Click here to go to the NEW College Discussion Forum

As far as I know, the US NEWS rankings are the prestige rankings. Their ratings of a college are 25% based on the "academic reputation" of the school i.e. what some adcom thinks of the school in the middle of nowhere, USA. That ensures that the "most prestigious" schools are always at the top of the list. And lets not forget that the size of a schools endowment accounts for 20% of the schools rating. Anyone in their right mind will tell you that an endowment, though nice to have, does not in any way, shape, or form make a school good. And there you have it. 45%, or nearly half of a school's rating in the USNEWS & WORLD REPORT magazine is based on things that HAVE NO REAL IMPACT on how good a school really is.

Simply put, there is a reason why HYP are at the top of these lists: the ratings are skewed in their favors. They obviously have the biggest reputations in the world of academia, and they have plenty of rich alumni to pad their enormous endowments each year. Don't get me wrong: the Harvards and Yales and Princetons of the world are phenomenal schools, and I myself would attend one of them at the drop of a hat if given the opportunity. But the fact that they unfairly dominate the most infamous and widely-cited college rankings is why they have drawn my wrath in this column.

There are, in my opinion, at least a dozen schools that may (read: potentially, but not always) be better schools academically in any given year. And most of you will recognize these non-Ivy League schools: MIT, CalTech, Stanford, Duke, Northwestern, UChicago, Wash U-St Louis, Rice, Emory, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, Cal-Berkely, Virginia, and Carengie-Mellon, among others. But these other schools simply do not get their due in these rankings, which a large majority of the American public uses to "choose colleges" for students. Let's face it: the country's best and brightest immediately look to the guidance of the USNEWS rankings when choosing a school, and USNEWS guides them to the Ivys, especially HYP. But these students often miss out on the opportunity to go to BETTER SCHOOLS because they overlook a number written next to that school's name in a magazine somewhere.

Bottom line: Am I really that far off base to be so inclined against the USNEWS rankings?

By Massdad (Massdad) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 01:04 am: Edit

Any rating system that has such year to year variability, as the US News rankings do, must be suspect. As you pointed out, a big part of the rankings is based on subjective opinions, opinions subject to manipulation.

That said, the whole thing is a guide. The rankings can guide us to groups of schools with somewhat similar characteristics. Personally, I found the detail within the tables more meaningful than the rankings.

In order to actually make any ranking conclusions, we'd need much more data than they provide. For instance, is the difference between adjacent schools statistically meaningful? I doubt it. Between schools ten ranks apart? Don't know, but doubt it too. And that's the problem. Folks will conclude that #3 is better than #6, or #15, based on whatever criteria USNWR is using that year. Worse, those criteria may not even be relevant for any particular student.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 01:42 am: Edit

Moreover, better in some areas does not translate into others. And some areas where one school is "better" than another is unlikely to affect a particular undergrad's experience. I hate the PR rankings.

By Barrons (Barrons) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 09:21 am: Edit

If you think money does not matter you are totally wrong. Money made the top schools into the top schools. Give me $20 billion and I could build a top rated school in 10 years. See NYU and the recent rise of USC. The U of C was created almost overnight by JDR.
That said, I would worry much about whether a school is ranked 6 or 10 in any year. Tiers of 10-20 schools might be a better approach.

By Drusba (Drusba) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 09:58 am: Edit

The US News rankings are very important ... because people believe they are. Thus, it matters not whether they accurately reflect academic quality.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 10:40 am: Edit

I found the US News Rankings, both the print and web versions, to be extremely useful, not for their absolute rankings, but as a quick reference for key information. For example, the US News database is a handy reference for size of the undergrad enrollment, 75% percentile SATs, overall acceptance rates, etc. Basically, it provides a convenient one-stop source for the information from each college's Common Data Set. While it is possible to download the Common Data Set information from each school's website, it is helpful to have it in one place, especially the US News premimum website which can be sorted by any factor, for example, acceptance rates. This made it easy for my D to just forget about schools with acceptance rates below 20% as being a waste of the application fee and effort.

The danger is that many students (and parents) use the information in inappropriate ways. For example, picking a school because it's rank is two places higher than another school is silly.

