Worldwide University Rankings

Colleges and Universities A-Z Brown University
21

<p>Those rankings don't represent undergraduate schools.</p>

22

<br>


<br>

<p>One could make an argument that a larger alumni pool means more alumni connections and collective influence. </p>

<br>


<br>

<p>All of these criteria either have heteroskedacity, redundancy, and takes away focus from true academic excellence. A school should not be punished for having high academic standards of its students, and subsequently have people who flunk out. That is simply a matter of school policy, and that should be reflected in student choosing the type of policy they like, not having it already present in national rankings. Also, you have not addressed the flaws in the SAT median methodology that favors private schools over public schools.</p>

23

<p>Californian1600: "One could make an argument that a larger alumni pool means more alumni connections and collective influence. "</p>

<p>You are saying that the quality of a University should be measured by the amount of people that walk through its doors, like some kind of diploma factory. On face value, it is a ludicrous assertation. As a result, no ranking system uses it.</p>

<p>Californian1600: "All of these factors are highly skewed towards east coast private schools. And these numbers cater to the notion that "waiting times in counselor lines" are what is important. Matriculation yield means nothing, as you are probably aware that Columbia is famous for manipulating its yield rate. "</p>

<p>Matriculation and alumni giving have nothing to do with "waiting times in counselor lines". They are not even in the same universe. You are confused.</p>

<p>Alumni giving rate is skewed towards east coast schools? No. It is a weighted percentage and it is probably the one measure that is completely unbiased. It is also an extremely important measure for a private university because this is how private universities are sustained.</p>

<p>The only influence schools have on their matriculation rate numbers is the percentage they admit from early decision pools. However, because all elite Universities include ED or an option like it, the playing field is effectively level. There is no incentive to accept an arbitrarily high percentage of their entering class from the ED pool because it lowers the quality of their students. For everyone, ED is a gamble, and so I believe matriculation rate is also an important and fair indicator. And no, I am not aware of how Columbia "manipulates" their numbers.</p>

<p>Californian1600: "All of these criteria either have heteroskedacity, redundancy, and takes away focus from true academic excellence. A school should not be punished for having high academic standards of its students, and subsequently have people who flunk out. That is simply a matter of school policy, and that should be reflected in student choosing the type of policy they like, not having it already present in national rankings. Also, you have not addressed the flaws in the SAT median methodology that favors private schools over public schools."</p>

<p>Firstly, all normalizing statistical data has intrinsic "heteroskedacity", but outliers are assumed to assimilate into the mean. That is the whole point.
Secondly, rention rate does not measure people who flunk out, it measures people who electively finish. </p>

<p>Unbelievably, you have said one thing that I agree with. SAT median methodology is flawed. But this doesn't sustain your arguement because they show no favoratism towards east coast schools vs. west.</p>