamour spots was not impressive. I found an astonishing number of what seemed to be people with a lack of personality who gravitated to those places in hopes that they would absorb some idiosyncracy or eccentricity to elevate them above the mundane. This was in stark contrast to the people I knew who were content to live in places like Port Huron, Michigan; Johnstown, PA; or Des Moines, Iowa, who were very iteresting and very content with who they were and where they were.</p>

79

<p>
[quote]
William & Mary is the second oldest college in America - second only to Harvard. It's on the East Coast. It has famous alumni from days past (e.g. three U.S. Presidents: Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and John Tyler) - so why don't we talk about HWP?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>do you want to know the answer? William and Mary ranks **124th<a href="2004">/b</a> in terms of financial resources.</p>

<p>If every school had the financial resources of a Harvard, Yale, or Princeton, then there would be different schools at the top. But every school doesn't.</p>

80

<p>And just to clarify...I didn't say those were the only deciding factors. And perhaps W&M and Rutgers are outliers. Not EVERY older college is amazing...but come on.
"- Harvard
- Yale
- Princeton
- UPenn
- Columbia
- Brown
- Dartmouth"
You said it yourself. These schools ARE highly regarded, and they've been around for quite some time. Again, it's not the only factor, but two outliers notwithstanding, but it shows some interesting trends.</p>