By Mstee (Mstee) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 10:48 am: Edit

I've found the guides (U.S. News, Kaplan, etc.) useful, not so much in zeroing in on "the best school in America" but as a STARTING POINT in investigating schools, esp., in finding out about some lesser known schools that offer a great education plus a reasonable chance of admission, as well as finding out about schools that are strong in different areas. My son is not applying to Rice, but Rice is consistently touted as a great school at a great price. And Grinnell was featured prominently in one of the guides this year--Kaplan, I believe. The rankings can be useful, not in the sense that it matters so much whether a school is #1, #6 or even #17, but as a starting point to finding out more about schools, esp. those that one has not heard of that are ranked in the top 20 in the various categories, for instance, Rose-Hulman, Harvey Mudd --schools that get a "huh?" from most people when you mention them, because they've never heard of them. The lists are good for finding schools that have strengths in different areas which is more important to the individual than the overall ranking. While Harvard ranks near the top every year because it has so many strengths, anyone who takes the time to investigate will find that in a specific area, engineering, say, it may not be the best choice. Anytime a list is going to be made that ranks schools, there will be plenty of great ones that will rank "low" (not in the top 5 or 10) because we do have so many good schools in this country. For that, I am very thankful!

By Nitroxideracer (Nitroxideracer) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 01:12 pm: Edit

I totally agree with the notion that the USNWR rankings are a very handy reference guide for information about schools. And I also agree that a large endowment can be very beneficial to a university and it's students. But therein lies the problem: lots of money CAN be used to enhance a school, but it DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. The point here is that actually having money doesn't necessarily translate into suddenly being a great school. IMO, the size of a school's endowment shoudl not be used as a judging criterion for ranking schools.

As far as the rankings themselves go, what erks me the most is when bright college-bound students simply write-off a school because it's USNWR ranking is not high enough for them, and this does occur more often than you might be willing to admit. I know that there are plenty of far more open-minded students out there, but there are plenty of students who don't have that luxury. One good example of this kind of close-mindedness is a confidante of mine. This guy is a sophomore, and I know him through the science quiz bowl team, where I am the captain. He is enomously talented as a student and extremely ambitious. Needless to say, he would thrive in any kind of a competitive academic atmosphere and would thoroughly enjoy attending any one of the many great schools our country has to offer. But he already has his heart set on HYP, and has not even bothered looking at any other schools. When I mentioned that Northwestern is a school where I thought he woudl love to go, he merely remarked, "Sure...but they're eleventh (in the USNWR rankings)." In the end, I simply couldn't convince him that a schools rankign was merely an obligatory part of the school, and that a number woudl not make it better for him to go there, but he simply woudln't have any of it.

There are unbelievable numbers of students presently in high school who carry this kind of an attitude, and they don't all go to my school. I have found dozens of such students right here on this message board. I realize that part of the problem is a lack of maturity. But if those heinous rankigns weren't so widely-publicized, I would have less of an issue with those rankings.

By Aparent4 (Aparent4) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 01:51 pm: Edit

The rankings are like the GNP. It tells you something about what's going on in a country. It doesn't tell you much at all about some very important things, such as quality of life and cultural values. Unfortunately, our culture as a whole has a tendency to try to reduce all of life to measurable quantities, and colleges are no exception. I think it can be helpful to see some hard numbers. But it never tells the whole story.

By The_Slc_Bug (The_Slc_Bug) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 04:48 pm: Edit

I can't believe someone would scoff at a number 11 in the USNEWS rankings. Out of all the universities in the entire nation, Northwestern is ranked 11. That would no doubt put it in the top 1%. I mean, how many universities are there--it's in the low thousands, right? I guess, though, that if he were "only" number 11 in a class that large and ultra-competitive, HYP shouldn't accept HIM for that reason. Science bowl, huh? It's amazing how many people are brimming with one kind of intelligence and completely lacking in another.

By Curiousmom (Curiousmom) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 05:13 pm: Edit

How can you REALLY find out about the quality of life and cultural values of a college without going there, or being close to someone who does?

By Thedad (Thedad) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Exactly. The numbers may define a universe but the experience defines the choices. Actually visiting the colleges really put D's list through the mixmaster...Yale was added as a possiblity only three weeks before we left and Smith shot way up while Columbia went from #1 to off the list and NYU, which had climbed up, climbed right back down...all as a result of visits.

