USNWR Slanted in favor of the Northeast

College Search & Selection
101

<p>KK,</p>

<p>no one is saying that "school A with a 10% acceptance rate is better than school B with a 15% acceptance rate." </p>

<p>people are simply saying that a low acceptance rate is indicative of how a good school. the best schools typically have the lowest acceptance rates. 20% vs. 25% doesn't mean anything. However, the fact that a school like harvard is a more prestigious/more well regarded school than a school like northwestern can be seen - and one way by seeing as it has a much lower acceptance rate (because more people apply per spot) and has a higher yield (more people who get in choose to go there over anywhere else).</p>

102

<p>hawkette, Cornell has a higher peer assesment than Penn, Dartmouth and Brown all of which are also members of the Ivy League. Is it possible that Cornell is actually worthy of that score because of the fact that it has so many top 25 programs?</p>

<p>Question: What exactly is the full breakdown of the US News ranking criteria?</p>

103

<p>USNWR 2007 Ranking Methodology</p>

<p>25% For Peer Assessment (measures the schools reputation according to other academics, specifically presidents, provosts, and deans of admissions)</p>

<p>20% for Retention (two factors comprise this ranking)<br>
6-year gradutation rate (80% of the calculation)<br>
Freshman retention rate (20%) </p>

<p>20% for Faculty Resources (six factors comprise this score)<br>
% of classes with fewer than 20 students<br>
% of classes with more than 50 students<br>
Faculty Salary<br>
% of profs with highest degree in their fields<br>
Student-faculty ratio<br>
% of faculty that are full-time </p>

<p>15% for Student Selectivity (three factors comprise this score)
SAT/ACT Test Scores of Enrolled Students (50%)<br>
% of enrolled students who graduated HS in top 10% and top 25% (40%)
Total Admittance rate (10%) </p>

<p>10% for Financial Resources (measures avg spending per student at the school) </p>

<p>5% for Graduation Rate Performance (measures diff in 6-yr graduation rate and the predicted rate) </p>

<p>5% for Alumni Giving Rate </p>

<p>The Actual Ranking Methodology<br>
To arrive at a school's rank, USNWR first calculates the weighted sum of its scores. The final scores were rescaled: The top school in each category was assigned a value of 100, and the other schools' weighted scores were calculated as a proportion of that top score. Final scores for each ranked school were rounded to the nearest whole number and ranked in descending order.</p>

104

<p>hmm... so SAT scores are actually 7.5% of the score. Class rank (top 10%, top 25%) would also have a similar effect for Cornell with the Hotel and Architecture schools having lower numbers due to different criteria. which would account for another 6%. </p>

<p>Anyhow, I would argue that Peer Assesment is actually the best criteria that US News uses. Different schools are set up differently and pursue different policies, so any statistical criteria would be biased and favor a specific type of school. Peer Assesment allows distinguished people to score the schools, taking into account all the differences between the schools.</p>

105

<p>I think the real problem for the rankings is peer assessment, which accounts for one quarter of the rankings. We have to remember that these rankings are for undergraduates. So according to peer assessment the ranking for undergraduates some schools should go like this:
1) Minnesota, Perdue, Penn State
2) Arizona, Boston College
3) Wake Forest
4) Boston University, Iowa State
5) Lehigh</p>

<p>There seems to be a little bit something wrong with using peer assessment as you can see. Peer assessment does allowed distinguished people to score the schools, but how well do they actually know the schools? Also, are they able to differentiate between the graduate and undergraduate levels, because clearly the current PA grades do not reflect such a difference.</p>

<p>In this thread, I crudely took peer assessment out to see how the rankings would change, it wasn't perfect, but you could get the general idea:
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=220855%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=220855&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

