USNWR Slanted in favor of the Northeast

College Search & Selection
81

<p>jags, that's because the term "Ivy League" has evolved over time from its humble beginnings as a collegiate conference which brought together schools participating in a (then) obscure sport (football) --> into a term that has firmly established itself in today's lexicon as a symbol of academic excellence - no other sports conference can come close to making such a claim. Thus, like it or not, its a unique term that is here to stay (regardless if it is a collection of schools as diverse as Dartmouth and UPenn) - the passing of time will only reinforce this stereotype. For example, you won't hear a sports broadcaster say something like "wow, you know what? he's actually pretty coordinated for a PAC-10er" ... or say "... and not only does he run the 40 in under 5 seconds, he's got an ACC degree to boot!"</p>

<p>TG, the sentiment is likewise as I am a big fan of yours as well - one can probably tell that i don't care for every opinion on this site, but yours is one that i certainly always consider and respect. I know where you are coming from (well not literally, I've never been to Detroit) but I can also attest to your observation that many of the most interesting people I've met over the years and throughout my travels were those people from unassuming places / humble backgrounds while, conversely, the biggest a-holes / most obnoxious people I've met had the most impressive backgrounds --> but it begs the question, in many cases were you impressed because the people that left a positive impression were really that extraordinary or was it because your expectations were low (or you didn't have any) to begin with? the answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. for instance, while "running with the bulls" during my stint on Wall St., i had a high level of expectation from the people i was to meet in this industry only to be left highly disappointed - to be frank, there were so many people i personally loathed (but certainly bright and accomplished!) it was one of the main reasons i left as soon as i could. on the flip side, i also established some lifelong friendships with like minded people so I figure its a wash.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>soccerguy, that's like saying "i'd be tall if i weren't so short" or "i'd be a tycoon if only i had some money"... its precisely these comparative advantages that HYP enjoys (e.g. financial resources, etc.) that sets it apart from the crowd.</p>

82

<p>“but you have to realize that a low acceptance rate does indicate that a school is in demand and selective.”</p>

<p>No, it really doesn’t. Like I’ve said many times, it means that a school is small enough, gets enough applicants to give it that low acceptance rate, and has a yield to keep its numbers low. Any school (especially a top-ranked school), if it wanted to for a year, could mess around with its class size and yield and change its admissions rate- heck, some schools could even directly induce more applicants (WashU) :</p>

<p>In 2005, Princeton got 16510 applicants and accepted 1807, giving it an acceptance rate of 10.9%. Princeton also has a class of about 1200 and a yield of about 70%. </p>

<p>Northwestern received 16218 and accepted 4819, giving it an acceptance rate of 29.7% NU has a class of about 1950 and a yield of about 40%. </p>

<p>If Northwestern had Princeton’s class size, it could accept about 3000 people with its current yield. This would give Northwestern, in that year, an admissions rate of 18%. Well what do you know, all of a sudden Northwestern just became a hugely better school?!</p>

<p>If in that year NU had both Princeton’s size AND yield (accepting a larger portion of the class ED will do it), then it would have an acceptance rate of: 10.5%.... Wow, all of a sudden Northwestern has a lower acceptance rate than Princeton!….. It must have gotten much better in that one year……</p>

<p>I realize this is all hypothetical, but it clearly shows that acceptance rates are not all that some here are claiming them to be. </p>

<p>And if you don’t believe what I’m saying, then why would a member of Princeton’s board of trustees say this in response to people wanting to abolish early admissions?: </p>

<p>“It was a decision made with recognition that selectivity ratios and yield percentages may change, but that the underlying moral obligation to equalize the admissions process is more important,” </p>

<p>He realizes that changing how the school accepts people (no early admissions) will change the yield, and thus the admissions rate. Are you really trying to argue that if Princeton doesn’t have early admissions, and thus has a lower admissions rate, it is a “worse” school for it???? </p>

<p>“However, the quality of the student body attending is a far more important than a % number.”</p>

<p>-Far more important indeed. If one wants to argue about which school is “better” than another, this is a good place to start, not admission rates.</p>

83

<p>^^^ KK,</p>

<p>I still don't understand what your point is. You are making up all of these hypothetical scenarios --> scenarios which, i might add, where you change a very important number (class size) --> then you go on to assume that everything else stays constant (conveniently for your purposes) --> when in all likelihood a change in class size would most certainly impact both number of applications received as well as just about everything else. Forget about the fact that you are taking numbers and assumptions straight out of thin air and then are presenting them as if it were of sound and logical construct.</p>