By Mike (Mike) on Saturday, January 03, 2004 - 08:58 pm: Edit

I found it like everthing else useful if you don't try to make too much of it. THe top tier schools I know are indeed better then those below but the difference between number 35 and number 50 is often in the eye of the beholder. Then in the LACS some well rated ones deserve to be in history or Poly Sci or biology but they may not be any good at all in Physical science. I particulaly lilke the secttion on their web that gives percent of need met. Good warning when yhou look. After all for many of us money is as important part of Reach match and saftey as SATs


Mike's Dad

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Monday, January 05, 2004 - 02:41 am: Edit

>> How can you REALLY find out about the quality of life and cultural values of a college without going there, or being close to someone who does?

Several of the guidebooks -- the ones that give a one page description of the school -- seemed to be pretty reliable, IMO. For the most part, these gave a good overview of what the school is like.

If you've visited a few different types of schools (small liberal arts college, mid-sized university, large state university) and a few different locations (rural self-contained campus, suburban self-contained campus, urban campus), you can have a pretty good idea of what life at a particular school would be like based purely on its size and location. For example, you know that the overall experience at UVa and UNC-Chapel Hill are going to be pretty similar, but very different from NYU or Boston University. You know that Williams and Middlebury are going to be very similar. Etc.

Once you've narrowed it down to a couple of schools, reading a few months worth of the campus newspaper can give you a lot of information. Most of these are available on line.

By Gadad (Gadad) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 05:06 pm: Edit

I've been a college administrator for 26 years, during which I've developed a pretty strong sense of what contributes to quality in the campus environment. IMO, the USNWR rankings, while not perfect, are a pretty good general index of the quality of the educational setting. They tinker a bit each year with the weighting formula, but the statistics they measure are generally pretty meaningful. As others have pointed out, it's inappropriate to get too distressed about the relative rankings of institutions a few spots apart, but a distinction between first tier and third tier is significant. Does that mean that your English professor at Yale is necessarily going to be better than the one at your local state college? Not at all. But it will probably indicate the the culture of the campus milieu at Yale is going to be considerably richer and more educationally purposeful.

By Perry (Perry) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 05:10 pm: Edit

Gadad --

As a college administrator, what do you consider the most important factors in the US News survey in evaluating the quality of a college or university? It would be interesting to hear your views on this matter.

By Marite (Marite) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 05:22 pm: Edit

Ditto from me.

By Eadad (Eadad) on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 06:25 pm: Edit

I agree with interesteddad, reading college newspapers online is a great way to cut through the viewbook p.r. and see what the real pulse of the student body is.

You can read letters to the editor to see if the paper is actually read and/or taken seriously by the student body and you can get a pretty good feel for the politics, activism and how liberal/conservative the place really is from the articles (seeing what they deem to be the "feature" article can be a good clue)and the editorial position.

I highly recommend reading papers from all the schools under consideration and making sure that your S/D do as well.

By Gadad (Gadad) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 12:21 pm: Edit

I think that the percentages of students who return after the first year and who graduate in six years tell a lot. When those numbers are high, it generally means that the student body is a select group, that they're attending a school to which they're very committed, and that they're doing what they need to do to succeed. As a student at such a place, you're entering with a cohort that will stay together and bond, creating a good learning environment outside the classroom.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 12:41 pm: Edit

While I detest the USNWR rankings, I do read the data. My D is very interested in Smith. I noted the 90 percent freshman retention rate, which is on the low side of the high group, if you follow.

My guess is that some students either decide the women's college thing isn't for them or that the presence of alternative lifestyles is heavier than they're comfortable with. Is this a reasonable interpretation? In contrast, Wellesley's freshman retention rate is at 95 percent...but Wellesley is also higher up the ladder, with more "prestige," etc. It's one thing to read the data, another to assign correct meanings.

