Wake, usc in top 25

[lesdiablesbleus]

<p>

@bclintonk

This is no change. In last year’s US News ranking UC Berkeley, UCLA, and UVA were ahead of Michigan. As was, obviously, Cornell, though for this purpose I don’t think you can fairly count Cornell as “public” insofar as its US News rankings are buoyed by its “private” colleges like CAS and Engineering which have the most selective admissions standards.

UNC-Chapel Hill could have also leapfrogged Michigan for all we know. All the list of top 25 (27 with ties included) suggests to is that Michigan’s highest possible ranking in this year’s USNWR ranking is #28. The same goes with UNC and Tufts. No one really knows where Michigan will be ranked this year.</p>

[noobcake]

<p>

@bluebayou

Wake’s numbers (down with score choice?)</p>

<p>Matriculating Fall 2008:</p>

<p>SAT (72% reported)
CR 610-690
M-630-710</p>

<p>ACT (28% reported): 27-31</p>

<p>Matriculating fall 2009 (with score choice):</p>

<p>SAT (68% reported)
CR 580-690
M 600-700</p>

<p>ACT (39% reported): 27-31</p>

<p>CDS:
[WFU</a> | Institutional Research](<a href=“Home - Office of Institutional Research”>Home - Office of Institutional Research)

</p>

<p>My theory just \failed</p>

[jc40]

<p>

Also, it’s not clear yet whether USC and Wake Forest “moved up” or UCLA and UVA moved down in the US New scoring system.

</p>

<p>For that matter, UVA could have gone up and/or UCLA as well.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

My theory just \failed

</p>

<p>Haha, noobcake, your theory did not fail. You simply built it on entirely wrong assumptions, including the basic one that the total percentages of submitted SAT and ACT has to exceed … 100%.</p>

<p>By the way, another misconception is that reporting higher SAT scores (or a lower admit rate) will automatically result in a better ranking. As Pomona and Middlebury found out, the opposite might just happen because of changes in the expected graduation rates. A few years back, Pomona reported the highest selectivity index ever and Middlebury had to rework its previously manipulated admission numbers and report lower SAT numbers. The result: Midd went up and Pomona down.</p>

[Schokolade]

<p>I don’t see how Wake Forest’s new SAT/ACT policy would help the school in the rankings, as students still have to report their standardized test scores once they enroll, and the Common Data Set reports of SAT and ACT scores are based on enrolled students, not admitted students. If anything, one might expect such scores to go down, as more low-scoring students might choose to apply to Wake Forest in part because their scores are lower than expected when compared to their other admissions variables.</p>

<p>Referring to students who didn’t submit scores with their applications, Noobcake wrote:

By admitting these students, Wake can essentially trim off presumably the lower 24% of their class scores.

</p>

<p>While presumably the lowest-scoring students wouldn’t report their scores for admissions purposes, those who enroll would still be included in the CDS because the students would have to report them for CDS purposes.</p>

[thenatural]

<p>what schools do you think will be in the 30-35 group?</p>

[TheSaiyans666]

<p>Hahahahaha</p>

<p>Its so tempting for me to be mean and point my finger at UMich undergraduate school and rjkofnovi’s legendary ■■■■■■■■. But I really respect Alexandre. I’m trying my hardest to refrain myself from embarrassing that rjkofnovi fool.

@rjkoftrolling

^^^The strength of the university is getting Ann Arbor through this horrible recession much better than the rest of the state. I am confident that the university will continue to grow more powerful and prestigious in the upcoming years.

</p>

<p>I’m pretty sure he even challenged me in some random thread. After the new tweaks in the 2011 ranking system, he said something along the lines of “lets talk after the rankings come out.”</p>

[rjkofnovi]

<p>^^^^^A paranoid clairvoyant. What an interesting combination.</p>

[willmingtonwave]

<p>Finally…</p>

[Sam_Lee]

<p>So which one/two got bumped out? (too lazy to look it up)</p>

[bruno123]

<p>

Its so tempting for me to be mean and point my finger at UMich undergraduate school and rjkofnovi’s legendary ■■■■■■■■. But I really respect Alexandre. I’m trying my hardest to refrain myself from embarrassing that rjkofnovi fool.

