Who's Anxiously Waiting The Us News And World Report Rankings!

College Search & Selection
161

<p>
[quote]
PA is the best measure we got. PA surveys are based on the catergories developed by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 2006.</p>

<p>Show me better data than catergories developed by the Carnegie Institute and I'll be damned. :-)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Phead, I do not know how else to pose this question, so here it is: </p>

<p>"How in the world do you possibly link the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the ... Peer Assessment of the U.S. News?"</p>

162

<p>


</p>

<p>I have a copy of USNWR on my lap right now. Maybe you should go read it once in a while. :)</p>

163

<p>


</p>

<p>And your recommendation that employers be surveyed because they have a "standard of judgement" is based on?????</p>

164

<p>


</p>

<p>Are the "standard of judgement" from individual posters of these boards are suppose to be *that much better *than those of **industry leaders **applying their knowledge on a field they have been working on for as long as we have been born?? <--- Answer: Of course not!!! ---></p>

<p>"Standard of judgement" of judgement does not exist here (on CC), and aren't we the ones criticizing the USNWR PA scores for its flaws on that issue? haha</p>

165

<p>
[quote]
I don't believe that the elite colleges are quite as blameless as you. There are some in academia who agree with the criticisms of the PA voting and have lobbied hard to change or eliminate it. Notably, few (none?) of those colleges who are making noise and threatening to take some type of action would be considered in the elite college category.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's hard to know the viewpoint of the top colleges. You don't know what the response rate on PA has been from those colleges. All campus recipients at those schools may have thrown the survey out each and every year. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The elite/research colleges are greatest beneficiaries of the perpetuation of the USNWR PA voting. Would you expect them to act in a manner that would damage their institutional interests? Neither would I.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Furthermore, why would they be so invested in PA? If you eliminated PA, wouldn't those most elite colleges still be on top? I know some people on CC have run the math on that, so this question is probably answerable (or answered). Given their student selectivity and resources, I think their ranking would largely be unchanged. Is that true, or not? Someone please correct my conjecture here if it's wrong. I know schools like Michigan would drop, but what about the elites you are referencing here?</p>

<p>What are you using to determine a school's complicity? Membership in the Annapolis group? There are other means that colleges use to try to change the things about USNews that they think are wrong. </p>

<p>But back to the issue of participation. I don't believe in transparent voting because it violates the tenets of social science opinion research, BUT I would love to have the response rate at each school available, i.e.How many of the three responded?</p>

166

<p>did the new rankings come out yet?</p>

167

<p>Not yet. They come out in the second half of August.</p>

168

<p>ahh, alright thanks.</p>

<p>So close, lol.</p>

169

<p>you guys should post in my prediction thread :)</p>

170

<p>xsn:</p>

<p>August 22</p>

171

<p>
[quote]
Furthermore, why would they be so invested in PA? If you eliminated PA, wouldn't those most elite colleges still be on top? I know some people on CC have run the math on that, so this question is probably answerable (or answered). Given their student selectivity and resources, I think their ranking would largely be unchanged. Is that true, or not? Someone please correct my conjecture here if it's wrong. I know schools like Michigan would drop, but what about the elites you are referencing here?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Without running the numbers, I believe that, except for the few public schools that are outliers in the relation PA/objective data, there would be few meaningful changes. There should more changes in the LAC side where the geographical and historical cronyism has remained more blatant. An elimination of the PA at the LAC level would see all-females schools move downwards and southerm/western schools rise in the rankings. This process is already on its way and the PA is simply delaying the inevitable result brought by the combination of lower student's selectivity, lower overall desirability, and growing financial difficulties of maintaining single sex schools.</p>

172

<p>
[quote]
should more changes in the LAC side where the geographical and historical cronyism has remained more blatant. An elimination of the PA at the LAC level would see all-females schools move downwards and southerm/western schools rise in the rankings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Besides the all-female schools, what are examples of LACs that are artifically being propped up by PA? I got the impression that a few midwestern and western schools like Grinnell, Oberlin and Reed got propped up by PA in comparison to how strong their selectivity was.</p>

173

<p>Smith ranked #17 overall, but tied for 6th on the PA. Pomona (7th overall), has a lower PA than Smith (but the .1 differential is statistically a tie?)</p>

<p>Oberlin ranked #20 overall, but tied for 9th on the PA.</p>

<p>Macalester ranked #26 overall, but tied for 13th on PA (just beating out CMC).</p>

<p>CMC (11th overall) & Colgate (17th overall) are both tied for 18th on PA.</p>

<p>Mt. Holyoke (28th overall), tied for 22nd on the PA...</p>

174

<p>If we went just on selectivity---the direction some anti-PA folks on CC seem to be headed---the top LACs would look like this:</p>

