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.

I meant NYU law had a stellar reputation.

I went to college over 30 years ago and UPenn was absolutely a sought after school. Definitely more sought after than Cornell, Dartmouth and Columbia (which i chose not to apply to, although i did apply to Penn) and the US News rankings didn't exist or no one cared. I had certainly never heard of them.

The same is true when I applied to law schools almost 30 years ago. I went to NYU, and chose it over Columbia, and it absolutely had a stellar relationship back then. Again if the rankings existed, I had never heard of them. And NYU undergraduate had pretty much the same reputation back in my day as it does now, exactly the same the more i think about it.

This business of Stanford being meh 20 years ago is the most laughable thing you wrote. I KNOW how competitive it was. Its always been seen as the west coast equivalent of the ivies.

You just don't know what you are talking about. There has been no upending of schools. There have been quite a few whose reputations have improved but thats not because of the rankings, thats because the ivies have gotten so competitive and its gotten so hard to get in that students who would have gone to an ivy in previous generations are now going to other schools. The rankings didn't do this. And the schools that were considered the most competitive back in my day, still are.

The rankings don't have superpowers. You can choose to pay attention to them if you want, but they really haven't been responsible for what you claim they are.

Anonymous wrote:But you folks are mixing together two different things. A school's reputation, accurate or not, is one thing. The (close to random) rankings by one particular institution following their particular, manipulable criteria, is something else entirely. The former existed long before anyone cared about rankings. Of course an applicant is going to care about a school's reputation, as a starting point before digging deeper. But the reputations exist separate an apart from that one system of ranking.

Yale would be Yale whether or not US News rankings existed. But would Washington U be Washington U without the rankings? And should a school shoot up in reputation solely because it is adept at manipulating the particular criteria used by this outside company?

And its one thing for someone to say "X is a great school for such and such study," or "I keep hearing that the students at X get very little attention and the atmosphere is competitive." Its another thing to say "X is ranked #4, so I hope my child goes there," or "X is only 26, so even though my child really likes it, I don't want him to go there."

Yes, but it's impossible not to conflate the two in this day and age. We all get that "Yale would be Yale" without USNWR. But would Penn be Penn without USNWR? I posted earlier and noted that Penn has enjoyed a huge surge almost solely based on its USNWR ranking. Starting as the bastard stepchild of the Ivies it's now one of the most sought-after schools in the country, with acceptances and yield rates to match. People are choosing Penn routinely over Dartmouth, Brown, Cornell, and even Columbia. Another case in point: was anyone beating down the door to get into the University of Chicago 2 decades ago? Yes, Chicago was always a highly reputable school with loads of smart kids, but the masses that were chasing after the Ivies wouldn't have given it two thoughts. Enter USNWR. Now it has a sub-10 percent acceptance rate and is turning away kids that end up going to Columbia and Penn. Seriously, you may pooh-pooh the rankings, and it's certainly generally true that the schools in the top 10-15 (including the two examples I just mentioned) were always considered "elite" and always had solid reps. But the huge up-ending of the schools in this already-elite group -- with some rising to literally the top and others falling -- would not have happened without USNWR. At least that's my view.

I also mentioned in a prior post the NYU phenomenon -- while NYU hasn't been successful with pushing its undergrad into the stratosphere, it has done exactly that with its law school. Its USNWR ranking of #6 puts it among the cream of the crop for would-be law students. Again, inconceivable 2 decades ago. "Reputation" is a slippery thing. It's not assured and it's not forever. USNWR has had a huge hand in shaping the reputation of every school in this country, outside of -- perhaps -- Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. And even for those schools, USNWR has had a significant impact in both solidifying their rep and, ironically, making them slightly *less* desirable because of their peer institutions' concurrent reputational advances. (For ex., see Stanford's rise from "meh" to "holy shit, I'm going to Stanford!," again in the last 2 decades.)

Anyway, bunk or not, the rankings do have a huge influence over generations of applicants. USNWR rankings, along with the rise of the common app, that allowed top students to apply to that many more schools (and simultaneously allow said schools to drastically increase application rates) have to be the biggest game changers in school reputation in quite a long time.

But you folks are mixing together two different things. A school's reputation, accurate or not, is one thing. The (close to random) rankings by one particular institution following their particular, manipulable criteria, is something else entirely. The former existed long before anyone cared about rankings. Of course an applicant is going to care about a school's reputation, as a starting point before digging deeper. But the reputations exist separate an apart from that one system of ranking.

Yale would be Yale whether or not US News rankings existed. But would Washington U be Washington U without the rankings? And should a school shoot up in reputation solely because it is adept at manipulating the particular criteria used by this outside company?

And its one thing for someone to say "X is a great school for such and such study," or "I keep hearing that the students at X get very little attention and the atmosphere is competitive." Its another thing to say "X is ranked #4, so I hope my child goes there," or "X is only 26, so even though my child really likes it, I don't want him to go there."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the US News rankings gained such traction is that they are generally consistent with what most people think based on what they know - so they assume they are accurate in other respects. So, for example, when I see the comparative rankings of Princeton, Duke, Georgetown and UVA, I say "that seems about right" and I trust the other rankings.

The methodology is subject to question, but the results seem right.

Trust me, as someone who has worked at three universities - you don't know anything. Really, you don't. People base their decisions on a lot of superficial BS instead of on the quality of the professors, which is what should matter. Then they bitch about the cost of the superficial BS when it is they who have made irrational, uninformed decisions.

+1. I had mentioned my experiences with this on a previous thread. For my undergrad and graduate education, I went to a top 25, a school that was ranked at around 100, and another that was about at 150. If I had to rate the quality of my professors, I would put the 100 college first with the 150 university a close second, and the "top" school a very, very distant third. My classmates and I were mystified as to why the big name school ranked so highly when the quality of instruction was so uniformly poor. Ever since that experience, I've taken these rankings with a grain of salt.

Masters of the obvious. So with hundreds of schools and myriad possible classes each with multiple professors, which school has the best professors in the classes I will take? Impossible to know.

I graduated from a top 5 law schools where I had both the beast AND worst teachers I've had at any level of education, but in the end it was the school's reputation that justified the considerable expense.

You had beast teachers at a top 5 law schools?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the US News rankings gained such traction is that they are generally consistent with what most people think based on what they know - so they assume they are accurate in other respects. So, for example, when I see the comparative rankings of Princeton, Duke, Georgetown and UVA, I say "that seems about right" and I trust the other rankings.

The methodology is subject to question, but the results seem right.

Trust me, as someone who has worked at three universities - you don't know anything. Really, you don't. People base their decisions on a lot of superficial BS instead of on the quality of the professors, which is what should matter. Then they bitch about the cost of the superficial BS when it is they who have made irrational, uninformed decisions.

+1. I had mentioned my experiences with this on a previous thread. For my undergrad and graduate education, I went to a top 25, a school that was ranked at around 100, and another that was about at 150. If I had to rate the quality of my professors, I would put the 100 college first with the 150 university a close second, and the "top" school a very, very distant third. My classmates and I were mystified as to why the big name school ranked so highly when the quality of instruction was so uniformly poor. Ever since that experience, I've taken these rankings with a grain of salt.

Masters of the obvious. So with hundreds of schools and myriad possible classes each with multiple professors, which school has the best professors in the classes I will take? Impossible to know.

I graduated from a top 5 law schools where I had both the beast AND worst teachers I've had at any level of education, but in the end it was the school's reputation that justified the considerable expense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the US News rankings gained such traction is that they are generally consistent with what most people think based on what they know - so they assume they are accurate in other respects. So, for example, when I see the comparative rankings of Princeton, Duke, Georgetown and UVA, I say "that seems about right" and I trust the other rankings.

The methodology is subject to question, but the results seem right.

Trust me, as someone who has worked at three universities - you don't know anything. Really, you don't. People base their decisions on a lot of superficial BS instead of on the quality of the professors, which is what should matter. Then they bitch about the cost of the superficial BS when it is they who have made irrational, uninformed decisions.

+1. I had mentioned my experiences with this on a previous thread. For my undergrad and graduate education, I went to a top 25, a school that was ranked at around 100, and another that was about at 150. If I had to rate the quality of my professors, I would put the 100 college first with the 150 university a close second, and the "top" school a very, very distant third. My classmates and I were mystified as to why the big name school ranked so highly when the quality of instruction was so uniformly poor. Ever since that experience, I've taken these rankings with a grain of salt.

Anonymous wrote:OP - my child just graduated from Princeton last month. I highly doubt you went there based upon your writing. If you did - what are the names of the only 2 hotels w/in walking distance of the campus?

The Nassau Inn. Don't know the other one because we always stay at the Westin 10 minutes away during reunions (where the 25th reunion class leads the P-rade). Its possible that the 2nd one is part of all the construction that has gone up on Palmer Square since I was there. Since you are a parent and didn't attend the school I probably know far, far more about than you, but quiz away if you don't believe me.

I do suspect the place has changed but in my day we weren't all clamoring to make connections and become investment bankers.

OP - my child just graduated from Princeton last month. I highly doubt you went there based upon your writing. If you did - what are the names of the only 2 hotels w/in walking distance of the campus?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I wonder why so many buy into this idea that the only ticket to a successful future is the Ivy league. Its no wonder that so many kids feel so much pressure. Why do you want to raise your children with that? And if they don't go to an ivy league school, will they feel like a failure? I have seen too many kids burn out with this kind of pressure and it seems so pointless.

I agree that I don't want to raise my children with the pressure that if you don't go to a top 10 school, you'll be a failure; I want them to be healthy, happy, successful no matter where they end up. But I'm also not blind to the fact that children who go to elite colleges, ON AVERAGE, get more opportunities than those who don't. It doesn't mean that all of us don't have the story of the guy who went to Penn State or U.Del or wherever, and ended up a CEO or a multi-millionaire. It just means that, ON AVERAGE, kids that go to the most elite schools tend to get the most impressive opportunities post-school, which then feeds on itself - one impressive opportunity opens the door to others, and then, like others have said, it's not so much about where you started out, but the fact that you got into Door #1, which led you to Door #2 and so on. Why wouldn't I want that for my kids IF they can get it? And obviously lots of parents think like me because the applications to the top 10 schools on the USNWR are *staggering*. The acceptance rates are ridiculously low. The yield rates are ridiculously high. Of course if my kids don't make it to those schools, I will be happy for them and hope for the best. But if there are doors that can be opened through the phenomenal connections that these schools yield, then of course I'd want those connections for them. It's not rocket science.

Will they be happy for themselves? if they "don't make it," as you said, how will they feel? How old are your kids, BTW? Because when you say lots of parents must feel that way because of the volume of applications, it makes me think you haven't known a lot of people whose kids have gone through the process. The kids decide where to apply. I know there are families where the parents push their kids to apply to certain schools and sometimes they succeed. But in the vast majority of families I know, the kids decide.

So many of these posts are stories people tell themselves to justify their elitist climbing, about the glittering prospect of connections and opportunities. Maybe your children will want to be investment bankers. I can honestly say that I don't know any kids who go to college expecting to become investment bankers, but maybe thats what yours will want to do. I can say having gone to Princeton (I'm OP) that I made some wonderful friends. Connections? Nope, not so much.

Anonymous wrote:

I wonder why so many buy into this idea that the only ticket to a successful future is the Ivy league. Its no wonder that so many kids feel so much pressure. Why do you want to raise your children with that? And if they don't go to an ivy league school, will they feel like a failure? I have seen too many kids burn out with this kind of pressure and it seems so pointless.

I agree that I don't want to raise my children with the pressure that if you don't go to a top 10 school, you'll be a failure; I want them to be healthy, happy, successful no matter where they end up. But I'm also not blind to the fact that children who go to elite colleges, ON AVERAGE, get more opportunities than those who don't. It doesn't mean that all of us don't have the story of the guy who went to Penn State or U.Del or wherever, and ended up a CEO or a multi-millionaire. It just means that, ON AVERAGE, kids that go to the most elite schools tend to get the most impressive opportunities post-school, which then feeds on itself - one impressive opportunity opens the door to others, and then, like others have said, it's not so much about where you started out, but the fact that you got into Door #1, which led you to Door #2 and so on. Why wouldn't I want that for my kids IF they can get it? And obviously lots of parents think like me because the applications to the top 10 schools on the USNWR are *staggering*. The acceptance rates are ridiculously low. The yield rates are ridiculously high. Of course if my kids don't make it to those schools, I will be happy for them and hope for the best. But if there are doors that can be opened through the phenomenal connections that these schools yield, then of course I'd want those connections for them. It's not rocket science.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serously doubt you went to Princeton OP. If you did, you wouldn't dispute rankings. You'd applaud them.

OP again. Yes I went to Princeton, before anyone even talking about rankings. I'm not sure they existed in the early 80s. I didn't care about Harvard or Yale or whatever and i certainly don't get my self-esteem from US News.

I am going through the process now with a DC who is curious, has intellectual passions, and is very self-motivated. He could care less about what some corporation thinks about colleges, he's going to decide for himself. This isn't a game where you are trying to "win" by getting the highest number of points (or rank). Its my DC's future. I've glad he's thinking for himself.

And I certainly don't applaud rankings as they corrupt the process. Did you know that at Wash. U in St/ Louis they have students taking tours fill out a "preliminary application" so that they can inflate their application numbers? And how about the way some schools offer January admissions? This didn't use to happen as much and they do it so those applicants scores don't have to go in the database for rankings.

So THAT explains Wash U!

Read "The Overachievers" -- there is a great amount of reporting on how corrupt & flawed USNWR actually is.

Several people here have recommended Crazy U and I'll add my voice. The book talks about some of the games Wash U plays to boost its rank.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know elite law firms typically restrict their recruiting to "top 20" schools. There might be 25 or so schools that can claim top 20 status, but other than those schools, forget about it.

Thats law schools, not undergrad. And because the field is a smaller universe you don't need outside rankings to know which schools they refer to.

And I actually think this is not the case. A student who does well at a state law school and gets a competitive clerkship would probably be very attractive to these firms.

Uh, what makes you think students attending state law schools other than U Va, Michigan or Boalt have much chance of landing a clerkship, when so many judges attended top law schools like Harvard and Stanford?

Cause I clerked and know clerks. Someone from the very top of a state law school can be an appealing candidate.

I wonder why so many buy into this idea that the only ticket to a successful future is the Ivy league. Its no wonder that so many kids feel so much pressure. Why do you want to raise your children with that? And if they don't go to an ivy league school, will they feel like a failure? I have seen too many kids burn out with this kind of pressure and it seems so pointless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know elite law firms typically restrict their recruiting to "top 20" schools. There might be 25 or so schools that can claim top 20 status, but other than those schools, forget about it.

Thats law schools, not undergrad. And because the field is a smaller universe you don't need outside rankings to know which schools they refer to.

And I actually think this is not the case. A student who does well at a state law school and gets a competitive clerkship would probably be very attractive to these firms.

Uh, what makes you think students attending state law schools other than U Va, Michigan or Boalt have much chance of landing a clerkship, when so many judges attended top law schools like Harvard and Stanford?