<p>Not that anyone on this board cares 
but Dartmouth moved up to #9 in the overall rankings and retained its #1 position for Best Undergrad Teaching.</p>
<p>They seem very proud of that #1 ranking for Undergraduate Teaching, so Iām glad they kept it.</p>
<p>now iāll apply there.</p>
<p>good to see that itās back in the top 10 (it was always should be) and still the best place to get your undergraduate education.</p>
<p>Dartmouth should be a couple points higher - wished they gamed the system a little more like their competitors.</p>
<p>^Iām not questioning that slipper1234, but is there any evidence that Dartmouth does it less?</p>
<p>To inflate yield, Dartmouth could admit a higher percentage of its class ED and offer ED II. Penn admits over half of its incoming class ED. Vanderbilt offers ED II.</p>
<p>To improve student selectivity, Dartmouth could admit a higher percentage of students who are in the top 10% of their high school class. 99% of the students in Pennās incoming class were in the top 10% of their high school class.</p>
<p>To increase application numbers, Dartmouth could send out mail enclosed with a pre-paid envelope which a student could choose to mail back to indicate interest in the school, and count that envelope as an application, even if the student ultimately chose not to apply to Dartmouth. WashU does this.</p>
<p>I have nothing against Penn, Vanderbilt, and WashU. Theyāre all fantastic schools, but they all also game the USNews system.</p>
<p>Add in the fact that Dartmouth could </p>
<ul>
<li>Cap classes at 20 instead of having some with 21-25 students</li>
<li>Similarly have classes way over 50 people to limit āpercent over 50ā (USNEWS does not penalize for 250 person classes that you see at Penn or Columbia but never at Dartmouth</li>
<li>Put in research/ medical faculty (ala WashU) as professors to improve student faculty ratio</li>
<li>Play with financial resources number</li>
<li>Admissions manipulation (ED, top 10% number, etc) as described above</li>
</ul>
<p>Chicago realized there was a way to play with the numbers after meeting with USNEWS and they jumped around 5 spots in one year and have stayed there. Dartmouth just doesnāt play the game, which is good because thats what Dartmouth represents. Its also slightly unfortunate because so many people pay attention to the rankings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, Chicago was just late to the game. All of the other Ivy Leagues were already playing the US News ranking game, including Dartmouth. You want to blame the newcomer for playing the game when youāve been playing the game all along. Even the editor of US News backed up the statement that Chicago wasnāt doing anything that no one else was already doing; it was just new to playing the rankings game.</p>
<p>I would say that Dartmouth āplaysā the game the least by far, maybe along with Brown.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Penn admits about 45% of its class ED, the same as Columbia. Dartmouth admits about 40% of its class ED.</p>
<p>Regardless of that, yield does not factor into US News, so it could not be used to āgameā rankings.</p>
<p>Indirectly, of course, it positively affects overall acceptance rate and student quality, which both directly calculate US News rank, but a school could not be faulted for trying to strategically gather the most talented entering class possible.</p>
<p>edit: SAT averages do not a talented class make, but you get my drift. ED/EA is a chance for schools that are not Harvard to attract the type of student who might otherwise attendā¦ Harvard.</p>
<p>ED has a direct effect on acceptance rate, not just yield. So yes, it matters.</p>
<p>Also Dartmouth is about 33-35% ED while Penn is 48% ED. So the number differences are pretty big.</p>
<p>I apologize for my incorrect facts, muerteapablo. You get my gist, though.</p>
<p>I would say Dartmouth, Brown, and Stanford game the rankings the least.</p>
<p>Columbia appears to have taken a page out of Pennās book ā 97% of the students in its incoming class were in the top 10% of their high school class.</p>
<p>Dartmouth is a premier institution regardless of where usnwr ranks it. However, a change in ranking methodology may be responsible for the slight bump up rather than any changes in Dartmouthās numbers. The new formula appears to have helped Dartmouth in this yearās USNWR rankings. Here are the methodology changes and how they impact Dartmouth.</p>
<p>1) Graduation Rate weighting increased from 5% to 7.5%. Dartmouth was 11th in grad rate so this change doesnāt really hurt or help Dartmouth.</p>