<p>Rank by selectivity/college/current US News rank/difference/[PA score]</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvey Mudd (15) +15 [4.1]</li>
<li>Williams (1) -1 [4.7]</li>
<li>Pomona (7) +4 [4.2]</li>
<li>Amherst (2) -2 [4.7]</li>
<li>Haverford (10) (+5) [4.1]</li>
<li>(tie) Swarthmore (3) -3 [4.6]</li>
<li>(tie) CMC (11) +5 [4.0]</li>
<li>Bowdoin 7 (-1) [4.3]</li>
<li>(tie) Wellesley (4) -5 [4.5]</li>
<li>(tie) Barnard (30) +21 [3.9]</li>
<li>(tie) Middlebury (5) -4 [4.2]</li>
<li>Washington & Lee (15) +3 [3.9]</li>
<li>Carleton (5) -8 [4.4]</li>
<li>Davidson (9) -5 [4.2]</li>
<li>(tie) Wesleyan (11) -4 [4.2]</li>
<li>(tie) Hamilton (17) +2 [3.7]</li>
<li>(tie) Vassar (11) -6 [4.1]</li>
<li>(tie) Oberlin (20) +3 [4.2]</li>
<li>(tie) Scripps (28) +11 [3.7]</li>
<li>Colgate (17) -3 [4.0]</li>
<li>Bucknell (30) +9 [3.8]</li>
<li>(tie) Colby (22) no change [4.0]</li>
<li>(tie) Macalester (26) +4 [4.1]</li>
<li>(tie) Grinnell (11) -13 [4.3]</li>
<li>(tie) Colorado College (26) +2 [3.8]</li>
<li>(tie) Bates (24) -2 [4.0]</li>
<li>(tie) Bard (37) +11 [3.4]</li>
<li>(tie) Lafayette (34) +6 [3.4]</li>
<li>(tie) Gettysburg (48) +20 [3.3]</li>
<li>(tie) Kenyon (32) +2 [3.8]</li>
<li>(tie) Reed (54) +24 [3.9]</li>
<li>(tie) Holy Cross (33) +3 [3.6]</li>
<li>(tie) Bryn Mawr (24) -9 [4.1]</li>
<li>(tie) Whitman (37) +4 [3.3]</li>
<li>(tie) Centre College (44) +11 [3.4]</li>
<li>(tie) Occidental (36) +3 [3.7]</li>
<li>Furman (37) no change [3.5]</li>
<li>US Naval Academy (20) -17 [4.0]</li>
<li>Wheaton (IL) (59) +22 [3.2]</li>
<li>Union (40) no change [3.3]</li>
<li>Trinity (34) -7 [3.6]</li>
<li>Franklin & Marshall (40) -1 [3.5]</li>
<li>Dickinson (44) -1 [3.4]</li>
<li>Rhodes (49) +6 [3.5]</li>
<li>Smith (17) -29 [4.3]</li>
<li>Denison (52) +6 [3.4]</li>
<li>Wheaton (MA) (56) +10 [3.3]</li>
<li>Illinois Wesleyan (59) +13 [3.1]</li>
<li>Wofford (59) +13 [2.9]</li>
</ol>

<p>Falling out of top 50:
52. (tie) Mount Holyoke (28) -24 [4.0]
52. (tie) University of Richmond (40) -12 [3.6]
55. Connecticut College (44) -11 [3.5]
57. (tie) US Military Academy (22) -35 [4.0]
57. (tie) Skidmore (47) -10 [3.4]
63. (tie) Pitzer (49 tie) -14 [3.5]
63. (tie) DePauw (49 tie) -14 [3.4]
77. Sewanee-University of the South (40) -37 [3.6]</p>

<p>Biggest gainers: Reed +24, Wheaton (IL) +22, Barnard +21, Gettyburg +20, Harvey Mudd +15, Illinois Wesleyan +13, Wofford +13, Scripps +11, Bard +11, Centre College +11, Wheaton (MA) +10, Bucknell +9</p>

<p>Biggest losers: Sewanee-University of the South -37, US Military Academy -35, Smith -29, Mount Holyoke -24, US Naval Academy -17, Pitzer -14, DePauw -14, Grinnell -13, University of Richmond -12, Connecticut College -11, Skidmore -10, Bryn Mawr -9, Carleton -8</p>

