Wake, usc in top 25

College Search & Selection
61

<p>Sam Lee is not mistaken about two schools ranked 24 causing the next one to go to 26. However, he is wrong about the rest.</p>

<p>Plenty of other combinations are possible.</p>

<p>E pluribus unum:</p>

<p>20
20
22
22
24
24
24</p>

<h1>24</h1>

<p>28</p>

62

<p>It’s also possible that three schools were tied for 22nd (22, 23 & 24) , and two were then tied for “25”…or numerous other combos.</p>

63

<p>Or 27 schools tied for first…
Or 26 schools tied for second…</p>

64

<p>Or 27 schools tied for first…</p>

<p>aka Heaven on Earth for UCB and RML. :)</p>

65

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>LOL . . . this is a conversation that could only take place on CC. Thanks goodness there’s a place for those of us who are so amused by this sort of stuff!</p>

66

<p>

</p>

<p>Only if both Duke and Michigan are included; otherwise, impossible. :D</p>

67

<p>^Terrible joke, my man. Just terrrrrible.</p>

68

<p>This ranking will never be legitimate until Tufts and William & Mary are in the top 25. So much better for undergrads than several of the larger schools listed who have larger grad programs.</p>

69

<p>

Pfft! It already is #1…on the USNWR public universities rank. ;)</p>

70

<p>speaking of tufts and w&m how do you think 25-35 will look?</p>

71

<p>

Think about it though…the title of the ranking is “National Universities”.</p>

<p>USNWR’s own definition is: “Schools in the National Universities category, such as Yale and UCLA, offer a full range of undergraduate majors, master’s, and doctoral degrees. These colleges also are committed to producing groundbreaking research.”</p>

<p>NOTE: They do NOT say, “committed to undergraduate teaching” (that is a separate USNWR ranking), or “limited undergraduate majors and doctoral degrees”.</p>

<p>By USNWR’s definition, some schools don’t fit the “National Universities” category.</p>

72

<p>

</p>

<p>Would you say Wake Forest fits the definition above ?</p>

73

<p>^ Nope. </p>

<p>Barrons said it best:
"Need a new category–“non research universities of middling size with some grad programs most of which are little known”
There’re a number of schools in the National Us group that would fit that group better. "
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065406659-post10.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065406659-post10.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

74

<p>I agree completely that there needs to be a hybrid category between LAC and Nat U. The problem is nuanced and gets lost in the title of “Best Colleges in America”. I think this does a gross disservice to the kids and families who actually believe these rankings and make life decisions based on them.</p>

75

<p>How on earth is Wake Forest ahead of Tufts? In the Boston area Tufts is perceived as a top school but in US News Report it is subjected to the sub-20 almost 30 school.</p>

76

<p>xiggi,</p>

<p>that’s what happened when i slept 5 hours last night and 6 hours the night before. can’t read and think… :p</p>

77

<p>why do i get this strange feeling that usc will be ranked above ucla</p>

<p>absolutely no one in the real world will care</p>

78

<p>USC has the best film school… while UCLA is good in medicine. Hmm, which is better?</p>

79

<p>

</p>

<p>Try reading without geo-centric eye glasses and put on your critical thinking cap…(hint: I bolded the obvious answer for you)…</p>

80

<p>… if one can call it that…</p>

<p>USC definitely has higher SATs than UCLA and Cal.</p>

<p>But all this means is USC admits students differently than both UCLA and Cal. USC doesn’t have a floor from which it admits students, but UCLA and Cal do have floors.</p>

<p>Consequently, USC can “fish” for students from “lower ocean depths” than the two UC schools. So the applicant pool would be larger for USC wrt individual high schools if not necessarily wrt wealth. Wealth and admit-thresholds obviously run counter in this instance.</p>

<p>Since USC admits a large amount - 40-45% from private secondary schools? - the wealth factor is a contributing factor in students from these schools scoring higher on the boards because there’s a direct relationship to (high) scores and wealth since private school kids, generally, > wealth. </p>

<p>Add that a lot of students USC admits are middling (maybe wrong word) private school kids that need to take the test more than once to become marketable to a place like USC. Add taht USC super-scores the SAT, which would lead me to believe taht a lot of the kids in the applicant pool from private secondaries that apply to USC would have more false-markup of scores. (Kids that graduate upper-echelon would tend to more naturally score well on the boards … naturally.)</p>

<p>For instance, at a school like Harvard-Westlake, USC will admit, typically, > 40 students. I think a typical grad class there is ~ 290. Add that the first quintile, there would predominantly choose, Harvard, et al. So the question would be: where do the ~ 40 or so, rank? I would think not real highly, and even though a lot of these students would do well at UCLA and Cal, neither university can really consider a lot of them becuase of the pre-qual admit thresholds.</p>

<p>But since UCLA and Cal are state schools, would they rather admit some kids that are upper echelon from bad schools or cater to a top-tier middling private-school kid, with say, a 3.6-3.7 weighted and 2130? (If one graduates from high school with < 4.0 w/ capped weights, the chances of the student being accepted to UCLA or Cal would diminish markedly, and privates secondaries tend to have less weighted gpas.) </p>

<p>I don’t think size of student body has anything to do with 25% and 75% median scores according to UCBchem. If USC were smaller, with, say, 6K undergrads, it would be a factor. But USC has ~ 17K undergrads.</p>