Where Does the USNWR Ranking of LA Colleges Fit Into the USNWR Ranking of Res Unis?

[Phead128]

<p>Hawkette:</p>

<p>I would appreciate it if you calm down and take on step at a time.</p>

<p>1) You assert Hopkins does not report Peabody SAT scores. The CDS clearly states that only sections B and **J **are limited to Krieger/Whiting… </p>

<p>Section C however (The SAT score section) includes both Peabody and the rest of Hopkins together. </p>

<p>Plus, you notice that the burden of proof lies on YOUR side since you asserted this false claim.</p>

<p>I proved it to you. Sections C includes SAT scores for Peabody students. Only Section B and J is limited to Arts and Science and Engineering students. </p>

<p>That is far far far far farfetched to say that they limited the "vast majority" of the CDS to Arts and sciences and Engineering only.</p>

<p>Pls… stop. (the first link you provided is broken)</p>

[hawkette]

<p>phead,
I think you have it backwards. Go to the very top of the CDS link. There you will read the explanation that I quoted about which students are included in which sections. </p>

<p><a href=“Registrar - Homewood Schools (KSAS & WSE) | Office of the Registrar | Johns Hopkins University”>Registrar - Homewood Schools (KSAS & WSE) | Office of the Registrar | Johns Hopkins University;

[hawkette]

<p>dadofBG,
I think it’s partially different strokes for different folks in these LAC vs research universities “debates,” but I think it also goes to what the institution values and rewards. The LAC is unambiguously dedicated to undergraduates with a heavy emphasis on classroom instruction and student development. By contrast, the role of profs at the research unis are broader and frequently carry a responsibility to conduct research to further the institution’s interest (and the prof’s as well if he/she wants to get tenure). And sometimes this research responsibility dwarfs the teaching aspect of the job. </p>

<p>For the benefit of the student, my personal view is that the premier UNDERGRADUATE experiences provide a blend of these two atmospheres. I like best those institutions that are active in the research universe, but also have maintained a high and visible commitment to their undergraduate population. Size clearly impacts this (I think that the ideal sizes are 3000-10,000 undergrads) with obvious consequences on class sizes, faculty advising and general access, the use (or not) of teaching assistants, activity levels related to research projects, the opportunity to meaningfully interact with and learn from your peers, etc. </p>

<p>IMO, the 20 colleges that best provide this combination for undergraduate students are:</p>

<p>Princeton
Yale
Stanford
Duke
Dartmouth
Wash U
U Chicago
Northwestern
Brown
Rice
Emory
Vanderbilt
Notre Dame
Georgetown
U Virginia
Tufts
Wake Forest
U North Carolina
W&M
Boston College</p>

[Phead128]

<p>I understand that I may have misinterpreted “with the exception of section B and J” and how it relates the rest of the Hopkins student body.</p>

<p>I apologize. Still, the main objective here is to prove that Peabody students are represented in the SAT portion of the CDS report…</p>

<p>"[Hopkins] Freshman [SAT] Profile:

Provide percentages for **ALL enrolled, degree-seeking, full-time and part-time, first-time, first-year (freshman) students **enrolled in fall 2007, including students who began studies during summer, international students/nonresident aliens, and students admitted under special arrangements.</p>

<p>Percent submitting SAT scores 94%
Percent submitting ACT scores 26%
Number submitting SAT scores 1131
Number submitting ACT scores 319
25th Percentile 75th Percentile
SAT Critical Reading630 730
SAT Math 660 770
SAT Writing 630 730
SAT Essay ACT Composite 28 33
ACT Math 28 34
ACT English 27 31
ACT Writing C9</p>

<p>etc…" <a href=“Registrar - Homewood Schools (KSAS & WSE) | Office of the Registrar | Johns Hopkins University”>Registrar - Homewood Schools (KSAS & WSE) | Office of the Registrar | Johns Hopkins University;

<p>By the way, I have contacted the Office of Enrollment and Academic Services and Office of Institutional Research at Johns Hopkins who prepared the Common Data Set for more information on why Whiting and Krieger School of Arts and Sciences and Engineering are reported separate ways.</p>

<p>It may be due to the fact that while SAT reports are included for all students in the rest of Hopkins, Peabody students undergo a separate admissions process under a different admissions office and financial aid department. That is probably the reason why they are not included in the major sections of the report. I am still not 1000% sure though.</p>

