<p>
Your authoritative source is another CC poster?
Go away.</p>
<p>I’m sorry, but JohnnyK doesn’t know what he’s talking about anymore than you do.</p>
<p>Penn and Duke didn’t actually “reduce” their class sizes. They manipulated them to make them seem smaller, although they’re really not.</p>
<p>Did you see this link?
[MIT</a> Rated 7th in Latest U.S. News Ranking](<a href=“http://web.mit.edu/fnl/volume/183/usnews.html]MIT”>MIT Rated 7th in Latest U.S. News Ranking)</p>
<p>Again, please read before you comment!</p>
<p>Okay, bye bye ■■■■■.</p>
<p>
well I applied to both THIS year and I’m VERY sure they don’t 
harvard as an optional additional essay, of which they do not encourage submission, and which does not have any prompt to follow. duke also has an optional essay (“why duke”) but again, optional. if you chose not to take either option, the supplement would be virtually nonexistent</p>
<p>
Perhaps you should read before you quote. Please post the relevant portion of this MIT article that supports your opinions.</p>
<p>Speaking of rankings and playing the game, does anyone have the college rankings for previous years?</p>
<p>“well I applied to both THIS year and I’m VERY sure they don’t
harvard as an optional additional essay, of which they do not encourage submission, and which does not have any prompt to follow. duke also has an optional essay (“why duke”) but again, optional. if you chose not to take either option, the supplement would be virtually nonexistent”</p>
<p>Even if they’re not REQUIRED, for you to say “…harvard doesnt have a supplement essay. neither does duke” is wrong. That’s like saying Penn doesn’t have a page 217 essay.</p>
<p>Edit: OK this is really getting off the topic, I’m not going to bother arguing about this point anymore</p>
<p>Until you can find proof that Penn, Duke, WashU, and USC don’t game the rankings, please stop attacking me for speaking the truth.</p>
<p>Cadillac, here’s what you were looking for:
[U.S</a>. News Rankings Through the Years](<a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/20070908142457/http://chronicle.com/stats/usnews/]U.S”>U.S. News Rankings Through the Years)</p>
<p>Notice that there is a big jump in 1989 for MIT/Caltech, when USNWR changed it’s ranking methodology.</p>
<p>
Uhhhhh, I think you have the whole burden-of-proof concept a bit backwards. Generally, it falls upon the person making the positive assertion (e.g., “Penn games the rankings”) to initially supply the proof, and not those questioning that otherwise unsupported allegation. </p>
<p>And “I read (or heard) it somewhere” doesn’t quite cut it. See what happens when you try that in your first college paper (wherever you end up going). :)</p>
<p>
I think she might be OK at her community college with that approach.</p>
<p>You on the other hand would completely fail. :D</p>
<p>At least I had some proof to back up what I was saying. You had none.</p>
<p>MyBlsflHrt - I think your original post is a bit misguided. If you look at the nature of the marketplace and the importance of the rankings, ALL schools can benefit from “gaming” the rankings, and, indeed, ALL schools do to the extent that is ethically palatable - from HYPS on down. Don’t think for a minute that Princeton or Harvard are not keenly aware of their status relative to their peers in this ranking. </p>
<p>The key issue is, however, that there is a significant difference between presenting an institution in the best light possible and blatantly lying. Schools can’t bluntly make up admissions stats or graduation rates, and I doubt that many schols blatantly lie in their reporting to us news. At the same time, they can work to do better in the categories that matter, and pad their numbers where possible. The schools you list as the main culprits, however, mainly just have the raw data they can manipulate the best. </p>
<p>I think in the late 90s or so, US News made a change in their methodology, and emphasized a school’s financial resources more. Around this time, UPenn, with an expansive and top-rate medical facility, could incorporate its medical budget and funding into its overall finances (which were already quite strong with a good endowment). What happened because of this? Penn vaulted from #13 to #7 in just one year. </p>
<p>Similarly, Wash U, which also benefits from a large endowment and a generously funded university-run medical system, began a process of aggressive student outreach in the mid-90s. As US news moved from a primarily survey-based reputation ranking system (one that emphasized peer assessment scores very heavily) to a ranking that emphasized other factors as selectivity, Wash U benefited from its admissions outreach by boasting a high number of applications and a very low (relative to its status) acceptance rate. So, following this program, the Wash U ranking rose from #17 or so to around #12 or so by the early 2000s.</p>