By Anotherdad (Anotherdad) on Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 01:05 pm: Edit

I find the freshman retention rate and ultimate graduation rate quite revealing. Surprisingly few schools graduate 90 percent and there is a very high correlation with those that do and the oveall prestige rankings. Even an 80% rate can indicate a pretty dynamic school with an involved student body. Conversely, it really hurts to see so very many schools with low graduation rates -- the causes are might be many including an uninspiring program, or economic pressures on the kids to get jobs, but whatever the reason, it hurts to think of so many kids who came with high expectations ultimately end up leaving discouraged and often with debts.

By Gadad (Gadad) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 08:14 am: Edit

There can be other reasons for a low graduation rate, especially among state schools. In some states, the core curricula at all the public institutions are the same and the course numbering is identical so that transferring from one school to another is simplified. A graduation rate of 50% from State U. doesn't mean that only half their students are getting degrees, it just means that half are getting them from State U. I'd guess that TheDad is on target about schools with unique missions, like women's colleges, having lower graduation rates. Without looking it up, I'd imagine the non-academy military schools would have the same situation.

By Marite (Marite) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 08:24 am: Edit

Thedad:

When comparing Wellesley and Smith, it is worth keeping mind that Wellesley is suffifiently close to Boston and Cambridge to make its women--only character less of an issue than Smith or Mt Holyoke. In fact, Wellesley and MIT students combine to do some activities such as tutoring in Boston and Cambridge schools.

GAdad:

Many state schools have open admissions but are not able to offer the remedial classes that would enable weaker students to do well in college. More important than the graduation rate is the freshman retention rate.

By Coureur (Coureur) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 11:10 am: Edit

TheDad,

Is the difference between Smith's and Wellesley's drop out rate really significant? Both schools have about 2400-2500 students, which means freshman classes of ~600 or so. Thus a 95% retention vs. a 90% retention is a swing of only about 30 students. Seems like difference that small could happen pretty much by accident in any given year.

By Marite (Marite) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 11:18 am: Edit

Coureur:

I would agree if the data cover only one year. If it is a regular trend, one should look for explanations.

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 11:32 am: Edit

I do look at the graduation rates carefully. For some schools, particularly the larger and state schools, it is difficult to graduate in 4 years unless the student takes summer courses. Often that is because of the registration procedures that make it diffult to get the required courses needed to graduate. I know kids who had to split a year course into two years because they could not get into a course the following semester. My son (not at a large or state school) changed his major several times just to get into certain courses that had a triage system to determine who gets in (senior majors first, senior next, junior majors after that, etc.) If you have a child who is premed and it is important to time the courses in a certain way and to take the courses sequentially, or if your student is not "johney on the money" about registering early, sitting in front of a computer screen trying get into the queue or being persistant about getting into classes, you may want to take a hard look at those graduation rates.
The freshman retention rate can be for many different reasons. Kids who did not really want to go to that school to begin with may decide to try to transfer out. some schools end up being far more rigorous than expected, a love interest gone wrong, they hate something about the school like it is too secluded, too busy, the dorms stink, the kids are not what they like, etc. The kids in the top schools are not as likely to transfer out because there is this thing about moving down. That affects the freshman rates alot. I know kids who hated Brown, Yale, Hopkins, Cornell, etc, all top schools and they felt they just could not transfer, for where were they to go? Believe me , the dad of that Yale student really put on the pressure about sticking it out. When my friend's son decided to leave Bucknell for Pitt, (another I know left Lehigh for Pitt) though the parents were not pleased, they did not protest anywhere nearly as much. I know a young lady who took a year off from Duke, but the parents went through an awful lot to talk her into going back and giving it another try. And she really did not want to transfer into Local U and ended up feeling that the best thing to do was to stick it out at Duke. Kids transferred from Duquesne to Pitt all the time with their parents blessing--heck what's the big difference and there would be a material savings in tuition. But imagine the hullaballo that would occur if a kid did not want to go back to Harvard?
I, of course, have a personal interest in short graduation years with all these kids in line to go on to the next step. I was biting my nails about S in college because he will squeak through--it does look good in four years. My nephew took 3 years and 6 schools to get through freshman year, though once he did he took off and finished college and med school in the next 6. But for most of us that $45000+ tab is not one we want to pay for any extra year or semester.