<p>I will have to get back on you on t hat.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>Hawkette, Is that a list you like better than your athletic scene and top undergrad academics list you always mention?</p>

[hawkette]

<p>phead,
Given their exclusion from other parts of the CDS, I’d guess that the standardized test data for Peabody students is not included in the CDS. I read the same line as you and saw the “ALL” in Section C for the SAT/ACT scores so I am not sure. The Peabody students were not included earlier in the section for the applications data and I wonder if this thought just carried throughout the section. I’ll be curious to read what you come back with. </p>

<p>As for the relevance of the standardized test scores to the Peabody students, that is a different question. I was initially inclined to completely dismiss it, but upon reading bclintonk’s comments that Peabody students are active participants in other academic subjects and schools of JHU, that cast it in a different light. I’m not so sure now. But either way, I reiterate my wish that JHU (and any school) would clearly state what is and is not being reported. </p>

<p>Fwiw, I thought that the Peterson’s data was the best as it broke the Peabody students out and let the reader make his/her own judgment on the application of the data.</p>

[bclintonk]

<p>^ Phead128,
I think it’s pretty clear that these SAT 25th-75th percentiles are for Krieger & Whiting students only. Follow the numbers:
Percent submitting SAT scores = 94%
Number submitting SAT scores = 1131</p>

<p>From this, applying straightforward arithmetic, we can deduce that the N of “enrolled, degree seeking . . first-time (freshman) students” is approximately 1203. I say approximately, because 94% is a rounded-off percentage, so N is 1203 + or - a few] </p>

<p>Now go up to the top of section C, section C1 which is clearly labeled “Applications: Krieger School of Arts and Sciences and Whiting school of Engineering only.” There it shows the number of “full-time, first-time, first-year (freshman)” students who enrolled [in Krieger and Whiting] as 1206 (= 624 men + 582 women). If 94% (approximately) of the 1206 Kreiger and Whiting enrolled freshmen reported SAT scores, that would give you approximately the number of SAT scores actually reported down in section C9.</p>

<p>And that, of course, is consistent with what JHU’s CDS says at the outset—that all figures represent Krieger and Wihiting only, EXCEPT part of section B and section J.</p>

<p>My goodness, I’ve now agreed with hawkette twice in one day. Unprecedented. Time to get off CC before this becomes a trend.</p>

[hawkette]

<p>ucb,
My drivers in the list above were size and the various datapoints that I’ve encountered over the years about students and their undergraduate experiences at these colleges. It is tied solely to the academic life and it is strictly an opinion. </p>

<p>Vis-</p>

[gellino]

<p>

One of the reason retention rates are high at Amherst is that they do so much to keep failing students from leaving the school. If you are a student, that is a good thing. If you are concerned about the quality of the students graduating from the school, it is a bad thing because a student of lesser ability is receiving your diploma.

</p>

<p>So, Williams and Amherst are bringing in classes with better innate ability (as measured by SATs) than those at JHU and then the construct of having profs more focused on teaching at the former is resulting in Williams and Amherst graduating students of lesser ability than those at JHU? That doesn’t make any sense.</p>

<p>

IMO, the most appropriate and relevant course would be, wherever they have colleges with separate admissions, universities should just report them individually and not aggregate them. That’s what they used to do, in the college guide books in my day.

</p>

<p>This is fine when colleges have separate schools but how are you supposed to make comparisons between colleges when all majors at one colleges are applying to the same college where prospective music majors’ results are mixed in with prospective engineering and history majors vs other schools like Cornell or JHU that have several different schools within the college? </p>

<p>

Then there are the other incomparables. Seemingly the way to avoid reporting lower SAT scores is don’t require applicants who might have lower scores to submit them. Hence, the SAT optional LACs, Columbia’s undergrad College of General Studies. These places seem to all successfully get away with that, with no penalty.

</p>

<p>Yes, I completely agree. This concept of you have a low SAT and we’ll pretend we don’t know it, so our standing isn’t hurt is ridiculous. Let the applicants submit everything and the school to decide how much weight each piece of the puzzle should be on a case by case basis. It seems that some schools (i.e. Middlebury, Bowdoin, Hamilton, Bates, Holy Cross) are more concerned about appearences in reporting results than they actually are in trying to make the most accurate assessment of who should be in the class in the first place.</p>

<p>

I can assure you that Johns Hopkins does not game the USNews report and does not game the Common data set in order to bolster it’s image in any way shape or form.