<p>It doesn't change the fact that: </p>

<p>a) Princeton is tougher to get into than NU
b) if NU had an admissions rate in line with the other Ivies, we wouldn't even be having this discussion - e.g. funny how you don't see any people from colleges with low admissions rates complaining that there is no correlation between admissions rates and quality.</p>

84

<p>
[quote]
soccerguy, that's like saying "i'd be tall if i weren't so short" or "i'd be a tycoon if only i had some money"... its precisely these comparative advantages that HYP enjoys (e.g. financial resources, etc.) that sets it apart from the crowd.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>... umm, I agree. At least in terms of rankings. The extra money doesn't necessarily help out the undergrads in actuality, but yea.</p>

85

<p>"Forget about the fact that you are taking numbers and assumptions straight out of thin air and then are presenting them as if it were of sound and logical construct."</p>

<p>funny, I had the exact same problem when I was enganged in a healthy debate with KK as well.</p>

86

<p>Having been absent from the discussion for a few days, I return to the original question of whether there is an excess of hype surrounding Northeastern schools and the Ivy League schools in particular. I have stated repeatedly that I believe that HYP deserve their lofty status (so please focus comments/replies without reference to them). However, the balance of the Ivy schools (especially Cornell and Brown and perhaps Penn) are huge beneficiaries of their association with HYP. Thus, when I made my Top 20 ranking suggestion (post # 55), I tried to evaluate them vs. Northwestern, Rice, Emory, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame using USNWR objective data relating to what the schools are actually contributing to the undergraduate education of their students (Faculty Resources, Student Selectivity (of which only 20% of the scoring is based on acceptance rate), and Financial Resources). I am not trying to pick on Cornell and Brown and think that they are excellent schools and I am not anti-Ivy (my spouse received a graduate degree from one of the higher ranked Ivies so I do know a little about my subject). My point all along is not that the Ivy schools are not very good-they are very, very good. But there are several, other equally, and possibly more, deserving schools which never get the ranking recognition that they deserve. IMO, this is due to media hype, great historical name power, and longtime association with the true powers of HYP. As gomestar might say, “most educated people” (at least those who realize that there is a world outside of the Northeast) recognize this and accept this. Now if only we can get the editors at USNWR to acknowledge this in their rankings....</p>

87

<p>At the end of the day, you just have to ask yourself: WHO GIVES A FLYING ****?!</p>

88

<p>Prestige, I'm glad you understood and appreciated where I was coming from. You have a good point about factoring expectations into the evaluations. By the way, I like Dartmouth and Princeton because they seem to be beautiful small universities in interesting towns. I think they would be just as good as they are now even if they weren't in the Ivy League. I'm not so sure the other 6 in the Ivy League could say the same. Many years ago a high school buddy of mine invited me over to Harvard a couple times to visit. Wow, talk about disappointment.</p>

89

<p>
[quote]
But there are several, other equally, and possibly more, deserving schools which never get the ranking recognition that they deserve. IMO, this is due to media hype, great historical name power, and longtime association with the true powers of HYP.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i fully agree that there are certainly many schools outside of HYP (and Ivies) that are extremely worthy of top rankings - i've never said that there weren't. where you and i diverge in thought is that i believe that all of the Ivies deserve much (if not all) of the praise it gets.</p>

<p>it's funny that you point out Brown being "hyped" or overrated when my belief is that its current ranking of #15 by the latest USNWR makes it one of the most under-ranked schools in the the Top 20. Brown's selectivity on a year in and year out basis is always well within the Top 10 (if not a strong Top 5 contender according to Princeton Review) add to that the yearly high marks for student satisfaction/quality of life and finally the fact that its cross admit yield is second only to HYPSM. At any rate... i guess we'll have to agree to disagree...</p>

<p>btw, in post #81 i meant to write "competitive advantage" instead of "comparative advantage" ... not that anyone cares...</p>

90

<p>“I still don't understand what your point is.”</p>

<p>I’ve said it several times, but yet again: admissions rates are not a reflection of how good a school is; they are a reflection of, again: class size, expected yield, and number of applicants, plain and simple.</p>

<p>People are quick to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, yet no one yet has shown me how admissions rates are anything more than I claim them to be.</p>

<p>“when in all likelihood a change in class size would most certainly impact both number of applications received as well as just about everything else.”</p>