106

<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.”
Well, I do believe I said: “I’m saying that if Harvard cut say 100 or so people”, not the same 40% that Northwestern would. This would only represent 6% of the class, and following application trends over the past few years, it only makes sense that the school would see more or near the same number of applicants, but certainly not fewer. Either way, the admissions rate would lower. </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:”
-Again, if Harvard had around a 6% cut in class size, I can’t see it adversely affecting applicant numbers.
“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”</p>

<p>-I neither disagreed with this earlier no do now……</p>

<p>“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>-Only if people believed that the school was still offering the same quality education. Also, the worth of a Harvard degree would decline so sharply that many top students probably would shy away from it. </p>

<p>“- as "A" goes down (A being the number of class spots) --> "B" goes down (B being the no. of applications)”</p>

<p>-This only works in an extreme, like the “1 person class size” example. There are too many people trying to get into top colleges; it doesn’t make sense that they would just give up because the schools have fewer spots, UNLESS the spots are so few that it doesn't make logical sense for the applicant to spend the time to fill out the application. </p>

<p>So, the as “A goes down B goes” down correlation would only work when the class size shrinks below whatever the equilibrium is. I don’t know what exact number that is, but I’m sure it would be different for all schools. If a place like Cornell with 13,000 students (I believe) dropped its class size from 3200 to about 2900 or so, I don’t see it having a negative effect on applicant numbers. </p>

<ul>
<li>“and the opposite applies, as "A" goes up, "B" goes up.”</li>
</ul>

<p>-This doesn’t make much sense. If this is true, then how do you explain that Northwestern and Princeton receive about the same number of applicants, but Princeton is 40% smaller? Following this logic, Northwestern should have 40% MORE people applying to it than does Princeton. </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>

<p>Unless the school became wildly unpopular, a small cut in its class size would not deter potential applicants. As long as college admissions is as competitive as it is today, students will still try to get into top schools. </p>

<p>That is, the demand for a spot in a top university still exists in such disproportionately high numbers that even if the supply is lowered by a small percentage, those institutions should still have the same drawing power that they now do. And, following applicant patterns of the last five or so years (most every school received more each year than the last), it’s a safe bet that the numbers would stay near what they are or increase. </p>

<p>"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>

<p>-This is pretty much what I’m saying.</p>

107

<p>
[quote]
This doesn’t make much sense. If this is true, then how do you explain that Northwestern and Princeton receive about the same number of applicants, but Princeton is 40% smaller? Following this logic, Northwestern should have 40% MORE people applying to it than does Princeton.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>AH HA!!!</p>

<p>This is exactly what I was waiting for you to say - and herein lies the fundamental flaw in your logic.</p>

<p>Let's analyze the following: </p>

<ul>
<li><p>Princeton has nearly half the class size of NW, but, as you note, Princeton's overall total number of applications received is actually slightly higher than NW.</p></li>
<li><p>In other words, you take the Princeton numbers, and because Princeton has a class size "A" and no. of applications number of "B", you reason, "gee, if NW also had a class size "A", it should also receive application numbers "B" as well" ... TOTALLY WRONG! </p></li>
</ul>

<p>How in the world do you magically port Princeton's applications numbers and then magically cut and paste them into NW??? Sorry, pal, but NW just isn't that good!!! The real world numbers already prove this!</p>

<p>To re-iterate once again, the real world already shows, already demonstrates that despite the fact that Princeton class is 40% smaller than NW, Princeton still receives more total applications than NW, THEREFORE, in order to be fair, if you are going to adjust NW's original class size --> you should by all fairness and logic dictates that you then must adjust NW's original total applications received - i.e. YOU MUST START WITH NW ORIGINAL APPLICATION NUMBERS AS A BASE and then re-adjust your numbers accordingly (you get it yet? that's why it would go DOWN, not UP). Why in the world do you assume all of the sudden that NW's numbers = Princeton's numbers? Where and how do you pull that rabbit out of your hat? This is such a fundamental and obvious error, it's almost laughable!</p>