</p>

<p>Whenever anyone starts off a statement with “I assure you” or “Trust me”, it means that they have no tangible evidence for what is to follow.</p>

[UCBChemEGrad]

<p>

So, Williams and Amherst are bringing in classes with better innate ability to score higher on a 3 hour exam than those at JHU

Corrected above.</p>

<p>I believe an adcom member of Amherst said in a PBS interview if we only admitted the highest scoring students, we’d end up with a very wealthy student body.</p>

<p>Edited to add his comments:

TOM PARKER: SAT scores are important if you are a person who has had a lot of opportunities in your life. For people who have had fewer opportunities, SAT’s are going to be less important for that person.

TOM PARKER: If you tie admission strictly to S.A.T. scores, you’re going to end up with a very wealthy student body.

<a href=“http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june04/merrow_6-22.html[/url]”>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/jan-june04/merrow_6-22.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[Phead128]

<p>Alright. Okay, I totally agree with you guys.</p>

<p>Now let’s get to the bottom of why JHU reports it data the way it does I’ve contacted the Office of Enrollment and Academic Services and the Office of Institutional Research at Hopkins. He is going to give me a call in the upcoming days. I’ll ask what is up.</p>

<p>Don’t worry guys. We’ll get to the bottom of this We are on the same side…</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>

So, Williams and Amherst are bringing in classes with better innate ability (as measured by SATs) than those at JHU and then the construct of having profs more focused on teaching at the former is resulting in Williams and Amherst graduating students of lesser ability than those at JHU? That doesn’t make any sense.

</p>

<p>It simply is not true that LAC professors are more focused on teaching if you mean the quality of teaching is somehow better at LACs. The quality of teaching is purely subjective. Many students will tell you their best teachers were the ones who gave them the highest grades. I agree that many LACs require their professors to teacher more hours per semester and universities require their professor to do more research. The number of hours taught per semester does not mean that the professor is a good professor. I would argue the best professors are the ones who are in the forefront of their fields as measured by their research and writings.</p>

<p>My point is that schools like JHU will more likely get rid of its deadwood while Amherst will more likely accommodate a poorly performing student who it mistakenly admitted in the first place.</p>

[monydad]

<p>“This is fine when colleges have separate schools but how are you supposed to make comparisons between colleges when all majors at one colleges are applying to the same college where prospective music majors’ results are mixed in prosective engineering and history majors vs other schools like Cornell or JHU that have several different schools within the college?”</p>

<p>If I understand you:
JHU Peabody is a conservatory, isn’t it, the kind of student who is looking to major in music as part of an Arts & Sciences program vs. in a conservatory usually will not have any trouble distinguishing.</p>

<p>The preponderance of majors at an LAC will closely mirror the majors at a university’s college of arts & sciences, typically, and of course with some variation. Most of them have history majors, and (non-conservatory) music majors mixed in. Only a small number of such colleges also have (usually small) engineering programs, and there some adjustments may be in order. But regardless of major these students are all accepted from the same, common applicant pool. This error, of some few incomparable majors though 99% are completely comparable, is humongously smaller than the error in lumping all of a university’s disparate colleges together, when you are really trying to compare odds of admission to its Arts & Sciences college alone. Because there you have whole colleges where every single major is not offered at any LAC or any college of arts &Sciences.</p>

<p>The goal should be to compare as closely apples to apples as possible, recognizing that we live in an imperfect world. And more importantly, for a particular applicant the goal is to get the data that has the most on-point relevance for his/her own personal situation. For admissions purposes the most on-point relevance for a particular applicant will involve the particular college being applied to, rather than other colleges that, while physically present, the applicant is not applying to.</p>

[arcadia]

<p>

Let the applicants submit everything and the school to decide how much weight each piece of the puzzle should be on a case by case basis. It seems that some schools (i.e. Middlebury, Bowdoin, Hamilton, Bates, Holy Cross) are more concerned about appearences in reporting results than they actually are in trying to make the most accurate assessment of who should be in the class in the first place.