<p>-That’s just silly. Like applicants would really say: “hmm, Northwestern (or any college) is smaller this year, so let me not apply…. Whatever…. Sure it would impact the number of applicants, but, If anything, it would put that college higher in demand and make more people apply, not fewer.</p>

<p>“Forget about the fact that you are taking numbers and assumptions straight out of thin air and then are presenting them as if it were of sound and logical construct.”</p>

<p>-They are not sound or logical? Tell me why then, don’t attack me, attack the numbers. Why are they not logical? What about the post is illogical…… The only numbers I "took out the air" were a new yield and class size for Northwestern, both of which are not impossible. </p>

<p>“Princeton is tougher to get into than NU”</p>

<p>-Prove it.</p>

<p>“funny how you don't see any people from colleges with low admissions rates complaining that there is no correlation between admissions rates and quality”</p>

<p>So my school rejects 7out of 10 applicants instead of 9 out of 10…. Do you really think I’m jealous? Please… I’m also not “complaining”, because at the end of the day, I’m already in college, and well on my way to being finished. I just don’t like when people like you come on here and makes nonsense claims like these. </p>

<p>“Cornell and Brown and perhaps Penn) are huge beneficiaries of their association with HYP.”</p>

<p>I don’t know that there is really any argument against this. Clearly if any one of these schools were in Houston, and not in the Ivy League, it would be adversely affected in some way in the rankings.</p>

91

<p>
[quote]
-That’s just silly. Like applicants would really say: “hmm, Northwestern (or any college) is smaller this year, so let me not apply…

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? </p>

<p>So let me get this straight. You are saying that if Harvard (or NU for that matter) slashed its class to no more than 10 students per year, this wouldn't change the number of applications it got? You are saying that Harvard would receive the exact same (give or take) number of applications? Conversely, if Harvard increased its class size to 100,000, you are saying that the no. of applications won't change at all?</p>

<p>Let's summarize the world according to KK:</p>

<p>1) There is absolutely no correlation between admissions rates and the quality of a school. <a href="...%20and%20yet%20according%20to%20USNWR,%20the%20higher%20ranked%20schools%20have%20lower%20admission%20rates%20than%20lower%20ranked%20schools">i</a>*
2) There is absolutely no correlation between class size and the no. of applications a school receives. <a href="...%20and%20yet%20schools%20with%20larger%20class%20sizes%20receive%20more%20applications%20on%20average%20than%20schools%20with%20smaller%20class%20sizes">i</a>*</p>

<p>Interesting.</p>

<p>
[quote]
They are not sound or logical? Tell me why then, don’t attack me, attack the numbers. Why are they not logical? What about the post is illogical……

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Is anyone else seeing this brilliant "logic", because I'm not.</p>

92

<p>I haven't read all of the posts, but I have noted that many have argued that Brown and Cornell benefit from a supposedly slanted criteria.</p>

<p>However, I think that if anything, Cornell is disadvantaged by the criteria. 20% of US News's criteria is SAT score range. Besides A&S and Engineering, Cornell's colleges don't emphasize SAT scores that much. As such, schools like Architecture and Hotel which are the best in the nation end up hurting the school significantly. Cornell A&S and engineering actually have SAT scores at par with the lower ivys and even above some of them.</p>

<p>In addition, faculty and alumni is another criteria. However, this is only measured by faculty/ student ratio and alumni donations (relative to alumni size). What about siginificance of the faculty and alumni? Cornell is a big school, so it has a slightly smaller ratio, but what about the fact that it is associated with 40+ nobel laureates?</p>

93

<p>"I’ve said it several times, but yet again: admissions rates are not a reflection of how good a school is; they are a reflection of, again: class size, expected yield, and number of applicants, plain and simple."</p>

<p>kk,</p>

<p>admissions rates are not a rock solid way of showing how good a school is; however, selective schools are selective for a reason. understand that harvard has a low admissions rate because it can select a fewer amount of people because they have a 70% or so yield rate.</p>

<p>I see your made up example of Northwestern. the facts are NW has a comparatively "high" admissions rate because they have a much lower yield. why do they have a lower yield/higher acceptance rate? </p>

<p>because
1) NW gets fewer applications per spot than Harvard
2) many of the people who get into NW probably got into what they think is a "better" school and choose to go elsewhere. </p>

<p>looking at those 2 facts one can come to the conclusion that harvard is more in demand than northwestern, definitively more selective, and loosely that harvard, because more people want it, is "better."</p>

