<p>Although I'm not zealous about the "college rankings," the three LAC's always seem to rank the top 3. What creates this unbreakable barrier between the Little 3 and other schools? Smarter kids? Better professors? Affluency? Name value?</p>
<p>A little bit of all of the above, along with various other factors. </p>
<p>And when somebody refers to "The Little Three," they're talking about Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan.</p>
<p>As a proud Carleton troll, I would say location in the northeast.</p>
<p>However, I did tour Williams and think their tutorial program sounds superb.</p>
<p>Smarter kids is not the issue here. Amherst has really good sports, for sure, as does Williams.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Smarter kids is not the issue here. Amherst has really good sports, for sure, as does Williams.
[/quote]
Williams and Amherst traditionally rank at or near the top in both academic and athletic rankings of LACs. But so does Middlebury, yet Midd is not generally regarded as one of the top three LACs (though it isn't far behind).</p>
<p>On other hand, Swarthmore is not known for athletics; it doesn't even have a football team. If Swarthmore is one of the top three LACs, athletics have nothing to do with its success.</p>
<p>This same question was posted at the Amherst forum, and I will repeat my answer from there:</p>
<p>
[quote]
In terms of college rankings, Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore stand apart from all of the other LACs in the country -- except two -- in terms of wealth, as measured by endowment per student. The only other LACs that are competitive by this measure are Pomona and Grinnell. However, these schools have the (perhaps unfair) disadvantage of being located outside the Northeastern US, where LACs enjoy the most public recognition and prestige. Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore have the advantage of both $$ and location.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
What creates this unbreakable barrier between the Little 3 and other schools?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The same two words that contribute to the relative futility of the rankings among highly selective schools: Peer Assessment. </p>
<p>There won't be any meaningful changes until the day the system that so obviously rewards geographical cronyism and questionable integrity is abandoned. </p>
<p>However, the real manipulation does not happen among the first three schools; it's between 4 and 20 where schools are artifically "propped" up or allowed to benefit from incomplete data and statistics as clear as Vermont syrup.</p>
<p>The whole US News ranking system is BS anyway.</p>
<p>There's no way to rank schools in a purely quantitative way without being biased (in that the quantitative measurements are biased themselves or the analysis thereof is biased).</p>
<p>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$</p>
<p>Huh? They're located in Northeastern US? What does that have to do with the ranking system?</p>
<p>^It's a known fact that USNews designed its survey to be a kind of bell curve around whichever school is at the top with its nearest contenders reflecting various degrees of affinity with the top college. The nearest contenders will tend to be in the same geographic area as the anchor college.</p>
<p>More likely, the deans of schools in the northeast give high peer assessment to northeastern schools, where most top universities and LAC are located.</p>
<p>
[quote]
More likely, the deans of schools in the northeast give high peer assessment to northeastern schools, where most top universities and LAC are located.
[/quote]
That's part of it. But another part is that top students in the northeast have a much higher "awareness" of LACs, and are more likely to apply to them, then top students in other parts of the country.</p>
<p>There are some great LACs in California, the Midwest, etc. But the top LACs are heavily concentrated in the northeast (for example, collegeconfidential lists 30 "top LACs", of which 18 are in PA, NY, or New England). High-performing students in the northeast are more likely to recognize top-rated LACs as an attractive alternative to top-rated universities, and are more likely to apply to LACs. And since there are so many top LACs in the northeast, they are less likely to consider LACs outside this region.</p>
<p>There are plenty of high-performing students in California, the Midwest, etc., but they are generally less familiar with LACs than their northeastern peers, and are less likely to give LACs serious consideration. In general, it's harder for the non-northeastern LACs to get the same quality in the applicant pool.</p>
<p>If you believe SAT scores are a fair surrogate for "high performing" students, then consider that 2 LACs in California are ranked higher than the "little 3". Seems like they have plenty of "quality" in their applicant pool.</p>
<p>Top 7 LACs ranked by 25th-75th% SAT scores (from USNWR 2008)</p>
<p>Harvey Mudd College (CA) 1420-1550
Pomona College (CA) 1370-1520
Amherst College (MA) 1330-1530
Carleton College (MN) 1330-1490
Swarthmore College (PA) 1320-1530
Williams College (MA) 1320-1520
Claremont McKenna College (CA) 1310-1490</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you believe SAT scores are a fair surrogate for "high performing" students, then consider that 2 LACs in California are ranked higher than the "little 3". Seems like they have plenty of "quality" in their applicant pool.