<p>2) Peer Assessment weighting was reduced from 25% to 15%. This undoubtedly helped Dartmouth. For some reason Dartmouth has traditionally had the lowest PA value of all the ivies. It was 4.3 out of 5 this year. This year the āouchā counted much less.</p>
<p>3) High school guidance counselor assessment. This is new this year and carries a weighting of 7.5%. Dartmouth is thought more highly of by the GCās than their collegiate peers and scored 4.7 out of 5. #5 Penn only scored 4.5 and #9 Chicago, tied with D, scored 4.6.</p>
<p>The other factors and weightings remained the same.</p>
<p>Agree St Andrews, the methodology changed in Dartmouthās favor. My point is that in the non-PA areas where strong undergrad institutions should shine: such as selectivity, financial resources, student/ faculty ratio, alumni giving, class sizes, etc are areas where Dartmouth could be āgamingā the system much more than it does. With these new weights it could/should be a top 5-7, its just that Dartmouth doesnāt cater to USNEWS in the way some of the other top schools do.</p>
<p>I donāt know how much Dartmouth is gaming the system. In most cases gaming can only be determined by motive. If a college seeks a more accomplished student body are they trying to improve the college or improve their rankings. Letās look at one example that could be interpreted either way.</p>
<p>For the class of '13, 401 students were admitted ED with a mean SAT score of 2137.
For the class of '14, 461 students were admitted ED with a mean SAT score of 2150.</p>
<p>One could conjecture that the increase was aimed at gaming the rankings, although it was Dartmouthās intention to admit a larger class for revenue reasons. (At least that was the explanation offered at the time.) However, admitting a larger percentage of the class ED serves to lower overall acceptance rate and raise the yield percentage.</p>
<p>Looking again at ED, mean SAT score rose from '13 to '14. Does this represent a conscious effort to increase test scores? Perhaps, but the increase of 60 ED admitees came from an applicant pool only 23 applicants larger than the year before. Perhaps the applicant pool was more qualified, If so, that can hardly be gaming the system.</p>
<p>The one area I see that Dartmouth lags its peers is peer assessment. Improving that number from 4.3 to, say, 4.7 would probably boost Dartmouth up another 2 or 3 places. However, I donāt know how you game that number. Iām not sure a PR campaign by Dr. Kim or anyone else would do it.</p>
<p>For schools near the top it becomes difficult to improve their ranking, because it is no longer just improvement in one weak area that can lift the ranking, much like a weightlifter that seeks to increase from lifting 525 pounds to lifting 535. For the weightlifter it may be that he needs to strengthen arms, shoulders, back, legs, knees, and ankles to make such an improvement. You get to the point where improvement comes slowly and only with much work.</p>
<p>The ways to āgameā the rankings are financial resources, selectivity (greater number in top 10%), class size, and student faculty ratio. For example classifying med school resources as undergrad resources or faculty. Iām not alluding to peer assessment or acceptance rate.</p>
<p>I agree with slipper, Dartmouth should value the student in top 10% more as well as reclassify their resources (such as add Tuckās faculty number to undergradās since undergrads can now take classes at Tuck).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would suppose any school would like to increase their selectivity, so why are you considering that a way to āgameā the system? Also, there is a big assumption. If a school is trying to get a bigger percentage of kids in the top 10% to matriculate, they have to have a greater pool of students of that caliber applying and choosing to attend. Not too many schools have that ability and I donāt think the historical yields of Dartmouth would make that possible unfortunately.</p>
<p>^While the applicant pool for Columbia and Dartmouth may not be identical, the yields are very similar. Attributing the yield to the reason Dartmouth canāt admit a higher percentage of kids in the top 10% is not entirely accurate. They would merely have to reject more kids who, although interesting in other ways, are not in the top decile.</p>
<p>Columbia 2014 yield was 58%
Dartmouth 2014 yield was 53%</p>
<p>[2010</a> Admissions Tally - The Choice Blog - NYTimes.com](<a href=āhttp://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010-admissions-tally/?ref=edlife]2010ā>http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010-admissions-tally/?ref=edlife)</p>