<p>OTOH, Prestige, remember admissions rates are in context. Schools like Harvard and Yale have marginally stronger incoming classes vs. schools like NW and Chicago, even though they accept a much greater %age. I'm not looking at the numbers right now, but assuming that Harvard has a 10% admit rate and NW has about a 30% admit rate one can see that (even though i know this isn't actually comparable, but just for the sake of the argument) incoming NW students aren't 20% dumber than harvard students.</p>

<p>Now of course i'm not saying Harvard is better than NW, but the facts are it is a more selective school, and it is more prestigious. Its not a coincedence that Harvard has a lower % accepted and higher % yield.</p>

94

<p>
[quote]
assuming that Harvard has a 10% admit rate and NW has about a 30% admit rate one can see that (even though i know this isn't actually comparable, but just for the sake of the argument) incoming NW students aren't 20% dumber than harvard students.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>well noted. nor did i ever say that any given school's admissions rate is a pound for pound accurate assessment of that student body's level of intelligence.</p>

<p>i merely stated that a school's selectivity level is a pretty decent measure of the quality level of a school. nothing more, nothing less.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Now of course i'm not saying Harvard is better than NW

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes it is. </p>

<p>Harvard is better than NW in just about every way you slice it. That said, Harvard is better than [just about every other school in the world] in just about every way you slice it... (except, of course, for Northeastern).</p>

95

<p>prestige,</p>

<p>i never said harvard wasn't a better school. by saying "im not saying harvard is better than nw" i meant in reference to the fact that "harvards lower admissions rate doesn't make it a better school than nw." poorly articulated on my part.</p>

<p>i do agree with you that harvard is a better school than northwestern, but quality of students at NW (which is one of the few things that NW doesn't really need to improve on, and one of the few tangible things we can extract from admissions rates) isn't what makes NW a "lesser" school than Harvard.</p>

96

<p>“So let me get this straight. You are saying that if Harvard (or NU for that matter) slashed its class to no more than 10 students per year, this wouldn't change the number of applications it got?”</p>

<p>-I will agree that there is probably a breaking point wherein the school would begin to lose applicants, and I think that this situation (of having a class of 10) is quite the extreme. I’m saying that if Harvard cut say 100 or so people, just like I said if Northwestern had a 38.5% reduction in class size, it wouldn’t lose applicants, but would probably gain more or stay pretty close to what it has now. </p>

<p>“Conversely, if Harvard increased its class size to 100,000, you are saying that the no. of applications won't change at all?”</p>

<p>-First, I was talking about shrinking class sizes, not increasing them. But if Harvard had a class size of 100,000, then of course it would not enjoy the same yield or applicant number that it does now. But, this is not a claim that I have ever made. </p>

<p>“Let's summarize the world according to KK:</p>

<p>1) There is absolutely no correlation between admissions rates and the quality of a school.”</p>

<ul>
<li>I am indeed saying this, saying that it’s absurd to assume that one = the other, that a low admissions rate = a good school, or that they are even correlated for that matter. What about a low admissions rate makes a school good? That is, what characteristics of an admissions rate by itself are indicators of school strength? Of the three components of an admissions rate: yield, applicant number, and class size, only ONE even comes close to predicting school strength, and that’s yield. But even this is pretty weak though.<br></li>
</ul>

<p>If Harvard had a 20% admissions rate, would it be a worse school for it? I fail to see how or why this makes any sense. </p>

<p>If one is to say that there IS a correlation between admissions rates and the quality of a school, then it is implied that there is also a negative correlation- that as admissions rates increase schools should get “worse”. I vehemently disagree with this.</p>

<p>MIT has a 6% lower admissions rate than Caltech, but I see no measurable difference between the two, in fact, Caltech is probably BETTER in many fields than MIT. The same goes for Wash U and its 18% admissions rate: I find it hard to believe that this school is just “better” than Duke, Rice, Cornell, Caltech, Northwestern, Penn, Emory, etc….. </p>

<p>While yes I completely agree that many schools with lower admissions rates are great institutions, I don’t see the logic that would lead any individual to determine that the admissions rate is an indicator of that fact. To me, it just happens to be that many of the schools people believe to be “good” are smaller private schools. The only 2 state schools (if you don’t count Cornell :) ) that have an admissions rate of 30% or lower are UCLA and Berkeley, and they are just barely there at 27% (William and Mary has 31%). Now I’m not trying to start another debate, but I don’t know that I believe that small private schools are just naturally better than larger state schools… Michigan has a 57% admissions rate, but I think it would be safe to say that most people think it better than Tulane University, and certainly not 35% worse than Georgetown</p>