<p>Frankly I don't see much evidence that PA scores are responsible for a lot of "overrating" or "underrating" of schools by US News relative to their selectivity. Indeed, selectivity correlates quite strongly with PA rating. With only a couple of exceptions, the 25 most selective LACs all have PA ratings ranging from 3.9 to 4.7, with the higher scores generally clustered toward the top of that group. The next dozen or so in selectivity are generally in the 3.5-4.0 range in PA. And the next dozen after that are generally in the 3.1 to 3.7 range. </p>

<p>With a small handful of notable exceptions---Smith, Mount Holyoke, and Grinnell, which clearly are kept aloft in the current U.S. News rankings at least in part by high PA scores-- the schools that fall the farthest when measured strictly by selectivity tend to be schools with middling PA scores; they're kept up in the current US News rankings by financial factors which don't translate into selectivity or prestige among their academic peers. For example, Sewanee-University of the South, which ranks #40 among LACs in the current US News but an astonishing 37 places lower in selectivity, makes the top 50 mainly because it ranks a very strong 15th in "faculty resources." Pitzer barely cracks the top 50 (#49) largely on the strength of its "financial resources" which rank 31st among LACs, even though it's 63rd in selectivity and a so-so 3.5 in PA.</p>

<p>On the other side of the equation, many of the "biggest gainers" are schools that are not only highly selective but also have relatively high PA scores. Reed, for example, rockets from 54 on the current US News ranking to 30 measured strictly by selectivity. It's hurt in US News not by its 3.9 PA score (very strong), but by its low graduation rate (75%) and weakness in faculty resources (#74) and financial resources (#181). Wheaton (IL) may be held down a little by its 3.2 PA rating, but probably more so by its faculty resources (#167) and financial resources (#79) rankings. Barnard, as it turns out, is among the top 10 LACs in selectivity, but it's held down in US News not by its strong 3.9 PA rating but by faculty resources (#103) and financial resources (#75), which drag it down into the #30 spot. </p>

<p>Finally, nothwithstanding xiggi's blanket assertions about women's colleges, I'd note that while Smith and Mount Holyoke are indeed among the "biggest losers" if you take out PA and rank schools solely by selectivity, two other women's colleges, Barnard and Scripps, are among the "biggest gainers," and Wellesley and Barnard both rank among the 10 most selective LACs in the country.</p>

175

<p>
[quote]
Finally, nothwithstanding xiggi's blanket assertions about women's colleges, I'd note that while Smith and Mount Holyoke are indeed among the "biggest losers" if you take out PA and rank schools solely by selectivity, two other women's colleges, Barnard and Scripps, are among the "biggest gainers," and Wellesley and Barnard both rank among the 10 most selective LACs in the country.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>BK, perhaps you overlooked two key elements of my earlier post, namely</p>

<ol>
<li>Without running the numbers, I believe that, ..... </li>
<li>This process is already on its way ...</li>
</ol>

<p>Were you to check the changes in PA, selectivity, and overall scores over the past 5-6 years, you will notice a few subtle changes. In the 2004 Edition (which will be 5 years old this month) Wellesley obtained a 4.6 PA but was ranked 22 in selectivity and admitted close to 50% of its applicants (47%.) Smith College a 4.3 for a 27th rank in selectivity and a 50% admission rate. In the same edition, Barnard was ranked 68th in selectivity (which made no sense whatsoever.)</p>

<p>During the past years, a number of all-female schools have solidified their selectivity indexes and lowered acceptance rates; others have not. </p>

<p>Regarding the correlation between the PA and selectivity index, we have beaten that issue to death. It is OBVIOUS that there is a reasonable correlation as the schools with the better reputation tend to attract the most selective students. However, the correlation that results from placing 50 schools in a pool is one that responds to the laws of averaging. This does not explain nor justify the differences between outliers such as Harvey Mudd and, say, Smith. If we were to take all the 400 m times for the past 4 Olympics, it is obvious that the qualifying times would have a very high correlation. However, when ones sits in the stadium and sees a race that features Michael Johnson and the qualifier for Bhutan, it's doubtful that that person would confuse the two runners. </p>

<p>At the end of the day, there is only question to consider: is the ranking better WITH or WITHOUT the PA. While it might be a toss-up for the National Universities, there is no doubt that the current ranking for the LAC is DISTORTED by the inclusion of the current PA. No doubt possible!</p>

176

<p>^ OK, beating a dead horse already, but again, Harvey Mudd is not really hurt much in US News by its 4.1 PA rating which is well within the range for top-10 LACs (# 10 Haverford 4.1, #9 Davidson 4.2, #7 Pomona 4.2, #5 Middlebury 4.2). It's hurt by categories like faculty resources (#37), financial resources (#13), alumni giving rank (#35), and graduation rate (85%, 11 points under "predicted"). </p>