<p>It's akin to saying, "hmm", let's take Harvard's class size and then increase it by 25%. I wonder what that would do to numbers of applications received? I guess we should then take a look at the University of Beijing's applications received and adjust those numbers.</p>

<p>Hello? Does anyone else see the fatal flaw in this logic?</p>

<p>
[quote]
If this is true, then how do you explain that Northwestern and Princeton receive about the same number of applicants, but Princeton is 40% smaller?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How do I explain it? It's simple, Princeton is in much higher demand than NW on a per capita basis. Period.</p>

<p>This is why if NW cut its class number by 40%, its total number of apps would likely decrease (perhaps not by 40%) but it would go down - whatever the case, they ain't going UP!!! I mean, they ain't gonna start pulling Princeton's numbers out of their holes like the magic bunny! Now TG's comments about other variables noted, generally, the larger the class size, the higher the number of total apps --> and vice versa.</p>

<p>See, by your flawed logic (in case I haven't hit you over the head enough times), you just magically wipe away clean the higher demand which is unique to Princeton by copying and pasting Princeton's numbers into NW. Why not just cut and paste Princeton's Peer Assessment score, SAT average, Top 10% and everything else? Then you'll really have a Princeton contender on your hands!!!</p>

<p>LOL! Thank you. Thank you. I enjoyed that very much.</p>

108

<p>okay, so in order to get back on topic... i just did some imperfect but nonetheless telling analysis on peer assessment scores. i began with three sets of data: pa scores, average sats and average nrc rankings of the top 100 national universities. each was normalized and then an 'estimated' value based on sats and nrc rankings (based on a multivariate linear regression) was compared to the schools pa score.</p>

<p>our ten most underrated national universities (again, only in terms of pa score), per my analysis: rochester, brandeis, stevens institute, lehigh, north carolina, case western, wpi, binghamton, tufts and tulsa. our ten most overrated? indiana, william & mary, michigan, iowa, purdue, alabama, johns hopkins, virginia, miami (oh) and baylor.</p>

<p>now some of these 'overrated' schools are where they are because they have world-famous professional schools, which were not taken into account. whats the common thread among the underrated ones? youve got a bunch of small schools... and north carolina. go figure.</p>

<p>anyway, it looks like the biggest issue here is the size of the school and not its location. the big ten behemoths struggled and midsize schools nationwide overperformed.</p>

<p>and for those who may not be thinking too critically about this, i am not saying that michigans pas SHOULD be lower or that rochesters SHOULD be higher (though i believe thats the case). rather, my point was simply that my model predicted that, based on average sats and nrc ratings, michigans is high and rochesters is low.</p>

109

<p>edit: thats north carolina st in the underrated column. something didnt look right about that... and my columns werent wide enough to show me why!</p>

110

<p>“- In other words, you take the Princeton numbers, and because Princeton has a class size "A" and no. of applications number of "B", you reason, "gee, if NW also had a class size "A", it should also receive application numbers "B" as well" ... TOTALLY WRONG!”</p>

<p>This is not AT ALL my logic… maybe you should actually read what I wrote. </p>

<p>“To re-iterate once again, the real world already shows, already demonstrates that despite the fact that Princeton class is 40% smaller than NW, Princeton still receives more total applications than NW, THEREFORE, in order to be fair, if you are going to adjust NW's original class size --> you should by all fairness and logic dictates that you then must adjust NW's original total applications received - i.e. YOU MUST START WITH NW ORIGINAL APPLICATION NUMBERS AS A BASE and then re-adjust your numbers accordingly (you get it yet? that's why it would go DOWN, not UP). Why in the world do you assume all of the sudden that NW's numbers = Princeton's numbers? Where and how do you pull that rabbit out of your hat? This is such a fundamental and obvious error, it's almost laughable!”</p>

<p>This is why if NW cut its class number by 40%, its total number of apps would likely decrease (perhaps not by 40%) but it would go down”</p>

