|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 9, 2022 10:53:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Apr 11, 2022 14:19:43 GMT -5
No doubt some play games, which is why I look at the composite rankings as a good proxy for quality vis-à-vis tuition. The chief Washington Post education reporter occasionally often makes the same point on the value of composite rankings with schools charging super high tuition rates. The more rankings, the better as far as I’m concerned. The days of just relying on a college’s PR spin are long gone.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Apr 25, 2022 12:36:10 GMT -5
I read up on Bridget Brink, projected new ambassador for Ukraine. She shares an Alma Mater with Paul Newman and Chester B. Arthur: Kenyon College. Kenyon has the most D-3 NCAA national titles, 60, which is amazing.
But in two consecutive compilations, Forbes Best Colleges dropped Kenyon from top 100 to 283. So these rankings are nutty.
|
|
|
Post by Chu Chu on Apr 26, 2022 13:26:06 GMT -5
This is a great article from the Los Angeles Times about this topic:
For all those disappointed college applicants whose hopes were pinned on getting into a school highly ranked by U.S. News & World Report or some similar publication, take heart.
This is your chance to be liberated from the tyranny of college rankings.
“Tyranny” is not too strong a word. The people who publish college rankings wrap their products in a seductive veneer of professional expertise and statistical rigor. They express their evaluations in eye-catching numbers, presented in descending order (from 1 to 391, in the case of the U.S. News “national universities” list).
According to that list, UCLA, ranked 20th, is better than the University of Southern California, ranked 27th. So, it must be true.
Or is it? If you look at the methods used to produce those numbers, you will see that the entire enterprise, like the Emerald City in the Land of Oz, consists mostly of blue smoke and mirrors.
Consider the formulas used by rankers to compute those numbers. Every step in the process – from the selection of variables, the weights assigned to them and the methods for measuring them – is based on essentially arbitrary judgments.
U.S. News, for example, selects 17 metrics for its formula from among hundreds of available choices. Why does it use, say, students’ SAT scores, but not their high school GPAs? Faculty salaries but not faculty teaching quality? Alumni giving, but not alumni earnings? Why does it not include items such as a school’s spending on financial aid or its racial and ethnic diversity?
Likewise, the weights employed to combine those variables into a total score are completely subjective.
U.S. News has somehow concluded that a school’s six-year graduation rate is worth exactly 17.6% of its overall score, but its student-faculty ratio is worth only 1%. To judge a school’s “academic reputation,” it gives a whopping 20% weighting to the opinions of administrators from other colleges, most of whom know very little about the hundreds of schools they are asked to rate – other than where those colleges appeared in the previous year’s ranking. And the publication gives no weight to the opinions of students or graduates.
In addition, different rankers use different ways to measure each variable. Consider graduation rates. Some are based on the percentage of students who earn a degree in six years. Others use an eight-year measure. Some include transfer students, others not. Rankers sometimes measure “student excellence” by matriculants’ average SAT scores or high school GPAs or high school rank-in-class. Others use admissions acceptance rates or yield rates.
Even if you think the rankings formulas make sense, the calculations they rest on are based overwhelmingly on unaudited, unverified data self-reported by the very schools being ranked. Would you invest in a company based on such information?
Throughout their history, the college rankings have been plagued by allegations of fabrication and manipulation of data. In just the past month, USC, Columbia University and Rutgers University have all been accused of submitting “erroneous” or false reports to U.S. News, and a dean at Temple University was sentenced to prison in March for a fraud scheme aimed at boosting the school’s prestige.
Most observers believe that these public revelations represent only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Lurking behind data manipulation lies the even larger problem of schools altering their academic practices in a desperate attempt to gain ranking points. Examples include inflating a school’s fall-semester “class size index” by shifting large introductory lectures into the spring semester. Or boosting its yield rate by expanding early admissions and merit-aid programs that mostly benefit wealthy applicants at the expense of needy applicants. Or improving graduation rates by relaxing academic standards.
Finally, the rankings impose a single formulaic template on hundreds of wonderfully diverse institutions. For example, U.S. News tosses Caltech, Santa Clara University, Chapman University and Fresno State, along with UCLA and USC, into its long list of national universities, as if they were all fungible examples of a uniform product differing only by relative status.
In short, the popular “best colleges” rankings try to force America’s colleges and universities into a rigid hierarchy, based on arbitrary formulas, fed by unreliable data.
Instead of relying on someone else’s subjective idea of what one should want in a college, applicants should ask themselves what they want that will serve their personal goals. Do they see college as a means to immerse themselves in a particular field of study? Obtain an impressive pedigree? Qualify for an economically rewarding career? Prepare for service to the community? Seek guidance for a life of meaning and fulfillment? Or something else?
