1999 Laissez-Faire Ranking

[newengland]

A NEW RANKING OF AMERICAN COLLEGES ON LAISSEZ-FAIRE PRINCIPLES, 1998-99

"It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances."
--Oscar Wilde

CONTENTS
Introduction
Key to the college profiles
Description
Cost for the 1998-99 year
Chief competitors for applicants
Number of applicants
Percent accepted
Percent yield
25th-75th percentile test scores
Percent in top tenth of high school class
Percent from out of state
Percent of freshmen returning as sophomores
U.S. News selectivity rank
The 92 ranked colleges
A further 118 colleges arranged by test scores
Colleges for which percentile test scores are unavailable
Appendix
ACT-SAT conversion
The 49 colleges with toughest acceptance rates
The 49 colleges with highest sum of 25th and 75th percentile scores
The 42 colleges with best freshman retention
The 47 most expensive colleges

INTRODUCTION
The animus of this second annual Laissez-Faire ranking is once again
dissatisfaction with the latest edition of U.S. News's America's Best
Colleges.
The current journalistic cliché is that there are "several" college
rankings published in this country, but as a practical matter there is only
one. Colleges of every sort, prestigious and obscure, have acknowledge U.S.
News's primacy and responded with various Five Year Plans, secret and
publicized, which adopt its statistical desiderata as their own. They could
hardly do otherwise. Americans now regard the U.S. News rankings as
definitive and unobjectionable, and it is only a small number of rankings
"buffs" who continue a forlorn hope resistance.
Thirteen months ago in this newsgroup I predicted that a competitor to
U.S. News would one day emerge. . We can only hope that it will not use the
U.S. News template -- a hodgepodge of numbers weighted arbitrarily. No
hodgepodge can overcome the objection that another, different, hodgepodge
might be superior. A little more arithmetical weight here, a little less
there and, presto, a different ranking emerges. The problem with the U.S.
News model is that it is susceptible to a limitless number of improvements.
What is wanted instead is a unitary gauge of college quality -- I have
called it a unified field theory -- which dispenses with arithmetical
formulae entirely. The thesis advanced here is that the unified field theory
is to be found in the principle of laissez-faire.
By laissez-faire, I mean the process that emerges each autumn when a
million American households scrutinize 2200 four-year colleges. The result
is a pecking order by market value, with Harvard at the top and the degree
mills at the bottom. It is an exercise of collective judgment on so large a
scale that its margin of error approaches zero.
A college is, historically and etymologically, a community of thinkers,
and the best colleges are the brightest communities. The principle of
laissez-faire recognizes that the brightest applicants identify the
brightest college communities and, by their matriculation, confirm received
opinion. And I will here oppose the argument made by a prolific contributor
to this newsgroup: Whether or not College X and College Y "improve" their
students in equal degree matters little if College X is composed of original
thinkers and College Y pedestrian thinkers. To argue that colleges are more
or less the same irrespective of who inhabits them is to throw the baby out
with the bathwater.

To the objection, made once or twice in this newsgroup, that my
rankings include statistics and perpetuate the scientism of U.S. News, let
me repeat that, in its upper reaches, my ordering is subjective and
opinionated -- the statistical stuff deductive, not inductive. Below about
sixtieth my confidence flags and I resort increasingly to the numbers. But I
was influenced also by school profiles in the Fiske Guide, in Barron's Guide
to the Most Competitive Colleges, in the Yale Daily News's Insider's Guide,
at school Web sites, and in many accidental sources. Wherever something
looked significant of selectivity it influenced me. And I must add that, in
email and in posts to this newsgroup, no one has as yet gainsaid my claim
that the pecking order set out in Laissez-Faire is more accurate than that
of U.S. News.
This year's list is about half as long as last year's. The number of
ranked colleges has shrunk from 153 to 92, and the database of "selective or
interesting" colleges from 321 to 118. The smaller number of ranked colleges
is tacit acknowledgement of the good sense of U.S. News's tier system. Below
a certain rank, discrimination is pointless. It is just about possible to
state that Dartmouth and Amherst are level at seventh. But intuition fails
and arbitrariness is exposed as we move much below eightieth, and to say
that Furman is level with Worcester Poly at 106th is like saying the state
of South Carolina is level with Massachusetts.
Persons familiar with last year's ordering of schools (and an idle
person that would be) will find very little change in this year's ordering.
This is a reactionary project, and one of the things it is reacting against
is the planned obsolescence of U.S. News's annual ordering. I am confident
that I got it nearly right a year ago.
Finally, this is a ranking of undergraduate schools, not graduate
schools. This newsgroup is meant primarily as a help to seventeen-year-olds,
not BAs. One contributor to soc.college.admissions habitually confounds
graduate and undergraduate education, and tediously boosts Cornell against
the smaller Ivy League schools and liberal arts colleges. His proper venue
is alt.fan.alma-mater.

My aim has been to make the list inclusive for colleges that are
selective to an appreciable degree, but I have eked it out with the addition
of schools whose middling SAT rankings belie the quality of their student
body or the interest of their academic focus. These schools fall into five
categories:
1. Leading public universities.
2. The more selective historically black colleges.
3. The more selective art and music colleges, several of which do not
require test scores.
4. Schools with an admirable mission, such as College of the Ozarks.
5. Respected innovative schools that may be indifferent to standardized
tests, such as Prescott College.
To anticipate a question, Deep Springs College, with an enrollment of
25 men and a middle-half SAT verbal range of 720-780, was excluded because
it is a two-year school.
The categorization of schools as either university or liberal arts
college (by which device U.S. News splits the competition and doubles the
flattery) has been abandoned here. In justification I would point to the
applicant pool competitors of Swarthmore, Howard, Pomona, Lehigh, Holy
Cross, and a hundred other category-splitters.

KEY TO THE COLLEGE PROFILES

Each profile comprises the following:

DESCRIPTION
Included are date of foundation, whether public or private, whether
single-sex, whether specialty school, whether church-affiliated. Foundation
dates are sometimes fictional, having reference to predecessor academies,
seminaries, and the like. Religious affiliation may be close, distant, or
merely traditional.

COST FOR THE 1998-99 YEAR
This is the sum of tuition, room and board. For public colleges, both
in-state and out-of-state costs are given. Very roughly, and with obvious
exceptions such as Berea, Cooper Union, and Rice, this is an indicator of
market position for private colleges. Regional differences in cost of living
exert a strong influence, with schools in the Northeast costing more than
comparable ones elsewhere. A safe statement is that schools take care not to
price themselves out of competition. The best-chronicled example in recent
years is Bennington, no longer the perennial Most Expensive. (See "The 47
most expensive colleges" in the Appendix.)

CHIEF COMPETITORS FOR APPLICANTS
The colleges with which it most often shares applicants are listed. My
source is the Fiske Guide to the Colleges 1999, edited by Edward B. Fiske,
the best comprehensive guide in the bookstores. Fiske's caveat on this
information reads in part: "Overlapping does not necessarily work both ways.
College A might list College B as an overlap, but College B's biggest
competitors might be Colleges X, Y, and Z. This is especially true in the
case of institutions that are considered 'safety' schools…"
Put differently, a college does not elevate itself by listing higher
ranked schools. Rather, it is elevated by higher-ranked schools listing it.
The schools that list Harvard are many. The schools that Harvard lists are
few.
A complementary source to Fiske ought to have been the Princeton
Review's Best 311 Colleges 1999, which provides sidebars showing how each
college divides the applicant pool with its competitors. Unfortunately,
there has been little improvement in this gimmicky publication from last
year's edition, and the sidebar lists are no less suspect. Princeton Review
relies on student surveys and puts its faith in student candor, with
predictable results. The many contradictory cross-references and downright
improbabilities in the sidebar lists suggest either that the survey samples
were too small or that some students took revenge on schools that had
rejected them.

NUMBER OF APPLICANTS
Figures here and for the next five categories are for the class of
2001, the latest figures available to books edited in 1998. Every number was
cross-checked against several college guide books and web sites, with U.S.
News's America's Best Colleges 1999 emerging as the most accurate source.

PERCENT ACCEPTED
Lower is better. A low number requires a relatively large number of
applicants and the certainty of a good yield. For schools with a national
appeal, a simple ranking by this criterion wouldn't be far off the actual
pecking order. The exceptions are schools with small self-selective
applicant groups, such as Chicago, Grinnell, Reed, and St. John's (Md.),
which needed to accept 62, 69, 70, and 85 percent respectively to fill their
freshman class. On the other hand, schools with a narrower appeal -- service
academies, music schools, design institutes, schools with strong church
affiliation -- are often skewed favorably. (See "The 49 colleges with
toughest acceptance rates" in the Appendix.)

PERCENT YIELD
Higher is better. This is the percentage of people accepted by a
college who enroll. Some parochial places get a wonderful yield, and some
very good schools that cast a wider net get a bad yield. Reed loses nearly
four-fifths of the people it accepts. Johns Hopkins loses nearly
three-quarters. For schools with a national appeal, a yield near 50 percent
is excellent. MIT gets 55 percent. Harvard's 76 percent is the clearest
proof of its preeminence.
Yield is a less manipulable statistic than acceptance rate. For the
class of 2001, Washington University (Mo.) saw a jump in applicants from
11276 to 13792, and a marked improvement in its acceptance rate, from 51% to
40%. Had Washington grown more selective? Not really. Its yield dropped from
an already low 23% to 22%. It was spurned by nearly four-fifths of the
people it accepted.

25th-75th PERCENTILE TEST SCORES
Higher is better. ACT composite scores are substituted where a majority
of applicants submitted them. Despite the doubts about standardized test,
they weigh heavily with admissions departments (see, e.g., Michele
Hernandez, A Is For Admission). The individual test-taker may feel cheated
by his SAT result, but it's fair to say that hundreds of scores considered
en bloc give a good picture of the student body. (See "The 49 colleges with
highest sum of 25th and 75th percentile SAT verbal scores " in the
Appendix.)

PERCENT IN TOP TENTH OF HIGH SCHOOL CLASS
Higher is better. U.S. News weights this statistic heavily, but it is
only included here reluctantly and was eschewed in last year's Laissez-Faire
rankings. The statistic is more or less significant according to the
peculiarities of a school's location and, for public schools,
responsibilities under a charter. The University of California at Santa Cruz
beats Harvard in the category, but the 25th-75th percentile SAT verbal
scores at Santa Cruz were 510-640, compared to 700-790 at Harvard.
Similarly, two schools in the Middle West, Carleton and Case Western
Reserve, are exact equals in the category, but Carleton is much more
selective, as the wide difference in test scores and other markers
indicates.

PERCENT FROM OUT OF STATE
Higher is better. With allowances made for the size of the state, this
is an occasionally useful indicator. California and Texas are vast and
populous states, but it's still interesting to learn that Stanford, and Rice
draw only about half their undergraduates from out of state (Caltech draws
69 percent, Cal Arts 65 percent). Any assessment of UCLA's selectivity must
begin with the fact that its primary responsibility is educating
Californians. Only 4 percent of its undergraduates come from out of state.
For the Universities of Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Michigan the
out-of-state percentages are 44, 34, 33, and 28 respectively.

PERCENT OF FRESHMEN RETURNING AS SOPHOMORES
Higher is better. A so-to-speak retrospective assessment of the
students that a school attracts. This figure indicates, to a lesser extent,
the students' satisfaction with their choice of college and, to a greater
extent, the college-worthiness of the students a school attracts. Less good
colleges attract, and lose, people who perhaps shouldn't be in college at
all.
There are some surprises lurking in this statistic. The
"self-selective" freshman class of St. John's (Maryland) is reduced by a
fifth after the first year. Well-regarded Cornell College (Iowa) loses more
than a quarter of its freshmen and Antioch loses nearly a third. With the
exception of Rhode Island School of Design (whose selectivity approaches
that of the better liberal arts colleges), the art schools suffer a
predictable and forgivable attrition. Artists, after all, are permitted to
flee the academy. (See "The 42 colleges with best freshman retention" in the
Appendix.)

U.S. NEWS SELECTIVITY RANK
The figure is taken from America's Best Colleges 1999 and is provided
for purposes of contrast only. U.S. News's anomalies are owing mainly to its
overemphasis of high school class rank. Last year in this space, attention
was drawn to the magazine's arithmetical errors that resulted in the
over-ranking of, e.g., Emory and Washington and Lee. The editors no doubt
heard from these schools' "inferiors," among them Williams and Pomona, and
this year U.S. News has demoted the two Southerners.

THE 92 RANKED COLLEGES

Schools sharing a rank are listed alphabetically.

FIRST
Harvard and Radcliffe Colleges. 1636, private, $31132; shares
applicants most often with Princeton, Yale, Stanford, MIT, Brown; 16597
applied, 13% accepted, 76% yield, middle half scored 700-790 SAT verbal, 90%
in top tenth of class, 84% not from Massachusetts, 96% of freshmen return;
U.S. News selectivity rank 1st among national universities.

SECOND
Princeton University. 1746, private, $30531; shares applicants most
often with Harvard, Yale, Stanford, MIT; 13399 applied, 13% accepted, 66%
yield, middle half scored 670-760 SAT verbal, 93% in top tenth of class, 84%
not from New Jersey, 98% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 2nd
among national universities.
Stanford University. 1885, private, $29879; shares applicants most
often with Harvard, Princeton, Yale, California--Berkeley, MIT; 16842
applied, 15% accepted, 63% yield, middle half scored 670-770 SAT verbal, 87%
in top tenth of class, 53% not from California, 97% of freshmen return; U.S.
News selectivity rank 5th among national universities.
Yale University. 1701, private, $30830; shares applicants most often
with Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Brown, Pennsylvania; 12046 applied, 18%
accepted, 61% yield, middle half scored 670-770 SAT verbal, 95% in top tenth
of class, 92% not from Connecticut, 98% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 2nd among national universities.

FIFTH
California Institute of Technology. 1891, private, $25047; shares
applicants most often with MIT, California--Berkeley, UCLA, Stanford,
Harvard; 2389 applied, 23% accepted, 40% yield, middle half scored 680-770
SAT verbal, 99% in top tenth of class, 69% not from California, 92% of
freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 4th among national universities.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1861, private, $30800; shares
applicants most often with Harvard, Stanford, Cornell Univ., Princeton,
Caltech; 7836 applied, 25% accepted, 55% yield, middle half scored 660-760
SAT verbal, 93% in top tenth of class, 89% not from Massachusetts, 97% of
freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 5th among national universities.

SEVENTH
Amherst College. 1821, private, $30432; shares applicants most often
with Harvard, Brown, Yale, Stanford, Princeton, Dartmouth; 5210 applied, 20%
accepted, 42% yield, middle half scored 660-750 SAT verbal, 85% in top tenth
of class, 89% not from Massachusetts, 96% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 1st among national liberal arts colleges.
Brown University. 1764, private, $31060; shares applicants most often
with Yale, Harvard, Cornell Univ., Pennsylvania, Stanford; 14900 applied,
18% accepted, 53% yield, middle half scored 640-740 SAT verbal, 88% in top
tenth of class, 96% not from Rhode Island, 96% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 7th among national universities.
Columbia University--Columbia College. 1754, private, $31466; shares
applicants most often with Harvard, Yale, Brown, Stanford, Pennsylvania;
11192 applied, 17% accepted, 50% yield, middle half scored 640-740 SAT
verbal, 85% in top tenth of class, 75% not from New York, 96% of freshmen
return; U.S. News selectivity rank 9th among national universities.
Dartmouth College. 1769, private, $30822; shares applicants most often
with Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Brown; 10647, applied, 22%
accepted, 48% yield, middle half scored 660-760 SAT verbal, 88% in top tenth
of class, 97% not from New Hampshire, 96% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 7th among national universities.
Swarthmore College. 1864, private, $30740; shares applicants most often
with Brown, Harvard, Princeton, Amherst, Yale; 4270 applied, 23% accepted,
38% yield, middle half scored 670-770 SAT verbal, 88% in top tenth of class,
87% not from Pennsylvania, 95% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity
rank 1st among national liberal arts colleges.
Williams College. 1793, private, $30500; shares applicants most often
with Harvard, Dartmouth, Yale, Brown, Amherst; 4537 applied, 26% accepted,
47% yield, middle half scored 650-760 SAT verbal, 81% in top tenth of class,
84% not from Massachusetts, 96% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity
rank 3rd among national liberal arts colleges.

THIRTEENTH
Duke University. 1838, private, United Methodist, $30082; shares
applicants most often with Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Stanford, Brown; 13362
applied, 30% accepted, 40% yield, middle half scored 640-730 SAT verbal, 87%
in top tenth of class, 88% not from North Carolina, 97% of freshmen return;
U.S. News selectivity rank 13th among national universities.
University of Pennsylvania. 1740, private, $30984; shares applicants
most often with Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Cornell Univ., Brown; 15464
applied, 31% accepted, 49% yield, middle half scored 620-720 SAT verbal, 88%
in top tenth of class, 82% not from Pennsylvania, 95% of freshmen return;
U.S. News selectivity rank 11th among national universities.

FIFTEENTH
Cornell University. 1865, private, $30423; shares applicants most often
with Pennsylvania, Princeton, Harvard, Brown, Yale; 19854 applied, 34%
accepted, 45% yield, middle half scored 610-710 SAT verbal, 82% in top tenth
of class, 57% not from New York, 95% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 16th among national universities.
Middlebury College. 1800, private, $30475; shares applicants most often
with Dartmouth, Williams, Bowdoin, Brown, Princeton; 4741 applied, 31%
accepted, 39% yield, middle half scored 670-730 SAT verbal, 66% in top tenth
of class, 95% not from Vermont, 95% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 9th among national liberal arts colleges.
Pomona College. 1887, private, $29870; shares applicants most often
with Stanford, California--Berkeley, Harvard, UCLA, Brown; 3892 applied, 31%
accepted, 32% yield, middle half scored 670-750 SAT verbal, 79% in top tenth
of class, 60% not from California, 97% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 4th among national liberal arts colleges.
Rice University. 1891, private, $20531; shares applicants most often
with Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Duke; 6375 applied, 27% accepted,
40% yield, middle half scored 650-760 SAT verbal, 88% in top tenth of class,
50% not from Texas, 95% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 10th
among national universities.
University of Chicago. 1891, private, $30910; shares applicants most
often with Harvard, Cornell Univ., Stanford, Northwestern, Columbia Univ.;
5361 applied, 62% accepted, 30% yield, middle half scored 620-730 SAT
verbal, 76% in top tenth of class, 79% not from Illinois, 93% of freshmen
return; U.S. News selectivity rank 23rd among national universities.

TWENTIETH
Georgetown University. 1789, private, Roman Catholic, $30862; shares
applicants most often with Pennsylvania, Boston College, Harvard, Duke,
Virginia; 13712 applied, 21% accepted, 48% yield, middle half scored 610-730
SAT verbal, 82% in top tenth of class, 98% not from D.C., 95% of freshmen
return; U.S. News selectivity rank 13th among national universities.
Haverford College. 1833, private, Quaker, $30230; shares applicants
most often with Swarthmore, Brown, Amherst, Wesleyan (Conn.), Pennsylvania;
2769 applied, 34% accepted, 32% yield, middle half scored 640-720 SAT
verbal, 80% in top tenth of class, 81% not from Pennsylvania, 94% of
freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 5th among national liberal arts
colleges.
Wellesley College. 1870, private women's college, $29520; shares
applicants most often with Harvard, Brown, Smith, Boston Univ., Tufts; 3174
applied, 44% accepted, 43% yield, middle half scored 630-720 SAT verbal, 76%
in top tenth of class, 82% not from Massachusetts, 95% of freshmen return;
U.S. News selectivity rank 9th among national liberal arts colleges.