<p>-That doesn’t make any sense. Why would the decrease? Because you say so?</p>

<p>"See, by your flawed logic (in case I haven't hit you over the head enough times), you just magically wipe away clean the higher demand which is unique to Princeton by copying and pasting Princeton's numbers into NW.”
- I did no such thing…</p>

<p>-I hate to dampen your rant, but you COMPLETELY missed my point….</p>

<p>Here is the original hypothetical I gave:</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%."</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%...."</p>

<p>I ALREADY used Northwestern’s original numbers; the only things that had to change were class size and yield, so to get the same admissions rate as Princeton. Just because Northwestern is now smaller does not mean that it wll receive fewer applicants. That is saying that it is ONLY receiving its current number because it is larger, and that is ludicrous. So, I don’t know what in the world all that nonsense you just wrote is about. You were so busy trying to be correct that you didn’t’ even read what I actually wrote….</p>

111

<p>Let's do a quick exercise:</p>

<ul>
<li>School A receives 100 applications</li>
<li><p>School B receives 100 applications</p></li>
<li><p>School A has 10 spaces (class size) - i.e. 10 applications for every spot</p></li>
<li><p>School B has 20 spaces (class size) - i.e. 5 applications for every spot</p></li>
</ul>

<p>Can we logically say that if School B decreased its class size = School A's class size, that it would still receive the same number of applications as School A - i.e. stay constant (or even go up)?</p>

<p>Because that is what you are arguing. You are arguing that School B cuts its class size to 10 spaces, and then its total number of applications will be greater than 100. (since you argue that it goes up) Does that make sense to anyone?</p>

<p>I think logic dictates that if we revise School B's class size, we must then revise School B's app number downward in order to stay consistent - in order to stay faithful to School B's original per capita or 5 applications per spot --> thus, School B's total apps would equal around 50 --> I mean it's not going up!!! How does it go up???</p>

<p>Why do you assume that NW has the same demand ratio as Princeton? Is there something wrong with NW original demand ratio??? YOU SEE THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW. In order to keep NW's original no. of applications constant, you ABONDON NW's original demand ratio in place of cutting and pasting Princeton's demand ratio. Hello? This doesn't even get into the fact that you are even arguing that NW's number goes UP.</p>

<p>You still have no reasonable, logical explanation for that, while I have laid out a logical, step-by-step explanation.</p>

<p>I'm not sure how else I can illustrate this more simply...</p>

112

<p>"Can we logically say that if School B decreased its class size = School A's class size, that it would still receive the same number of applications as School A - i.e. stay constant (or even go up)?"</p>

<p>-yes we can. There is no reason to assume that because the school is smaller it will receive fewer applicants. Instead of viewing it as per capita, I few it as the 100 represents the total number of people interested in the school. That is, even if the school does shrink to 10, the total number of people interested in the school shouldn't just drop off by half. That doesn't make any sense. When people apply to a school its because they want to attend said school, not because of any per capita statistics.</p>

<p>"We must then revise School B's number downward in order to stay consistent - in order to stay faithful to the original per capita or 5 applications per spot"</p>

<p>-This makes absolutely no sense. Again, the TOTAL number of people interested in the school is 100, so shrinking the class size should not immediately make half the people not want to attend the school; there is no basis for such an argument.</p>

113

<p>“Why do you assume that NW has the same demand ratio as Princeton? Is there something wrong with NW original demand ratio??? YOU SEE THIS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL FLAW. You cut and paste Princeton's demand ratio into NW's in order to keep the original no. of applications received either constant. Forget about the fact that you are even arguing that NW's number goes UP”</p>

<p>“Demand ratio” What in the world are you talking about? I didn’t cut ant paste anything. I said that if NU were the size of Princeton, it would have a lower admissions rate. Give me a good reason why, if the schools were the same size, fewer people would apply to Northwestern (outside those applying because they like the size of the school). What sense does that make?</p>