By Aparent4 (Aparent4) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 11:46 am: Edit

It's hard to speculate about the meaning of graduation rates. Purchase College, for example, a SUNY school, has a notoriously low graduation rate, but the reason most often cited is that its many performing arts students are so talented that they often leave to get professional jobs. A huge percentage of Smithies do study abroad, and all students have the opportunity to do summer internships, subsidized by the college; maybe many get involved in interesting projects and take a little longer to graduate than the six years USNWR is measuring.

By Mike (Mike) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 11:56 am: Edit

The Drop out rate and the grad rate are the most important to me. When Mike was picking an instate public super safe (they will take and we can afford) we really liked one of the master's university. While Mike was most turned off by sad state of state buildings Mom and Dad were very concerned by the 35% of the students who don't return for the 2nd year. My Niece went to another state school with a 22% rate and told Mike it is very depressing to return after Christmas and find 15% of you dorm gone.

Granted these schools take new admits who are not very motivated marginal students, but they don't have the resources to provide support or even notice that thngs are going wrong. Even top students can face a crisis the first year.

Mike's Dad

By Jamimom (Jamimom) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 12:20 pm: Edit

More so than other Performing arts schools? There are ever so many in NY. There may be extenuating circumstances, but I do eye that graduation rate and freshman return rate, mulling over possibilities. Many of the performing arts programs I am familiar with encourage completion of the program before going off on tour or even auditioning for outside shows. Once a student finishes and jumps on that carousel there is plenty of time for all of that.

By Aparent4 (Aparent4) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 02:30 pm: Edit

The only schools I can think of in NY that are comparable to Purchase and offer conservatory programs are Juilliard and Tisch. Don't know much about Tisch, but I know Juilliard discourages students from a lot of outside involvement. Purchase students, by contrast, are interning at Broadway shows and auditioning all over the place. I guess it's a question of philosophy, and one could go either way. I was just giving Purchase as an example of a school whose retention rate does not necessarily reflect students' unhappiness there.

By Nitroxideracer (Nitroxideracer) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 07:03 pm: Edit

I realize that the USNWR are useful for information gathering, and to tell the difference between schools in different tiers. But the reason I am so upset about them is because they use an unfair formula to rank schools. Meanwhile, they are widely-cited and obviously very well known by students and parents, so that many students look at a school's ranking and go ga-ga over it or decide not to apply because the ranking is "too low." We must admit that this type of situation happens mroe often than you think, and it is problematic. That is where my angst lies.

By Marite (Marite) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 07:47 pm: Edit

I am not certain that all that many students decide not to apply to certain colleges because the ranking is too low. It seems characteristic of many posters on CC, but I'll bet that many students with less than stellar stats are happy to look for schools that seem reasonable matches for them among second or third-tier schools. They just do not show up in droves on CC. Students who apply to the most selective schools are after all a highly self-selected group to begin with.

By Mike (Mike) on Friday, January 09, 2004 - 10:13 pm: Edit

If students or their parents don't apply or apply becasue of schools rank that is not the fault of US News it is the fault of the students and parents who behave like sheep instead of smart shoppers. US News provides amply warnings and their fomat, at lest on the internet make it easy to compare the qualities the reader wants to compare like percent of students who graduate or any one of many others. It would be silly to deprive people using the information sensibly because there bad consumers out there.

Mike's Dad

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 01:03 pm: Edit

The selectivity rankings, along with the underlying data (75% SAT scores, acceptance rates, etc.) were extremely valuable in my opinion. This information made it much easier to compile an appropriate list of reach, match, and "safety" schools. Balancing acceptance rates versus 75th percentile stats is the best way I've found to honestly make numeric "what are my chances?" judgements. If a student is comforatably in the top 25% of the applicant pool and the school accepts 40%+ of the applicants, the odds are more favorable (especially with an attractive application). Conversely, if the applicant is only 50th percentile and the school accepts 20% of the applicants, then there better be something pretty "interesting" about the application.

Personally, I found several surprises in the data. For example, my impression was that Davidson was a tough school to get into, but I didn't expect it to be in the top 10 LACs in selectivity. Conversely, I was surprised by several very good schools that had relatively modest selectivity rankings (Vanderbilt). And, staring my D in the face throughout the whole selection process was Swarthmore's #1 LAC selectivity rank -- a splash of cold water that kept her well focused on the reality of finding a wide range of schools to get excited about instead of getting tunnel vision about one school that could only be viewed as a crapshoot.