TWENTY-THIRD
Bowdoin College. 1794, private, $30180; shares applicants most often
with Dartmouth, Williams, Brown, Middlebury, Amherst; 3974 applied, 34%
accepted, 35% yield, middle half scored 620-710 SAT verbal (test scores not
required) , 77% in top tenth of class, 86% not from Maine, 94% of freshmen
return; U.S. News selectivity rank 8th among national liberal arts colleges.
Carleton College. 1866, private, $27195; shares applicants most often
with Williams, Macalester, Brown, Amherst, Northwestern; 3102 applied, 51%
accepted, 31% yield, middle half scored 630-730 SAT verbal, 66% in top tenth
of class, 75% not from Minnesota, 94% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 14th among national liberal arts colleges.
Johns Hopkins University. 1876, private, $30355; shares applicants most
often with Cornell Univ., Pennsylvania, Brown, Harvard, Stanford; 8453
applied, 41% accepted, 27% yield, middle half scored 620-720 SAT verbal, 76%
in top tenth of class, 88% not from Maryland, 95% of freshmen return; U.S.
News selectivity rank 21st among national universities.
Juilliard School. 1905, private, performing arts college, $22500; 1522
applied, 8% accepted, 69% yield, percentile test scores N/A (test scores not
required), percent in top tenth of class N/A, 85% not from New York, 91% of
freshmen return.
Northwestern University (Ill.). 1851, private, $26990; shares
applicants most often with Michigan--Ann Arbor, Illinois, Washington Univ.,
Duke, Cornell Univ.; 16673 applied, 29% accepted, 39% yield, middle half
scored 620-720 SAT verbal, 87% in top tenth of class, 75% not from Illinois,
96% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 13th among national
universities.
Wesleyan University (Conn.). 1831, private, $30430; shares applicants
most often with Brown, Harvard, Yale, Williams, Amherst; 5853 applied, 33%
accepted, 36% yield, middle half scored 620-720 SAT verbal, 69% in top tenth
of class, 91% not from Connecticut, 92% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 12th among national liberal arts colleges.

TWENTY-NINTH
Bryn Mawr College. 1885, private women's college, Quaker, $30360;
shares applicants most often with Wellesley, Smith, Swarthmore, Haverford,
Brown; 1620 applied, 58% accepted, 37% yield, middle half scored 610-730 SAT
verbal, 55% in top tenth of class, 85% not from Pennsylvania, 87% of
freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 26th among national liberal arts
colleges.
Curtis Institute of Music. 1824, private music college, $0; number
applied N/A, 6% accepted, percent yield N/A, percentile test scores N/A,
percent in top tenth of class N/A, percent not from Pennsylvania N/A, 99% of
freshmen return.
Grinnell College. 1846, private, $23860; shares applicants most often
with Carleton, Macalester, Oberlin, Wesleyan, Swarthmore; 2035 applied, 69%
accepted, 30% yield, middle half scored 630-740 SAT verbal, 63% in top tenth
of class, 82% not from Iowa, 91% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity
rank 20th among national liberal arts colleges.
Harvey Mudd College. 1955, private engineering college, costs N/A;
shares applicants most often with Caltech, Stanford, California--Berkeley,
MIT, Harvard; 1426 applied, 43% accepted, 30% yield, middle half scored
660-750 SAT verbal, 90% in top tenth of class, 59% not from California, 90%
of freshmen return.
Smith College. 1871, private women's college; $29416; shares applicants
most often with Wellesley, Mount Holyoke, Brown, Bryn Mawr, Harvard; 2996
applied, 56% accepted, 39% yield, middle half scored 610-710 SAT verbal, 56%
in top tenth of class, 85% not from Massachusetts, 87% of freshmen return;
U.S. News selectivity rank 23rd among national liberal arts colleges.
Vassar College. 1861, private, $29620; shares applicants most often
with Brown, Wesleyan (Conn.), Oberlin, Wellesley, Cornell Univ.; 4765
applied, 42% accepted, 32% yield, middle half scored 630-720 SAT verbal, 63%
in top tenth of class, 71% not from New York, 92% of freshmen return; U.S.
News selectivity rank 18th among national liberal arts colleges.

THIRTY-FIFTH
Barnard College. 1889, private women's college, $30498; shares
applicants most often with Columbia Univ., NYU, Brown, Pennsylvania, Yale;
3554 applied, 40% accepted, 40% yield, middle half scored 620-700 SAT
verbal, 67% in top tenth of class, 66% not from New York, 94% of freshmen
return; U.S. News selectivity rank 13th among national liberal arts
colleges.
Davidson College. 1837, private, Presbyterian, $27521; shares
applicants most often with Wake Forest, Duke, North Carolina--Chapel Hill,
Virginia, Dartmouth; 3183 applied, 36% accepted, 41% yield, middle half
scored 610-710 SAT verbal, 79% in top tenth of class, 77% not from North
Carolina, 96% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 5th among
national liberal arts colleges.
Emory University. 1836, private, United Methodist, $29230; shares
applicants most often with Duke, Vanderbilt, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
Washington Univ.; 9781 applied, 46% accepted, 26% yield, middle half scored
630-710 SAT verbal, 86% in top tenth of class, 72% not from Georgia, 92% of
freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 20th among national
universities.
Oberlin College. 1833, private liberal arts and music college, $29574;
shares applicants most often with Brown, Wesleyan (Conn.), Swarthmore,
Carleton, Vassar; 4795 applied, 54% accepted, 30% yield, middle half scored
610-720 SAT verbal, 49% in top tenth of class, 90% not from Ohio, 89% of
freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 33rd among national liberal arts
colleges.
Washington and Lee University. 1749, private, $22033; shares applicants
most often with Virginia, Duke, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Richmond; 3460
applied, 31% accepted, 42% yield, middle half scored 630-710 SAT verbal, 78%
in top tenth of class, 89% not from Virginia, 93% of freshmen return; U.S.
News selectivity rank 5th among national liberal arts colleges.

FORTIETH
Claremont McKenna College. 1946, private; $26850; shares applicants
most often with Stanford, Pomona, California--Berkeley, UCLA, Georgetown;
2733 applied, 32% accepted, 30% yield, middle half scored 620-710 SAT
verbal, 71% in top tenth of class, 41% not from California, 93% of freshmen
return; U.S. News selectivity rank 9th among national liberal arts colleges.
Macalester College. 1874, private, Presbyterian, $25394; shares
applicants most often with Carleton, Oberlin, Grinnell, Brown, Northwestern;
3138 applied, 54% accepted, 27% yield, middle half scored 620-710 SAT
verbal, 60% in top tenth of class, 72% not from Minnesota, 89% of freshmen
return; U.S. News selectivity rank 20th among national liberal arts
colleges.
Reed College. 1909, private, $29520; shares applicants most often with
California--Berkeley, Stanford, California--Santa Cruz, Brown, Oberlin; 2100
applied, 70% accepted, 22% yield, middle half scored 640-730 SAT verbal, 54%
in top tenth of class, 85% not from Oregon, 86% of freshmen return.

FORTY-THIRD
Bates College. 1855, private, $30070; shares applicants most often with
Bowdoin, Colby, Middlebury, Colgate, Dartmouth; 3636 applied, 34% accepted,
37% yield, middle half scored 590-680 SAT verbal (test scores not required),
59% in top tenth of class, 88% not from Maine, 90% of freshmen return; U.S.
News selectivity rank 14th among national liberal arts colleges.
Carnegie Mellon University. 1900, private, $27960; shares applicants
most often with Cornell Univ., MIT, Pennsylvania, Northwestern, Johns
Hopkins; 13125 applied, 43% accepted, 22% yield, middle half scored 590-710
SAT verbal, 69% in top tenth of class, 79% not from Pennsylvania, 91% of
freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 26th among national
universities.
Colby College. 1813, private, $30420; shares applicants most often with
Bowdoin, Middlebury, Dartmouth, Bates, Williams; 4203 applied, 34% accepted,
36% yield, middle half scored 610-680 SAT verbal, 59% in top tenth of class,
89% not from Maine, 93% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 14th
among national liberal arts colleges.
College of William and Mary. 1693, public, costs N/A; shares applicants
most often with Virginia, Duke. Georgetown, Cornell Univ., Virginia Tech;
6591 applied, 46% accepted, 44% yield, middle half scored 600-710 SAT
verbal, 71% in top tenth of class, 35% not from Virginia, 94% of freshmen
return; U.S. News selectivity rank 23rd among national universities.
Tufts University. 1852, private, $30817; shares applicants most often
with Brown, Cornell Univ., Harvard, Pennsylvania, Georgetown; 12291 applied,
32% accepted, 33% yield, middle half scored 610-700 SAT verbal, 62% in top
tenth of class, 80% not from Massachusetts, 95% of freshmen return; U.S.
News selectivity rank 23rd among national universities.
University of California--Berkeley. 1868, public, $11964 in state,
$21348 out of state; shares applicants most often with UCLA, Stanford, USC,
Harvard, Cal Poly--San Luis Obispo; 27151 applied, 31% accepted, 42% yield,
middle half scored 580-710 SAT verbal, 95% in top tenth of class, 8% not
from California, 94% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 11th
among national universities.
University of Notre Dame. 1842, private, Roman Catholic, $26550; shares
applicants most often with Boston College, Duke, Georgetown, Northwestern,
Michigan--Ann Arbor; 9079 applied, 40% accepted, 52% yield, middle half
scored 600-700 SAT verbal, 82% in top tenth of class, 90% not from Indiana,
97% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 18th among national
universities.
University of Virginia. 1819, public, $9287 in state, $20235 out of
state; shares applicants most often with Duke, North Carolina--Chapel Hill,
William and Mary, Virginia Tech, Georgetown; 16189 applied, 36% accepted,
51% yield, middle half scored 590-700 SAT verbal, 80% in top tenth of class,
34% not from Virginia, 97% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank
18th among national universities.

FIFTY-FIRST
Brandeis University. 1948, private, $30990; shares applicants most
often with Tufts, Brown, Harvard, Boston Univ., Pennsylvania; 5680 applied,
54% accepted, 26% yield, middle half scored 620-700 SAT verbal, 62% in top
tenth of class, 72% not from Massachusetts, 90% of freshmen return; U.S.
News selectivity rank 33rd among national universities.
Colgate University. 1819, private, $30115; shares applicants most often
with Cornell Univ., Middlebury, Boston Univ., Colby, Tufts; 5852 applied,
42% accepted, 29% yield, middle half scored 600-690 SAT verbal, 68% in top
tenth of class, 65% not from New York, 94% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 14th among national liberal arts colleges.
Connecticut College. 1911, private, $29476; shares applicants most
often with Wesleyan (Conn.), Bowdoin, Colby, Tufts, Vassar; 3687 applied,
40% accepted, 30% yield, middle half scored 600-690 SAT verbal (SAT-I not
required), 51% in top tenth of class, 84% not from Connecticut, 89% of
freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 26th among national liberal arts
colleges.
Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art. 1859, private art
and engineering college, $500 tuition and fees only; shares applicants most
often with NYU, Cornell Univ., Pratt, MIT, Columbia Univ.; 2173 applied, 13%
accepted, 71% yield, middle half scored 620-720 SAT verbal, 80% in top tenth
of class, 43% not from New York, 91% of freshmen return.
Kenyon College. 1824, private, Episcopal, $27780; shares applicants
most often with Oberlin, Denison, Carleton, Bowdoin, Colby; 2314 applied,
70% accepted, 27% yield, middle half scored 610-710 SAT verbal, 51% in top
tenth of class, 78% not from Ohio, 90% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 42nd among national liberal arts colleges.
Wake Forest University. 1834, private, Baptist Convention of North
Carolina, $26100; shares applicants most often with North Carolina--Chapel
Hill, Duke, Virginia, Vanderbilt, Emory; 6536 applied, 44% accepted, 34%
yield, middle half scored 600-690 SAT verbal, 66% in top tenth of class, 72%
not from North Carolina, 93% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank
26th among national universities.

FIFTY-SEVENTH
Eastman School of Music of the University of Rochester. 1921, private
music college, $27912; 849 applied, 30% accepted, 50% yield, percentile test
scores N/A (test scores not required), percent in top tenth of class N/A,
73% not from New York, 88% of freshmen return.
Sarah Lawrence College. 1926, private, $31678; shares applicants most
often with NYU, Vassar, Smith, Hampshire, Oberlin; 1970 applied, 46%
accepted, 31% yield, middle half scored 620-720 SAT verbal, 37% in top tenth
of class, 87% not from New York, 90% of freshmen return.
Washington University. 1853, private, $29344; shares applicants most
often with Northwestern, Duke, Emory, Brown, Michigan--Ann Arbor; 13792
applied, 40% accepted, 22% yield, middle half scored 590-680 SAT verbal, 70%
in top tenth of class, 87% not from Missouri, 95% of freshmen return; U.S.
News selectivity rank 26th among national universities.
U.S. Naval Academy. 1845, public military college, $0, midshipmen
receive salary; 10119 applied, 14% accepted, 81% yield, middle half scored
600-670 SAT verbal, 60% in top tenth of class, 95% not from Maryland, 95% of
freshmen return.

SIXTY-FIRST
New York University. 1831, private, $31000; shares applicants most
often with Boston Univ., Columbia Univ., Cornell Univ., Pennsylvania,
California--Berkeley; 21171 applied, 40% accepted, 39% yield, middle half
scored 600-700 SAT verbal, 60% in top tenth of class, 54% not from New York,
88% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 31st among national
universities.
St. John's College (Md.). 1784, private, $28090; shares applicants most
often with Reed, Colorado College, Whitman, Oberlin, Chicago; 391 applied,
85% accepted, 37% yield, middle half scored 630-740 SAT verbal (test scores
not required), 27% in top tenth of class, 85% not from Maryland, 79% of
freshmen return.
St. John's College (N.M.). 1964, private, $26900 tuition and fees only;
see St. John's (Md.) for applicant pool; number applied N/A, 81% accepted,
percent yield N/A, middle half scored 600-730 SAT verbal (test scores not
required), 24% in top tenth of class, 87% not from New Mexico, 83% of
freshmen return.
U.S. Air Force Academy. 1954, public military college, $0, cadets
receive salary; 9802 applied, 15% accepted, 71% yield, middle half scored
590-680 SAT verbal, 58% in top tenth of class, 96% not from Colorado, 87% of
freshmen return.
U.S. Military Academy. 1802, public military college, $0, cadets
receive salary; 11808 applied, 14% accepted, 74% yield, middle half scored
570-670 SAT verbal, 51% in top tenth of class, 92% not from New York, 92% of
freshmen return.

SIXTY-SIXTH
Colorado College. 1874, private, $26208; shares applicants most often
with Colorado--Boulder, Colby, Middlebury, Whitman, Puget Sound; 3913
applied, 48% accepted, 29% yield, middle half scored 590-680 SAT verbal, 53%
in top tenth of class, 71% not from Colorado, 91% of freshmen return; U.S.
News selectivity rank 29th among national liberal arts colleges.
Hamilton College. 1812, private, $29550; shares applicants most often
with Colgate, Middlebury, Colby, Bates, Bowdoin; 4108 applied, 42% accepted,
27% yield, middle half scored 570-680 SAT verbal, 47% in top tenth of class,
62% not from New York, 91% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank
34th among national liberal arts colleges.
Mount Holyoke College. 1837, private women's college; $30162; shares
applicants most often with Smith, Wellesley, Bryn Mawr, Barnard, Vassar;
2306 applied, 61% accepted, 37% yield, middle half scored 570-690 SAT
verbal, 52% in top tenth of class, 81% not from Massachusetts, 93% of
freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 37th among national liberal arts
colleges.
New College of the University of South Florida. 1960, public, $6404 in
state, $13504 out of state; shares applicants most often with Florida,
Florida State, Oberlin, Brown, Cornell Univ.; 487 applied, 62% accepted, 48%
yield, middle half scored 670-740 SAT verbal, 58% in top tenth of class, 41%
not from Florida, 82% of freshmen return.
Trinity College (Conn.). 1823, private, $30200; shares applicants most
often with Tufts, Brown, Georgetown, Colgate, Wesleyan (Conn.); 4104
applied, 43% accepted, 29% yield, middle half scored 580-670 SAT verbal, 42%
in top tenth of class, 80% not from Connecticut, 93% of freshmen return;
U.S. News selectivity rank 34th among national liberal arts colleges.
Vanderbilt University. 1873, private, $30258; shares applicants most
often with Emory, Duke, Virginia, Rice, Wake Forest; 9487 applied, 58%
accepted, 27% yield, middle half scored 590-680 SAT verbal, 63% in top tenth
of class, 87% not from Tennessee, 91% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 37th among national universities.
Whitman College. 1859, private, $26050; shares applicants most often
with Puget Sound, Univ. of Washington, Willamette, Lewis and Clark, Pomona;
2338 applied, 51% accepted, 31% yield, middle half scored 600-690 SAT
verbal, 60% in top tenth of class, 54% not from Washington, 91% of freshmen
return; U.S. News selectivity rank 22nd among national liberal arts
colleges.

SEVENTY-THIRD
New England Conservatory of Music. 1867, private music college, $28305;
597 applied, 45% accepted, 36% yield, percentile test scores N/A, percent in
top tenth of class N/A, 74% not from Massachusetts, 89% of freshmen return.
Rhodes College. 1848, private, Presbyterian, costs N/A; shares
applicants most often with Vanderbilt, Univ. of the South, Wake Forest,
Emory, Davidson; 2324 applied, 75% accepted, 24% yield, middle half scored
600-690 SAT verbal, 54% in top tenth of class, 74% not from Tennessee, 86%
of freshmen return.
University of Michigan--Ann Arbor. 1817, public, $11549 in state,
$24115 out of state; shares applicants most often with Michigan State,
Northwestern, Cornell Univ., Duke, Pennsylvania; 19114 applied, 69%
accepted, 42% yield, middle half scored 560-660 SAT verbal, 59% in top tenth
of class, 28% not from Michigan, 94% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 37th among national universities.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1789, public, costs N/A;
shares applicants most often with North Carolina State, Duke, Virginia,
Appalachian State, Wake Forest; 15979 applied, 37% accepted, 56% yield,
middle half scored 560-670 SAT verbal, 67% in top tenth of class, 16% not
from North Carolina, 94% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 26th
among national universities.

SEVENTY-SEVENTH
Boston College. 1863, private, Roman Catholic, $30090; shares
applicants most often with Georgetown, Notre Dame, Boston Univ., Harvard,
Pennsylvania; 16455 applied, 39% accepted, 34% yield, middle half scored
580-680 SAT verbal, 64% in top tenth of class, 78% not from Massachusetts,
94% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 30th among national
universities.
Peabody Conservatory of Music [in Johns Hopkins Univ.]. 1857, private
music college, costs N/A; 537 applied, 53% accepted, 27% yield, percentile
test scores N/A, percent in top tenth of class N/A, percent not from
Maryland N/A, 89% of freshmen return.
Rhode Island School of Design. 1877, private art college, costs N/A;
shares applicants most often with Pratt, Parsons, Massachusetts College of
Art, Cooper Union, Syracuse; 2207 applied, 39% accepted, 44% yield, middle
half scored 520-650 SAT verbal, 22% in top tenth of class, 95% not from
Rhode Island, 94% of freshmen return.
University of Rochester. 1850, private, $29305; shares applicants most
often with Cornell Univ., Boston Univ., SUNY--Binghamton, Carnegie Mellon,
Northwestern; 9981 applied, 54% accepted, 17% yield, middle half scored
590-680 SAT verbal, 66% in top tenth of class, 60% not from New York, 93% of
freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 33rd among national
universities.

