<p>Well, I think we can argue about “academic quality” <em>ad infinitum</em> and the most we’d be able to come up with are a few heuristic, surrogate markers for something we all wish we could put our finger on: how much do people actually learn in college? It’s because we don’t have the answers to that question that we rely so heavily on polls and ratings.</p>
<p>Selectivity is an enticing method of separating the wheat from the chaff, but, what does it really reflect? Popularity? A college can be academically rigorous and not terribly popular. Chicago, Reed – even Swarthmore – are each examples of colleges that went through dry spells, in terms of popularity, largely because of their rumored grade-deflation.</p>
<p>SAT median scores? Again, it says less than you think. Just because a college has a high median SAT/ACT median doesn’t guarantee that its students learn from each other between classes. That, is the ostensible advantage of attending an elite college. Otherwise, all you’re doing is having your high school grades, board scores and teacher recommendations certified and ratified by a prestigious degree.</p>
<p>Furthermore, there really is no trick to charging $50,000 a year in tuition and drawing enough upper and upper-middle class students to fill out a class of high-achieving students.</p>
<p>The real trick is in going a little deeper into your school’s applicant pool in order to admit middle-class kids from city schools, rural schools and schools with only one college counselor for a thousand students, kids who will ultimately go back to their communities and run for Board of Ed, become members of the Chamber of Commerce and raise money for the United Fund. Those are legitimate markers as well and not always reflected in magazine statistics.</p>