<p>“2) There is absolutely no correlation between class size and the no. of applications a school receives.”</p>

<p>-I’m not saying this. I’m saying that a small (reasonable) reduction in class size at other top-ranked universities would lower their admissions rates. I see no reason why this is difficult to believe or understand. I’m pretty confident that if a school like Cornell dropped a few hundred people it would see a decline in its admissions rate.</p>

97

<p>"looking at those 2 facts one can come to the conclusion that harvard is more in demand than northwestern, definitively more selective, and loosely that harvard, because more people want it, is "better."</p>

<p>-I guess I can see the first 2 points, but to conclude that because its more selective its better just doesn't make much sense to me.... a high demand for a product doesn't make the product better than its competitors. If we're talking about better at accepting and matriculating top students, then yes, it is better at that. Little much else can be said beyond that.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I think Harvard is, for many reasons better than Northwestern, but admissions rates is not one of them.</p>

98

<p>fahood,
the student selectivity scores only count for 15% of the total USNWR rankings. also, the sat scores only count for 20% of this number so SAT scores only have a 3% weight in the total ranking for the current USNWR rankings-Cornell is certainly not disadvantaged by this. also, the alumni ranking is worth only 5% in the USNWR rankings. OTOH, Cornell is greatly aided by its high Peer Assessment rating (worth 25% of the USNWR score) that some (including me) believe may be reflective of a great school...and perhaps even more by its longtime association with even greater institutions like HYP.</p>

99

<p>
[quote]
I’m saying that if Harvard cut say 100 or so people, just like I said if Northwestern had a 38.5% reduction in class size, it wouldn’t lose applicants, but would probably gain more or stay pretty close to what it has now.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>well, let's address a couple of issues:</p>

<p>1) if Harvard did indeed have a 38.5% (let's call it 40% for the sake of simple calculation) decrease, then Harvard's incoming class for 2005 would drop from 1,640 (let's call it 1,600) to 984 (let's call it 980) = a reduction of ~620 students. That's a pretty hefty reduction.</p>

<p>2) Next, my extreme example of Harvard cutting its class size to 10 people (or to illustrate my example even further) let's say they cut it all the way down to just 1 person next year - we both agree this would affect the no. of applications received... BUT</p>

<p>3) According to your logic, in the above scenario, Harvard's applications would INCREASE rather than decrease - i.e. in your argument where you hypothetically say that NW cuts its class size down you say quote:</p>

<p>
[quote]
just like I said if Northwestern had a 38.5% reduction in class size, it wouldn’t lose applicants, but would probably gain more or stay pretty close to what it has now.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Please explain your thinking here.</p>

<p>In other words, I think we can all agree that if Harvard (or NW for that matter) reduced its class size to 1 person, the number of applications would certainly DECREASE regardless of the school in question (e.g. many people who might have taken a longshot at Harvard would simply not apply) - and conversely, if Harvard increased its class size to 100,000 people, its no. of applications would go up. (e.g. many people who might have not considered taking a shot at Harvard might now take one).</p>

<p>I've taken these extreme numbers to simply illustrate that:</p>

<ul>
<li>as "A" goes down (A being the number of class spots) --> "B" goes down (B being the no. of applications) </li>
<li>and the opposite applies, as "A" goes up, "B" goes up. </li>
</ul>

<p>Now one can certainly argue what this actual "rate of change" is and that this "rate of change" may vary from college to college, but how do you argue that the actual direction of "B" goes in an opposite direction of "A"?</p>

<p>Which is what you are arguing when you say that if NW cut its class size, that its application no.'s would go UP... Please elaborate or give your rationale as to why that would be the case.</p>

100

<p>Maybe what KK is saying is that the cause/effect in general is the quality of the institution influences the acceptance rate (not the other way around--the acceptance rate doesn't cause the school to be good or bad). But no doubt other very influential factors in the acceptance rate are not directly related to academic quality, such as location, dorms, size, sports, campus beauty, name recognition, and...drumroll please: membership in a prestigious athletic conference. Some schools have a net positive effect in these non-academic considerations (USC, Notre Dame, Duke, Cornell, UNLV) while some probably have a net minus effect (Chicago, Case Western Reserve, Trinity College in Connecticut). So maybe KK's point is that a lot of these non-academic factors contribute significantly to the difference in Harvard's and Northwestern's acceptance rates, it's not JUST academics.</p>