EIGHTY-FIRST
Bard College. 1860, private, Episcopal, $30106; shares applicants most
often with NYU, Vassar, Oberlin, Wesleyan (Conn.), Brown; 2283 applied, 51%
accepted, 28% yield, middle half scored 530-700 SAT verbal (test scores not
required), 57% in top tenth of class, 74% not from New York, 82% of freshmen
return; U.S. News selectivity rank 29th among national liberal arts
colleges.
College of the Atlantic. 1969, private, $24050; shares applicants most
often with Marlboro, Colby, Colorado College, Cornell Univ., Reed; 356
applied, 60% accepted, 42% yield, middle half scored 610-710 SAT verbal
(test scores not required), 54% in top tenth of class, 80% not from Maine,
88% of freshmen return.
College of the Holy Cross. 1843, private, Roman Catholic, $29105;
shares applicants most often with Boston College, Georgetown, Villanova,
Notre Dame, Dartmouth; 4183 applied, 50% accepted, 35% yield, middle half
scored 580-680 SAT verbal, 58% in top tenth of class, 68% not from
Massachusetts, 96% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 23rd among
national liberal arts colleges.
Columbia University--School of Engineering and Applied Science. 1864,
private engineering college, costs N/A; 1902 applied, 38% accepted, 44%
yield, percentile test scores N/A, 84% in top tenth of class, percent not
from New York N/A, 89% of freshmen return.
Franklin and Marshall College. 1787, private, United Church of Christ,
$28564; shares applicants most often with Bucknell, Lafayette, Colgate,
Pennsylvania, Lehigh; 3942 applied, 54% accepted, 23% yield, middle half
scored 580-670 SAT verbal, 63% in top tenth of class, 60% not from
Pennsylvania, 88% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 23rd among
national liberal arts colleges.
Georgia Institute of Technology. 1885, public, $8691 in state, $15621
out of state; shares applicants most often with Georgia, MIT, Duke, Georgia
State, Emory; 7676 applied, 61% accepted, 39% yield, middle half scored
590-690 SAT verbal, percent in top tenth of class N/A, 33% not from Georgia,
85% of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 41st among national
universities.

EIGHTY-SEVENTH
Boston University. 1839, private, $31018; shares applicants most often
with NYU, Northeastern, Boston College, Massachusetts, Tufts; 26677 applied,
55% accepted, 26% yield, middle half scored 580-680 SAT verbal, 53% in top
tenth of class, 74% not from Massachusetts, 84% of freshmen return.
Bucknell University. 1846, private, $27360; shares applicants most
often with Penn State, Lehigh, Penn State, Colgate, Cornell Univ.,
Lafayette; 6937 applied, 54% accepted, 24% yield, middle half scored 570-650
SAT verbal, 52% in top tenth of class, 70% not from Pennsylvania, 93% of
freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 37th among national liberal arts
colleges.
Scripps College. 1926, private women's college, $28000; shares
applicants most often with Pomona, California--San Diego, UCLA, Claremont
McKenna, California--Berkeley; 1099 applied, 70% accepted, 23% yield, middle
half scored 580-670 SAT verbal, 54% in top tenth of class, 48% not from
California, 87% of freshmen return.
Tulane University. 1834, private, $29320; shares applicants most often
with Emory, Washington Univ., Vanderbilt, Duke, Boston Univ.; 8647 applied,
76% accepted, 23% yield, middle half scored 580-690 SAT verbal, 54% in top
tenth of class, 88% not from Louisiana, 86% of freshmen return.
University of California--Los Angeles. 1919, public, $11148 in state,
$20722 out of state; shares applicants most often with California--Berkeley,
Stanford, California--San Diego, California--Davis, California--Irvine;
29302 applied, 36% accepted, 36% yield, middle half scored 550-660 SAT
verbal, 97% in top tenth of class, 4% not from California, 95% of freshmen
return; U.S. News selectivity rank 16th among national universities.
University of the South. 1857, private, Episcopal, $23380; shares
applicants most often with Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, Rhodes, Washington and
Lee, Virginia; 1909 applied, 64% accepted, 30% yield, middle half scored
580-680 SAT verbal, 54% in top tenth of class, 80% not from Tennessee, 88%
of freshmen return; U.S. News selectivity rank 37th among national liberal
arts colleges.

[END OF RANKED COLLEGES]

118 OTHER SELECTIVE OR INTERESTING COLLEGES
ARRANGED BY SUM OF 25th AND 75th PERCENTILE TEST SCORES
(Colleges for which test scores are unavailable are listed at the end)

SAT VERBAL SUM 1350
Webb Institute. 1889, private engineering college, tuition paid by full
scholarship, $6050 room and board; 67 applied, 48% accepted, 69% yield,
middle half scored 620-730 SAT verbal, 58% in top tenth of class, 84% not
from New York, 87% of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1310
Wheaton College (Ill.). 1860, private, interdenominational Christian,
$19270; shares applicants most often with Taylor, Calvin, Grove City,
Harvard, Messiah; 1927 applied, 55% accepted, 52% yield, middle half scored
600-710 SAT verbal, 58% in top tenth of class, 78% not from Illinois, 92% of
freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1280
Hampshire College. 1965, private, $31115; shares applicants most often
with Bard, Sarah Lawrence, Oberlin, NYU, Brown; 2050 applied, 66% accepted,
24% yield, middle half scored 590-690 SAT verbal (test scores not required),
26% in top tenth of class, 85% not from Massachusetts, 85% of freshmen
return.
St. Mary's College of Maryland. 1840, public, $12520 in state, $16770
out of state; shares applicants most often with Maryland--College Park,
Loyola (Md.), James Madison, Mary Washington, William and Mary; 1721
applied, 61% accepted, 33% yield, middle half scored 590-690 SAT verbal, 44%
in top tenth of class, 21% not from Maryland, 87% of freshmen return.

ACT COMPOSITE SUM 57 (=SAT verbal sum 1265)
University of Missouri--Rolla. 1870, public university and engineering
college, $9012 in state, $16680 out of state; 1874 applied, 97% accepted,
40% yield, middle half scored 26-31 ACT composite, 50% in top tenth of
class, 26% not from Missouri, 77% of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1270
Case Western Reserve University. 1826, private, $23786; shares
applicants most often with Carnegie Mellon, Northwestern, Ohio State,
Michigan--Ann Arbor, MIT; 4427 applied, 79% accepted, 21% yield, middle half
scored 580-690 SAT verbal, 66% in top tenth of class, 44% not from Ohio, 91%
of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1260
Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology. 1874, private engineering college,
$23778; shares applicants most often with Purdue, Illinois, MIT, Washington,
Notre Dame; 3568 applied, 68% accepted, 16% yield, middle half scored
560-700 SAT verbal, 85% in top tenth of class, 45% not from Indiana, 89% of
freshmen return.
Trinity University (Tex.). 1869, private, Presbyterian, $20694; shares
applicants most often with Texas--Austin, Texas A&M, Rice, Tulane,
Vanderbilt; 2740 applied, 77% accepted, 31% yield, middle half scored
580-680 SAT verbal, 59% in top tenth of class, 28% not from Texas, 85% of
freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1250
Drew University. 1867, private, United Methodist, $28624; shares
applicants most often with Rutgers, College of New Jersey, NYU, Boston
Univ., Princeton; 2612 applied, 74% accepted, 22% yield, middle half scored
570-680 SAT verbal, 49% in top tenth of class, 51% not from New Jersey, 89%
of freshmen return.
Lewis and Clark College. 1867, private, Presbyterian, $25106; shares
applicants most often with Puget Sound, Willamette, Colorado College,
Whitman, Oregon; 3529 applied, 66% accepted, 20% yield, middle half scored
570-680 SAT verbal (test scores not required), 41% in top tenth of class,
82% not from Oregon, 78% of freshmen return.
University of Richmond. 1830, private, Virginia Baptist General
Association, $22738; shares applicants most often with Virginia, Wake
Forest, William and Mary, Boston College, James Madison; 5603 applied, 45%
accepted, 31% yield, middle half scored 580-670 SAT verbal, 48% in top tenth
of class, 83% not from Virginia, 93% of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1240
Earlham College. 1847, private, Quaker, $23162; shares applicants most
often with Oberlin, Macalester, Kenyon, Grinnell, College of Wooster; 1266
applied, 80% accepted, 28% yield, middle half scored 550-690 SAT verbal, 37%
in top tenth of class, 77% not from Indiana, 82% of freshmen return.
George Washington University. 1821, private, $30235; shares applicants
most often with Boston Univ., Georgetown, American Univ., NYU,
Maryland--College Park; 12455 applied, 49% accepted, 28% yield, middle half
scored 570-670 SAT verbal, 45% in top tenth of class, 93% not from D.C., 89%
of freshmen return.
Grove City College. 1876, private, Presbyterian, $11036; 2241 applied,
42% accepted, 60% yield, middle half scored 590-650 SAT verbal, 60% in top
tenth of class, 42% not from Pennsylvania, 88% of freshmen return.
Marlboro College. 1946, private, $26810; shares applicants most often
with Hampshire, Bard, Bennington, Sarah Lawrence, College of the Atlantic;
303 applied, 74% accepted, 34% yield, middle half scored 560-680 SAT verbal,
22% in top tenth of class, 84% not from Vermont, 71% of freshmen return.
New School for Social Research--Eugene Lang College. 1978, private,
$26455; shares applicants most often with Sarah Lawrence, NYU, Bard,
Hampshire, Fordham; 440 applied, 72% accepted, 26% yield, middle half scored
570-670 SAT verbal, 10% in top tenth of class, 53% not from New York, 75% of
freshmen return.
Oglethorpe University. 1835, private, $20910; shares applicants most
often with Georgia, Emory, Georgia State, Georgia Tech, Mercer; 796 applied,
81% accepted, 36% yield, middle half scored 570-670 SAT verbal, 54% in top
tenth of class, 52% not from Georgia, 80% of freshmen return.
University of Dallas. 1956, private, Roman Catholic, $18888; shares
applicants most often with Texas--Austin, Texas--Dallas, Texas A&M, North
Texas, Baylor; 740 applied, 94% accepted, 38% yield, middle half scored
550-690 SAT verbal, 50% in top tenth of class, 46% not from Texas, 83% of
freshmen return.
University of Puget Sound. 1888, private, $24865; shares applicants
most often with Univ. of Washington, Lewis and Clark, Willamette, Whitman,
Colorado College; 4118 applied, 76% accepted, 20% yield, middle half scored
570-670 SAT verbal, 50% in top tenth of class, 71% not from Washington, 85%
of freshmen return.
Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 1865, private, $27230; shares
applicants most often with Rensselaer, MIT, Boston Univ., Cornell Univ.,
Tufts; 3152 applied, 78% accepted, 28% yield, middle half scored 570-670 SAT
verbal, 47% in top tenth of class, 51% not from Massachusetts, 88% of
freshmen return.

ACT COMPOSITE SUM 56 (=SAT verbal sum 1240)
Illinois Wesleyan University. 1850, private, United Methodist, $23200;
shares applicants most often with Northwestern, Chicago, Illinois,
Washington Univ., Illinois State; 2699 applied, 60% accepted, 34% yield,
middle half scored 26-30 ACT composite, 50% in top tenth of class, 10% not
from Illinois, 92% of freshmen return.
Kalamazoo College. 1833, private, American Baptist, $24249; shares
applicants most often with Michigan--Ann Arbor, Albion, Michigan State,
Northwestern, Hope; 1167 applied, 88% accepted, 28% yield, middle half
scored 26-30 ACT composite, 42% in top tenth of class, 32% not from
Michigan, 86% of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1230
Agnes Scott College. 1889, private women's college, Presbyterian,
$21925; shares applicants most often with Georgia, Emory, Smith, Duke,
Tulane; 573 applied, 77% accepted, 43% yield, middle half scored 560-670 SAT
verbal, 44% in top tenth of class, 47% not from Georgia, 78% of freshmen
return.
Furman University. 1826, private, $22034; shares applicants most often
with Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, Georgia, Emory, Clemson; 3105 applied, 80%
accepted, 30% yield, middle half scored 560-670 SAT verbal, 59% in top tenth
of class, 69% not from South Carolina, 89% of freshmen return.

ACT COMPOSITE SUM 55 (=SAT verbal sum 1230)
Illinois Institute of Technology. 1890, private, $22150; shares
applicants most often with Illinois, MIT, Northwestern Illinois--Chicago,
California--Berkeley; 2550 applied, 68% accepted, 15% yield, middle half
scored 25-30 ACT composite, 62% in top tenth of class, 46% not from
Illinois, 80% of freshmen return.
Lawrence University. 1847, private liberal arts and music college,
$24903; shares applicants most often with Wisconsin, Macalester, Grinnell,
Northwestern, Oberlin; 1172 applied, 80% accepted, 32% yield, middle half
scored 25-30 ACT composite, 48% in top tenth of class, 53% not from
Wisconsin, 85% of freshmen return.
Truman State University. 1867, public, $7718 in state, $10334 out of
state; shares applicants most often with Missouri, St. Louis, Southwest
Missouri State, Illinois, Washington Univ.; 5085 applied, 81% accepted, 41%
yield, middle half scored 25-30 ACT composite, 42% in top tenth of class,
27% not from Missouri, 84% of freshmen return.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 1867, public, $9900 in
state, $16716 out of state; shares applicants most often with Northwestern,
Michigan--Ann Arbor, Washington Univ., Purdue, Wisconsin; 18140 applied, 68%
accepted, 47% yield, middle half scored 25-30 ACT composite, 53% in top
tenth of class, 10% not from Illinois, 91% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 41st among national universities.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1220
College of New Jersey. 1855, public, $10838 in state, $13668 out of
state; shares applicants most often with Rutgers, Villanova, Delaware, Penn
State, Princeton; 5657 applied, 57% accepted, 43% yield, middle half scored
570-650 SAT verbal, 56% in top tenth of class, 4% not from New Jersey, 93%
of freshmen return.
Willamette University. 1842, private, United Methodist, $26630; shares
applicants most often with Puget Sound, Lewis and Clark, Oregon, Whitman;
1864 applied, 82% accepted, 27% yield, middle half scored 550-670 SAT
verbal, 58% in top tenth of class, 55% not from Oregon, 89% of freshmen
return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1210
American University. 1893, private, United Methodist, $27187; shares
applicants most often with George Washington, Boston Univ., Georgetown, NYU,
Maryland--College Park; 5882 applied, 79% accepted, 24% yield, middle half
scored 550-660 SAT verbal, 28% in top tenth of class, 86% not from D.C., 85%
of freshmen return.
Mary Washington College. 1908, public, $8832 in state, $14356 out of
state; shares applicants most often with James Madison, Virginia, William
and Mary, Richmond, Virginia Tech; 4101 applied, 57% accepted, 35% yield,
middle half scored 560-650 SAT verbal, 38% in top tenth of class, 36% not
from Virginia, 84% of freshmen return.
Randolph-Macon Woman's College. 1891, private women's college, United
Methodist, $23620; shares applicants most often with Hollins, Sweet Briar,
Mount Holyoke, William and Mary, Virginia; 638 applied, 89% accepted, 34%
yield, middle half scored 550-660 SAT verbal, 36% in top tenth of class, 68%
not from Virginia, 77% of freshmen return.
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 1824, private, $29110; shares
applicants most often with Cornell Univ., MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Worcester
Polytechnic, Rochester Institute of Tech; 4679 applied, 83% accepted, 27%
yield, middle half scored 550-660 SAT verbal, 55% in top tenth of class, 53%
not from New York, 89% of freshmen return.
Southwestern University (Tex.). 1840, private, United Methodist,
$20100; shares applicants most often with Texas--Austin, Trinity (Tex.),
Texas A&M, Austin College, Texas Christian; 1420 applied, 73% accepted, 32%
yield, middle half scored 550-660 SAT verbal, 52% in top tenth of class, 10%
not from Texas, 83% of freshmen return.
State University of New York College at Genesco. 1871, public, $8730 in
state, $13630 out of state; shares applicants most often with
SUNY--Binghamton, Cornell Univ., SUNY--Buffalo, Univ. of Rochester, Boston
College; 8310 applied, 54% accepted, 26% yield, middle half scored 560-650
SAT verbal, 41% in top tenth of class, 2% not from New York, 91% of freshmen
return.
Stevens Institute of Technology. 1870, private, $27110; shares
applicants most often with Rutgers, New Jersey Institute of Tech., MIT,
Rensselaer, NYU; 1759 applied, 67% accepted, 29% yield, middle half scored
510-700 SAT verbal, 59% in top tenth of class, 32% not from New Jersey, 83%
of freshmen return.
U.S. Coast Guard Academy. 1876, public military and engineering
college, $0, cadets receive stipend; 5437 applied, 9% accepted, 62% yield,
middle half scored 560-650 SAT verbal, 52% in top tenth of class, 94% not
from Connecticut, 86% of freshmen return.
University of Georgia. 1785, public, $12894 in state, $19824 out of
state; shares applicants most often with Georgia Southern, Georgia State,
Georgia Tech, Emory, Valdosta State; 11513 applied, 73% accepted, 50% yield,
middle half scored 550-650 SAT verbal, percent in top tenth of class N/A,
12% not from Georgia, 86% of freshmen return.
Wheaton College (Mass.). 1834, private, $28460; shares applicants most
often with Skidmore, Connecticut College, Hobart and William Smith, New
Hampshire, Vermont; 2305 applied, 73% accepted, 26% yield, middle half
scored 560-650 SAT verbal (test scores not required), 25% in top tenth of
class, 60% not from Massachusetts, 84% of freshmen return.