[/quote]
Yet obviously there must be more to it than SAT scores alone, because the same source that provides your SAT info -- USNWR 2008 -- rates AWS more highly.</p>
<p>For whatever reason, AWS do better than other LACs on the USNWR "Peer Assessment Score". I suspect that this, in part, reflects an (arguably unfair) "northeastern" bias: most of the top LACs are in the northeast, and they give more favorable ratings to the LACs that they are more familiar with, which also happen to be in the northeast.</p>
<p>And with Williams and Amherst (not Swarthmore), I suspect that there is another intangible (and perhaps unfair) factor: these schools have an enviable reputation for well-rounded students who excel at everything, including athletics as well as academics (in fact, this point was already made in Post #4 above). To show this, look at those same 7 LACs as ranked by [url=<a href="http://www.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/finald1standings%5DNACDA%5B/url">http://www.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_chools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/finald1standings]NACDA[/url</a>] last year among Division III athletic programs:</p>
<ol>
<li>Williams</li>
<li>Amherst
52.* Claremont McKenna (+ Harvey Mudd + Scripps)
57.* Pomona (+ Pitzer)</li>
<li>Swarthmore</li>
<li>Carleton</li>
</ol>
<p>*Mudd, Scripps, and Pitzer don't field their own teams; athletes from these schools play on the CMC and Pomona teams as shown</p>
<p>Williams and Amherst (like the Ivies) successfully promote the old-fashioned (but still cool) ideal of the "work-hard, play-hard" student-athlete, and it seems likely that this image contributes to their high peer assessment score. Yes, other LACs can match these schools in academic scores, but not when it comes to academics and athletics combined. </p>
<p>Harvey Mudd, for example, is a great (and underrated) school, and the students there undoubtedly have astronomical Math SAT scores. But they may not have the same reputation for being "well-rounded".</p>
<p>Idle speculation?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Idle speculation?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course. Obviously no one -- not me, not you, not even US News itself -- can say what goes on in the heads of the college administrators that are polled to generate the US News "Peer Assessment Score". Yet this factor -- fairly or not -- is given more weight (25 %) than any other single factor in the US News LAC rankings.</p>
<p>All we know is that Williams and Amherst have higher "Peer Assessment Scores" (tied at 4.7) than any other LACs in the current rankings. So what factors could possibly set these two schools apart from all the rest ?</p>
<p>It can't just be SAT scores, because other LACs have equally high SAT scores.</p>
<p>It can't just be wealth, because other LACs are equally affluent. </p>
<p>It can't just be location, because other LACs are located in the Northeast.</p>
<p>So what factors are left? Well, one respect in which Williams and Amherst clearly do stand out from the other top LACs discussed above is athletic performance. Maybe that has something to do with it -- fairly or not. </p>
<p>Is this speculative? Sure. Got any better ideas?</p>
<p>Corbett, you're absolutely correct that we can only speculate about what prompts the polled administrators to fill the Peer Assessment. In theory, we should rely on the integrity of the deans, provosts, or the technical staff to whom they delegate the boring job of filling a thick survey. In theory, we should not believe that they LIED when admitting that they use the survey to "punish their foes and help their friends." In theory, we should not believe that the small group of rebels that sprung up this summer considers the peer assessment as a source of blatant manipulation and will refuse to the reputational part. And last but not least, we should believe that the people polled DO have a current knowledge about schools they never visited or maybe heard of, except in last year's edition of the USNews. </p>
<p>As far as athletics, if the USNews wanted to make that a part of the survey, they would ... say so. At this stage, we know that it is NOT a part of the survey and that the PA is supposed to be confined to ACADEMIC excellence.</p>
<p>So, yes, in the end, we are all left to speculate about the validity of the peer assessment. This allows people who think it's pure garbage to discount or ignore it, and others who see how the peer assessment is helping their favorite schools clinging to undeserved rankings to continue to support it ... to its grave. </p>
<p>I have always believed that USNews would be better served by having two separate rankings, one with the subjective, manipulated, and fuzzy information and another one with objective and VERIFIABLE data that would be common to all schools. Schools that play games such as reporting all applications but not counting Winter admits, or reporting whimsical SAT scores should be eliminated, and lumped with schools such as SLC. </p>
<p>Will that ever happen? I don't think so. Controversy within an overall status quo sells</p>
<p>I am not endorsing the US News rankings in general, or the "Peer Assessment" score specifically. I am only offering speculation as to why Williams and Amherst have the highest Peer Assessment scores. </p>
<p>My guess is that some of the people who respond to the poll perceive athletics (perhaps unconsciously) as part of the overall LAC academic experience. After all, it's not unusual for LACs to require PE credits for graduation, and PE does stand for "Physical Education". If athletics are perceived in this light, then it might make sense to rate Williams and Amherst particularly highly. </p>
<p>This may or may not be the way the Peer Survey is supposed to work. It also seems possible that the Peer Survey could be used as a tool for political manipulation, but in this case there is no obvious reason (at least that I can see) why Williams and Amherst (and Swarthmore) would be the consistent beneficiaries.</p>
<p>Again, I am not defending the Peer Assessment survey, just trying to guess why it comes out the way it does.</p>
<p>Fair enough!</p>
<p>Or, to put it another way...</p>
<p>To some extent (maybe a very large extent), the USNWR Peer Assessment survey may be characterized as a "Popularity Contest".</p>
<p>It is my experience that star athletes tend to score highly in popularity contests. That's the way it worked in high school, anyway.</p>