<p>I also went on to say that if Northwestern and Princeton had the same yield (which if NU expanded its ED program, with the smaller class size they could), then the admissions rate would be nearly the same. </p>

<p>I don’t know what your talking about with demand ratios and such, but I see no clear flaw with what I’m asserting.</p>

114

<p>
[quote]
“Demand ratio” What in the world are you talking about? I didn’t cut ant paste anything. I said that if NU were the size of Princeton, it would have a lower admissions rate. Give me a good reason why, if the schools were the same size, fewer people would apply to Northwestern. What sense does that make?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is like talking to a brick wall.</p>

<p>Why do you continue to ignore the fact that Princeton's demand per capita (applications per spot available, demand ratio, whatever you want to call it - it is the number of applications DIVIDED BY the number of spots available) is nearly twice that of NW?</p>

<p>Can you at least address this? Or are you going to continue ignoring this?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I also went on to say that if Northwestern and Princeton had the same yield (which if NU expanded its ED program, with the smaller class size they could), then the admissions rate would be nearly the same.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why in the world would NW have the same yield as Princeton? It's precisely because those accepted to Princeton end up choosing Princeton in greater %-age numbers than those accepted to NW who end up choosing NW which makes Princeton superior to NW.</p>

<p>Why not copy and paste all of Princeton's numbers while you are at it?</p>

<p>You make ZERO sense with all of your hypothetical nonsense.</p>

115

<p>Furthermore, you argue that dropping class size has no net effect to the number of applications received, why not just take it to the limit pal?</p>

<p>Why stop at 40% of class size? Why not an 87% reduction of class size? And why does Princeton's class size get to stay the same while NW shrinks, can't Princeton's class size shrink as well? Why not shrink every school's class size? I mean, since no. of applications received is static number that never changes if you reduce class sizes (oops, they aren't static, they actually start to go up)... Pretty soon your numbers are of the charts!</p>

<p>BTW, still no explanation as to why those application numbers start to go up...</p>

<p>Man, you really want to get people to think that NW = Princeton, its just that pesky reality getting in the way, huh? I feel for you.</p>

116

<p>“This is like talking to a brick wall.”
-Now you insult me. Shame on you….. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>“Why do you continue to ignore the fact that Princeton's demand per capita (applications per spot available, demand ratio, whatever you want to call it - it is the number of applications DIVIDED BY the number of spots available) is nearly twice that of NW?”
-Because this is STUPID. People are not applying to college based on any per capita numbers; they are applying to the schools because they want to attend them. And just for the sake of stating it… For the class of 2010.. Princeton had 17,478 applicants Northwestern had over 18177. </p>

<p>“Why in the world would NW have the same yield as Princeton? It's precisely because those accepted to Princeton end up choosing Princeton in greater %-age numbers than those accepted to NW who end up choosing NW which makes Princeton superior to NW.”</p>

<p>If Northwestern accepted everyone who applied ED, it would have nearly a 70% yield, the same a Princeton. That’s “why in the world”.</p>

117

<p>“Why stop at 40% of class size? Why not an 87% reduction of class size? And why does Princeton's class size get to stay the same while NW shrinks, can't Princeton's class size shrink as well?”</p>

<p>-It sure can, but that is not the hypothetical I created, now is it. I was stating that if the two schools were the same size that is what would happen. You are now introducing a different scenario, one in which Princeton is smaller. However, it would still be as I said; IF THE SCHOOLS WERE THE SAME SIZE, that is what would happen. </p>

<p>“Why not shrink every school's class size? I mean, since no. of applications received is static number that never changes if you reduce class sizes (oops, they aren't static, they actually start to go up)... Pretty soon your numbers are of the charts!”</p>

<p>Applications have been increasing for most schools for the past few years, so yes they do go up. And, again, shrinking all school classes would be a different situation, not the one I stated.</p>