<p>I happen to think Harvey Mudd is an outstanding school, and I'd place it well within my top 10 LACs. I am, moreover, outraged by the "distorting" effect of such irrelevant stats as faculty resources, financial resources, alumni giving rate, and graduation rate as measured against "predicted," that effectively punish a school like Harvey Mudd that can field an outstanding faculty and attract extraordinary students, and do it on the cheap relative to other schools---that is to say, efficiently. Utter nonsense. Just utter nonsense.</p>

<p>As is the suggestion that PA is somehow more "distorting" than these other extraneous factors which have nothing to do with the quality of an educational institution, but that jointly comprise the bulk of the US News ranking.</p>

177

<p>BK, I do not disagree with your assessment that a 4.1 does not hurt Harvey Mudd "that much" ... but that question remains is why would HM have to hurt at all? Why did Pomona drop from 4.3 to 4.2 while Smith maintained its 4.3? Has anyone checked what has happened at both schools since 2001? Why Pomona went down to 4.2 and ... Grinnell went up 4.3? It seems that the more selective a school becomes, the worst it is ranked. Oh wait, that is EXACTLY what the expected graduation rate accomplishes! </p>

<p>Below is a simpler list ranked by the PA above 4.00. Washington and Lee University and Barnard are just below at 3.9.</p>

<p>4.7 1 Williams College (MA)
4.7 2 Amherst College (MA)
4.6 3 Swarthmore College (PA)
4.5 4 Wellesley College (MA)
4.4 5 Carleton College (MN)
4.3 7 Bowdoin College (ME)
4.3 11 Grinnell College (IA)
4.3 17 Smith College (MA)
4.2 5 Middlebury College (VT)
4.2 7 Pomona College (CA)
4.2 9 Davidson College (NC)
4.2 11 Wesleyan University (CT)
4.2 20 Oberlin College (OH)
4.1 10 Haverford College (PA)
4.1 11 Vassar College (NY)
4.1 15 Harvey Mudd College (CA)
4.1 24 Bryn Mawr College (PA)
4.1 26 Macalester College (MN)
4.0 11 Claremont McKenna College (CA)
4.0 17 Colgate University (NY)
4.0 20 United States Naval Academy (MD)
4.0 22 Colby College (ME)
4.0 22 United States Military Academy (NY)
4.0 24 Bates College (ME)
4.0 28 Mount Holyoke College (MA)</p>

<p>The list hardly requires an explanation, especially when viewed in tandem with your list.</p>

178

<p>Where are you getting your selectivity rankings from?</p>

179

<p>^^--^^</p>

<p>The U.S. News online version allows the reader to sort the ranking tables.</p>

180

<p>Ok, I see now. It's interesting though. I want to know how Williams and Amherst are "more selective" than West Point (back in the '60's was a consensus top 5 hardest school to get into). In my opinion, it is still the toughest LAC to get into (16% admit rate). Why is that ranked considerably lower than Williams or Swarthmore who have a 19% admit rate? You can argue that you're getting a higher SAT and GPA on average from those schools, but consider the business the military academies are in. People with 1400's and 1500's get rejected all of the time because they can't meet medical or physical requirements. You can argue that you're getting a better whole person at the service academies (like a scholar, athlete, leader, visionary) than you would at these other LAC's. How a lower admit rate and tougher admission requirements (like a fitness test, officer interview, and congressional nomination requirement) can translate into 37th in selectivity ranking where most people consider these schools to be in the top 20 toughest of ALL SCHOOLS to get in. I have a hard time wondering how my school and our evil brother on the banks of the Hudson are even considered LAC's.</p>

<p>On the other hand, USnews does a good job with other stats that are important. Graduation and retention is important because it reflects the dedication of the institution to foster the importance of every student. Tution and financial aid are important too, again I don't see how my school is not on that list either, that would certainly help our ranking. Peer assessment is important too, but everyone at my school gets a bachelor of science degree due to our core engineering curriculum, don't you think it's hard for other LAC's to be our "peers"? They'd have a hard time ranking us going to a thermodynamics class. I also have a hard time with "% of full time faculty". At my school, a good portion of the instructors are Military Officers with Ph'D's. They are constantly moving around because they are comissioned officers and have other duties to the military. I know it's not a perfect system, but I feel that the nature of my institution does not conform well to what USnews thinks is important. I think what other people think of your school is important, and ultimately, the undergraduate experiences you gain are the most important, and those are hard to quantify, even with all the numbers USnews gives you.</p>