Part of the tyranny of college rankings is their allure of simplicity. They promise to reduce the complexity of college choice to a simple number. But selecting a college is anything but simple. College is one of the most complex “products” one will ever purchase. And those four years constitute a hugely important period of exploration and personal development.
Choosing a college should be approached as an exercise of self-discovery. Getting rejected by a school highly rated by some perfect stranger may be just what it takes to set applicants on that path.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Apr 26, 2022 13:45:24 GMT -5
Great article, indeed. Thanks for sharing this with us.
|
|
hc82
Freshman
Posts: 12
|
Post by hc82 on Apr 27, 2022 4:27:13 GMT -5
Malcolm Gladwell has some great podcasts on the subject specific to how the numbers are skewed against HCBU. Somewhat damning to how the Ivy Leagues treat students of color versus the HCBU specific to technical skills.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 27, 2022 5:12:45 GMT -5
Truly astonishing to hear the various and sundry college rankings aren’t gospel. And gaming the rankings is a possibility?
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Apr 27, 2022 7:10:06 GMT -5
Noting what I think is your sarcasm...that "possibility" has been a fact for many years. For one major example, the weight given to administrator opinions of other colleges in setting rank allows them to drop the rank of colleges they see as possible competitors for students. Even Fr Brooks pointed out real flaws in determining rank that made the system unfair. It was why he refused to take part in the sham. Of course, there are schools that know this and game the system to secure higher rank. It is interesting that what has been known for so long is now being treated by some as if it were a new discovery,
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 27, 2022 7:58:25 GMT -5
/\ I remember when HC moved to ‘test score optional’ and some in the college admissions business immediately and loudly noted this was a transparent (desperate?) bid to substantially increase the number of applicants (and therefore decrease the admissions rate and thereby boost the ranking). With a bonus effect of obscuring the average standardized test grades of accepted students.
Of course, HC’s argument for moving to ‘test score optional’ was entirely different.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Apr 27, 2022 8:25:48 GMT -5
Which was the reason so many other colleges then followed suit and have also made standardized test scores optional?
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on Apr 27, 2022 12:22:46 GMT -5
Which was the reason so many other colleges then followed suit and have also made standardized test scores optional? I truly admire your measured response.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Apr 27, 2022 13:26:37 GMT -5
Why keep score of anything. Give everyone a ribbon, a trophy and a dorm room. First come first serve.
Two current concepts in higher Ed I am too dense to understand are no aptitude testing and wiping out of student loan debt. Both seemed to be contraindicated by common sense.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 28, 2022 4:19:15 GMT -5
Which was the reason so many other colleges then followed suit and have also made standardized test scores optional? Not sure what you mean but HC and PC went test score optional about 2005 and 15 years later Notre Dame, BC, Fordham, and Villanova temporarily went test score optional while citing Covid concerns. Focusing on our significant application overlap schools.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Apr 28, 2022 6:30:53 GMT -5
Which was the reason so many other colleges then followed suit and have also made standardized test scores optional? Not sure what you mean but HC and PC went test score optional about 2005 and 15 years later Notre Dame, BC, Fordham, and Villanova temporarily went test score optional while citing Covid concerns. Focusing on our significant application overlap schools. There are many colleges that are. now "test optional." Here are some of the best currently in that category and for how long: Brown University Providence, RI 2021-22 application cycle only California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA Test-blind for 2021-22 and 2022-23 application cycles Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 2021-22 application cycle only Columbia University New York, NY 2021-22 application cycle only Cornell University Ithaca, NY 2021-22 application cycle only Dartmouth College Hanover, NH 2021-22 application cycle only Duke University Durham, NC 2021-22 application cycle only Emory University Atlanta, GA 2021-22 application cycle only Harvard College Cambridge, MA 2021-22 application cycle only Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 2021-22 application cycle only Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 2021-22 application cycle only New York University New York, NY Test-flexible; test-optional for 2021-22 application cycle only Northwestern University Evanston, IL 2021-22 application cycle only Princeton University Princeton, NJ 2021-22 application cycle only Rice University Houston, TX 2021-22 application cycle only Stanford University Stanford, CT 2021-22 application cycle only Tufts University Medford, MA 2021-22 and 2022-23 application cycles University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA Test-blind University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Test-blind University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA Test-blind University of Chicago Chicago, IL All applicants University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 2021-22 application cycle only University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 2021-22 application cycle only University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 2021-22 and 2022-23 application cycles University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 2021-22 application cycle only University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 2021-22 and 2022-23 application cycles University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 2021-22 and 2022-23 application cycles Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 2021-22 application cycle only Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis, MO 2021-22 application cycle only Yale University New Haven, CT 2021-22 application cycle only These are the best known. Most of these are through 2022 or 2023 only for the time being, but there are dozens of others who started dropping standardized test requirements years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Apr 28, 2022 6:55:14 GMT -5
Washington Post article yesterday on colleges and universities relying on part-time faculty, paid on the cheap. wapo.st/3EU8HVH
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Apr 28, 2022 6:58:15 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean but HC and PC went test score optional about 2005 and 15 years later Notre Dame, BC, Fordham, and Villanova temporarily went test score optional while citing Covid concerns. Focusing on our significant application overlap schools. There are many colleges that are. now "test optional." Here are some of the best currently in that category and for how long: Brown University Providence, RI 2021-22 application cycle only California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA Test-blind for 2021-22 and 2022-23 application cycles Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 2021-22 application cycle only Columbia University New York, NY 2021-22 application cycle only Cornell University Ithaca, NY 2021-22 application cycle only Dartmouth College Hanover, NH 2021-22 application cycle only Duke University Durham, NC 2021-22 application cycle only Emory University Atlanta, GA 2021-22 application cycle only Harvard College Cambridge, MA 2021-22 application cycle only Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 2021-22 application cycle only Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 2021-22 application cycle only New York University New York, NY Test-flexible; test-optional for 2021-22 application cycle only Northwestern University Evanston, IL 2021-22 application cycle only Princeton University Princeton, NJ 2021-22 application cycle only Rice University Houston, TX 2021-22 application cycle only Stanford University Stanford, CT 2021-22 application cycle only Tufts University Medford, MA 2021-22 and 2022-23 application cycles University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA Test-blind University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA Test-blind University of California, Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA Test-blind University of Chicago Chicago, IL All applicants University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 2021-22 application cycle only University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, NC 2021-22 application cycle only University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 2021-22 and 2022-23 application cycles University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 2021-22 application cycle only University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 2021-22 and 2022-23 application cycles University of Virginia Charlottesville, VA 2021-22 and 2022-23 application cycles Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 2021-22 application cycle only Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis, MO 2021-22 application cycle only Yale University New Haven, CT 2021-22 application cycle only These are the best known. Most of these are through 2022 or 2023 only for the time being, but there are dozens of others who started dropping standardized test requirements years ago. Yes. Not a surprise a large number of schools are currently test score optional (significant applicant overlaps and otherwise, temporarily and otherwise). Many folks have attributed the very recent Covid application bounce (HC did not see this bounce) to the very recent moves (temporarily and otherwise) to test score optional. Beyond that, the strongest academic kids with top scores nevertheless take and submit their scores. For obvious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by matunuck on Apr 28, 2022 9:28:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Apr 28, 2022 9:42:12 GMT -5
If this topic interests you, you might want to check this site: fairtest.org
Here is the start of their current lead article: New, Digital SAT is a College Board Marketing Ploy Not A Fairer, More Accurate Admission Tool Shifting an unnecessary, biased, coachable, and poorly predictive multiple-choice exam that few schools currently require from pencil-and-paper delivery to an electronic format does not magically transform it into a more accurate, fairer or valid tool for assessing college readiness. Just as with previous versions of the "new improved SAT," the latest repackaging will not improve its overall value.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Apr 28, 2022 9:45:01 GMT -5
PS: The site is run by a group with the title: The National Center for Fair & Open Testing
The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) works to end the misuses and flaws of standardized testing and to ensure that evaluation of students, teachers and schools is fair, open, valid and educationally beneficial.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on May 1, 2022 15:25:56 GMT -5
HCPride made a point in the football category that a stubborn fact is HC's academics were higher rated before the AI and the PL.
I thought I'd continue the discussion here. Holy Cross is a unicorn. It used to be closely associated with BC, but BC added schools of business, education, nursing, law, Social Work, etc. to the undergraduate School of Arts and Sciences (not sure about the chronology) and HC didn't.
A half century ago it was easier to get into the BC undergraduate schools of business and education than arts and sciences. I recall kids calling the business school as the "blank" HS after the name of the building it was in. (Fulton High is stuck in my memory but not positive that was the name.)
So, is that still the case or are all incoming BC undergraduates held to the same admissions standards now and those are the ones BC is measured on in the rankings?
Back to Unicorn. I can't think of any school quite like HC in the way I can compare Harvard and Yale, BC and Villanova, Amherst and Williams, UConn and UMass, BU and Northeastern.