ACT COMPOSITE SUM 54 (=SAT verbal sum 1210)
Birmingham-Southern College. 1856, private, United Methodist, costs
N/A; shares applicants most often with Auburn, Alabama, Rhodes, Vanderbilt,
Samford; 728 applied, 96% accepted, 46% yield, middle half scored 24-30 ACT
composite, 41% in top tenth of class, 23% not from Alabama, 89% of freshmen
return.
Colorado School of Mines. 1874, public engineering college, $10034 in
state, $19962 out of state; shares applicants most often with
Colorado--Boulder, Colorado State, MIT, Texas--Austin, Texas A&M, Stanford;
1799 applied, 80% accepted, 36% yield, middle half scored 25-29 ACT
composite, 55% in top tenth of class, 35% not from Colorado, 84% of freshmen
return.
Knox College. 1837, private, $24150; shares applicants most often with
Illinois, Northwestern, Grinnell, Washington Univ., Chicago; 1432 applied,
79% accepted, 31% yield, middle half scored 25-29 ACT composite, 47% in top
tenth of class, 44% not from Illinois, 85% of freshmen return.
Millsaps College. 1890, private, United Methodist, $19950; shares
applicants most often with Rhodes, Louisiana State, Birmingham-Southern,
Loyola (La.), Mississippi; 1076 applied, 81% accepted, 35% yield, middle
half scored 25-29 ACT composite, 50% in top tenth of class, 44% not from
Mississippi, 84% of freshmen return.
University of Wisconsin--Madison. 1849, public, $8500 in state, $16780
out of state; shares applicants most often with Michigan--Ann Arbor,
Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana--Bloomington, Boston Univ.; 18280 applied,
68% accepted, 47% yield, middle half scored 25-29 ACT composite, 44% in top
tenth of class, 33% not from Wisconsin, 91% of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1200
Bennington College. 1932, private, $26400; shares applicants most often
with Hampshire, Bard, Sarah Lawrence, Reed, Skidmore; 551 applied, 81%
accepted, 27% yield, middle half scored 550-650 SAT verbal, 26% in top tenth
of class, 94% not from Vermont, 72% of freshmen return.
Gettysburg College. 1832, private, Lutheran, $28562; shares applicants
most often with Bucknell, Dickinson, Franklin and Marshall, Lafayette,
Richmond; 3777 applied, 72% accepted, 24% yield, middle half scored 550-650
SAT verbal, 41% in top tenth of class, 77% not from Pennsylvania, 90% of
freshmen return.
Goucher College. 1885, private, $26555; shares applicants most often
with Towson State, Maryland--College Park, Loyola (Md.), St. Mary's (Md.),
Salisbury State; 1764 applied, 78% accepted, 25% yield, middle half scored
550-650 SAT verbal, 29% in top tenth of class, 66% not from Maryland, 82% of
freshmen return.
Union College (N.Y.). 1795, private, $29546; shares applicants most
often with Colgate, Hamilton, Lafayette, Cornell Univ., Tufts; 3479 applied,
52% accepted, 29% yield, middle half scored 560-640 SAT verbal, 52% in top
tenth of class, 53% not from New York, 92% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 34th among national liberal arts colleges.
University of California--San Diego. 1959, public, $10895 in state,
$20468 out of state; shares applicants most often with California--Berkeley,
UCLA, California--Santa Barbara, Stanford, San Diego State; 25102 applied,
53% accepted, 25% yield, middle half scored 550-650 SAT verbal, 95% in top
tenth of class, 3% not from California, 93% of freshmen return; U.S. News
selectivity rank 21st among national universities.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1190
Allegheny College. 1815, private, United Methodist, $24860; shares
applicants most often with Penn State, Washington and Jefferson, Bucknell,
Pittsburgh, Miami (Oh.); 2808 applied, 81% accepted, 24% yield, middle half
scored 550-640 SAT verbal, 39% in top tenth of class, 44% not from
Pennsylvania, 87% of freshmen return.
Antioch College. 1852, private, $23167; shares applicants most often
with Oberlin, Evergreen State, Hampshire, Bard, Earlham; 616 applied, 79%
accepted, 37% yield, middle half scored 540-650 SAT verbal (test scores not
required), 17% in top tenth of class, 80% not from Ohio, 68% of freshmen
return.
Catholic University of America. 1887, private, Roman Catholic, $25425;
shares applicants most often with Loyola (Md.), Villanova, Georgetown,
Boston College, George Washington; 2171 applied, 82% accepted, 34% yield,
middle half scored 540-650 SAT verbal, 36% in top tenth of class, 95% not
from D.C., 84% of freshmen return.
Lehigh University. 1865, private, $28710; shares applicants most often
with Penn State, Bucknell, Cornell Univ., Pennsylvania, Lafayette; 7777
applied, 54% accepted, 26% yield, middle half scored 550-640 SAT verbal, 52%
in top tenth of class, 71% not from Pennsylvania, 92% of freshmen return.
University of Florida. 1853, public, $7030 in state, $13390 out of
state; shares applicants most often with Florida State, Central Florida,
Miami, Georgia, North Carolina--Chapel Hill; 17194 applied, 67% accepted,
53% yield, middle half scored 540-650 SAT verbal, 60% in top tenth of class,
8% not from Florida, 90% of freshmen return.
University of Maryland--College Park. 1856, public, $10547 in state,
$17069 out of state; shares applicants most often with Penn State, Virginia
Tech, Rutgers, Maryland--Baltimore, George Washington; 16182 applied, 65%
accepted, 38% yield, middle half scored 540-650 SAT verbal, 40% in top tenth
of class, 34% not from Maryland, 86% of freshmen return.
University of Southern California. 1880, private, $28454; shares
applicants most often with UCLA, California--Berkeley, California--Santa
Barbara, California--San Diego, California--Irvine; 21083 applied, 46%
accepted, 29% yield, middle half scored 540-650 SAT verbal, 52% in top tenth
of class, 31% not from California, 90% of freshmen return.
Ursinus College. 1869, private, United Church of Christ, $24400; shares
applicants most often with Muhlenberg, Villanova, Franklin and Marshall,
Delaware, Gettysburg; 1767 applied, 71% accepted, 25% yield, middle half
scored 550-640 SAT verbal, 41% in top tenth of class, 30% not from
Pennsylvania, 92% of freshmen return.

ACT COMPOSITE SUM 53 (= SAT verbal sum 1190)
Beloit College. 1846, private, $24096; shares applicants most often
with Macalester, Grinnell, Oberlin, Wisconsin, Knox; 1444 applied, 72%
accepted, 34% yield, middle half scored 24-29 ACT composite, 35% in top
tenth of class, 76% not from Wisconsin, 94% of freshmen return.
Centre College. 1819, private, Presbyterian, $20350; shares applicants
most often with Kentucky, Transylvania, Vanderbilt, Louisville, Miami (Oh.);
1264 applied, 85% accepted, 28% yield, middle half scored 24-29 ACT
composite, 54% in top tenth of class, 38% not from Kentucky, 84% of freshmen
return.
Hendrix College. 1876, private, United Methodist, $14978; shares
applicants most often with Arkansas, Rhodes, Central Arkansas, Washington
Univ., Vanderbilt; 923 applied, 89% accepted, 41% yield, middle half scored
24-29 ACT composite, 52% in top tenth of class, 36% not from Arkansas, 78%
of freshmen return.
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. 1889, public, $5764 in
state, $10526 out of state; shares applicants most often with New Mexico,
New Mexico State, Colorado School of Mines, MIT, Arizona; 780 applied, 76%
accepted, 31% yield, middle half scored 24-29 ACT composite, 34% in top
tenth of class, 38% not from New Mexico, 70% of freshmen return.
St. Olaf College. 1874, private, Evangelical Lutheran, $21320; shares
applicants most often with Gustavus Adolphus, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Carleton, Luther; 2311 applied, 78% accepted, 40% yield, middle half scored
24-29 ACT composite, 45% in top tenth of class, 47% not from Minnesota, 87%
of freshmen return.
University of Missouri--Columbia. 1839, public, $8083 in state, $14716
out of state; shares applicants most often with Kansas, Illinois,
Indiana--Bloomington, Washington Univ., Missouri--Rolla; 8092 applied, 80%
accepted, 55% yield, middle half scored 24-29 ACT composite, 34% in top
tenth of class, 17% not from Missouri, 83% of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1180
Denison University. 1831, private, $26650; shares applicants most often
with Miami (Oh.), Kenyon, Wittenberg, Ohio Wesleyan, College of Wooster;
2666 applied, 78% accepted, 28% yield, middle half scored 540-640 SAT
verbal, 38% in top tenth of class, 61% not from Ohio, 80% of freshmen
return.
Dickinson College. 1773, private, $28630; shares applicants most often
with Bucknell, Penn State, Gettysburg, Franklin and Marshall, Lafayette;
2803 applied, 79% accepted, 25% yield, middle half scored 540-640 SAT verbal
(test scores not required), 36% in top tenth of class, 57% not from
Pennsylvania, 90% of freshmen return.
Emerson College. 1880, private, communications and performing arts
college, $26998; 2663 applied, 60% accepted, 31% yield, middle half scored 5
40-640 SAT verbal, 14% in top tenth of class, 70% not from Massachusetts,
80% of freshmen return.
Hollins University. 1842, private women's college, $21975; shares
applicants most often with Virginia, James Madison, Sweet Briar, Virginia
Tech, Mary Washington; 618 applied, 85% accepted, 39% yield, middle half
scored 530-650 SAT verbal, 28% in top tenth of class, 67% not from Virginia,
78% of freshmen return.
Occidental College. 1887, private, costs N/A; shares applicants most
often with UCLA, Pomona, Claremont McKenna, USC, California--San Diego; 1856
applied, 77% accepted, 31% yield, middle half scored 530-650 SAT verbal, 52%
in top tenth of class, 38% not from California, 87% of freshmen return.
Pennsylvania State University--University Park Campus. 1855, public,
costs N/A; shares applicants most often with Pittsburgh,
Indiana--Bloomington Univ. of Pennsylvania, Temple, Delaware, Rutgers; 22154
applied, 53% accepted, 36% yield, middle half scored 540-640 SAT verbal, 48%
in top tenth of class, 31% not from Pennsylvania, 93% of freshmen return.
Skidmore College. 1903, private, $29731; shares applicants most often
with Vassar, Colgate, Oberlin, Smith, Hamilton; 5442 applied, 48% accepted,
23% yield, middle half scored 540-640 SAT verbal, 25% in top tenth of class,
73% not from New York, 88% of freshmen return.
State University of New York--Binghamton Univ. 1946, public, $9225 in
state, $14125 out of state; shares applicants most often with SUNY--Albany,
NYU, Cornell Univ., SUNY--Buffalo, SUNY--Stony Brook; 15953 applied, 42%
accepted, 28% yield, middle half scored 540-640 SAT verbal, 54% in top tenth
of class, 5% not from New York, 91% of freshmen return.
Wells College. 1868, private women's college, $23440; shares applicants
most often with Smith, Hobart and William Smith, Mount Holyoke, Wellesley,
Cornell Univ.; 309 applied, 84% accepted, 31% yield, middle half scored
540-640 SAT verbal, 41% in top tenth of class, 44% not from New York, 75% of
freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1170
Evergreen State College. 1967, public, $7670 in state, $14362 out of
state; shares applicants most often with Washington, Western Washington,
Washington State, Oregon, California--Santa Cruz; 1862 applied, 88%
accepted, 31% yield, middle half scored 530-640 SAT verbal, percent in top
tenth of class N/A, 49% not from Washington, 66% of freshmen return.
James Madison University. 1908, public, costs N/A; shares applicants
most often with Virginia, Virginia Tech, William and Mary, George Mason,
Radford; 14005 applied, 40% accepted, 39% yield, middle half scored 540-630
SAT verbal, percent in top tenth of class N/A, 31% not from Virginia, 91% of
freshmen return.
Ohio Wesleyan University. 1842, private, United methodist, $26410;
shares applicants most often with Denison, Miami (Oh.), College of Wooster,
Ohio State, Wittenberg; 2261 applied, 82% accepted, 31% yield, middle half
scored 520-650 SAT verbal, 34% in top tenth of class, 56% not from Ohio, 80%
of freshmen return.
Sweet Briar College. 1901, private women's college, $22625; shares
applicants most often with Hollins, William and Mary, Randolph-Macon Women's
College, Smith; 441 applied, 94% accepted, 47% yield, middle half scored
530-640 SAT verbal, 32% in top tenth of class, 69% not from Virginia, 79% of
freshmen return.
University of North Carolina at Asheville. 1927, public, costs N/A;
shares applicants most often with North Carolina--Chapel Hill, North
Carolina State, Appalachian State, North Carolina--Charlotte, Western
Carolina; 2189 applied, 60% accepted, 36% yield, middle half scored 530-640
SAT verbal, 26% in top tenth of class, 15% not from North Carolina, 79% of
freshmen return.
University of Texas at Austin. 1883, public, $7541 in state, $13931 out
of state; shares applicants most often with Texas A&M, Baylor, Texas Tech,
Rice, Southwest Texas State; 14974 applied, 78% accepted, 61% yield, middle
half scored 530-640 SAT verbal, 37% in top tenth of class, 7% not from
Texas, 87% of freshmen return.
Villanova University. 1842, private, Roman Catholic, $27240; shares
applicants most often with Penn State, Boston College, Delaware, Boston
Univ., Georgetown; 9566 applied, 61% accepted, 27% yield, middle half scored
550-620 SAT verbal, 35% in top tenth of class, 72% not from Pennsylvania,
92% of freshmen return.

ACT COMPOSITE SUM 52 (= SAT verbal sum 1170)
Miami University--Oxford. 1809, public, $10796 in state, $17256 out of
state; shares applicants most often with Ohio Univ., Ohio State,
Indiana--Bloomington, Dayton, Notre Dame; 11743 applied, 77% accepted, 38%
yield, middle half scored 24-28 ACT composite, 36% in top tenth of class,
27% not from Ohio, 89% of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1160
DePauw University. 1837, private liberal arts and music college, United
Methodist, $23725; shares applicants most often with Indiana--Bloomington,
Miami (Oh.), Butler, Purdue, Hanover; 1809 applied, 88% accepted, 42% yield,
middle half scored 520-640 SAT verbal, 40% in top tenth of class, 51% not
from Indiana, 89% of freshmen return.
Guilford College. 1837, private, Quaker, $20766; shares applicants most
often with Elon, North Carolina--Greensboro, North Carolina--Chapel Hill,
Appalachian State, Wake Forest; 1153 applied, 81% accepted, 32% yield,
middle half scored 520-640 SAT verbal, 29% in top tenth of class, 70% not
from North Carolina, 77% of freshmen return.
Mills College. 1852, private women's college, $24692; shares applicants
most often with California--Berkeley, California--Santa Cruz, Scripps,
Smith, California--Davis; 504 applied, 82% accepted, 26% yield, middle half
scored 520-640 SAT verbal, 20% in top tenth of class, 32% not from
California, 74% of freshmen return.
Syracuse University. 1870, private, $26890; shares applicants most
often with Boston Univ., Penn State, NYU, Cornell Univ., Massachusetts;
10607 applied, 60% accepted, 40% yield, middle half scored 530-630 SAT
verbal, 33% in top tenth of class, 56% not from New York, 89% of freshmen
return.

ACT COMPOSITE SUM 51 (= SAT verbal sum 1155)
Gustavus Adolphus College. 1862, private, Evangelical Lutheran, $20940;
shares applicants most often with St. Olaf, Carleton, Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Luther; 1889 applied, 83% accepted, 41% yield, middle half scored 23-28 ACT
composite, 34% in top tenth of class, 31% not from Minnesota, 89% of
freshmen return.
Lyon College. 1872, private, Presbyterian, $14736; 483 applied, 53%
accepted, 52% yield, middle half scored 23-28 ACT composite, 38% in top
tenth of class, 27% not from Arkansas, 69% of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1150
Alfred University. 1836, private, $25820; shares applicants most often
with SUNY--Genesco, Syracuse, Rochester Inst. of Technology, Ithaca,
Clarkson; 1871 applied, 82% accepted, 30% yield, middle half scored 530-620
SAT verbal, 29% in top tenth of class, 37% not from New York, 82% of
freshmen return.
Lafayette College. 1826, private, Presbyterian, $28890; shares
applicants most often with Bucknell, Lehigh, Villanova, Colgate, Cornell
Univ.; 4177 applied, 58% accepted, 23% yield, middle half scored 530-620 SAT
verbal (test scores not required), 40% in top tenth of class, 74% not from
Pennsylvania, 90% of freshmen return.
Richard Stockton College of New Jersey. 1969, public, $8953 in state,
$10753 out of state; 3221 applied, 51% accepted, 46% yield, middle half
scored 530-620 SAT verbal, 24% in top tenth of class, 4% not from New
Jersey, 84% of freshmen return.
University of California--Santa Cruz. 1965, public, $10824 in state,
$20208 out of state; shares applicants most often with California--Berkeley,
UCLA, California--Santa Barbara, Reed, Stanford; 12009 applied, 83%
accepted, 21% yield, middle half scored 510-640 SAT verbal, 94% in top tenth
of class, 8% not from California, 82% of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1140
Clark University (Mass.). 1887, private, $25890; shares applicants most
often with Boston Univ., Massachusetts, Brandeis, Wheaton (Mass.), Skidmore;
3338 applied, 77% accepted, 20% yield, middle half scored 520-620 SAT
verbal, 31% in top tenth of class, 62% not from Massachusetts, 84% of
freshmen return.
Muhlenberg College. 1848, private, Lutheran, $24500; shares applicants
most often with Franklin and Marshall, Gettysburg, Lafayette, Bucknell,
Delaware; 2963 applied, 66% accepted, 25% yield, middle half scored 530-610
SAT verbal, 27% in top tenth of class, 69% not from Pennsylvania, 92% of
freshmen return.
Rochester Institute of Technology. 1829, private, $23652; shares
applicants most often with Buffalo, Rensselaer, Clarkson, Syracuse,
Rochester; 6525 applied, 78% accepted, 40% yield, middle half scored 520-620
SAT verbal, 28% in top tenth of class, 46% not from New York, 85% of
freshmen return.
Texas A&M University--College Station. 1876, public, $7211 in state,
$13175 out of state; shares applicants most often with Texas--Austin,
Baylor, Texas Tech, Rice, Southwest Texas State; 15942 applied, 73%
accepted, 54% yield, middle half scored 520-620 SAT verbal, 47% in top tenth
of class, 7% not from Texas, 87% of freshmen return.
University of Colorado at Boulder. 1876, public, costs N/A; shares
applicants most often with Colorado State, Arizona, California--Santa
Barbara, California--Berkeley, UCLA; 14158 applied, 83% accepted, 36% yield,
middle half scored 520-620 SAT verbal, 25% in top tenth of class, 44% not
from Colorado, 81% of freshmen return.

ACT COMPOSITE SUM 50 (= SAT verbal sum 1135)
Cornell College. 1853, private, United Methodist, $23435; shares
applicants most often with Colorado College, Iowa, Iowa State, Northern
Iowa, Grinnell; 1343 applied, 81% accepted, 29% yield, middle half scored
23-27 ACT composite, 28% in top tenth of class, 75% not from Iowa, 72% of
freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1130
Pitzer College. 1963, private, $29440; shares applicants most often
with California--San Diego, UCLA, Claremont McKenna, California--Santa
Barbara, Pomona; 1647 applied, 62% accepted, 22% yield, middle half scored
520-610 SAT verbal, 39% in top tenth of class, 47% not from California, 81%
of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1120
Massachusetts College of Art. 1873, public art college, $10304 in
state, $16444 out of state; 884 applied, 49% accepted, 48% yield, middle
half scored 500-620 SAT verbal, 10% in top tenth of class, 30% not from
Massachusetts, 83% of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1110
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. 1943, public military and engineering
college, $0, midshipmen receive stipend; 836 applied, 52% accepted, 62%
yield, middle half scored 500-610 SAT verbal, 18% in top tenth of class, 90%
not from New York, 90% of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1100
Indiana University--Bloomington. 1820, public, $9109 in state, $17350
out of state; shares applicants most often with Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin,
Michigan--Ann Arbor, Notre Dame; 17583 applied, 83% accepted, 34% yield,
middle half scored 490-610 SAT verbal, 23% in top tenth of class, 34% not
from Indiana, 86% of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1090
Howard University. 1867, private historically black university, $14407;
shares applicants most often with Hampton, Clark College (Ga.), Spelman,
Morgan State, Florida A&M; 4850 applied, 58% accepted, 45% yield, middle
half scored 420-670 SAT verbal, percent in top tenth of class N/A, 86% not
from D.C., 81% of freshmen return.
Spelman College. 1881, private historically black women's college,
$16985; shares applicants most often with Clark College (Ga.), Tuskegee,
Hampton, Howard, Xavier (La.); 2972 applied, 50% accepted, 34% yield, middle
half scored 500-590 SAT verbal, percent in top tenth of class N/A, 78% not
from Georgia, 89% of freshmen return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1080
Parsons School of Design. 1896, private art college, $27095; 1313
applied, 50% accepted, 46% yield, middle half scored 480-600 SAT verbal,
percent in top tenth of class N/A, 66% not from New York, 75% of freshmen
return.