Seems to me that building a realistic, data-driven list of colleges is vital to the mental health of seniors and their parents! I also think that the list should be a bell-curve: with one or two reaches, one or two stone cold lock safeties, and the bulk of the list being schools where the applicant has at least a 50/50 shot of admission even with an average application. It's this middle ground where I believe families should devote most of the attention during the visit/selection phase because excitement about several schools in this range takes a lot of the fear out of the process. I don't know how you do this without the data.

I spent quite a bit of time sorting the on-line US News data, not by overall ranking, but by selectivity rank and acceptance rates.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Interesteddad,

I could not agree with your approach more. If more people approached admissions as you did, actually looking at the data, I think there would be fewer disappointments.

By Thedad (Thedad) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 02:17 pm: Edit

A data-driven list of colleges.... Exactly.

I see so many lists that seem to be made by picking well-known names out of the air.

D went a little heavy on the reaches but I'm satisfied with her profile: three Reaches, one Match-Plus, one Match, one Match-Minus, and one Safety. I think she gets into a minimum of three, worst case two.

By Calmom (Calmom) on Saturday, January 10, 2004 - 10:32 pm: Edit

Interesteddad - be careful about the "selectivity" ratings - you need to compare those with the percentage of applicants admitted. US News looks at the SAT scores and class ranking of typical admits as part of its formulation of "selectivity" - but many extremely selective schools look beyond scores and rank to other criteria.

I agree with you that the data was very useful in assessing probability of getting in, but I think it made more sense to focus on the percentages and get more detailed information about what each college is looking for in applicants.

By Massdad (Massdad) on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 11:38 am: Edit

Calmom, get more information? Easy in theory, hard in practice.

By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 12:04 pm: Edit

I recall looking at the USNews list one time. I never got into the ranking of the schools as some might. But when choosing schools, my daughter definitely used data like acceptance rates and SAT ranges and so forth. Alot of that data is available from each school or in those thick college directory books. The US News report does provide alot of that data in one place as well. However, some posts I read (not this thread) seem to choose schools as to how high they are rated compared to one another. Name seems to be big for some students or families. Like someone posted recently that Yale had so many EA apps this year cause they were rated number one for ...was it undergraduate education...I am not even sure! But I did not even take notice of that. My child chose that school cause of it meeting her criteria in matching her interests. I had no idea it would end up more popular than ever this year or that the early admit rate would not be like in years past whatsoever. Anyway, it is very important to look at data on a school to evaluate if it is a reach, match or safety! When my daughter made her first preliminary lists out of those big college guide books, she made a chart at the get go of some reaches, matches and safeties with data on each.

Susan

By Kluge (Kluge) on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 02:18 pm: Edit

Interesteddad - that's pretty much how KS1 and I went about picking the schools he'd apply to. Our job was made much simpler because we're in California, and various practical constraints made the (fortunately still excellent) state schools pretty much the "universe" we had to deal with. UC has a great set of admission stats for each campus (as of 2002) which tell what percentage of applicants were accepted not just as a total but also broken down by gpa (in .3 point increments), SAT1 verbal, SAT1 Math, SAT2 writing, and SAT2 Math scores (in 100 point increments.) Here's the link:

www.ucop.edu/pathways/infoctr/introuc/select.html#campusselect

While nothing guarantees acceptance at any particular campus, and admissions are tightening up every year, it makes it pretty easy for California residents to see what the chances are, whether it be 50-50, 80-20, or 20-80!

By Marite (Marite) on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 02:39 pm: Edit

Kluge:

Is it correct that the UC system, like many large university systems, relies more on stats than the highly selective universities and LACs that pore over ECs and essays more closely? If so, it makes the admission stats a more useful guide to gauging an applicant's chances than the stats posted for selective and smaller private colleges and universities.

