<p>My post did not appear so I will retype, realizing that perhaps it will appear as a dupe later. Somewhat new to this forum or any forum.</p>
<p>GGD–I realized that my choice of the word fabricate was perhaps not ideal, but I do not know what I should have used instead. Miscalculate? Overstated? Since GW claims that they do not know who started this approach ten years ago, I don’t think we can say there was or was not intent to deceive. But, it was not my intent to imply that they lied on purpose. It may very well have been simply the action of one person, perpetuated these past ten years. That is a plausible explanation, and it is good that they have come forward.</p>
<p>I agree that USNWR rankings do not matter, but the reason I think this stat is important is b/c it is reported in the CDS, and the PR best college book seems to lift their sidebar stats directly from the CDS. Line C10 of the CDS reports the percentage of enrolled freshmen who submitted their class rank. (And GW’s report includes a note that states that class rank percentages were revised as of Nov 8th.)</p>
<p>I have had the same question as DeskPotato: how could all of these schools have such a high percentage of their enrollees as the top 10% of their HS classes, especially without correspondingly high SAT scores? I am guessing that GW is not alone in this inaccurate reporting, be it of class rank or SAT scores of accepted vs. applied vs. enrolled students. I hope that other schools look at their reporting practices and revise the CDS as appropriate. </p>
<p>My HS’s Naviance data is the only data I truly rely on but even that is skewed by athletic recruits.</p>