So the market might have been telling HC to go one way or the other and instead it stayed the same, Catholic, D-1, undergraduate only, liberal arts only and it's a tough comparable now. Looking at the glass half full, "Holy Cross is incomparable" sounds good.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on May 1, 2022 16:38:43 GMT -5
HCPride made a point in the football category that a stubborn fact is HC's academics were higher rated before the AI and the PL. I thought I'd continue the discussion here. Holy Cross is a unicorn. It used to be closely associated with BC, but BC added schools of business, education, nursing, law, Social Work, etc. to the undergraduate School of Arts and Sciences (not sure about the chronology) and HC didn't. A half century ago it was easier to get into the BC undergraduate schools of business and education than arts and sciences. I recall kids calling the business school as the "blank" HS after the name of the building it was in. (Fulton High is stuck in my memory but not positive that was the name.) So, is that still the case or are all incoming BC undergraduates held to the same admissions standards now and those are the ones BC is measured on in the rankings? Back to Unicorn. I can't think of any school quite like HC in the way I can compare Harvard and Yale, BC and Villanova, Amherst and Williams, UConn and UMass, BU and Northeastern.So the market might have been telling HC to go one way or the other and instead it stayed the same, Catholic, D-1, undergraduate only, liberal arts only and it's a tough comparable now. Looking at the glass half full, "Holy Cross is incomparable" sounds good. I think that (unicorn aspect) is evidenced by the fact that our significant applicant overlaps are schools such as PC, Fordham, BC, and Notre Dame. We are significantly different from those schools. And we may want to consider ourselves to be most similar to a secular LAC, but the kids/applicants don't see us that way. (HC publishes this list of 'cross applicant' and "aspirational" schools and it is indeed illustrative of this peculiar situation:https://www.holycross.edu/sites/default/files/AdminFinance/adminfin/ir/comparison_lists.pdf ). As far as most similar school in the eyes of the kids, I'd say PC. (We are a top-four cross applicant to PC, they are a top-four cross applicant to us, and we share two top-four cross applicants [BC and Fordham]. So, in their eyes, HC-PC may be similar schools. Or at least similarly appealing.
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on May 1, 2022 17:13:53 GMT -5
Doppelganger status isn't helping us to schedule PC in BB. Interesting that HC went PL but the applicant pool didn't get the memo. If someone matriculates at HC he/she doesn't have too many HS buddies at the other PL schools to foster interest in the league games.
A small factor but that could contribute to the shrinking student turnout.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on May 2, 2022 5:14:19 GMT -5
Doppelganger status isn't helping us to schedule PC in BB. Interesting that HC went PL but the applicant pool didn't get the memo. If someone matriculates at HC he/she doesn't have too many HS buddies at the other PL schools to foster interest in the league games. A small factor but that could contribute to the shrinking student turnout. Not at all doppelgänger but sharing a remarkable applicant overlap. (Which in an of itself is interesting.) I’m not sure how many HC non-athlete applicants know/care about PL sports. We don’t share a significant applicant overlap with the secular LACs of the PL (why would we?).
|
|
|
Post by mm67 on May 2, 2022 6:37:40 GMT -5
Speculative musings...It is my understanding that an unusually large number of applicants are residents of Mass & other NE states.Many on this board have pointed to the limited outreach by admissions. Could this be contributing to the PC overlap? Not sure how many applicants across the US know/care about Providence. Isn't it more of a regional college? It seems that in recent years HC has adopted a more religious tone - almost a return to its pre-60's traditions which most certainly may be good. For instance the opening of the Meditation Center as wonderful as it is, may reinforce the seminary image of the school. The most recent school president basically appeared to me to be more of a holy man, a chaplain-in-chief. He is a wonderful man. Was there any behind the scenes subtle pressure by the local bishop to strengthen HC's Catholic ties? Could this pressure if it existed, have influenced the Admissions Office? Obviously, many would applaud HC staying true to its Catholic mission. And, the reality of student life on campus may be quite different from the image. Maybe, these factors if valid may help explain HC's overlap almost entirely with other Catholic schools. The causation of the narrow overlap might help explain the unsatisfactory application numbers. Obviously this is purely speculation. Maybe, it's BS. Peace
|
|
|
Post by bfoley82 on May 2, 2022 13:54:52 GMT -5
Speculative musings...It is my understanding that an unusually large number of applicants are residents of Mass & other NE states.Many on this board have pointed to the limited outreach by admissions. Could this be contributing to the PC overlap? Not sure how many applicants across the US know/care about Providence. Isn't it more of a regional college? From the Providence College Admissions page about.providence.edu/fast-facts/Geographic Origin of Undergraduate Students (4,108) Rhode Island = 371 (9%) Other New England = 2,290 (56%) Other United States = 1,347 (33%) Int’l/US Territories = 100 (2%) From the Holy Cross page www.holycross.edu/admissions-aid/what-we-look-for/enrollment-facts-and-figuresAdmissions (Class of 2024) Applications: 7,087 Acceptance rate: 38% 41% male, 59% female Students from public high schools: 49% Students from private or Catholic high schools: 51% Number of international students: 21 (3% of total first-years) Enrollment by Region: New England: 59% Mid-Atlantic: 21% South: 7% Mid-West: 6% West: 4% Number of States/US Territories Represented: 31 So based on those numbers, both schools get roughly the same amount of local students.
|
|