Reply to Why rankings are bunk

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "Why rankings are bunk"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]Different PP here. I wrote about how indices are constructed earlier, and how I could build you an index that puts your alma mater at the top, and which we could probably actually justify.

We need to separate what 23:12 calls being "sought after" (basically, acceptance rates) from their *relative* place in the rankings.  I agree with 23:12 that many of these schools are more "sought after" in the sense that their acceptance rates are much lower than they were 20 years ago.  More kids of boomers submitting applying to 10+ schools through the Common App. So acceptance rates are lower across the board.

What we're really talking about is a school's *relative* place in the rankings. Given that acceptance rates are a component of the rankings, it's pretty hard to tease this out. This is probably what 23:12 means by "reputation," correct me if I'm wrong. The book Price of Admission talks about what Brown and Duke did to boost applications. For example, Brown did away with core curriculum requirements and actively recruited JFK Jr and celebs' kids. But since increased reputation boosts applications, which means a lower acceptance rate, which in turn boosts the school's USNWR ranking, it's a circle in which BOTH reputation and the ranking's own methodology contribute to a rise in te rankings.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics