<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a reason they left Caltech off the chart. </p>
<p>The omitted NY Times chart entry for MIT v Caltech is: 65 percent Caltech, 35 percent MIT. The reality is that MIT has, for years, beaten Caltech 3-to-1 or more in cross admits, and perhaps more tellingly, gets most of the students to whom Caltech offers its largest scholarships. </p>
<p>Caltech came out at #2 nationally in the Revealed Preference rankings, which is patent nonsense for a desirability ranking. Caltech is objectively #1 in selectivity and overall strength of student body, but there is no way it is anywhere near the second-most desirable school in the USA. Had the NY Times published the figures with Caltech blowing away MIT, Princeton and the rest it would have made the chart look ridiculous. In suppressing that key item of information, they puffed up the chart into the seemingly authoritative sound bite that is perennially recycled on College Confidential.</p>
<p>(added: )
Further analysis of MIT v Caltech and related issues with the study in this earlier thread: </p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/376698-mit-reveals-data-discrediting-revealed-preferences-rankings.html?highlight=discrediting[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/harvard-university/376698-mit-reveals-data-discrediting-revealed-preferences-rankings.html?highlight=discrediting</a></p>
<p>The Revealed Preference study also found Yale beating MIT in the subsample of science and engineering students, which appears to deal a death blow to the credibility of the results. Maybe a larger sample or fine tuning of the method would have gotten better results, but without a publication of the data by the authors, their rankings are what they are.</p>