</p>

<p>Or perhaps they don’t think that a single test that is proven to be biased toward the wealthy should be the main factor in assessing a student’s ability to succeed in college. Instead they feel that the essay, high school record, recommendations, and ECs, taken together, are a better judge of that.</p>

[cellardweller]

<p>Hawkette:</p>

<p>A glaring omission on your list is MIT. </p>

<p>Without question MIT is heavily dedicated to its undergraduate population which at 4,000 is smaller than any of the Ivy league schools. Most students who went to MIT as undergrad and grad students would agree that their experience as undergrad was far more memorable. From the notorious annual hacks, to the ceremonies around the design and giving out of the “brass rat”, most MIT traditions are specific to the undergrads. </p>

<p>MIT created the very first and the largest research program in the US specifically dedicated to undergraduates, the UROP program, where today 80% of the total undergraduate population participates annually. Every student is guaranteed a UROP and many participate every single year while at MIT. </p>

<p>MIT has by far the highest graduation rate of any engineering focused university, on par with the best liberal arts colleges and universities, in large part because of the extraordinary resources spent on undergraduates. MIT has been especially successful with URMs, often less well prepared for the intense math and science curriculum. There is simply no way to fall through the cracks. MIT will even assign a free tutor for students who fall behind. </p>

<p>Undergrads can choose between lecture style classes and small group teaching with as few as 5 or 6 students with a professor. There are no TAs teaching any classes. Most professors, even the most eminent, are required to teach undergrads and many enjoy it even more than teaching grad students. MIT also created new forms of teaching, eliminating traditional lectures halls for surround multi-media instruction in small teams.</p>

<p>While deliberately intense, the atmosphere is everything but competitive. Most work is done collaboratively in small groups. In addition, there are no weeding out classes, no grading on a curve, no ranking or latin honors, no caps on enrollment, no impacted majors, few prerequisites. This is all to reduce the stress associated with the educational experience. </p>

<p>As far as athletic involvement, MIT students participate in more varsity sports (35) and in greater numbers than most schools even though there is no athletic recruiting. All students are guaranteed housing all four years on campus. They pick their living residence and who they live with. There is a very active Greek life for those who want it and plenty of alternatives for those who don’t. With near gender parity there are plenty of parties and events. For a while, MIT was even ranked as one of the top 20 party school by Playboy magazine! </p>

<p>MIT may not be for everybody but it certainly caters to its undergrads.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>razorsharp - last I looked, JHU had a freshman retention rate of 95%, roughly comparable to an LAC. Where is the evidence of all this “deadwood” you keep talking about?</p>

<p>In post #52 razorsharp wrote:
“My point is that schools like JHU will more likely get rid of its deadwood while Amherst will more likely accommodate a poorly performing student who it mistakenly admitted in the first place.”</p>

[Tzar09]

<p>why are we focusing on JHU?</p>

[hawkette]

<p>Cellar,
Great post! I mean it. You showed passion, you had facts, you referenced items that are relevant to the average undergraduate. Sounds like you had a great undergraduate experience there and I’m happy for you. </p>

<p>As for my omission of MIT from my list above, it’s a function of the multiple places where I have seen folks review various colleges, eg, from USNWR Teaching Commitment survey to Sparknotes survey to NSSE data to Fiske comments to COFHE to Vault comments to various professorial review websites to commentary on CC and other websites to personal experience directly with the school and its graduates. </p>

<p>Given all of the above, my conclusion is that the other 20 schools do undergrad generally better than MIT. They deliver a pretty fine undergraduate academic experience and these colleges have a long history of this. </p>

<p>Perhaps you would review the same material and reach different conclusions. That is what happens with these types of subjective judgments. But when I see the same colleges mentioned time and again in a positive light for the quality of their undergraduate academic experience, then I tend to accept it….while also understanding that these are not universal truths and that many students can have exceptional experiences at other colleges as well.</p>

[johnwesley]

<p>tsar09 - the reason we keep going back to JHU is because it and Amherst seem to be the only places razorsharp has direct experience with.</p>

[razorsharp]

<p>You can substitute Cornell for JHU if that would make you feel better. The result is the same. Cornell produces much better students on average than AWS even though Cornell has a private/public college combination that reflects lower SAT for entering freshman.</p>