<p>I say the top ten will be this year's top 10, in no particular order. I predict I'll be 80-90% correct.</p>
<p>only the top 10 universities in america matter...duh....</p>
<p>Watch for Boston College's hugandous # of applications and the subsequent small acceptance % to vault them all the way past the Wake Forest juggernaut.</p>
<p>From post @ 15: Your condescension is ... premature? I asked in hopes of getting a specific date.</p>
<p>For years I suffered from premature condescension. But thanks to a great therapist, a loving wife, and some amazing salves I saw advertised in the back of comic books right next to the sea monkeys and the x-ray glasses, I have overcome my problem. Cheers!</p>
<p>I just want to see Princeton dethroned. ;)</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Agreed, not because of any hard feelings toward Princeton, but just because it'd be interesting. lol</p>
<p>Same--and perhaps a little because Princeton appeared to be the "weak" one among HYPS after eliminating ED this past year and having a yield of 58% or so. Apparently nearly half of those admitted didn't think Princeton was #1 for them.</p>
<p>Alexandre, do you see the same thing happening with UCLA, Berkeley and UVA? Or is it just Michigan?</p>
<p>ProudWolverine, all state schools are going to suffer over the short term. However, over the long term, they have great potential, particularly the elite state universities, like Cal, Michigan, UCLA, UCSD, UIUC, UNC, UT-Austin, UVa and Wisconsin.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It'd be interesting to see whether Michigan will continue to be listed among the top 25 universities..
[/quote]
Hmm..I thought it was? It should def be T20, easily, maybe even 15.
One of the most underrated colleges IMO.</p>
<p>Greens, the question wasn't whether or not Michigan has been ranked among the top 25 (it has always been ranked among the top 25) or whether or not Michigan desrves to be ranked among the top 25 (many people would agree that it belongs along the top 25). The question was whether or not Michigan would remain among the top 25 in this year's USNWR undergraduate ranking. I am not sure that it will. Michigan does very little to improve its position in the USNWR. Perhaps what it needs is in kick in its complacency!</p>
<p>Alex,
Since USNWR began doing its detailed rankings in 1991 that incorporate factors other than PA, U Michigan has never ranked higher than 21 and never lower than 25 where it has ranked for 7 of the past 10 years. However, I think that its ship may come in this year, at least vis-</p>
<p>I guess it is a good thing the USNWR no longer includes acceptance rate in the ranking. Whether Michigan is ranked ahead of and below UVa doesn't really matter. Both have been ranked between #21 and #25 forever. I don't think either is going to break into the top 20 anytime soon (not for the next 2-3 years anyway) and neither is going to drop much below 25. The way the USNWR formula works will permit very limited mobility to those types of institutions.</p>
<p>Actually, U Virginia has ranked in the teens on 3 occasions since 1991, but none since 1996.</p>
<p>As for the USNWR ranking methodology, I am assuming that they are retaining the 1.5% weight to Acceptance Rate. Have you heard differently? I think U Michigan's improvement in Top 10% scorers (worth 6%) will mathematically overwhelm the negative impact of its higher Acceptance Rate.</p>
<p>We'll see. It is always fun to see the little swings from year to year. On a side note, although the final numbers are not out yet, Michigan admitted roughly 42% this year (approximately 29,500 applicants and 12,500 admits).</p>
<p>butchokoy,
Let's take a close look at the USNWR ranking methodology and you tell us whether their methodology includes factors that are endemically hostile to publics or privates:</p>
<p>25% Peer Assessment (measures the schools reputation according to other academics)</p>
<p>20% Retention (two factors comprise this ranking)
6-year gradutation rate (80%)
Freshman retention rate (20%)</p>
<p>20% Faculty Resources (six factors comprise this score)
% of classes with fewer than 20 students (30%)
% of classes with more than 50 students (10%)
Faculty Salary (35%)
% of profs with highest degree in their fields (15%)
Student-faculty ratio (5%)
% of faculty that are full-time (5%)</p>
<p>15% Student Selectivity (three factors comprise this score)
SAT/ACT Test Scores of Enrolled Students (50%)
% of enrolled students who graduated HS in top 10% and top 25% (40%)
Total Admittance rate (10%)</p>
<p>10% Financial Resources (measures average spending per student at the school)</p>
<p>5% Graduation Rate Performance (measures diff in 6-yr graduation rate and the predicted rate)</p>
<p>5% Alumni Giving Rate</p>
<p>For those factors above, IMO the only one that seems to almost universally harm the publics is Alumni Giving (worth 5% of the ranking). </p>
<p>For selectivity, an argument can be made that, because the missions of publics and privates differ, the publics are not able to enroll as selective a student body. This selectivity ranking advantage for privates is somewhat eroded by the high weight given by USNWR to Top 10% scorers (6%). This relatively benefits the public colleges as does the low weight assigned to Acceptance Rate (1.5%). </p>
<p>A further major difference is perhaps caused by the great wealth of the top privates and the difficult funding environment facing many states and states colleges. As a result, the publics commonly suffer in comparisons that are related to money, eg, Financial Resources, class size measurements, other Faculty Resource factors, etc. </p>
<p>The area where the publics compete best is the subjective Peer Assessment scoring. Considered by many (including me) as a faulty, ill-defined measure of the undergraduate student academic experience, this factor (worth 25% of the ranking) does more than any other in the USNWR methodology to buoy the rankings of most public universities.</p>
<p>Since Peer Assessment is highly subjective and prone to bias, both favorable and disfavorable, it seems the rankings are prone to having "stuffed ballots". That makes them a tad bit like the Basketball and football rankings we see in the sports pages. Not always indicative of a quality program.</p>
<p>The rankings are also a bit like the nosy neighbors who attend all the neighborhood open houses with no intention of buying a house, or a car wreck goose necking....looking for all the casualties and how smashed up the car is. </p>
<p>They are a blunt instrument that arouses curiosity. Schools themselves are somewhat schizoid about it....they pretend not to show any interest in them, but are seemingly highly concious of them in their admissions policies. </p>
<p>But you might be surprised at the number of Rhodes, Truman, Fulbright scholars from so called second tier schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since Peer Assessment is highly subjective and prone to bias, both favorable and disfavorable, it seems the rankings are prone to having "stuffed ballots". That makes them a tad bit like the Basketball and football rankings we see in the sports pages. Not always indicative of a quality program.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Stuffed Ballots. Where are you getting this information from.</p>
<p>Michigan's hiring an additional 100 junior faculty over the next few years, which will make some change in the faculty/student ratio. That may also help, although not not a great deal.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I asked in hopes of getting a specific date.
Which is...August 22nd? That's the only date I saw on the google search.
[/quote]
US News just sent me a mail telling me that my 2008 subscription will expire on August 19, and that the "new and improved" edition will be available on August 22 ... meaning that the premium version will be available online on that date. However, last year someone reported that the magarzine was actually available in the bookstore a couple days ahead of schedule. So if you are really anxious...</p>