<p>“BTW, still no explanation as to why those application numbers start to go up...”</p>

<p>-Look at the numbers from the past few years and you will see. What kind of question is this???? Also, there is absolutely NO sound reason why applications would just decline sharply, none. So, again, looking at the applicant trend the applications should increase from year to year.</p>

<p>“Man, you really want to get people to think that NW = Princeton, its just that pesky reality getting in the way, huh? I feel for you”</p>

<p>-No I don’t. I never said this. Nor am I saying it now. My hypothetical speaks for itself. I stated what the meaning of the hypothetical was, and it darn sure wasn’t to get people to think that NW = Princeton. In fact, I will say Princeton > Northwestern. There… Now what nonsense do you have?</p>

118

<p>KK, c'mon dude...</p>

<p>You're saying that if NW came out with the announcement that it is slashing next year's class size by roughly 800 spaces (~40%), you're saying that this would not only NOT negatively impact their apps received, you are arguing in fact that they would get an increase in total applications received for the following year?</p>

<p>Really?</p>

119

<p>"You're saying that if NW came out with the announcement that it is slashing next year's class size by roughly 800 spaces (~40%), you're saying that this would not only NOT negatively impact their apps received"</p>

<p>-There is a big difference between announcing something and just doing it. The very act of announcing may deter some students from applying, but if the school just cut the class, it only makes sense that the applicant numbers shouldn't decrease. So, if after the applications were received, the school decided it wanted 800 fewer people, then, as I said, it would have a much lower admissions rate, 18% to be exact. If it did this AND accepted more people ED, it would have a 10.5% admissions rate. This is what my hypothetical said. It's quite accurate</p>

<p>"you are arguing in fact that they would get an increase in total applications received for the following year?"</p>

<p>-If applicant trends stay the same, yes, I believe the school would see an increase, and if not, it should stay near its numbers, but certainly not decrease. I see no real reason why having a class size 800 smaller would make 8000 people not want to apply to the school.</p>

120

<p>"Why do you continue to ignore the fact that Princeton's demand per capita (applications per spot available, demand ratio, whatever you want to call it - it is the number of applications DIVIDED BY the number of spots available) is nearly twice that of NW?"</p>

<p>Heck, why not run with it…. I’ll rank schools according to your “demand ratio” in 2005:</p>

<ol>
<li>Yale 14.9</li>
<li>Princeton 14.2</li>
<li>Washington University 14.1</li>
<li>Harvard 13.7</li>
<li>Columbia 13.1</li>
<li>Tufts University 12.6</li>
<li>Dartmouth 12.5</li>
<li>Caltech 12.3</li>
<li>Stanford 12</li>
<li>Carnegie Mellon 11.8</li>
<li>Brown 11.8</li>
<li>Duke 11.5</li>
<li>Rice 10.9</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins 10.2</li>
<li>MIT 10.2</li>
<li>Georgetown 9</li>
<li>Northwestern 8.3</li>
<li>Chicago 8.2</li>
<li>Pennsylvania 7.7</li>
<li>Emory 7.6</li>
<li>Vanderbilt 7.2</li>
<li>Cornell 7.2</li>
<li><p>Notre Dame 5.4</p></li>
<li><p>Amherst 15.3</p></li>
<li><p>Pomona 13</p></li>
<li><p>Williams 11.8</p></li>
<li><p>Colgate 11.4</p></li>
<li><p>Swarthmore 11.2</p></li>
<li><p>Carleton 10.6 </p></li>
<li><p>Trinity 10.5</p></li>
<li><p>Vassar 10.2</p></li>
<li><p>Wesleyan 10.1</p></li>
<li><p>Middlebury 8.9</p></li>
<li><p>Wellesley 7.7</p></li>
</ol>

<p>There... Amherst is, by far, the most demanded top-ranked school. Washington University is the 3rd best university in the country, and Tufts is better than half the Ivy League, right????</p>