SAT VERBAL SUM 1040
Morehouse College. 1867, private historically black men's college,
costs N/A; shares applicants most often with Howard, Hampton, Georgia, Clark
College (Ga.), Georgia Tech; 2706 applied, 69% accepted, 44% yield, middle
half scored 460-580 SAT verbal, 41% in top tenth of class, 79% not from
Georgia, 81% of freshmen return.

ACT COMPOSITE SUM 43 (= SAT verbal sum 1005)
Berea College. 1855, private, nondenominational Christian, $3705 paid
by grants and work; 1699 applied, 35% accepted, 69% yield, middle half
scored 19-24 ACT composite, 25% in top tenth of class, 45% not from
Kentucky, 69% of freshmen return.
College of the Ozarks. 1906, private, Presbyterian, $2350 paid by
grants and work; 2823 applied, 14% accepted, 77% yield, middle half scored
18-25 ACT composite, 15% in top tenth of class, 33% not from Missouri, 73%
of freshmen return.

COLLEGES FOR WHICH PERCENTILE TEST SCORES ARE UNAVAILABLE
Art Center College of Design. 1930, private art college, $17180 tuition
only; 1130 applied, 65% accepted, 67% yield, percentile test scores N/A,
percent in top tenth of class N/A, 21% not from California, 84% of freshmen
return.
California Institute of the Arts. 1961, private art and music college,
$24072; 1124 applied, 40% accepted, 24% yield, percentile test scores N/A
(scores not required), percent in top tenth of class N/A, 65% not from
California, 63% of freshmen return.
Cleveland Institute of Music. 1920, private music college, $22980; 341
applied, 33% accepted, 46% yield, percentile test scores N/A, 55% in top
tenth of class, 84% not from Ohio, 93% of freshmen return.
Manhattan School of Music. 1917, private music college, $18730 tuition
only; 567 applied, 35% accepted, 40% yield, percentile test scores N/A (test
scores not required), percent in top tenth of class N/A, 75% not from New
York, 82% of freshmen return.
Maryland Institute College of Art. 1826, private art college, $23210;
1371 applied, 50% accepted, 34% yield, percentile test scores N/A, 16% in
top tenth of class, 83% not from Maryland, 80% of freshmen return.
North Carolina School of the Arts. 1963, public performing arts
college, $6175 in state, $14632 out of state; 717 applied, 45% accepted, 63%
yield, percentile test scores N/A, 9% in top tenth of class, 49% not from
North Carolina, 65% of freshmen return.
Pratt Institute. 1887, private art college, $25722; 2646 applied, 56%
accepted, 32% yield, percentile test scores N/A, 20% in top tenth of class,
55% not from New York, 91% of freshmen return.
Prescott College. 1966, private, $11800; shares applicants most often
with Evergreen State, Hampshire, Marlboro, Warren Wilson, Antioch; 316
applied, 74% accepted, 69% yield, percentile test scores N/A (scores not
required), percent in top tenth of class N/A, percent not from Arizona N/A,
74% of freshmen return.
School of the Art Institute of Chicago. 1866, private art college,
costs N/A; 1029 applied, 73% accepted, 35% yield, percentile test scores
N/A, percent in top tenth of class N/A, 69% not from Illinois, 76% of
freshmen return.
Simon's Rock College of Bard. 1964, private, $29150; 253 applied, 67%
accepted, 74% yield, percentile test scores N/A (scores not required),
percent in top tenth of class N/A, 78% not from Massachusetts, 85% of
freshmen return.
Warren Wilson College. 1894, private, Presbyterian, $17200; 591
applied, 86% accepted, 39% yield, percentile test scores N/A, 15% in top
tenth of class, 72% not from North Carolina, 64% of freshmen return.

APPENDIX

ACT-SAT conversion: 18-430, 19-455, 20-475, 21-495, 22-515, 23-530,
24-550, 25-570, 26-585, 27-605, 28-620, 29-640, 30-660, 31-680, 32-705

The 49 colleges with toughest acceptance rates

6% Curtis Inst. of Music
8% Juilliard, U.S. Coast Guard Academy
13% Cooper Union, Harvard, Princeton
14% College of the Ozarks, U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Naval Academy
15% Stanford, U.S. Air Force Academy
17% Columbia
18% Brown, Yale
20% Amherst
21% Georgetown
22% Dartmouth
23% Caltech, Mason Gross School of the Arts, Swarthmore
25% MIT
26% Williams
27% Rice
29% Northwestern
30% Duke, Eastman School of Music
31% Middlebury, Univ. of Pennsylvania, Pomona, Washington and Lee,
California--Berkeley
32% Claremont McKenna, Tufts
33% Cleveland Inst. of Music, Wesleyan (Conn.)
34% Bates, Bowdoin, Colby, Cornell Univ., Haverford
35% Berea, Manhattan School of Music
36% Davidson, UCLA, Univ. of Virginia
37% North Carolina--Chapel Hill
38% Columbia--School of Engineering
39% Boston College, Rhode Island School of Design

The 49 colleges with highest sum of 25th and 75th percentile SAT verbal
scores

1490 Harvard
1450 Caltech
1440 Stanford, Swarthmore, Yale
1430 Princeton
1420 Dartmouth, MIT, Pomona
1410 Amherst, Harvey Mudd, New College (Fla.), Rice, Williams
1400 Middlebury
1380 Brown, Columbia
1370 Duke, Grinnell, Reed, St. John's College (Md.)
1360 Carleton, Haverford
1350 Univ. of Chicago, Vassar, Webb, Wellesley
1340 Bryn Mawr, Cooper Union, Emory, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins,
Northwestern, Sarah Lawrence, Univ. of Pennsylvania,
Washington and Lee, Wesleyan (Conn.)
1330 Bowdoin, Claremont McKenna, Macalester, Oberlin,
St. John's College (N.M.)
1320 Barnard, Brandeis, College of the Atlantic, Cornell Univ.,
Davidson, Kenyon, Smith

The 42 colleges with best freshman retention

99% Curtis Institute of Music
98% Princeton, Yale
97% Duke, MIT, Notre Dame, Pomona, Stanford, Univ. of Virginia
96% Amherst, Brown, Columbia, Dartmouth, Davidson, Harvard,
Holy Cross, Northwestern, Williams
95% Cornell, Georgetown, Johns Hopkins, Middlebury, Rice, Swarthmore,
Tufts, U.S. Naval Academy, UCLA, Univ. of Pennsylvania,
Washington Univ., Wellesley
94% Barnard, Beloit, Boston College, Bowdoin, California--Berkeley,
Carleton, Colgate, Haverford, Michigan--Ann Arbor,
North Carolina--Chapel Hill, Rhode Island School of Design,
William and Mary

The 47 most expensive colleges

$31100 Hampshire, Harvard
$31000 Boston Univ., Brown, NYU
$30900 Brandeis, Univ. of Chicago, Univ. of Pennsylvania
$30800 Dartmouth, Georgetown, MIT, Tufts, Yale
$30700 Swarthmore
$30500 Princeton, Williams
$30400 Amherst, Barnard, Colby, Cornell Univ., Middlebury,
Wesleyan (Conn.)
$30300 Bryn Mawr, Johns Hopkins
$30200 George Washington, Haverford, Trinity (Conn.), Vanderbilt
$30100 Bard, Bowdoin, Colgate, Mount Holyoke
$30000 Bates, Boston College, Duke
$29800 Pomona, Stanford
$29700 Skidmore
$29600 Vassar
$29500 Hamilton, Oberlin, Reed, Union, Wellesley
$29400 Connecticut College, Pitzer, Smith

newengland

[Raanmed]

"Newengland" said:

>Thirteen months ago in this newsgroup I predicted that a competitor toU.S.

News would one day emerge. . We can only hope that it will not use theU.S. News
template -- a hodgepodge of numbers weighted arbitrarily. Nohodgepodge can
overcome the objection that another, different, hodgepodgemight be superior. A
little more arithmetical weight here, a little lessthere and, presto, a
different ranking emerges. The problem with the U.S.News model is that it is

susceptible to a limitless number of improvements.<
<

It's fascinating that Colgate and Wesleyan were only separated by 2 places in
last year's USNews poll (by somewhat more this year), but by nearly 30 places
in the laissez-faire poll. Would the inclusion of research universities and
liberal arts colleges within the same unified theory of virtue be enough to
explain this huge discrepancy? It's one of those stats that strikes one
between the eyes even though its significance is somewhat obscure.

Thanks for your efforts

--Ron

[Gary Glen Price]

"newengland" <newen...@top.monad.net> wrote:
> Thirteen months ago in this newsgroup I predicted that a
> competitor to U.S. News would one day emerge. . We can only hope
> that it will not use the U.S. News template -- a hodgepodge of
> numbers weighted arbitrarily. No hodgepodge can overcome the
> objection that another, different, hodgepodge might be superior.
> A little more arithmetical weight here, a little less there and,
> presto, a different ranking emerges. The problem with the U.S.
> News model is that it is susceptible to a limitless number
> of improvements.

Speaking as one who once offered a graduate seminar subtitled "Artful
Quantification in Research," I'm more inclined to attack the artlessness
of the US News quantification than the quantification, per se. The fact
that US News combines a hodgepodge of numbers as a means of
triangulating across multiple indicators could, in principle, be a
strength; the trouble with their hodgepodge is that some of its
ingredients are garbage–most notably to me, the item previously named
"value added" and now named "graduation rate performance." The weights
chosen by US News are indeed arbitrary, and that arbitrariness is
compounded when the weights are capriciously changed. However, I think
too much attention has been focused on how the changes in weighting
affect colleges' rank order. If there were more coherence among the
indicators or if a larger set of indicators were being combined, the
whipsaw effects of tweaking the weights would be weakened–as implied by
Howard Wainer's colorfully titled article, "Estimating coefficients in
linear models: It don't make no nevermind," which appeared in
Psychological Bulletin in 1976. (James E. Laughlin later demonstrated
that weights matter more than Wainer claimed, but the key idea remains:
Susceptibility to changes in weights decreases as coherence among
indicators goes up and as the number of indicators goes up.) The most
serious source of volatility in US News rankings is not the weights and
changes in them but the fact that each indicator is turned into a rank
before being combined to achieve an overall score. That approach treats
a huge difference between two schools that happen to be adjacently
ranked on an indicator as being equivalent to a trivial difference
between two other, adjacently ranked schools. That effect of ranking is
inescapable at the very end, where schools are listed in order of
overall score. It could and should be avoided before that point.

Gary Glen Price
Department of Curriculum & Instruction
University of Wisconsin-Madison
http://www.wisc.edu/news/Welcome/
http://www.soemadison.wisc.edu/

[jimg]

Excellent points made by both posts on the short comings of USN's
ranking. MIT's "The Texh" article voiced the same but admitted that
it is a useful tool
:http://the-tech.mit.edu/V118/N40/sunkavally.40c.html

Currently, one can search USN's rank table by each "factor". It would
be more usefully if the rank table can be sorted eliminating factors
and/or varying their weights.

It actually can be done easily if the raw data table can be down loaded
to a statistic software package, similar to StatSoft's Statistica SW:
http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html

Can someone volunteer?

Gary Glen Price wrote:

>
> "newengland" <newen...@top.monad.net> wrote:
> > Thirteen months ago in this newsgroup I predicted that a
> > competitor to U.S. News would one day emerge. . We can only hope
> > that it will not use the U.S. News template -- a hodgepodge of
> > numbers weighted arbitrarily. No hodgepodge can overcome the
> > objection that another, different, hodgepodge might be superior.
> > A little more arithmetical weight here, a little less there and,
> > presto, a different ranking emerges. The problem with the U.S.
> > News model is that it is susceptible to a limitless number
> > of improvements.
>

[Jeremy Thorp Fox]

Wow. It has been a good week for informative posts. Both Newengland and
Gary Price have posted works of art to this newsgroup.

Newengland, have you analyzed why public universities do so poorly on your
scale? I think the top 50 is all private. On Gary's list of PhD rates,
Berkeley is #7, yet is does very poorly on your scale. Why?

One thing I like about your the Laissez-Faire ranking is the demotion of
Notre Dame from its high position on the US News ranking. :)

High school students, this ranking is a lot more informative than the US
News Ranking. Good job.

--
------------------------
Jeremy T. Fox
Economics Grad Student
jere...@stanford.edu

[Daniel Kang]

Gary Glen Price wrote:

>the trouble with their hodgepodge is that some of its
>ingredients are garbage–most notably to me, the item previously named
>"value added" and now named "graduation rate performance."

I for one don't believe that particular stat is "garbage" From a
student's point of view, it makes sense to go to a college that
lets one graduate easily. After all, you don't go to an expensive
private school to get stuck there for 10 years or to drop out.

[Gary Glen Price]

Daniel Kang wrote, concerning "the item previously named 'value added'
and now named 'graduation rate performance'":

> I for one don't believe that particular stat is "garbage" From a
> student's point of view, it makes sense to go to a college that
> lets one graduate easily. After all, you don't go to an expensive
> private school to get stuck there for 10 years or to drop out.

I suggest we make a distinction between the measure itself and the
construct(s) it is indended to measure.

The extent to which a school loses students after they've begun is
certainly worth knowing. However, the six-year graduation rate
statistic currently used by U.S. News & World Report, though convenient
for schools to provide, is an obtuse tool for shedding light on the
drop-out rate. Although the freshman retention rate doesn't suffice as
a measure of dropping out, it probably has greater purity as a drop-out
measure than does the six-year graduation rate.

Prospective students and their parents are justifiably interested in the
costs which those students who don't drop out will incur between entry
and graduation. The six-year graduation rate is a poor gauge of that.
The fact that the graduation rate used is a 6-year rate and not a 4-year
rate can mask financially important differences among the "expensive
private" schools to which you refer. Moreover, comparing schools on the
percentage of students who graduate in a specified number of years
penalizes those schools that respond flexibly when students seek to
interrupt their studies with a leave of absence--for work, travel,
overseas study, or other purposes. A more direct estimate of the
entry-to-graduation time that an entering student could expect to spend
in a college's educational program would be an average of the number of
"fully enrolled term-equivalents" accumulated by the students who
graduated in the previous spring. (Looking over the transcripts of
graduating seniors, how many semesters of full-time enrollment
accumulated between entry and graduation, on average? For students who
went part time, how many full-semester-equivalents accumulated?) "Fully
enrolled term-equivalents" (FETEs?) could be translated into academic
years (FEAYEs?) to make semesters, quarters, and trimesters
commensurable. Such a measure would more directly address the
pocketbook concerns of prospective students and their parents. Even the
measure that I have proposed, however, would retain a problem implied in
Stanford's assertions about its statistics for prospective undergraduate
students
<http://www.stanford.edu/home/statistics/assertions.html#Graduation
Rates>. Namely, like the six-year graduation rate, the proposed measure
would penalize schools in which a comparatively high percentage of
students seek double majors and simultaneous bachelor's-master's degree
programs.

Given school-to-school variations in tuition, room, board, financial aid
packages, and student norms for spending, FETEs-to-graduation may not be
a particularly good indicator of the total entry-to-graduation cost.
Annually updated statistics which schools report on "average financial
indebtednes of graduates" are useful supplementary information on
pocketbook matters.

Gary Glen Price
Department of Curriculum & Instruction
University of Wisconsin-Madison

http://www.soemadison.wisc.edu
http://www.wisc.edu

[rogerd]

Daniel Kang wrote in message <6ukr7j$mfu$1...@news.nuri.net>...

>I for one don't believe that particular stat [value added] is "garbage"

From a
>student's point of view, it makes sense to go to a college that
>lets one graduate easily. After all, you don't go to an expensive
>private school to get stuck there for 10 years or to drop out.

No, you go there to learn. A school that is so rigorous that a few students
actually drop out will produce greater levels of learning among the
survivors, and the value of the diploma will (or should) be greater.
Although in this grade inflated era "graduating easily" seems to be the
objective of many schools, those that refuse to succumb to this influence
should be rewarded, not penalized, in rankings.

[Smith / McGrath]

>>The extent to which a school loses students after they've begun is
certainly worth knowing.>>

That's seems fair enough, but I have a question about that data (sorry
if this was discussed earlier in the thread and I missed it)--does the
graduation rate take into account (or shouldn't it) the percentage of
entering freshmen who come from outside the college's region? Is it, as
I would presume, less likely that students will graduate from a given
university if they on average further away from home? Not talking about
international students here....for example, since UVa has such a high
percentage of in-state students, I'd expect the grad rate could be
higher than at a comparable university with a higher out-of-state
enrollment. What's the reality, and is this one of many factors that
could skew this rating system?

Thanks.

Chris Smith

[kga...@cs.ucsd.edu]

In article <6ukr7j$mfu$1...@news.nuri.net>,

"Daniel Kang" <dan...@nuri.net> wrote:
> Gary Glen Price wrote:
>
> >the trouble with their hodgepodge is that some of its

> >ingredients are garbage–most notably to me, the item previously named
> >"value added" and now named "graduation rate performance."
>
> I for one don't believe that particular stat is "garbage" From a

> student's point of view, it makes sense to go to a college that
> lets one graduate easily.

I don't think this is completely true. You want to go to a school that allows
"you" to graduate easily but is ridiculously difficult for everyone else.

I do think the stat is pure garbage if you are trying to judge the quality of
a university. Those mail order mills probably have a huge "value added"
score considering they spend only about $2.00 per student and 100% get
degrees, but is that somewhere you desire to go? Maybe with more information
this stat could be useful, but as it stands in isolation it is easily the
most worthless stat the USN&WR have used.

--
KSG
The UltraJam Show SRTV
SRTV: http://scw.ucsd.edu/
Personal: http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~kgatlin/

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

[Daniel Kang]

rogerd wrote:
>Daniel Kang wrote:
>>I for one don't believe that particular stat [value added] is "garbage"

>From a
>>student's point of view, it makes sense to go to a college that

>>lets one graduate easily. After all, you don't go to an expensive
>>private school to get stuck there for 10 years or to drop out.

>No, you go there to learn. A school that is so rigorous that a few students
>actually drop out will produce greater levels of learning among the
>survivors, and the value of the diploma will (or should) be greater.

Not necessarily. The value of the diploma, I believe, is implicitly
measured in acedemic reputation. Given the same academic reputation,
a student would benefit more by attending a school that lets him
graduate easily than one that does not.

>Although in this grade inflated era "graduating easily" seems to be the
>objective of many schools, those that refuse to succumb to this influence
>should be rewarded, not penalized, in rankings.

But the purpose of education is not to make students drop out, or
otherwise prevent them from graduating. I can't see how a student
can benefit from high graduation standards.

