Acceptance rate vs. ranking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have a 9th grader and starting to think about college (in the “what should she be doing to be well-positioned” way, not in the “let’s go on college visits” way). We don’t know what her stats will be, though she’s on track to finish first semester with all As and one B (in an AP class). Obviously no test scores yet. In thinking about the types of school she should be targeting, should we be looking at acceptance rate or ranking? For example, I see Tulane mentioned here a lot and I think she’d be interested. Tulane has a low acceptance rate (11%), but it’s ranked 73 by USNWR. Not sure what to make of these different stats.

That is entirely the wrong way to look at colleges. Look at colleges in terms of programs of study and fit. The acceptance rates are relevant to gauge the chances of admission (and the low-rate ones are essentially lottery.). Rankings mean precisely nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a 9th grader and starting to think about college (in the “what should she be doing to be well-positioned” way, not in the “let’s go on college visits” way). We don’t know what her stats will be, though she’s on track to finish first semester with all As and one B (in an AP class). Obviously no test scores yet. In thinking about the types of school she should be targeting, should we be looking at acceptance rate or ranking? For example, I see Tulane mentioned here a lot and I think she’d be interested. Tulane has a low acceptance rate (11%), but it’s ranked 73 by USNWR. Not sure what to make of these different stats.

Someone probably has already said this, but Tulane’s current ranking is a function of USNWR changing its ranking criteria this year to more emphasize what would currently be referred to as “equity” components which would have little effect on the quality of education a high stats kid would receive there. In previous years Tulane was consistently ranked much higher.

By virtue of manipulating admissions to align with USNWR ranking criteria (taking almost all of the class ED and thus having a strospheric yield, plus making EA/RD admission very easy to access and targeting kids who aren’t academic fits just so they have a lot of kids to reject). Agree that NE and Chicago are also huge offenders in this area, as are a couple of the NESCACs (someone mentioned Bates, which is awful in the admit the whole class ED area. But they aren’t the only high ranking SLAC doing this).

IMO, USNWR rankings have been incredibly damaging for US college admissions. Looking at data is very important. Departmental outcomes? Class size? Retention? 4 and 6 year graduation rates? Salary (depending on major— a musician and a CS major are swimming in different pools)— important. Looking at USNWR and choosing school A over school B solely because one is ranked in the high 30s and the other in the low 50s is lazy and dumb.

Ironically, NE is top notch in retention rate, graduation rate, outcome, salary, those data that is hard to manipulate.
I think these should be the primary criterion and NE seems to be underranked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a 9th grader and starting to think about college (in the “what should she be doing to be well-positioned” way, not in the “let’s go on college visits” way). We don’t know what her stats will be, though she’s on track to finish first semester with all As and one B (in an AP class). Obviously no test scores yet. In thinking about the types of school she should be targeting, should we be looking at acceptance rate or ranking? For example, I see Tulane mentioned here a lot and I think she’d be interested. Tulane has a low acceptance rate (11%), but it’s ranked 73 by USNWR. Not sure what to make of these different stats.

That is entirely the wrong way to look at colleges. Look at colleges in terms of programs of study and fit. The acceptance rates are relevant to gauge the chances of admission (and the low-rate ones are essentially lottery.). Rankings mean precisely nothing.

Rankings are helpful. It's a reference and tool you could use.
My high stat kid could immediately eliminate about 3000 colleges and focus on about 80-100 schools.
Save shit ton of time and efforts thanks to rankings.

[Anonymous]

^ oh please. No one is looking thru 3000 colleges. Get the Princeton review. If it’s in that book it’s a terrific school. You can sort based on size, geography, academic strengths, etc without ANY reference to rankings whatsoever. If between 2 schools that USNWR ranks as 28 and 136, if my kid felt 136 better matched their wish list, I’d actually be disappointed if they chose 28.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a question I ask myself all the time. The rankings/necessary stats/acceptance rates are all over the board. Makes no sense.

It only makes no sense if you think the quality of the school is based on how selective admissions is.

Well in a perfect world it would be. Otherwise it’s meaningless.

Numbers of applications reflect popularity, not quality. For example, I assume applications to Tulane went down after Hurricane Katrina made New Orleans a much less appealing city for a while. The quality of the institution didn’t change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ranking is one reference you consider out of several factors. It contributes to the selectivity.

Selectivity is a function of acceptance rate + student stat/quality + yield.

+marketing

I don’t equate acceptance rate with quality at all. Good marketing can decrease your acceptance rate and so can manipulation of the numbers by using ED, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ oh please. No one is looking thru 3000 colleges. Get the Princeton review. If it’s in that book it’s a terrific school. You can sort based on size, geography, academic strengths, etc without ANY reference to rankings whatsoever. If between 2 schools that USNWR ranks as 28 and 136, if my kid felt 136 better matched their wish list, I’d actually be disappointed if they chose 28.

Yes, my kid chose #47 school over #28 school based on fit as well at the time.
However ranking was helpful.
Sorted based on size, geography, academic strengths, location, etc. etc. and also rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ranking is one reference you consider out of several factors. It contributes to the selectivity.

Selectivity is a function of acceptance rate + student stat/quality + yield.

+marketing

I don’t equate acceptance rate with quality at all. Good marketing can decrease your acceptance rate and so can manipulation of the numbers by using ED, etc.

