<p>The College Preeminence Admissions Index (CPAI) – which is calculated by dividing a university’s yield by its acceptance rate—reflects a combination of desirability and selectivity, based solely upon objective college admissions data. Yield is calculated by dividing the number of students deciding to enroll in a school by the number of students accepted by that school. This indicates the desirability of a school. Acceptance rate (or selectivity—the lower the acceptance rate, the more selective the school) is calculated by dividing the number of students accepted by a school by the number of students applying to that school. This reflects both desirability (increasing the number of applicants), and competitiveness (how difficult it is to be accepted).</p>
<p>By combining these two admissions data points into a single ratio of yield to acceptance rate, the CPAI provides an objective measure of the overall preeminence of a school in terms of 1) the school being the top or preferred choice of students, and 2) the school’s selectivity, reflecting the difficulty of being admitted, and allowing the school to take only the best students among its applicants. The most prestigious and preeminent colleges have CPAI scores over 3.0. The overwhelming majority of colleges have CPAI scores below 1.0. </p>
<p>If you believe the numbers listed below, CSU East Bay has a CPAI = 55.6 / 22.0 = 2.53. This is higher than UC Berkeley at 38.1 / 21.4 = 1.78, University of Michigan at 38.8 / 40.6 = 0.96, New York University at 36.1 / 32.7 = 1.10, or Johns Hopkins University at 34.6 / 19.4 = 1.78.</p>
<p>I don’t really like rankings of any kind. I’d much rather see ratings and statistics on individual schools that would allow each person to create his or her own rankings. Sort of like the approach featured on another website that shall remain nameless (because CC does not let you spell it out…weird rule) with reviews and grades for schools on all sorts of categories. But with categories that are more relevant than “party girls” and “best drink prices.” </p>
<p>It’s just a popularity ranking. Most popular schools are pretty good, but the differences between them are either pretty meaningless academically (Harvard, Yale) or pretty significant (Harvard, Caltech).</p>
<p>Erin’s Dad. I agree it appears someone made it up and posted it there. It seems they named it intentionally so that it would appear first in the list of rankings (which are in alphabetical order) giving it apparent legitimacy. </p>
<p>CPAI concept seems to make a lot of sense. Yield is a well-recognized measure of the desirability of a particular college. And so is selectivity. By combining the two measures into a single index, the index takes into account both very meaningful admissions measures. And the proof of the CPAI’s usefulness and “accuracy,” is the fact that the schools with the top CPAI scores do reflect undisputed high ranking and prestigious schools from other commonly consulted college ranking systems. Although no ranking measure of any kind can satisfy everyone – after all, people reasonably disagree on what makes a school great – the fact that a single objective measure like CPAI, using only two easily obtained admissions figures, can produce a list of top schools that no one could say are not plausibly the top schools in the country, makes CPAI a very useful measure. I have yet to see a ranking system that is so simple and objective, yet produces such a credible list of top schools, as CPAI. </p>
<p>BTW, the CSU East Bay figure was a one year fluke due to the school suddenly and drastically reducing it’s freshman class size due to California budget cuts. As a result of that sudden measure, the school had to admit far less freshman that year than it otherwise normally would have. This one time fluke event jacked up CSU East Bay’s selectivity for that year (raising its standing in US News Ranking as well). See <a href=“How CSU East Bay made list of competitive colleges”>http://m.sfgate.com/education/article/How-CSU-East-Bay-made-list-of-competitive-colleges-2325477.php</a>
This one time anomaly is no reason to question the overall validity of the CPAI ranking system. </p>
<p>But the admission profile (GPA and test scores) of its incoming class is nothing special, and it is not exactly a well known prestigious name.</p>
<p>Note that schools which play the “level of applicant’s interest” game to reject “overqualified” students who are using them as “safeties” may be artificially boosting their CPAI by manipulating both measures.</p>
<p>Every system will produce outliers, for various anomalous reasons. College of the Ozarks is a highly religious school offering zero-net tuition education, which may explain its low acceptance rate. Regardless, no system is perfect. No one is claiming CPAI is the be all and end all of ranking measures. But it is the best system I’ve ever seen that can be produced with easily obtainable objective information.</p>
<p>As for manipulation, EVERY system is subject to manipulation. But there are at least some built-in safeguards to manipulating CPAI data. A school cannot inflate it’s applicant numbers if no one is interested in going there. It cannot deny admission purposely to lower acceptance rate without risking a shrinking incoming class. And it cannot easily manipulate yield either, because if admittees prefer going elsewhere, they will. </p>
<p>Colleges do these things frequently. Colleges may do more pre-application marketing to get more students to apply, so that the admission rate will be lower. They may also try to guess whether an “overqualified” applicant is applying with a high “level of applicant’s interest”; if not (i.e. the applicant is applying to the school as a “safety” and is unlikely to attend), the school may choose to waitlist or reject to keep the yield up.</p>
<p>EVERY school is free to market their school to increase applications; but only those with prestige or other desired qualities will succeed well in that attempt. </p>
<p>Schools can attempt to manipulate yield in the way you posit, but that will result in a lower quality student body. </p>
<p>Bottom line, EVERY ranking system can be manipulated to some degree. For example, freshman retention rate could be increased by LOWERING grading standards. Average high school GPA could be manipulated by only admitting students from high schools with huge grade inflation. </p>
<p>No one is saying CPAI is perfect. No single ranking system is. You want perfection? You’ll never find it. </p>
<p>Two big problems with the proposed index are that it effectively double-counts yield, and it is easy to manipulate to some extent. Furthermore, it implicitly favors smaller universities.</p>