By Soozievt (Soozievt) on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 02:42 pm: Edit

I agree with Marite. At highly selective schools, you have to look at the stats data so that you are applying to colleges that are within your range. But once you do, everyone applying fits the stats profile more or less. You need that to be in the pool of considered candidates. However, that does not get you in. You really cannot gauge your chances based on stats at those schools. You need the stats to get to the gate. You need more to get in the gate.
Susan

By Kluge (Kluge) on Sunday, January 11, 2004 - 06:48 pm: Edit

That's hard to answer. Each UC campus has its own policies and priorities. Berkeley in particular uses what they call "comprehensive review" to pick a varied student body, which has recently ticked a lot of people off - mostly opportunistic politicians and people related to 1500+ SAT applicants who got rejected, while "less qualified" students were admitted. I'd expect the less prestigious UC campuses to be more liberal in their acceptance policies towards applicants who fit their more basic grade and test criteria. What I mean (and I don't know if this is significant beyond my own thought process) is that if you apply to three or four universities, each of which tends to accept 50% of the students with your quantifiable benchmarks, chances are pretty good that at least one of them will like the mix of EC's, grades, tests, essays, etc. that you bring to the table. And chances are that at least one of them won't. If you're determined to get into college "A", your job is harder, since you have to try to figure out just which buttons to push for that school. If you're more open to various options, you can apply to several that match your basics and let them solve at least part of your decision making problem.

By Interesteddad (Interesteddad) on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 03:29 am: Edit

>> Interesteddad - be careful about the "selectivity" ratings - you need to compare those with the percentage of applicants admitted.

I think you have to look at (and think about) both: the "stats" and the acceptance rate. There are schools that are rather atypical. For example, the University of Chicago has very high "stats" but a very high acceptance rate. If you just looked at the acceptance rate, you would erroneously conclude that it is easy to get into. In reality, I suspect it just enjoys an unusual degree of self-selection in the applicant pool.

One key element in an accurate appraisal is to use the 75th percentile SAT scores. In the lists I helped my daughter put together, we only wrote down the 75th percentile "stats". Why? Because those are the real stats a non-minority, non-athlete applicant will likely need to get accepted. As it turns out, my D did not have 75th percentile stats for the school she will be attending. She was slightly above 75th percentile on her MATH SAT, but only 25th percentile on her VERBAL.

It was one of only two schools on her list where she didn't have 75th percentile SATs.

By Pghdad (Pghdad) on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 06:17 am: Edit

The USNews rankings use the word "best" and try to make it appear as if "best for everyone". Talk about a subjective word. They define their methods for rankings but whether it would be the way you or I would measure a school is meaningless. Schools lobby USNews and cite favorable mentions prominently in websites and viewbooks. It's a big money-maker for USNews, and isn't that the driving force?

The top 50 nationals are always so, maybe jostling around a bit in position with the Ivies at the top. And so the pecking order is established and everyone ooos and aaaahs when they see the latest edition.

Are the rankings valid? Only if you choose to believe them. Personally, I'd love to see a ranking measured by the following:

1) most well-adjusted graduates
2) graduates who feel they were treated as people
3) happiness in quality of career options and preparation
4) friendships formed and maintained
5) course relevance to career path.

I'm sure there are lots more but you get the picture. Sometimes the rankings in USN can be statistically skewed to reflect what the schools or editorial board want to show. I'd be more interested in surveys of what graduates over a 10 yr. period had to say.

Lost in the rankings is the whole idea of college as a life experience. It's leaving home, maybe for the first time. It's about meeting new people from all walks of life and maybe your future spouse. It's about finding yourself and learning who you are, away from parental guidance. How you grow emotionally, intellectually and maybe spiritually is very much a part of college. It's where we learn as much about life and love as we do facts and figures. Somehow the humanistic side of the equation is the most difficult to fathom but in many ways that equally important information that is noticable by it absence.

The rankings go to great length to try and quantify the institution by a numerical set of parameters but says nothing about the metamorphasis each student goes through while there. What are the ratings for stress? psychological disorders? drug/alcohol abuse? Is crime reflected in the stats?

There are many ways to evaluate schools beyond those used by USNews. If someone was looking for a research project in Sociology it might be the kind of thing that could be very useful.

By Flaves (Flaves) on Monday, May 03, 2004 - 11:33 pm: Edit

Actually, UCLA has a higher SAT score than Berkeley (by 10 points). And now, USC is higher than either of them -- a stunning development that confirms that Sample has really turned the tide.