Marketing may work temporarily.
You may think whatever you want, but the fact is that there's clear correlation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a 9th grader and starting to think about college (in the “what should she be doing to be well-positioned” way, not in the “let’s go on college visits” way). We don’t know what her stats will be, though she’s on track to finish first semester with all As and one B (in an AP class). Obviously no test scores yet. In thinking about the types of school she should be targeting, should we be looking at acceptance rate or ranking? For example, I see Tulane mentioned here a lot and I think she’d be interested. Tulane has a low acceptance rate (11%), but it’s ranked 73 by USNWR. Not sure what to make of these different stats.

Someone probably has already said this, but Tulane’s current ranking is a function of USNWR changing its ranking criteria this year to more emphasize what would currently be referred to as “equity” components which would have little effect on the quality of education a high stats kid would receive there. In previous years Tulane was consistently ranked much higher.

Then Tulane will continue to fall. They take 80% of their class ED and the vast majority are full pay, white students. Tulane would rather take a 3.5 GPA full pay ED student than a 4.3 Early Action student. It’s a fact. But, while this data manipulation gets Tulane a lower admission rate percentage, it creates little to no economic diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a 9th grader and starting to think about college (in the “what should she be doing to be well-positioned” way, not in the “let’s go on college visits” way). We don’t know what her stats will be, though she’s on track to finish first semester with all As and one B (in an AP class). Obviously no test scores yet. In thinking about the types of school she should be targeting, should we be looking at acceptance rate or ranking? For example, I see Tulane mentioned here a lot and I think she’d be interested. Tulane has a low acceptance rate (11%), but it’s ranked 73 by USNWR. Not sure what to make of these different stats.

Someone probably has already said this, but Tulane’s current ranking is a function of USNWR changing its ranking criteria this year to more emphasize what would currently be referred to as “equity” components which would have little effect on the quality of education a high stats kid would receive there. In previous years Tulane was consistently ranked much higher.

Then Tulane will continue to fall. They take 80% of their class ED and the vast majority are full pay, white students. Tulane would rather take a 3.5 GPA full pay ED student than a 4.3 Early Action student. It’s a fact. But, while this data manipulation gets Tulane a lower admission rate percentage, it creates little to no economic diversity.

This. They can’t continue to manipulate data with ED and court Socio-economic diversity students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will people who will tell you acceptance rate means nothing and you should not even look at it, but it means a ton. You just need to get used to calibrating raw acceptance rates with yield, ED admissions rate, and percent of class filled ED (and factor in the huge percentage of ED athletes in certain SLACs. Tulane is obviously now underrated by US News, even if you calibrate the acceptance rate by doubling it. Georgetown is underrated, because it has no ED etc.

You’re drinking the kool-aide. Acceptance rate isn’t important.

[Anonymous]

Acceptance rates are skewed bc many schools accept more early decision. However, it is important to consider as she builds her college list which should be balanced with safeties, targets and reaches. One blog I read said that for a school to considered a safety school it needs to have a 50%+ acceptance rate even if you DD’s stats are higher than the school’s average. Not sure if that is true, but a point worth considering.

You really can’t determine your daughter’s college list until middle of Jr year. Things have been changing so fast year to year that I think it’s a waste of time to think about it much before.

I would just encourage her to get involved in something she enjoys (inside or outside school) and try to find a way to progress to a leadership role of some type in that activity.

You can also visit schools continent to where you live or travel in the next few years. Try to do a mix of city/rural/small/large settings to get a feel for what type of school you think is the best fit for her.

Have her also see her teachers outside of class, particularly next year and jr year, to build relationships that may help a recommendation letter stand out a bit.

And of course study to keep up her grades.

I wouldn’t think of rankings at all. What I think matters is how connected the school is for post grad employment and opportunities for building employable skills while in school (internships, research opp, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will people who will tell you acceptance rate means nothing and you should not even look at it, but it means a ton. You just need to get used to calibrating raw acceptance rates with yield, ED admissions rate, and percent of class filled ED (and factor in the huge percentage of ED athletes in certain SLACs. Tulane is obviously now underrated by US News, even if you calibrate the acceptance rate by doubling it. Georgetown is underrated, because it has no ED etc.

You’re drinking the kool-aide. Acceptance rate isn’t important.

It is important. If you ignore it, you are screwed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There will people who will tell you acceptance rate means nothing and you should not even look at it, but it means a ton. You just need to get used to calibrating raw acceptance rates with yield, ED admissions rate, and percent of class filled ED (and factor in the huge percentage of ED athletes in certain SLACs. Tulane is obviously now underrated by US News, even if you calibrate the acceptance rate by doubling it. Georgetown is underrated, because it has no ED etc.

You’re drinking the kool-aide. Acceptance rate isn’t important.

It is important. If you ignore it, you are screwed.

Yeah, kids ignore it at their peril: the whole point of applying to colleges is to get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ranking is one reference you consider out of several factors. It contributes to the selectivity.

Selectivity is a function of acceptance rate + student stat/quality + yield.

+marketing

I don’t equate acceptance rate with quality at all. Good marketing can decrease your acceptance rate and so can manipulation of the numbers by using ED, etc.

+1 Posters on here don’t realize rankings and selectivity are marketing tools designed to make them spend more money.