<p>There are really only three independent variables in the college admissions equation: yield, number of applications received, and target class size. For most schools, target class size might just as well be a constant. The admission rate is simply (class size divided by yield) divided by applications received. So the CPAI formula is yield squared times applications divided by class size.</p>
<p>Both number of applications and yield may tell you something about a college’s popularity vs. its rivals with a crucial target audience (high school seniors), but the comparisons are not always apples-to-apples. Number of applications is heavily affected by things like cost and proximity. Cheaper colleges get more applicants, relatively. Most of the University of California campuses get more applications than Harvard. It is relatively easy for colleges to boost applications – basically, they can do it by spending more on marketing (or they could cut out the middleman and simply offer to pay kids to apply – same difference much of the time). Yield is affected by some of the same factors. BYU and the University of Nebraska both have sky-high yields, because they are extremely popular with a particular segment of the market and quite unpopular with every other segment. Colleges manipulate yield with their binding Early Decision programs (which give them close to 100% yield on half of each class) and merit scholarship awards.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the larger the class size is, the lower the index will be. And that seems a little dumb.</p>
<p>Wikipedia now indicates that citations are needed for many of the assertions made about CPAI.</p>
<p>The discussion section of Wikipedia on this article notes the following:</p>
<p>“CPAI” seems made up and very close to being [original research]
A Google search on “College Preeminence Admissions Index” yields only 9 results (three of which are in Wikipedia articles), and they all have something to do with someone at Stanford. The record of Wikipedia edits by the apparent contributor shows an overwhelming majority of edits having to do with implied or explicit superiority of that institution. But isn’t it interesting that, if one looks up each of the first three cited references in this article, a search of each document shows no matches for “CPAI” or “index?”</p>
<p>Wikipedia states that articles must not contain original research. The phrase “original research” (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being published.</p>
<p>JHS: your math is correct, but your conclusion is not. You claim that yield is double counted because of the square of yield formula. In fact, however, the acceptance rate (selectivity) has an equal impact on CPAI as yield does. For example, if school A has a yield of 60%, and acceptance rate of 15%, while school B has a yield of 40%, and acceptance rate of 10%, your theory would mean that school A with its 20 percentage point advantage in yield would have a greater CPAI than school B despite school A’s poorer selectivity (i.e. higher acceptance rate), here 5 percentage points higher than school B. In fact, however both schools have the same CPAI of 4. And that’s the way it should be, as school A’s yield, on a percentage basis is 50% greater than school B’s yield (60/40=1.5), yet school A’s acceptance rate is 50% greater (poorer) than school B’s acceptance rate (15/10=1.5). </p>
<p>You say cheaper colleges get more applicants, but based upon your correct formula for CPAI, that would INCREASE cheaper school’s CPAI. Yet you use Univ. of California vs. Harvard as your example, noting that UC schools get more applications than Harvard. So under your correct CPAI formula, Univ. of California would have an unfairly inflated CPAI? OF COURSE NOT! That’s because the class size for Univ. of California offsets their greater number of applications, and brings back down their CPAI, AS IT SHOULD. It is not at all “dumb” that greater class size lowers CPAI, everything else equal. Bigger schools – everything else equal – naturally receive greater numbers of applicants because an applicant has a greater chance of being accepted when the class size is greater. But a prestigious big school is not equal, and will receive way more applicants to more than offset the greater class size. </p>
<p>The bottom line is a formula that uses two variables – yield and acceptance rate, that are widely considered relevant measures of quality – in combination is going to be a pretty solid ranking measure. </p>
<p>Again, all you critics are attacking the measure because it’s not perfect. No measure is. You think U.S. News is better??? Some of its factors are easily manipulable, often irrelevant, and that system has been widely panned by many. But it’s a reasonable ranking system nevertheless. And so is CPAI, and it’s a lot easier to calculate. Use it in conjunction with any other measures you might prefer, but don’t insult it as “dumb.”</p>
<p>@CollegeCounsel: What is your exact relationship with CPAI? If you have a vested interest in it, or a supplier of information to whomever produces or promotes the index, can you indicate such? Your enrollment to CC seems to be solely focused on this topic.</p>
<p>Your first sentence ever on CC is “CPAI concept seems to make a lot of sense” would indicate that you’re an inquirer like the rest of us. But then the tone, content and singular focus of your susequent posts makes it clear that you’re not just a neutral player. Please clarify.</p>
<p>I would also assert that “The bottom line is a formula that uses two variables – yield and acceptance rate, that are widely considered relevant measures of quality – in combination is going to be a pretty solid ranking measure.” is a popularity contest and a function of 1) how well-funded their marketing dept is and 2) how well their men’s basketball or football teams have done nationally.</p>
<p>Those two data points are no measures of quality to me, nor I would posit, someone who thinks beyond the surface. Your stipulation that all “rankings” have flaws is true – however, by hanging on two of the more weaker metrics in the college admissions game means, to me at least, this is a less useful list than some others.</p>
<p>lime20002001: Wikipedia has it’s own unique encyclopedia requirements, some of which deprive readers of useful information, including its original research prohibition. In any event, this forum is NOT Wikipedia. Original thought and research is welcome. If Wikipedia standards were applied to this site, virtually every contribution would be banned. </p>
<p>By the way, when I insert "College Preeminence Admissions Index " into Bing, the first hit is this exact thread! We’re giving the index more traction and poplularity through that search engine than it seems to have generated by itself! I think the answer to Lime’s thread title is NO.</p>