Regards,
Daniel Kang

[Darccity]

>>No, you go there to learn. A school that is so rigorous that a few

>>actually drop out will produce greater levels of learning among the
>>survivors, and the value of the diploma will (or should) be greater.
>
>Not necessarily. The value of the diploma, I believe, is implicitly
>measured in acedemic reputation.
>

>>Although in this grade inflated era "graduating easily" seems to be the
>>objective of many schools, those that refuse to succumb to this influence
>>should be rewarded, not penalized, in rankings.
>
>But the purpose of education is not to make students drop out, or
>otherwise prevent them from graduating. I can't see how a student
>can benefit from high graduation standards.
>

Let's me give this issue one more try. Both sides are right, but USN&WR's
measures are fatally flawed because they report the sum of a college's best and
worst attributes.
The worst colleges will have lower graduation rate and lower freshman
survival because (1) their scheduling is so poorly designed and course
cancelations are so capricious, students cannot get the courses they need, (2)
arrogant faculty and out-of-touch staff will lose records and provide incorrect
advising to delay your graduation, (3) student life, housing, teaching, and
counseling services are so bad that student performance and study habits
suffer, leading to probation and withdrawal.
However, the best colleges will also appear to have similarly low grad and
fresh survival rates because of (1) less grad inflation, (2) more rigorous
programs, (3) admission of more diverse, non-traditional students challenges
all students to learn to work in a 21st Century marketplace but should
naturally result in a higher dropout, transfer, and delayed graduation rate.
What's the solution? Report these opposing measures of quality student
services and rigor separately:
(1) Grade Inflation: Percent of Summa and Magna Cum Laude relative to other
colleges with similar entrance standards.
(2) Inflation/Rigor: Percent of Academic Dismissals and Probations
(3) Satisfaction: Retention rate -- 1 minus Percent transfers to
comparably-selective institutions
(4) Bureaucratic administration -- Mean number of credit hours beyond 120
earned by graduates earning only one degree and no minors
(5) Scheduling -- Percentage of classes listed in original schedule that
were canceled and percent of classes required for a major not offered or having
all sections closed during the previous year
(6) Housing -- Percent of students requesting on-campus housing forced to
live off campus
(7) Advising -- Median wait time to get an appointment with an advisor
Obviously, other specific measures can be devised. USN&WR could then combine
groups of similar factors into indexes.

[Raanmed]

Sounds like consumerism gone haywire to me.

If things were so terrible at a particular college or university that a
constellation of the below listed markers were to go south, you would hear
about it anecdotally before anyone could even compile the data. The point is
always going to be the same, i.e., how do you measure *student satisfaction*?
Neither USNews nor anyone else has ever been able to come up with an acceptable
solution.

--Ron

[rogerd]

Daniel Kang wrote in message <6unifj$mc9$1...@news.nuri.net>...

>The value of the diploma, I believe, is implicitly

>measured in acedemic reputation. Given the same academic reputation,
>a student would benefit more by attending a school that lets him
>graduate easily than one that does not.

Perhaps this is true in the short run, if you view the primary purpose of
undergrad school as gaining a degree. In the long run (perhaps the VERY
long run, due to the persistent nature of academic reputations), a school
that has lax academic standards will eventually see its academic reputation
decline as its grads have more difficulty gaining entrance to selective grad
schools and professional programs, etc. More importantly, what is undergrad
school about? Ideally, it should be a key step in the intellectual
development of the student - he or she is maturing into an independent
adult, being exposed to completely new academic areas and ideas, being
challenged to think in new ways and in general (one hopes) being made to
function intellectually on a higher plane than before.

>I can't see how a student
>can benefit from high graduation standards.

Well, if you can't see how, then I won't waste the bandwidth to try to
convince you. (I bet if you really think about it, though, you could come
up with one or two possible benefits...) :-)

[Daniel Myers]

This posting is just to let you guys know there was a student movement
called "func" (Forget U.S. News and World Report Coalition) whose website
is still posted at

http://www.stanford.edu/group/assu/func/

dhm

[Jeremy Thorp Fox]

Daniel Myers (d...@best.com) wrote:
:
: This posting is just to let you guys know there was a student movement

: called "func" (Forget U.S. News and World Report Coalition) whose website
: is still posted at
:
: http://www.stanford.edu/group/assu/func/

This group, if it still exists, is a bad joke. As a student of two
colleges (Rice and Stanford) where the so-called "student leaders" are big
supporters of this movement, I have to say that these people are totally
divorced from reality.

USNews is a business that is producing a product that people want to buy.
Getting rid of the overall rankings would get rid of the reason people buy
the issue in the first place. Obviously some students find this
information useful.

While I agree that some changes to USNews's formula might be an
improvement, in general USNews is providing a helpful service for some
segments of the population and to crusade against them seems utterly
silly.

[Darccity]

>Sounds like consumerism gone haywire to me.

It went haywire long ago, but not because it is consumerism. Students are in
most ways unlike consumers. How many manufacturers refuse to sell you their
product even though you are willing to pay for it? How many dealers take your
car away if they decide you are not driving it the way they want? How many
service providers charge over $100K without guaranteeing anything -- no skills,
competencies, jobs, seats in a particular professor's class, or a degree? In
any case, students are much more than consumers. A future graduate is a
lifetime member of the university community. That's a lot better than having a
disposable razor or junked car.

>
>If things were so terrible at a particular college or university that a

>constellation of the below listed markers were to go south, you'd hear

>about it anecdotally before anyone could even compile the data.

Anecdotal evidence is unreliable and inefficient. Fortunately, colleges teach
us not to rely on this kind of information unless there is none other. But
there won't be any useable survey information unless students and parents (or
taxpayers subsidizing private and funding public universities) demand relevant
measurements instead of colorful brochures.

>always going to be the same, i.e., how do you measure *student satisfaction*?
>

Student satisfaction is among the least measurable and less important measures.
Let's see, among all the colleges I have attended in my many incarnations, how
would I rate this college? Similar problem with course evaluations. ;-)
Instead, objective measures of the amount of learning has taken place
between freshman year and graduate. Easy to do with pretests and graduation
testing and evaluation instruments. Colleges that rely on exit requirements
already have the second part of this standard.
College services can also easily be subjected to quality control by
benchmarking standards with the best performance of their rivals. Most
colleges already have quality control officers and innovative quality
improvement programs.

>Neither USNews nor anyone else has ever been able to come up with an
>acceptable solution.

This is a bit of a red herring argument. USN&WR reports and ranks based on the
only comparable information provided by the colleges. For example, colleges
were required by the Feds to publish a list of their highest earning employees
(check the annual list in the Chronicle of Higher Ed). They wouldn't have
released this information if they weren't forced to. We can go on kicking the
tires and sifting though the garbage for biased and unsubstantiated anecdotal
info, or we can demand a spotlight be shown on the quality and performance of
our higher education system. Almost everyone would gain, especially our
colleges and universities.

[Raanmed]

Subject: Re: 1999 Laissez-Faire Ranking
From: darc...@aol.com (Darccity)
Date: Tue, Sep 29, 1998 15:20 EDT

>
>>Sounds like consumerism gone haywire to me.
>

>>If things were so terrible at a particular college or university that a
>>constellation of the below listed markers were to go south, you'd hear
>>about it anecdotally before anyone could even compile the data.
>
>Anecdotal evidence is unreliable and inefficient.<

Depends entirely what you are using it for. Whether some poor work study
recipient takes an extra minute to register someone for a class is not exactly
up there with the Human Genome Project. The collection (not to mention the
comparison) of such data in such picayune circumstances begins to take on
wag-the-dog attributes.
;-)

--Ron

[Darccity]

>Depends entirely what you are using it for. Whether some poor

>recipient takes an extra minute to register someone for a class is not

>up there with the Human Genome Project. The collection

> of such data in such picayune circumstances begins to take on
>wag-the-dog attributes.

That's not a fair comparison. One-minute versus major breakthru research.
What about choosing between two schools, one with slightly more research
achievements but also with much worse student services? Check the student
gripe sections in any college newspaper. The biggest complaints are about
non-teaching services. That's why so many services (book stores, food,
newspapers, and even housing) are being out-contracted. Of course a one-minute
difference isn't important (or statistically significant), but wasting hours
with insensitive staff can be the most frustrating of all. Fortunately, many
conscientious colleges are monitoring student services quality. There was even
a college prez a few years ago who would show up in disguise at registrar and
housing offices to see how the other half live.

[Raanmed]

darccity wrote:

>Check the student
>gripe sections in any college newspaper. The biggest complaints are about
>non-teaching services.<

But, that's my point. What's an article in the student newspaper if it isn't
anecdotal? Anecdotal evidence doesn't depend on lagging indicators (to the
same degree), the information gets out, and the response time can be measured
in months instead of the year it takes USNews to collect data--assuming the
data is current.

The newspaper articles you cite only show once again that all perceptions are
local. If it takes students the same length of time to register for a course
at college A) as it does at college B), yet the students at B) find it
intolerable, whereas the students at A) seem to take it in stride--why penalize
college A) for maintaining a generally tolerable (and tolerant) institutional
culture?

--Ron

[Daniel Myers]

Well, a service for some people might be a disservice for others. I read
about the pains, the anguish, and the outrageous caste systems which have
been coming about depending upon a person's school rankings, and I see it
and experience it a lot in real life, i.e., reality.

I find it fallacious to support something merely "because it's a business"
and because the business has customers.

I personally found some of the essays in FUNC rather compelling,
especially from the students who faced parental pressures to get into the
"top" schools and could not attend them. As a Rice graduate and Stanford
admittee, you're not likely to feel the brutality of the morons in society
exalt you.

You might check out James Fallow's book, "More Like Us" to get a picture
of the philosophical bind he must be in as editor and chief of U.S. News
and World Report, in having to deal with the people who run the school
ranking section.

I've commented more on this school ranking stuff on my on-line publication
http://www.best.com/~dhm/radical.html
the campus radical's commentary (which doesn't make me any money. Maybe
someday I'll get some tobacco ads to help me pay the bills ;)

dhm

[Jeremy T. Fox]

On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Daniel Myers wrote:

> I find it fallacious to support something merely "because it's a business"
> and because the business has customers.

That is not the entirety of my argument. Look, Harvard and Stanford were
considered to be the best or among the best universities long befre USNews
started its ranking system. What USNews is doing with its ranking system
is disseminating this information to the masses, who might not know it.

Our nation's elites generally consider Harvard, Stanford, and similar
schools to be among the best. As a high school student I did not realize
this. If I had read USNews's rankings (or read them more carefully) I
would have gotten this information. To embargo this kind of ranking
doesn't eliminate the rankings, it only restricts knowledge of them to
people who already have connections to prestegious universities.

> I personally found some of the essays in FUNC rather compelling,
> especially from the students who faced parental pressures to get into the
> "top" schools and could not attend them. As a Rice graduate and Stanford
> admittee, you're not likely to feel the brutality of the morons in society
> exalt you.

If parents are unfair to their children, that is hardly the fault of
USNews. The magazine just reports information. What these parents choose
to do with it is their business.

I am sympathetic to students with messed up parents. But once you turn 18
you have a certain independence, and you don't have to follow their
wishes. Every state has schools at which a student can finance study
(through work and/or loans) if they wish to eschew the big name private
schools their parents are pushing.

I am struck by the similarity of the FUNC letter you copied on your
website and the plight faced by Felicity, the new teen aimed WB drama
character. Felicity has chosen to attend the University of New York,
despite her parents pushing Stanford because of their status-seeking.

While Felicity's decision to attend UNY is more due to her disposition
towards stalking than her interest in agroecology (like the FUNC
letterwriter), it does show that you don't have to go to the school your
parents push. It is also interesting that Felicity blames her
problems on her parents, not on a popular weekly news magazine.

Of course, the most fascinating thing of all is that Felicity is from Palo
Alto, just like you and me!

> You might check out James Fallow's book, "More Like Us" to get a picture
> of the philosophical bind he must be in as editor and chief of U.S. News
> and World Report, in having to deal with the people who run the school
> ranking section.

To be honest I'm not very interested in the internal politics of USNews.

> I've commented more on this school ranking stuff on my on-line publication
> http://www.best.com/~dhm/radical

> the campus radical's commentary (which doesn't make me any money. Maybe
> someday I'll get some tobacco ads to help me pay the bills ;)

Your site certainly makes interesting, if not persuasive, reading.

By the way, the file homeless.html has its permissions set incorrectly. I
can't access it.

------------------------
Jeremy T. Fox
Economics Grad Student

jer...@leland.stanford.edu

[t.h.]

If I may add...

I got into grad school after 2 years of undergrad, and was considered a
college drop out..

that will change the curve a little..won't it?

I know that a lot of my friends did not receive undergrad degrees until
years later....they had gone on to grad school...(I forgot to ask,
<smile> and got it later also)

so what you see, is not what really seems to be happening..all of the
time...

people always worry about the athletes graduating..

"only"

t/

Smith / McGrath wrote:

--

++++====================++++++++++++++++
college admissions - financial aid - scholarships - plus
Email: mailto:collegea...@miningco.com
URL: http://collegeapps.miningco.com
Chat: http://collegeapps.miningco.com/mpchat.htm
BBS: http://collegeapps.miningco.com/mpboards.htm

[Raanmed]

Jeremy recently said:

> Look, Harvard and Stanford were
>considered to be the best or among the best universities long befre USNews
>started its ranking system. What USNews is doing with its ranking system
>is disseminating this information to the masses, who might not know it.
>
>Our nation's elites generally consider Harvard, Stanford, and similar
>schools to be among the best. As a high school student I did not realize
>this. If I had read USNews's rankings (or read them more carefully) I
>would have gotten this information. To embargo this kind of ranking
>doesn't eliminate the rankings, it only restricts knowledge of them to
>people who already have connections to prestegious universities.
>
>

In other words, they have taken Conventional Wisdom and elevated it to a
psuedo-science. Mel Elfin (the now retired originator of the Poll) as much as
said so over the years in diferent interviews. He and the designers of the
poll basically took a model of the "perfect university" assigned a value of 100
to all the things they thought should go into the mix--huge endowments, low
selectivity, grateful alumni, etc. etc. and every year graded every school
according to how they stacked up against the model. But, since the model is
based on "Harvard, Stanford, and similar schools" in the first place, it stands
to reason to reason they will place high in the survey. Basically, a school is
being graded according to how different it is from Harvard, often for reasons
that have little to do with learning.

A model based on Berea College (low tuition, lots of work-study, heavy
emphasis on service to society), or Reed (high tuition, high number of Ph.Ds
among alumni) would present very different poll numbers. We see this over and
over again whenever you control for wealth and size and simply look at per
capita output--the Big Three rarely finish in the top ten in terms of things
like % of Ph.Ds, % of pre-med acceptances, Pulitzer Prize winners, Academy
Award winners or anything else that depends on individual creativity or
determination.

Harvard, Yale and Princeton's (and Williams to some extent) one claim to fame
is their lock on Wall Street law firms and investment houses which persists to
this day. Hurray for them. That is no small accomplishment. But, even
assuming that this information was somehow being "embargoed" when Jeremy was in
h/s, it pales in comparison to the way in which places like Oberlin, Grinnell,
Kenyon and, yes, Reed and Berea have been marginalized over the past twenty
years by USNWR.

--Ron Medley

[Gary Glen Price]

Chris Smith wrote:
> does the
> graduation rate take into account (or shouldn't it) the percentage of
> entering freshmen who come from outside the college's region? Is it, as
> I would presume, less likely that students will graduate from a given
> university if they on average further away from home? Not talking about
> international students here....for example, since UVa has such a high
> percentage of in-state students, I'd expect the grad rate could be
> higher than at a comparable university with a higher out-of-state
> enrollment. What's the reality, and is this one of many factors that
> could skew this rating system?

Graduation rates as commonly reported do not take into account the
geographic origins of students.

You asked a straightforward question about whether out-of-state or
far-from-home students are more likely to drop out or transfer. The
lack of an answer may indicate that no one knows the answer. I
certainly don't know whether the incidence of dropping out or
transferring is related to a student's distance from home. My guess
(and it's only a guess) is that the relation is a negligible one in many
schools--weakly positive in some schools, nonexistent in some schools,
weakly negative in others.

Gary Glen Price
Alcee Fortier High School '63

[KSG]

Jeremy T. Fox wrote:

> Our nation's elites generally consider Harvard, Stanford, and similar
> schools to be among the best. As a high school student I did not realize
> this. If I had read USNews's rankings (or read them more carefully) I
> would have gotten this information. To embargo this kind of ranking
> doesn't eliminate the rankings, it only restricts knowledge of them to
> people who already have connections to prestegious universities.

Our nation's elite? I would imagine if you took a poll on the street and asked
100 people what the best school in the US is Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley
and Princeton would clean up. No other schools would be close. What USN&WR
does a better job of is spreading the word on good but somewhat lesser known
schools (ie Emory, Duke, Washington U., Chicago). Unfortunately the strict
ordering that USN&WR imposes is disingenious to most high school students trying
to decide which college is best for them.

And furthermore much of these rankings only exist in the world of USN&WR. You
state "To embargo this kind of ranking doesn't eliminate the rankings, it only

restricts knowledge of them to people who already have connections to

prestegious universities". This is not really true. Last year USN&WR ranked
Emory something like #9. If the USN&WR didn't exist not many people in the
country would have named Duke so highly. It is true tha ta certain class of
peoples would know that Emory is a very fine school and many would have never
heard of it, but USN&WR essentially created a new position for Emory. In this
respect if USN&WR didn't exist the "ranking" wouldn't exist.

--
One Luv,

KSG
The UltraJam Show SRTV Tuesdays 11pm-midnight (Channel 18/Triton Cable)
Bring tha Noize KSDT
SRTV/KSDT: http://scw.ucsd.edu/
Personal: http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~kgatlin

[Jeremy Thorp Fox]

KSG (kga...@cs.ucsd.edu) wrote:

: Our nation's elite? I would imagine if you took a poll on the street and asked

: 100 people what the best school in the US is Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Berkeley
: and Princeton would clean up. No other schools would be close. What USN&WR
: does a better job of is spreading the word on good but somewhat lesser known
: schools (ie Emory, Duke, Washington U., Chicago). Unfortunately the strict
: ordering that USN&WR imposes is disingenious to most high school students trying
: to decide which college is best for them.

Highlighting schools like UChicago is a good service of USNews. But again,
if high school students misuse information it is only there own fault.

: And furthermore much of these rankings only exist in the world of USN&WR. You

: state "To embargo this kind of ranking doesn't eliminate the rankings, it only
: restricts knowledge of them to people who already have connections to
: prestegious universities". This is not really true. Last year USN&WR ranked
: Emory something like #9. If the USN&WR didn't exist not many people in the
: country would have named Duke so highly. It is true tha ta certain class of
: peoples would know that Emory is a very fine school and many would have never
: heard of it, but USN&WR essentially created a new position for Emory. In this
: respect if USN&WR didn't exist the "ranking" wouldn't exist.

I'm not defending any particular formula or method USNews uses to rank
schools. I'm defending the idea of publishing rankings in general.

Another issues is that, except for Newengland's rankings, no other source
seems to exist for this information. If USNews is flawed, it still seems
better than no information at all.

--

[Jeremy Thorp Fox]

Raanmed (raa...@aol.com) wrote:

: In other words, they have taken Conventional Wisdom and elevated it to a

: psuedo-science. Mel Elfin (the now retired originator of the Poll) as much as
: said so over the years in diferent interviews. He and the designers of the
: poll basically took a model of the "perfect university" assigned a value of 100
: to all the things they thought should go into the mix--huge endowments, low
: selectivity, grateful alumni, etc. etc. and every year graded every school
: according to how they stacked up against the model. But, since the model is

: based on "Harvard, Stanford, and similar schools" in the first place, it stands

: to reason to reason they will place high in the survey. Basically, a school is
: being graded according to how different it is from Harvard, often for reasons
: that have little to do with learning.

USNews does separate out different categories of universities (national
universities, national liberal arts schools, etc.). You seem to be saying
they should go rven further and have the formulas totally be different for
each category. That is exactly the opposite wish of Newengland and other
posters, who want a unified ranking.