</p>

<p>Sorry, but the real “fools” are those who put too much stock on those silly magazine rankings. Do you really think for example that UMich, one of the top research universities in the world (#19 in the THES World Ranking) is really inferior to, let’s say, Wake Forest (#237 in the same ranking !) ? I mean, that’s really laughable.</p>

<p>PS: I am not a Michigan graduate.</p>

[willmingtonwave]

<p>

Sorry, but the real “fools” are those who put too much stock on those silly magazine rankings. Do you really think for example that UMich, one of the top research universities in the world (#19 in the THES World Ranking) is really inferior to, let’s say, Wake Forest (#237 in the same ranking !) ? I mean, that’s really laughable.

Again, the point is that the rankings are for undergraduate rankings and reflect undergraduate quality–NOT–the university as a whole. But that is all I have to say, because this thread is bound to degrade into arguments of idiocy. </p>

<p>Also, you just sound condescending bruno123 when you say that.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

So which one/two got bumped out? (too lazy to look it up)

Northwestern.</p>

[willmingtonwave]

<p>

Northwestern.

Yeah, I mean it makes sense. Chicago as a city has been a mess and I suppose it spilled into Evanston.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

Sorry, but the real “fools” are those who put too much stock on those silly magazine rankings. Do you really think for example that UMich, one of the top research universities in the world (#19 in the THES World Ranking) is really inferior to, let’s say, Wake Forest (#237 in the same ranking !) ? I mean, that’s really laughable.</p>

<p>PS: I am not a Michigan graduate.

</p>

<p>No, Bruno, the real fools are the ones who insist on quoting the same irrelevant data to support a narrow agenda. The narrow agenda being ANYTHING that could make their list of favorite schools look better. This is especially true for schools that are better known for their graduate programs and dedication to research. </p>

<p>By the way, regarding silly magazine rankings, do you know what the T stands for in THES. However, that does not make much difference as the rankings you (and others) have desperately tried to introduce in the undergraduate forum are best debated in the graduate school area of College Confidential.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

undergraduate forum

xiggi, essentially the same faculty teaches grads and undergrads. Besides, I don’t know what designates this an “undergrad” forum…graduate students undergo “college search and selection” as well. :)</p>

<p>Oh, and I’ll take the collective opinion of 2,000 academics to tell me what the best schools are versus some arbitrary weighting of “objective measures” that are just as easily manipulated via interpretation of definitions.</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>xiggi:</p>

<p>in theory I agree with you. The question I raise, however, is how can you separate a grad program from the undergrad? Are there any Unis known for their undergrad? Sure, some might mention the really small ones, such as Princeton, Dartmouth and Wake, since they have few grad programs, but that is a mighty short list. By definition, a Uni requires grad programs.</p>

[freightrain]

<p>how did NU get bumped out? it’s still in the top 25</p>

[Georgia_Girl]

<p>Northwestern is on the list. There are 27 institutions listed. All are the same as last year’s with the addition of USC and Wake Forest. There will be some ties.</p>

<p>The rankings used 2009 statistical information. Test scores are only a part of the rankings, but here are some from the College Info linked here on CC.</p>

<p>Univ. of Virginia<br>
ACT Combined 29
SAT Combined 1993</p>

<p>UCLA
ACT Combined 27
SAT Combined 1903</p>

<p>CAL
ACT Combined 28
SAT Combined 1985</p>

<p>Univ. of Michigan
ACT Combined 29
SAT Combined 1985</p>

<p>Univ. of North Carolina
ACT Combined 29
SAT Combined 1940</p>

<p>The two universities now listed in the 25 (27) are USC and Wake Forest.</p>

<p>Univ. of Southern California
ACT Combined 30
SAT Combined 2030</p>

<p>Wake Forest Univ.
No scores listed for 2009</p>

<p>Scores listed in last issue of U.S. News
Mid SAT Percentile
1240-1400</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>^ where did those numbers come from?</p>

<p>Berkeley 2009/10 CDS is as follows:
<a href=“http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2009-10.pdf[/url]”>http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2009-10.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>SAT CR + M 25% - 75%:
1230 - 1470</p>

<p>ACT Composite 25% - 75%:
27 - 32</p>

<p>This is a slight increase from 2008/09 CDS info, on which current rankings are based:
<a href=“http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2008-09.pdf[/url]”>http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2008-09.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>SAT CR + M 25% - 75%:
1210 - 1470</p>

<p>ACT Composite 25% - 75%:
NA</p>