<p>
</p>
<p>There’s a lot of really good research zeroing in on how to identify objectively good teaching right now in the K-12 sector.</p>
<p>Also, I’ve made a pretty sheepish argument for this kind of measure being valuable in the same way that PA is, I’m surprised you don’t feel that this was accurate.</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>I always thought there was something wrong with the stats profile given on that website. I almost made a post on it on the Chicago forum a few weeks ago. 37% of Chicago students with SAT above 1500, but with 75th percentile only 1510? Statistically unlikely. You’d have to have more than 12% of the student body get EXACTLY 1500-1510. But with those statistics, 1560 would also be an unrealistic statistic for 75th percentile. But you’re right. It’s odd, and I wonder what’s going on.</p>
<p>^Yea, good observation and that’s wacky too. But 75th percentile of 1560 would mean you have more (25%) people in the 1560-1600 range than people (12%) in the 1500-1559 range. That seems unlikely also. College board says 1310-1530. [College</a> Search - University of Chicago - SAT®, AP®, CLEP®](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)</p>
<p>Now we got 3 different ranges. Collegeboard’s range seems more consistent with the 75th-percentile.</p>
<p>kleibo,
USN asked for enrolled stats. I remember a while back, Emory sent them the admitted stats once; now I think of it, I wonder if that might be the year Emory jumped to 9th.</p>
<p>I heard a rumor that UChicago started to give USN the range for the admitted students instead of that for enrolled students, resulting in its huge jump in USN ranking from 15th to 9th in 2007.</p>
<p>Colleges are suppose to report range for enrolled students.</p>
<p>Sam Lee’s right. “The reported SAT range for UChicago is 1370-1560 on USN ranking” is definitely odd. That range is higher than ones for Columbia, Dartmouth, and Brown, which have had higher ranges than UChicago’s over the years.</p>
<p>US News checks all of this with other submitted data. I don’t think Chicago is intentionally mis-reporting its data. (See <a href=“http://www.usnews.com/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2009/08/19/making-sure-the-college-data-are-correct.html#read_more[/url]”>http://www.usnews.com/blogs/college-rankings-blog/2009/08/19/making-sure-the-college-data-are-correct.html#read_more</a> for details.)</p>
<p>Also, the reason why it jumped from 15th to 9th in 2007 wasn’t due to SAT scores. It was due to the way Chicago reported its courses. For instance, for the humanities portion of the Core, there are six classes you could take. Let’s pinpoint Greek Thought. Greek Thought is one choice of a class, but there are about 5 sections a student can sign up for, each with less than 20 students. Instead of reporting these sections individually, Chicago was reporting the entirety of Greek Thought as a single lecture class with over 100 people, which was really inaccurate. Converting a lot of >100 student classes into even more <20 classes really had an effect.</p>
<p>
I never said it was close to Brown’s. I crunched the numbers and got 13ish% for Dartmouth from their website. About 3-4% from Penn and 4-6& from HYP. Either way, I said it has a smaller class which contributes more to the lower admit rate than Penn admitting significantly weaker students.</p>
<p>
At least among the people I knew in high school, Brown was the Ivy that attracted more students who were lacking in stats. I guess when you’re the least like the other Ivies you convince more people to apply. Granted, Brown has more of a reputation for looking past the numbers, more of my peers threw a really long reach Brown’s way compared to other Ivies. Nothing against the school, they are just able to attract a lot of applicants by what I believe are misconceptions by high school seniors about the atmosphere and admissions at Brown.</p>
<p>phuriku - 1370-1560 is a really high range for combined score. Although usnews checks data, it cannot prevent any misreporting if the misreporting is intentional on the college’s part.</p>
<p>I don’t think they would intentionally mis-report either, considering they already have their stats out in the open on their admission website.</p>
<p>Sam Lee is just targeting another NU rival.</p>
<p>besides, phuriku do you really think reported change in class sizes alone can bring a school from 15 to 9?</p>
<p>then maybe UChicago unintentionally reported range for admitted students instead of the one for enrolled students?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not my experience as a tour guide, someone who posts on the Brown forum here, and a Brown student who’s interacted with thousands of other Brown students and learned from many of them what the climate was like at their high school.</p>
<p>Most high schools in this country don’t have people throwing applications at the Ivies.</p>
<p>maybe someone somewhere in UChicago’s administration truly believed that USNews wanted range for admitted students?</p>
<p>a shift of 10,20, or even 30 points would have less than a 0.1% impact on the rankings. if anything, i’ve noticed often times that usnews sat ranges don’t match up with what school websites say. i’m apt to think that those ranges are exaggerated or under-reported on the websites.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s slightly higher than Duke’s numbers for 2008, so I don’t think it’s terribly unrealistic. Remember that in the year we’re considering, Chicago’s admissions rate dipped 7%. Recently, the president has been increasingly demanding higher numbers from its admissions team, and in fact, the admissions head and vice president mysteriously stepped down earlier this year. He has been quoted as saying that the University of Chicago should not be satisfied with being best in the midwest and should instead be striving to be the best university in the nation. He’s really a bit overambitious, and in fact, he’s digging up the entire campus this summer. Like I said, I really wouldn’t be surprised if these were the actual stats.</p>
<p>I do agree that the stats are odd, but accusing a university of sending in false statistics is overdoing it a bit.</p>
<p>UCBChemEGrad,
ouch…smart a*s. how can i defend that? hmm…i am not targeting anybody. i am just being inquisitive and i seem to have a radar for detecting error. like i said, i don’t think it was intentional.</p>
<p>Are these definitely for real?</p>
<p>Looks like UW-Madison stayed the same… Tied for 35th (last) so 39th overall last year…</p>
<p>Any more info on the LAC’s?</p>