: A model based on Berea College (low tuition, lots of work-study, heavy

: emphasis on service to society), or Reed (high tuition, high number of Ph.Ds
: among alumni) would present very different poll numbers. We see this over and
: over again whenever you control for wealth and size and simply look at per
: capita output--the Big Three rarely finish in the top ten in terms of things
: like % of Ph.Ds, % of pre-med acceptances, Pulitzer Prize winners, Academy
: Award winners or anything else that depends on individual creativity or
: determination.

I think most people when the look at a comprehensive university want a
school like Harvard, rather than one like Berea or Reed, which admittedly
are good for their own purposes. To the extent that some people would
prefer Berea or Reed, they should discount the USNews ranking system.

: Harvard, Yale and Princeton's (and Williams to some extent) one claim to fame

: is their lock on Wall Street law firms and investment houses which persists to
: this day. Hurray for them. That is no small accomplishment. But, even
: assuming that this information was somehow being "embargoed" when Jeremy was in
: h/s, it pales in comparison to the way in which places like Oberlin, Grinnell,
: Kenyon and, yes, Reed and Berea have been marginalized over the past twenty
: years by USNWR.

Every other college admissions publication probably has information
praising the alternative approach taken by the schools you mention. The
fact that one, USNews, does not seems OK to me. Each publication has a
different purpose, and you should read more than one to get a fuller
picture.

There is a marketplace (big econ word there) of college guide books. If
you do not agree with one, there are hundreds of others for you to spend
your hard earned money on. If you are obsessed with national newsweeklies,
Time and Newsweek now have there own guides that don't rank schools.

Again, USNews is not the cause of stupid people who blindly apply to
highly rated schools without considering how happy they would be there.
These people are beyond help and we shouldn't stress out over them.

[Kang Su Gatlin]

Jeremy Thorp Fox wrote:

> KSG (kga...@cs.ucsd.edu) wrote:
>
> Highlighting schools like UChicago is a good service of USNews. But again,
> if high school students misuse information it is only there own fault.

True, but if USN&WR mislead students than whose(?) fault is this? If USN&WR came full
out and provided the formulae for which they compute their rankings I'd be much more
pleased cause it would take away some of the black box mystery associated with their
rankings.

> I'm not defending any particular formula or method USNews uses to rank
> schools. I'm defending the idea of publishing rankings in general.

I guess I defend it too, in the weak sense at least (I support freedom of speech).
But I do think that naive rankings of universities for the most part is pretty
stupid. Admittedly USN&WR does provide the guidelines which they use, but they
essentially throw this out the water and continue to say things such as "The Nation's
Best University".

> Another issues is that, except for Newengland's rankings, no other source
> seems to exist for this information. If USNews is flawed, it still seems
> better than no information at all.
>

There are many other rankings. Princeton Review has many distinct lists, which I much
prefer of USN&WR. Money has a list similar to USN&WR as does Gourman.

To me USN&WR is flawed in the worst way. It gives the illusion of giving useful
information (rankings) when in reality it takes other useful information (the
statistics they have) combine them in a very opaque box and then spit out something
that is virtually worthless (except for selling magazines).

If USN&WR were really concerned about helping students make choices in the college
game, give us a database that we could access with more statistics. I anticipate that
the work that GGP is doing will be 100X more useful to me than all the other ranking
guides combined (well if I was applying for college again that is).

But USN&WR job isn't to help students. It's to sell magazines (make money). They
have little desire to provide enlightenment or help. All of us on this board know
that the USN&WR rankings are a joke, no better than NewEnglands rankings or mine for
that matter (mine was constructed purely using easy to find numbers). The only thing
that makes me throw stones at USN&WR is that they have the money and reputation to say
"Our rankings really are the right ones". It would be nice if they listed some other
rankings alongside theirs.

KSG

[mrfuss]

<snipped>

>Again, USNews is not the cause of stupid people who blindly apply to
>highly rated schools without considering how happy they would be there.
>These people are beyond help and we shouldn't stress out over them.

Let's keep in mind that most of these people "beyond help" are 16 and 17
years old, that most have terribly inadequate counseling services available
to them, and that many of them are at the mercy of some very determined and
ill-informed parents. Have a little sympathy.

Marshall Fuss

[Bill Bailer]

On 2 Oct 1998, Raanmed wrote:

>
>Jeremy recently said:
>
>> Look, Harvard and Stanford were
>>considered to be the best or among the best universities long befre USNews
>>started its ranking system. What USNews is doing with its ranking system
>>is disseminating this information to the masses, who might not know it.
>>

>>Our nation's elites generally consider Harvard, Stanford, and similar
>>schools to be among the best. As a high school student I did not realize
>>this. If I had read USNews's rankings (or read them more carefully) I

>>would have gotten this information. To embargo this kind of ranking

>>doesn't eliminate the rankings, it only restricts knowledge of them to
>>people who already have connections to prestegious universities.
>>
>>
>
>

>In other words, they have taken Conventional Wisdom and elevated it to a
>psuedo-science. Mel Elfin (the now retired originator of the Poll) as much as
>said so over the years in diferent interviews. He and the designers of the
>poll basically took a model of the "perfect university" assigned a value of 100
>to all the things they thought should go into the mix--huge endowments, low
>selectivity, grateful alumni, etc. etc. and every year graded every school
>according to how they stacked up against the model. But, since the model is
>based on "Harvard, Stanford, and similar schools" in the first place, it stands
>to reason to reason they will place high in the survey. Basically, a school is
>being graded according to how different it is from Harvard, often for reasons
>that have little to do with learning.
>

> A model based on Berea College (low tuition, lots of work-study, heavy
>emphasis on service to society), or Reed (high tuition, high number of Ph.Ds
>among alumni) would present very different poll numbers. We see this over and
>over again whenever you control for wealth and size and simply look at per
>capita output--the Big Three rarely finish in the top ten in terms of things
>like % of Ph.Ds, % of pre-med acceptances, Pulitzer Prize winners, Academy
>Award winners or anything else that depends on individual creativity or
>determination.
>

>Harvard, Yale and Princeton's (and Williams to some extent) one claim
>to fame is their lock on Wall Street law firms and investment houses
>which persists to this day. Hurray for them. That is no small
>accomplishment. But, even assuming that this information was somehow
>being "embargoed" when Jeremy was in h/s, it pales in comparison to
>the way in which places like Oberlin, Grinnell, Kenyon and, yes, Reed
>and Berea have been marginalized over the past twenty years by USNWR.
>

>--Ron Medley

You sound to me like a person who IS closely associated with the
academic world, and you still don't recognize the point of the previous
writer. The schools you mention: Oberlin, Grinnell, Kenyon, Reed,
etc., ARE ranked well by USNews, and because of that, now
people like me know that they are fine schools -- before that, I had
not even heard of most of those schools, and Oberlin was the only one
that I would have suspected was a good school. Information, even if
flawed, is infinitely superior to NO information!

Bill Bailer
wba...@cris.com, Rochester NY USA, tel:716-473-9556
Acoustics, piano technology, music theory, JSBach

[Jeremy Thorp Fox]

4...@cs.ucsd.edu>
Distribution:

Kang Su Gatlin (kga...@cs.ucsd.edu) wrote:

: True, but if USN&WR mislead students than whose(?) fault is this? If USN&WR came full

: out and provided the formulae for which they compute their rankings I'd be much more
: pleased cause it would take away some of the black box mystery associated with their
: rankings.

Uh, hello? The USNews methodology is described pretty fully in the
magazine and their web site. See

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/weight.htm

: There are many other rankings. Princeton Review has many distinct lists, which I much

: prefer of USN&WR. Money has a list similar to USN&WR as does Gourman.

I think you just listed two publications that I have zero respect for. I
think they are much worse the USNews. I do like Money for its stated
purpose of identifying bargains.

1. Princeton Review - I believe they make their lists up after interviews
with only a handful of students per college. This is hardly a rigorous
approach to ranking.

2. Gourman - what a joke. Jack Gourman's "secret formula" is a load of
bullshit and so is his book.

: To me USN&WR is flawed in the worst way. It gives the illusion of giving useful

: information (rankings) when in reality it takes other useful information (the
: statistics they have) combine them in a very opaque box and then spit out something
: that is virtually worthless (except for selling magazines).

Why is the measure "worthless." It does seem to measure something, even if
it is what another poster identified as being like Harvard.

: If USN&WR were really concerned about helping students make choices in the college

: game, give us a database that we could access with more statistics. I anticipate that
: the work that GGP is doing will be 100X more useful to me than all the other ranking
: guides combined (well if I was applying for college again that is).

USNews is summarizing many statistics for people who cannot combine them
into their own index.

Another useful site is Critical Comparisons, which provides data in a more
raw form. Both ideas are good ones, and are suited for different types of
people.

I do find it funny that the CC site uses graduate rankings from the NRC
PhD survey to evaluate undergrad programs. I also think it is a little
strange that they use data from what was itself a really flawed ranking
(the NRC study). The problems in that study deserve a whole book. Yet they
were still very helpful to me in my graduate school search.

My point: a ranking system does not have to be perfect or fair in order to
provide value-added to its customers.

[Jeremy Thorp Fox]

mrfuss (mrf...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:

: >Again, USNews is not the cause of stupid people who blindly apply to

I guess I was a little too harsh. Mea Culpa.

But I still think the idea that the information in USNews is "dangerous"
and should be done away with quite ridiculous.

[KSG]

Jeremy Thorp Fox wrote:

> 4...@cs.ucsd.edu>
> Distribution:
>
> Kang Su Gatlin (kga...@cs.ucsd.edu) wrote:
>
> : True, but if USN&WR mislead students than whose(?) fault is this? If USN&WR came full
> : out and provided the formulae for which they compute their rankings I'd be much more
> : pleased cause it would take away some of the black box mystery associated with their
> : rankings.
>
> Uh, hello? The USNews methodology is described pretty fully in the
> magazine and their web site.

I am fully aware of their weightings. Have you ever tried to reconstruct their rankings
from these weightings? If you or anyone else can, please let me know. As far as I can tell
they print these weightings and then arbitrarily list schools. See Deja News for my
comparison of Duke to Cal Tech last year and tell me how in the world they could rate Duke
above Cal Tech with their weightings... Give us all the numbers, give us the formula and we
should be able to reconstruct the rankings on our own. Don't tease us with these ridiculous
weights that do me no good. That's like saying Coca Cola tells you how to make Coke... just
look at the ingredients list.

> : There are many other rankings. Princeton Review has many distinct lists, which I much
> : prefer of USN&WR. Money has a list similar to USN&WR as does Gourman.
>
> I think you just listed two publications that I have zero respect for.

Sorry.

> I think they are much worse the USNews. I do like Money for its stated
> purpose of identifying bargains.
>
> 1. Princeton Review - I believe they make their lists up after interviews
> with only a handful of students per college. This is hardly a rigorous
> approach to ranking.

And USN&WR is?

> 2. Gourman - what a joke. Jack Gourman's "secret formula" is a load of
> bullshit and so is his book.

How is his secret formula any different than the secret formula of USN&WR or Newengland.
Would Gourman comfort you more by listing random weightings (as he does list a criteria) or
if he said that his weightings were largely subjective?

Anyways, my point was simply to show that alternatives (as bad as they are, although I do
prefer Princeton Review over USN&WR) do exist.

> : To me USN&WR is flawed in the worst way. It gives the illusion of giving useful
> : information (rankings) when in reality it takes other useful information (the
> : statistics they have) combine them in a very opaque box and then spit out something
> : that is virtually worthless (except for selling magazines).
>
> Why is the measure "worthless." It does seem to measure something, even if
> it is what another poster identified as being like Harvard.

It is worthless because to the lay reader (probably 90% of the people who read it), they
associate the top rated schools with quality, and as Raanmed has so adeptly pointed out this
is not true. If your measure of "worth" is that it conveys "information" well than you'd
might as well throw worthless out of your vocabulary, since nothing is truly "worthless" (in
your strong definition).

> USNews is summarizing many statistics for people who cannot combine them
> into their own index.

What does it all mean! Increased magazines sales, but no increase in information to the
reader. I would say that I in know a fair amount about this topic and I don't understand
what the USN&WR rankings mean. Lord help a high school student who knows little about
college or this ranking game.

> I do find it funny that the CC site uses graduate rankings from the NRC
> PhD survey to evaluate undergrad programs. I also think it is a little
> strange that they use data from what was itself a really flawed ranking
> (the NRC study). The problems in that study deserve a whole book. Yet they
> were still very helpful to me in my graduate school search.

I did my search the old fashion way... Looked through conference proceedings for the most
part and talked to professors in the field. For neither my grad nor undergrad search did I
ever consult rankings to help guide my choice (although I did look at them).

[Raanmed]

Bill Bailer <Wba...@cris.com>
wrote on Sat, Oct 3, 1998 00:26 EDT:

>
>On 2 Oct 1998, Raanmed wrote:
>
>>
>>Jeremy recently said:
>>
>>> Look, Harvard and Stanford were
>>>considered to be the best or among the best universities long befre USNews
>>>started its ranking system. What USNews is doing with its ranking system
>>>is disseminating this information to the masses, who might not know it.

[big snip]

>>Harvard, Yale and Princeton's (and Williams to some extent) one claim
>>to fame is their lock on Wall Street law firms and investment houses
>>which persists to this day. Hurray for them. That is no small
>>accomplishment. But, even assuming that this information was somehow
>>being "embargoed" when Jeremy was in h/s, it pales in comparison to
>>the way in which places like Oberlin, Grinnell, Kenyon and, yes, Reed
>>and Berea have been marginalized over the past twenty years by USNWR.
>>
>>--Ron Medley
>

>You sound to me like a person who IS closely associated with the
>academic world, and you still don't recognize the point of the previous
>writer. The schools you mention: Oberlin, Grinnell, Kenyon, Reed,
>etc., ARE ranked well by USNews,

Not compared to ten or fifteen years ago. All have suffered losses in market
share, but none perhaps more than Oberlin which began somewhere at # 6 or 7 in
the polls debut years and has plummeted ever since.

>and because of that, now
>people like me know that they are fine schools -- before that, I had
>not even heard of most of those schools, and Oberlin was the only one
>that I would have suspected was a good school.<

This is a tough issue. I'm glad you were able to make good use of the poll.
And to some extent every college listed is faced with a Hobson's choice of
either working with it--warts and all-- or pretending it doesn't exist. The
latter choice is in some ways the riskier choice.

> Information, even if
>flawed, is infinitely superior to NO information!

Not if that information begins to feed on itself. If someone can manage to come
up with a convincing explanation why one of the country's best known liberal
arts colleges would gradually drop from #6 to about #22 over the space of ten
years, I would be better disposed towards USNWR's benign effects. Until then,
I remain skeptical.

--Ron

[kga...@cs.ucsd.edu]

In article <Pine.SUN.4.01.981003...@viking.cris.com>,
Bill Bailer <Wba...@cris.com> wrote:

> Information, even if
> flawed, is infinitely superior to NO information!

Why do people here keep saying that? There is nothing further from the
truth. Flawed information is only superior if you know that it is flawed
(where & why would help as well). A friend of mine was given some flawed
information about the great buys in Russia about three months ago. Well now
~$10,000 poorer, I'm sure he would have preferred no information over this
flawed information.

--

KSG
The UltraJam Show SRTV

SRTV: http://scw.ucsd.edu/
Personal: http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/~kgatlin/

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

[Daniel Myers]

On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Jeremy T. Fox wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Daniel Myers wrote:
>
> > I find it fallacious to support something merely "because it's a business"
> > and because the business has customers.
>

> That is not the entirety of my argument. Look, Harvard and Stanford were

> considered to be the best or among the best universities long befre USNews
> started its ranking system. What USNews is doing with its ranking system
> is disseminating this information to the masses, who might not know it.
>

> Our nation's elites generally consider Harvard, Stanford, and similar
> schools to be among the best. As a high school student I did not realize
> this. If I had read USNews's rankings (or read them more carefully) I
> would have gotten this information. To embargo this kind of ranking
> doesn't eliminate the rankings, it only restricts knowledge of them to
> people who already have connections to prestegious universities.

I merely stated a logical proposition. If you fail to publicize the dark
side of all this admissions hoopla, then you are doing violence to public
knowledge too. You're right about people ranking schools, students, and
graduates long before USNews started its enterprise. I remember one guy
many-many years ago who kept talking at the dinner table about how he was
planning to go to Stanford, mentioning the word "Stanford" in every other
sentence....There are thousands of people like that who will ruin your
dinner. Sometimes a person will think the only way to avoid discrimination
will be to actually get accepted into a place like that. Like you.

>
> If parents are unfair to their children, that is hardly the fault of
> USNews. The magazine just reports information. What these parents choose
> to do with it is their business.

That's an important issue. If U.S. News did some more reporting about
parents abusing their children over college rankings and college choice,
they would be doing everyone a greater service. If more students took the
problem to family-law court, that would even be better.

Same with schools, teachers, and counselors. There was once a physics
teacher in a community college - they used the same Halliday-Resnick
textbook as everywhere else - he told the class on the first day of the
academic quarter, "You know the difference between you idiots and Stanford
students? Stanford students do every problem in the book...." Good
reason to drop out of school and fire him.

>
> > You might check out James Fallow's book, "More Like Us" to get a picture
> > of the philosophical bind he must be in as editor and chief of U.S. News
> > and World Report, in having to deal with the people who run the school
> > ranking section.
>
> To be honest I'm not very interested in the internal politics of USNews.
>

Fallow's book doesn't have to do with USNews directly, since he wrote it
in the late 80's long before he got the editor-and-chief job at USNews. It
does have to do with our social and political culture, hierarchies,
academic values etc. He wrote in during times when Americans were
bedazzled by Japanese technocracy, which consistently put out higher
quality autos and electronic goods than what was being manufactured here
in the United States, which made consumers regard American manufacturers
to be inferior. Fallows focused on social classism as an impediment in
American culture, saying that emulation of the Japanese model or doing
things similar to other old-world classist behavior patterns is the wrong
way to go for Americans. He talked about the educational system too.

> > I've commented more on this school ranking stuff on my on-line publication
> > http://www.best.com/~dhm/radical
> > the campus radical's commentary (which doesn't make me any money. Maybe
> > someday I'll get some tobacco ads to help me pay the bills ;)
>
> Your site certainly makes interesting, if not persuasive, reading.
>

Thank you. The correct url is http://www.best.com/~dhm/radical.html I was
able to cancel the original posting with the bad address and re-send a
corrected one, and hopefully nobody went to the erroneous url. Murphy's
law.

> By the way, the file homeless.html has its permissions set incorrectly. I
> can't access it.

I had to shut it off for a bit. I'll let you know when I turn it back on.

dhm
http://www.best.com/~dhm
up and running again

[Darccity]

>Same with schools, teachers, and counselors. There was once a physics
>teacher in a community college - they used the same Halliday-Resnick
>textbook as everywhere else - he told the class on the first day of the
>academic quarter, "You know the difference between you idiots and Stanford
>students? Stanford students do every problem in the book...." Good
>reason to drop out of school and fire him.
>

At the best schools, I used Halliday and Resnick plus Feynman's Lectures in
Physics. Tenured profs cannot be fired for saying that (even though it is a
terrible thing to say). Nevertheless, the biggest lie is that the best
students will learn no matter where they are. They won't. Selective schools
have the potential for quality education because they are selective. Some of
the best educator and researchers teach at second and third tier universities.
They earn more (often much more) than their top-ten liberal arts college
counterparts and publish more and in higher-ranked journals. Faculty at the
top-10 liberal arts colleges would kill to get the office space, computer
resources, salary, research and teaching assistants that the 2nd and 3rd tier
profs routinely obtain. The difference in education is primarily due to the
quality and desire for learning of students in the classes. If social life,
earning part-time income, and just getting a degree replace curiosity and
thirst for knowledge, the most motivated, talented, and innovative teaching and
pedagogy will not achieve dramatic results. Remember, I am only talking about
the most selective privates. Learning at the other 90 to 95 percent of private
colleges is no better (and perhaps worse) than most publics. However, at a
private college, they'll make sure you graduate (whether or not you should).

