<p>The PR in their latest published rankings of the "Toughest Schools to Get Into" had the following results: 1. MIT 2. Princeton 3. CalTech 4. Yale 5. Harvard. In response to the PR rankings Byerly stated the following:</p>
<p>"silly PR "rankings" (biggest party school, most tree-huggers, toughest to get into, best food, etc) based on tiny, non-scientific returns from survey forms handed out on street-corners at various campuses, on which respondents rate only <em>their own school</em> and don't (how could they anyway?) compare their school to any others."</p>
<p>The reality (from PR itself) is as follows:</p>
<p>"Admissions Selectivity Rating
This rating measures how competitive admissions are at the school. This rating is determined by several institutionally-reported factors, including: the class rank, average standardized test scores, and average high school GPA of entering freshmen; the percentage of students who hail from out-of-state; and the percentage of applicants accepted. By incorporating all these factors, our Admissions Selectivity Rating adjusts for "self-selecting" applicant pools. University of Chicago, for example, has a very high rating, even though it admits a surprisingly large proportion of its applicants. Chicago's applicant pool is self-selecting; that is, nearly all the school's applicants are exceptional students. This rating is given on a scale of 60-99. Please note that if a school has an Admissions Selectivity Rating of 60*, it means that the school did not report to us all of the statistics that go into the rating by our deadline. "</p>
<p>Byerly's reasoning is incorrect, but it does seem strange that Princeton Review from Princeton, NJ ranked Princeton above Yale when Yale's acceptance rate is lower and its SAT scores are higher. Then again, they are very close in both cases.</p>
<p>those rankings also don't take into account that all those schools are each looking for something different. MIT's goals are obviously different from Yale's, so how can you compare their selectivity?</p>
<p>I am sure the differences between HYP are subtle.
But the question is, what is Byerly's motive? why does he keep doing this despite being called out time after time?</p>
<p>becuz he's a lonely little man who spends his time spreading lies but yelling at people who accidently lie at the same time. I've never known anyone who got all their kicks from college hopefuls....its pathetic.</p>
<p>You misread thr PR explanation of their rankings. While they d o admit that 58 of their lists come from the silly surveys alone, they claim that the other 6 (includinh "hardest to get into" include "computations based on both stdent survey responses and statistical data provided by the colleges." What weight is given to the various factors is unexplained,</p>
<p>I suggest you look at list in the same category from last year, and the year before. The "top 10" would be almost totally different.</p>
<p>Mr. B, You're spinning again. Your language and their language seemed quite clear.<br>
The discussion had nothing to do with the "other surveys", only one - -"Toughest Schools to Get Into".</p>
<p>It looks like he "mistook" the methodology of other PR rankings and stated it was the methodology of the selectivity ranking. With Byerly's track record, he may have looked it up, knew the truth, and proceeded to falsely state the criteria anyway.</p>
<p>While this isn't as black and white as the other sitiation, he doesn't seem to be doing much to improve his reputation of dishonesty.</p>
<p>I have to say one thing about Byerly: I don't think that he <em>intentionally</em> misrepresented the numbers in that other thread nor the subject at hand in this thread. He does have a freakish fixation on numbers, however, and seems to believe that they totally define the admissions process. He also likes to argue incessantly with other people who don't live in his reality. </p>
<p>Perhaps if Byerly just admitted that he was wrong when he actually was wrong, there wouldn't be such a backlash against him. Just a suggestion.</p>
<p>But Byerly doesn't want to admit he's wrong. he probably doesn't even think he's wrong.</p>
<p>IMHO for every post where he's fiddled with the numbers, there are atleast three others where he actually gives useful and relevant info. And the bashing is getting as tedious as his own monomania about running down any school which is not H . Just my 2 cents :)</p>
<p>I don't think that he <em>intentionally</em> misrepresented the numbers in that other thread</p>
<p>Um, he literally copy-and-pasted the quote and then CHANGED the number to save face when I knew the statistics and he did not. How that isn't intentionally misrepresenting the number is beyond me. Byerly defenders simply haven't done their homework. The guy lies, and then runs away instead of being a man and facing the music. Not a good representative of his school, and unfortunately to a lot of people here, he and his dishonesty represent Harvard.</p>
<p>At least no one will ever believe any statistics he has from now on, unless they can see the source. He used to lie about "inside information" he was privy to, and high school kids like mensa160 would eat it up like he was a prophet.</p>