WSJ Feeder Ranking... is garbage

College Search & Selection
1

<ul>
<li>No adjustment for the strength of students applying</li>
<li>No adjustment for size of school</li>
<li>No adjustment for types of programs offered (e.g. no wonder Carnegie Mellon or Northwestern Music School graduates aren't getting MBAs...)</li>
<li>Extremely arbitrary and biased distinction of what constitutes "top schools" (Kellogg isn't on there? give me a break)</li>
<li>Data is only from the past YEAR</li>
</ul>

<p>it makes me cringe when i see this ranking cited as evidence to any kind of argument for one school vs. another</p>

2

<ul>
<li>Data is based on Facebook reports</li>
</ul>

3

<p>Still the best of its kind. </p>

<p>Btw, it is adjusted for size of school since its proportions. </p>

<p>I agree that it has an Ivy bias though.</p>

4

<p>The limitations you cite are correct.</p>

<p>I wouldn't say that means it's garbage. It's one data point, of limited utility for the reasons you cite.</p>

<p>It is interesting, to me, but clearly should not be treated as if it's findings constituted any statistically significant "ranking", were definitive, or were any more than what it is.</p>

<p>Even given the choice of graduate programs surveyed, I would imagine the year-to-year fluctuation among the colleges sending relatively few students to these particular schools is quite material.</p>

<p>I agree that given its limitations it provides quite weak evidence for many purposes it has been attempted to be used for; ie it has been lent more credence than its actual worth merits. Not every purpose though.</p>

5

<p>
[quote]
Btw, it is adjusted for size of school since its proportions.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>yes but, consider this:</p>

<p>stanford has ~6,500 students</p>

<p>Pomona has ~1,500</p>

<p>say, in all the grad schools used in the study, there are 2,500 places.</p>

<p>If 1/2 of Pomona applies, and 1/2 of Stanford applies, there is not enough room to accomodate all the Stanford students, and the graduate schools are going to want to have some kind of diversity, so some Pomona students will have to be accepted.</p>

<p>does that make sense? Larger schools have an inherent disadvantage in having a high percentage of their graduates in the surveyed programs since there are simply a limited amount of spots and they have many more students.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
It is interesting, to me, but clearly should not be treated as if it's findings constituted any statistically significant "ranking"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i agree, it is more useful as a measure of what schools have a high percentage of preprofessional students matriculating to some of the top programs than anything, i think it was irresponsible of the WSJ to publish it as a "ranking" but i guess that's what sells issues.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
- Data is based on Facebook reports

[/quote]
</p>

<p>haha (10 char)</p>

8

<p>Agreed. I've never seen a ranking with so many obvious holes.</p>

9

<p>Rankings are merely a guide. Numerous students throughout the US have gone to second and third tier schools and have gone to top tier graduate schools. Rankings merely give a picture of the elite schools where rankings keep the apps coming in.</p>

10

<p>It's the most ridiculous ranking I've ever seen.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
It's the most ridiculous ranking I've ever seen.

[/quote]

You, my friend, have clearly not seen very many rankings.</p>

12

<p>It's ridic that they don't include Penn Med as one of the top med schools.</p>

13

<p>Elsijfdl, I agree that the WSJ needs some serious tweaking, but it is not "garbage". I think the WSJ was on to something, but for some reason, it did not follow through or evolve. If the WSJ did the following, the feeder score would actually mean something:</p>

<p>1) Look at the top 10 or even top 15 programs rather than just the top 5. Too many amazing programs get left out when trying to limit the pool to just 5. Enlarging the pool to say 15 would definitely take care of any regional biases and include most deserving programs. You would not have a case where a top program such as Kellogg would be left out.</p>

<p>2) The WSJ should include matriculation statistics into top 10 or top 15 Graduate programs of Engineering, Health (Dentistry, Pharmacy, Nursing, Public Health, Social Work), Trational Disciplines (Annthropology, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Economics, Englsh, Geology, History, Philosophy, Political Science, Psychology and Sociology) and thr Arts (Music, Architecture, Performing Arts and Visual Arts). As you point out, some schools are more preprofessional than others. </p>