[Darccity]

>There is a marketplace (big econ word there) of college guide books. If
>you do not agree with one, there are hundreds of others for you to spend
>your hard earned money on.

A competitive marketplace requires near perfect information. Asymmetric
information (they got it, we can't get it) prevents competition and enhances
market power. Application and acceptance contracts as well as financial aid
place the primary sunk costs and commitment on the student and her family.
This standard economics (even at Stanford :-) ). Any economist could easily
propose reform legislation in financial aid and federal education regulations
that would even the playing field and increase the economic efficiency of the
outcomes. Right now, we are far away from allocative and economic efficiency
and from equity. The current institutional (or should I say
"institutionalist") set up is more fitting for the theatre of the absurd. Just
because it's the best system in the world doesn't mean it cannot be vastly
improved. Lately, a lot of parents have been writing me to ask what positive
steps can be taken out of this torture chamber. There are.

[Jeremy Thorp Fox]

Darccity (darc...@aol.com) wrote:

: A competitive marketplace requires near perfect information.

A perfectly competetive market does, but what market is perfect?

: Asymmetric

: information (they got it, we can't get it) prevents competition and enhances
: market power.

True, which should be a point in favor of USNews because it is
distributing information more fully.

: Application and acceptance contracts as well as financial aid

: place the primary sunk costs and commitment on the student and her family.
: This standard economics (even at Stanford :-) ). Any economist could easily
: propose reform legislation in financial aid and federal education regulations
: that would even the playing field and increase the economic efficiency of the
: outcomes. Right now, we are far away from allocative and economic efficiency
: and from equity. The current institutional (or should I say
: "institutionalist") set up is more fitting for the theatre of the absurd. Just
: because it's the best system in the world doesn't mean it cannot be vastly
: improved. Lately, a lot of parents have been writing me to ask what positive
: steps can be taken out of this torture chamber. There are.

It'd be nice if college were free for everyone, like it is in Europe.
Unfortunately, the very strength of our system (private vs. public
competition) requires a large degree of decentralization of authority.
Sure we could bring the government in to reduce costs on students and try
to even out the influence of income on college acceptance, but at what
cost to the freedom to innovate that has made us so great?

This has gone a little far afield from US News and World Report, I must
say.

[Chris Stone]

X- No-Archive: Yes
Darccity wrote in message <19981003173014...@ng69.aol.com>...

>Some of the best educator and researchers teach at second and third tier
universities.
>They earn more (often much more) than their top-ten liberal arts college
>counterparts and publish more and in higher-ranked journals. Faculty at
the
>top-10 liberal arts colleges would kill to get the office space, computer
>resources, salary, research and teaching assistants that the 2nd and 3rd
tier
>profs routinely obtain.

Can you please cite some statistics to this effect?

[jimg]

I agree with the part that:

mrfuss wrote:
>
> <snipped>

>
> >Again, USNews is not the cause of stupid people who blindly apply to
> >highly rated schools without considering how happy they would be there.

The USN ranking has its faults. Once we recognize them, the statistics
provided by the ranking are very useful to help answer questions such as
below:

1. How competitive is the college applicants? Do I have a "good" chance
to be accepted and have a successful college experience there?
2. Typical class sizes.
3. Spending per student.
4. Average academic strength (SAT distribution) of potential study
mates.
5. Trend of academic reputation, e.g. Duke vs UCB.

In addition, no one will question the fact that a degree from the top 5
offers more career opportunities than one from the bottom 5. Many of us
who infuence hiring and firing have admiration to those who were
admitted to certain colleges (Caltech for me) and biased against others
(e.g. the school who accepted this class "fake"). Last, after a few work
years, your resume will only show where you had studied and not your
GPA.

This kind of pecking order exists in all facets of society. We rank kids
to determine who gets in Magnet schools, super 6 classes,...to Steve
Young being the highest ranking QB.

===========================================================================

All the above

>
> Let's keep in mind that most of these people "beyond help" are 16 and 17
> years old, that most have terribly inadequate counseling services available
> to them, and that many of them are at the mercy of some very determined and
> ill-informed parents. Have a little sympathy.
>

> Marshall Fuss

[Josh LaGrange]

Darccity wrote:
>
> .>Sure we could bring the government in to reduce costs on students and try

> >to even out the influence of income on college acceptance, but at what
> >cost to the freedom to innovate that has made us so great?
> >
>

> OK. So we finally established that Mr. Fox is not an economist (he is
> unfamiliar with any economic terms or their meanings). It is a wonderful major
> though, so try taking a course sometime. But what is he doing in this
> newsgroup for applicants, parents, and knowledgeable college advisors and
> admissions personnel? Perhaps he should spend his valuable time working on his
> classwork (whatever field that may be) and leave us be.

That seemed like a bit of a non sequitur to this disinterested observer.
Would you care to unlighten me (and Jeremy, likely) as to what you mean?

Hey Jeremy, do you know Sita (she's a year ahead of you)?
--
Josh LaGrange
Columbia Law School

[Josh LaGrange]

Josh LaGrange wrote:
>
>
> That seemed like a bit of a non sequitur to this disinterested observer.
> Would you care to unlighten me (and Jeremy, likely) as to what you mean?
>

At first I thought I'd made a typo, but then I realized that I was
asking to be burdened by the additional weight of this knowledge -->
unlightened. But treat it as enlightened for convenience. ;)

[Darccity]

>
>Can you please cite some statistics to this effect?
>

The Chronicle of Higher Ed annually publishes salary comparison of faculty by
rank and college. They also publish comparisons of things such as computer
resources, endowments, highest earning employees, etc. Barnes and Noble or your
library are good places to find this excellent "trade" publication. Mostly
read by college administrators and academic job hunters, but also has funny
cartoons and enlightening letters sections.

[Darccity]

[Darccity]

>Agreed, which is precisely why we should applaud US News. Instead of
>relying on colleges directly for information, students now have third
>parties to which to turn.
>
But the point is that USN&WR can't help us (much) if they can't get the
information either. All they can do is compile the superficial information the
college make available and digest it into somewhat arbitrary rankings. Still
boils down to rearranging the deck chairs.
I don't blame the magazine, but you can't get something from nothing.

[Jeremy Thorp Fox]

Josh LaGrange (jla...@law.columbia.edu) wrote:

: That seemed like a bit of a non sequitur to this disinterested observer.
: Would you care to unlighten me (and Jeremy, likely) as to what you mean?

:
: Hey Jeremy, do you know Sita (she's a year ahead of you)?

Sure. In fact I had lunch with her today since she's my graduate student
"role model" (I'm a lowly first year). :)

Did you go to William and Mary, or are you from Houston?

--------------------------

[Jeremy Thorp Fox]

Darccity (darc...@aol.com) wrote:

: OK. So we finally established that Mr. Fox is not an economist (he is

: unfamiliar with any economic terms or their meanings). It is a wonderful major
: though, so try taking a course sometime. But what is he doing in this
: newsgroup for applicants, parents, and knowledgeable college advisors and
: admissions personnel? Perhaps he should spend his valuable time working on his
: classwork (whatever field that may be) and leave us be.

You sure found me out there, Darccity. Good detective work.

To be honest, your "economics" post seemed to be filled with a lot of
jargon, but not much substance. You can't just toss out terms in a vacuum.
You have to state clearly what you mean by them.

--
------------------------

[TeamJDC]

Jeremy,

I doubt that you're holding your breath, but don't expect an answer any time
soon.

I've noticed that darccity has never reponded to a challenge.

[Darccity]

>I doubt that you're holding your breath, but don't expect an answer any time
>soon.
>
>I've noticed that darccity has never reponded to a challenge.
>

What challenge was that? Sorry, must have missed some postings. Don't get to
check the group as much as I'd like.

[Bill Bailer]

On 3 Oct 1998, Raanmed wrote:

>If someone can manage to come up with a convincing explanation why one
>of the country's best known liberal arts colleges would gradually drop
>from #6 to about #22 over the space of ten years, I would be better
>disposed towards USNWR's benign effects.

Out of the hundreds of schools in the US, the difference in rank #6 and
#22 is trivially small. These numbers are not "ratings," they are
"rankings," just an order, and the numbers do not represent anything
except that. The differences may be so slight that they are not even
statistically significant. In a ranking system, an insignificant
difference can easilly move a college many "ranks" when the only
difference is due to the degree of randomness inherent in the collected
data. This is the nature of numbers.

If US News really wanted to make
the information more meaningful, they would do away with the rank
numbers, but preserving the order, with "rating" numbers, each with an
associated degree of statistical significance. For instance, on a scale
of 100:

Harvard 94 +/- 3
Oberlin 93 +/- 4

They have data, and they could do it this way; it is only a matter of
how they care to calculate. They are victims of modern journalism,
which teaches that rankings sell better than ratings.

"Ranking" is a mentality that is derived from sports competitions, where
winners and records have to be declared, and any minute numerical
difference is significant.

"Ranking" really is a stupid way to present information about colleges.
Again, I stress, that almost all of the numerical reportage in the media
lacks any means of determining its significance, and "ranking," by its
nature, always obscures significance.

[Raanmed]

Bill Bailer recently wrote:

>If US News really wanted to make
>the information more meaningful, they would do away with the rank
>numbers, but preserving the order, with "rating" numbers, each with an
>associated degree of statistical significance. For instance, on a scale
>of 100:
>
> Harvard 94 +/- 3
> Oberlin 93 +/- 4
>
>They have data, and they could do it this way; it is only a matter of
>how they care to calculate. They are victims of modern journalism,
>which teaches that rankings sell better than ratings.
>
>

Um, calling USNews&WR a "victim" of journalism is a little like calling Bill
Clinton a victim of his penis. Few periodicals have done more to blur the line
between reporting news and manufacturing it than they have.

The rest of your post makes great sense and has many supporters in this n/g
including, William O. Barrett who basically says the same thing except that he
would include the top 100 colleges and universities in the poll.

For example, USNews only applies its ranking system to the fifty or so
"national" institutions, whereas, it merely uses the alphabet to list colleges
in other categories where the differences might actually be more significant.
What that tells me is that USNews knows full well what families will be most
susceptible to turning a "rating" system into a ranking system--the families
of the most competitive (and in some ways, least secure) students. Contrary to
what some free-marketers will tell you, the market place only tells you what
sells. It doesn't necessarily tell you what is sensible or significant.

--Ron Medley

[mrfuss]

Raanmed wrote in message <19981009121218...@ng07.aol.com>...

>For example, USNews only applies its ranking system to the fifty or so
>"national" institutions, whereas, it merely uses the alphabet to list
colleges
>in other categories where the differences might actually be more
significant.

A very good observation.

>What that tells me is that USNews knows full well what families will be
most
>susceptible to turning a "rating" system into a ranking system--the
families
>of the most competitive (and in some ways, least secure) students.
Contrary to
>what some free-marketers will tell you, the market place only tells you
what
>sells. It doesn't necessarily tell you what is sensible or significant.

USNews would be astonished (I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt) at how
poorly understood and how misused their data and rankings are. I talked once
to a mother who had spent considerable time researching their list to see
which schools spent the least money per student, because she thought this
showed which schools were the best bargains. It took a long time to persuade
her that, if tuition and financial aid were roughly equivalent between
several schools, spending more money per student was a positive factor.

Marshall Fuss

[Darccity]

> These numbers are not "ratings," they are
>"rankings,"

They have a rating index next each of their top colleges. Notice that between
some schools there are gaps of as much as three or four points, just like the
current Ohio State -- Nebraska football gap in the football poll.

>but preserving the order, with "rating" numbers, each with an
>associated degree of statistical significance.

Statistical significance does not apply to this subject because random sampling
(or sampling of any meaningful sort) occurs. What you probably mean is
"precision." They recently stopped carrying their ratings beyond the decimal
point (i.e., two sig figs). The result was numerous ties (such as the
three-way tie for first in the current year). Still, you are correct that the
hodge-podge soup they use for their index and the precision in reporting of
figures going into it warrants at least a "plus or minus 3 or 4 points.
Statisticians often check for the sensitivity of weights used in an index on
the overall outcome. Perhaps a bracketed interval of ratings for each college
should be reported instead. Three or four alternative weighting schemes
(perhaps acceptable to a panel of college advisors and admissions officers)
could be used. Ex., rating 1 would weight 50th percentile of SAT I and share
from top 10 percent of high school class a combined 60%, a second rating
weighting these only 25%.

[Jeremy Thorp Fox]

Raanmed (raa...@aol.com) wrote:

: For example, USNews only applies its ranking system to the fifty or so

: "national" institutions, whereas, it merely uses the alphabet to list colleges
: in other categories where the differences might actually be more significant.

No. USNews rates almost ALL 4-year schools, except "specialty" schools
(service academies, etc.) and schools with less than 250 students.

USNews does break down the rankings into different categories; a
questionable practice but one does that does allow lesser-known but
outstanding schools to gain some publicity.

In each separate category, the top schools are given an actual ranking.
Lower ranked schools are grouped into tiers, with no numerical ranking.
Also, the ratings for the lower tiers are not reported, but they are
computed and I imagine you could calculate them if you wish.

The reason is, and I agree with it, is that the difference between two top
schools is probably more noticeable then the difference between two lower
ranked schools. There would probably be tons of movement within the tiers
every year given USNews's tendency to fool with its formula.

At the low end, it is not extremely difficult to gain acceptance to a
certain school. It is less about you getting in, and more about choosing
the school that is right for you. So having a precise rating or ranking is
not as important. Having a general sense of the reputation of a school is
important, and that's what the tier system gives you.

One problem with this approach is that some forumula components useful is
breaking down lower ranked schools into tiers (say the freshman retention
rate) don't work so well when you talk about Cal Tech, for example.

There has been a lot of complaining about movements in the top 25 in this
group, and the actual formulas used. What people don't realize is that
these formulas have to work for less prestegious schools as well, and that
movements within the top 25 are probably much less than within the lower
tiers. That's why USNews leaves out the ratings for the lower tiers when
they publish the special issue.

: What that tells me is that USNews knows full well what families will be most

: susceptible to turning a "rating" system into a ranking system--the families
: of the most competitive (and in some ways, least secure) students.

The term "susceptible" seems to be very loaded in your usage. I see
nothing wrong with ordering a list of rated items in order of the ratings.
It certainly makes the information a lot easier to understand.

: Contrary to

: what some free-marketers will tell you, the market place only tells you what
: sells. It doesn't necessarily tell you what is sensible or significant.

Perhaps not. Just as USNews is allowed to rank colleges, you are allowed
to rank college guides. Congratulations.

[KSG]

Jeremy Thorp Fox wrote:

> At the low end, it is not extremely difficult to gain acceptance to a
> certain school. It is less about you getting in, and more about choosing
> the school that is right for you. So having a precise rating or ranking is
> not as important.

Why having a precise ranking any more important if the school is hard to get into?
It would seem if anything it is more important if the school is easy to get into.
If the school is hard they are in some sense filtering you out. You have fewer
decisions to make. If the school accepts you "automatically" than the burden is
100% on you to determine the best of the bunch. (this line of reasoning may contain
even more faults than my usual reasoning).

> There has been a lot of complaining about movements in the top 25 in this
> group, and the actual formulas used. What people don't realize is that
> these formulas have to work for less prestegious schools as well

What does "have to work" mean? All they have to do is print it... it's not like
they are building an engine (if an engine doesn't work than it obviously doesn't
accomplish it's goal). I guess by "have to work" you mean they have to sell
magazines with it. In that respect they probably have to have some semblance of
familiarity up top (ie Harvard, Yale, Princeton). But would anyone notice if SDSU
moved from fourth tier to second? I just don't really know what "have to work"
means in regard to the less prestigious schools.

--
One Luv,

KSG

[Raanmed]

From: jer...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Jeremy Thorp Fox)
Date: Fri, Oct 9, 1998 19:04 EDT:

>
>Raanmed (raa...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>: For example, USNews only applies its ranking system to the fifty or so
>: "national" institutions, whereas, it merely uses the alphabet to list
>colleges
>: in other categories where the differences might actually be more
>significant.
>
>No. USNews rates almost ALL 4-year schools, except "specialty" schools
>(service academies, etc.) and schools with less than 250 students.
>

Let's not parce words here. By "rank", I mean _publicizing_ numerical values
for each school, clearly implying one is better than the one below it..

>USNews does break down the rankings into different categories; a
>questionable practice but one does that does allow lesser-known but
>outstanding schools to gain some publicity.
>

Mostly I agree with you, but I also think this "free publicity" thing is
overblown. The name "Mount St. Mary" appears once as a "Top Tier" Northern
College _and_ University; again as a "Third Tier" university; and at least once
more as a "Regional University" (whatever that is.) Different schools, yet,
USNews can't even tell you what size each one is, much less what makes one
"better" than the others.

>In each separate category, the top schools are given an actual ranking.
>Lower ranked schools are grouped into tiers, with no numerical ranking.
>Also, the ratings for the lower tiers are not reported, but they are
>computed and I imagine you could calculate them if you wish.
>

Yes, I found it, though it's much easier to navigate USNews on the website (
you can go blind trying to leaf through a hard copy of the magazine.)

>The reason is, and I agree with it, is that the difference between two top
>schools is probably more noticeable then the difference between two lower
>ranked schools.<

Intuitively, I think the opposite is true, but even so...the difference between
Carleton and Macalester is--what?

> There would probably be tons of movement within the tiers
>every year given USNews's tendency to fool with its formula.<

So...because their statistical flaws only become obvious at the "lower end",
it's okay for USNews to hide them. What scientific journal would accept that
as an explanation?

>
>At the low end, it is not extremely difficult to gain acceptance to a
>certain school. It is less about you getting in, and more about choosing
>the school that is right for you.

Okay....

>So having a precise rating or ranking is

>not as important. Having a general sense of the reputation of a school is
>important, and that's what the tier system gives you.<

What are you saying? That all of those considerations go out the window once
you start looking at $30,000 a year in tuition?

>
[snip regarding Caltech]

>There has been a lot of complaining about movements in the top 25 in this
>group, and the actual formulas used. What people don't realize is that

>these formulas have to work for less prestegious schools as well, and that
>movements within the top 25 are probably much less than within the lower
>tiers. That's why USNews leaves out the ratings for the lower tiers when
>they publish the special issue.

Readers of this n/g know full well USNews is not afraid of statistical
anomalies.

Let's go back to the marketplace. The fact is, most college students and their
families simply don't give a damn. No one is going to choose William Woods U.
over St. Mary-of-the-Woods (a real school) because USNews says one ranks higher
than the other. The surprising thing is that it's the putative members of the
"natural elite" who are so much more fitful, fretful, and--yes, _susceptible_
to manipulation compared to the people who will be working for them in ten
years! (I didn't say I wasn't an elitist, too.)

>
>: What that tells me is that USNews knows full well what families will be
>most
>: susceptible to turning a "rating" system into a ranking system--the
>families
>: of the most competitive (and in some ways, least secure) students.
>
>The term "susceptible" seems to be very loaded in your usage. I see
>nothing wrong with ordering a list of rated items in order of the ratings.
>It certainly makes the information a lot easier to understand.
>

See, above.