<p>Similarly, my own alma mater, the University of Chicago, began actively trying to present itself in the best light possible to US News, albeit a bit later than some of its peers. In 2005, following some “lackluster” rankings in US News, Chicago administrators met with US News officials to better understand how USN constructed the rankings. Chicago’s admins then realized that they could lower their “average class size” ratio by reporting more of the small, primarily graduate student-run discussion seminars that accompany many classes. What happened as a result of this? Chicago moved from #15 to #9 in the rankings in one year (2006-07), and has been ranked in the top 10 for 4 consecutive years now. </p>
<p>To build on this discussion on Chicago, the U of C was traditionally not a very selective college. As selectivity continues to matter in the USN ranking, what does Chicago do? They hired a new admissions whiz and created an initiative to get at least 15000-20000 applications within the next few years. What’s been the result of this? Early applications are up 50% this year, and Chicago’s overall accept rate should be around 18-19% this year. Presumably, Chicago will either maintain or rise in the rankings because it now pays more attention to the factors USN values. </p>
<p>For more info on US News rankings through the years, go here: [U.S</a>. News Rankings Through the Years](<a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/20070908142457/http://chronicle.com/stats/usnews/]U.S”>U.S. News Rankings Through the Years)</p>
<p>Fact of the matter is, all schools “game” the rankings by trying to present the institution in the most attractive way possible to USN. Different schools, however, can only manipulate the data so much, and are hamstrung by various weaknesses. For example, Brown and Johns Hopkins are great schools, but they both have relatively small endowments. So, for financial resources, they may fall behind their more wealthy peers, such as Penn or Columbia. </p>
<p>I don’t think it’s that Penn and Wash U game the rankings better than their peers, its just that they have certain raw resources (like financial resources) that some of their peers don’t have, and these resources impact the rankings more. Similarly, Chicago, with its high academic rep rank and strong financial base, can "game’ the rankings by creating more small class seminars to create a better avg class size number. All schools try to game the rankings as much as is ethically possible, the schools just differ on the types of raw resources (wealth, academic rep) they may have.</p>
<p>Dear god… you guys are VICIOUS. CCers can be kind of snarky at times, now can’t we? ^^
In my personal and possibly unsupported opinion, Wharton <em>is</em> acknowledged as one of the hardest schools to get into. I’ve heard it said that it’s as (or more) difficult to get into Wharton as HYPMS… therefore I conclude that without it, Penn would probably lose at least some of its prestige. Idk about rankings, since I don’t know the inside of the USNWR’s head.</p>
<p>Oh and sorry for double posting, but the whole “community college” snipe was totally unnecessary, whoever made that post. Just because you disagree with her arguments doesn’t mean you have to attack her and her future educational goals as a person! ^^ Can we please try to have some common courtesy?</p>
<p>Oh, and regarding what would happen if Penn lost Wharton, sure, Penn would probably lose a bit of its rank. Lots of schools have their most coveted jewels - be it a department or school or location or whatever, so if Penn lost Wharton, if Chicago lost its economics department, if Columbia wasn’t in NYC, sure, all these schools would lose some of their luster.</p>
<p>Different schools have varying key core strengths, and if they lose some of these strengths, then sure, they’d be weakened. This is kind of a tautology though.</p>
<p>
Posters sincerely attempting to contribute to a thread deserve courtesy. ■■■■■■ get what they give.</p>
<p>
There is a lot less publicity associated with the liberal arts rankings.</p>
<p>Wait, I thought the USNWR only looked at the main college in their rankings, hence the different sections for “UG business” ranking and “UG engineering” ranking…</p>
<p>@ aglages: Excuse me, but where do you get the rationale that this poster is a ■■■■■? How do you know that it’s not just someone’s opinion? …Believe it or not, there ARE people who don’t agree with you. Gasp.</p>