<p>3) It should include matriculants of from the last 4 or 5 years. One year is simply not enough, particularly in the case of tiny school with fewer than 500 undergrads per class.</p>

<p>4) Weight should be given to the quality of the programs. For example, placements into Yale Law, Harvard Medical, Wharton etc...should count more than placement into Georgetown Law, Baylor Medical or UCLA Anderson. </p>

<p>5) LACs and Universities should be ranked separately.</p>

<p>By and large, the WSJ Feeder rating is interesting, but unless it evolves, I agree that it should not be taken too seriously.</p>

14

<p>It's actually pretty interesting to see that Amherst, Swarthmore and Williams make the top 10 along with HYPSM, Duke and Dartmouth. This helps dispel any myth that LAC's (or MIT for that matter) aren't as good for pre-professional students.</p>

<p>I agree that it should be expanded to include more schools and disciplines.</p>

15

<p>"If 1/2 of Pomona applies, and 1/2 of Stanford applies, there is not enough room to accomodate all the Stanford students, and the graduate schools are going to want to have some kind of diversity, so some Pomona students will have to be accepted."</p>

<p>IMO interpretation of your statement: Yeah, you know, we need diversity, so we'll just admit a few Pomona students just to add color to the class, even though we know full well that Stanford students are way more qualified than these junkies.</p>

<p>Your point about the lack of adjustment to school size is well taken. </p>

<p>However, I hope you were not implying the somewhat condescending sentiments above.</p>

16

<p>The WSJ ranking says something unsurprising: If a college enrolls a large proportion of ambitious people who were outstanding students in high school, then a large proportion of them will end up wanting to go to top professional schools and will be admitted to such schools. </p>

<p>Since the choice of schools was debatable (I agree that omitting Penn med was an obvious fault) the exact ranking will be affected by hometown bias on the part of students. The ranking will also be volatile for smaller schools. </p>

<p>If you compare the WSJ ranking to the proportions of students at Harvard and Yale Law schools recently posted on CC, you will find that they are quite similar. </p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=377375%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=377375&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The top 10 at YLS were YHPS, Williams, Amherst, Columbia, Swarthmore, Dartmouth, Brown. Sound familiar? So the year to year variations are not that great, and I doubt anyone would question that HLS and YLS are among the top law schools.</p>

<p>It comes down to ability to attract top students to college. High SAT's IN means large proportion of students to top grad or professional schools OUT. (For Caltech, etc, those top students are more likely to go to grad than prof school).</p>

17

<p>Alexandre:</p>

<p>I'd suggest another modification to their "study": 6) State of residence during high school.</p>

18

<p>They also were very choosy about what they considered "top graduate programs" (omitting Stanford Law School, easily tied with Harvard for the #2 sought after destination for law students) </p>

<p>Also omitted Stanford MBA program (also top 3) WashU for Med, NYU law, Penn Med</p>

<p>There's a heavy bias against the west coast based on the schools that they chose.</p>

<p>They didn't consider graduate programs in engineering</p>

<p>Why?
Most of those working at WSJ are alums of HYP, and want to keep those schools on top.</p>

19

<p>Schools such Stanford, Duke, Dartmouth, and Brown did well even (top 15) though none had their professional schools included, while schools such as Chicago didn't rank highly even though 2/3 of its prof schools are in the top....so the survey selection still didn't help/hamper at least those schools</p>

20

<p>"The top 10 at YLS were YHPS, Williams, Amherst, Columbia, Swarthmore, Dartmouth, Brown."</p>

<p>Just for the record, the top 10 at YLS (total enrollment for all three class years in 2005-06): H, Y, S, P, Columbia, Dartmouth & UC Berkeley, Brown, Williams, U of Virginia.</p>