<p>Part of the problem, as I understand it, besides the acceptance rate has to do with alumni based contributions - the thinking goes that schools with more generous alumni must mean the school is better, and better prepared to provide for their students. Personally, I think that line of thought is silly.</p>
<p>Basically, in this country we think that if a school is abnormally hard to get into it must be good, right? Right? It’s a self-perpetuating cycle.</p>
<p>I will bet anyone $50 that Harvard will be the top college (or tied for the top college) in the U.S. news ranking for the next 5 years, at least.</p>
<p>I think this will be the case because no matter the actual quality of education at Harvard (not to say that it it isn’t superb - although I think Chicago is better), it is the most well known University in the country. It is also perceived as the best university. Thus, “everyone” who only cares about rankings want their children or themselves to go to Harvard. So Harvard gets many applications from people that probably wouldn’t stand a chance. This makes it much easier to have a low acceptance rate, which in turn ranks it high in the rankings guides…which in turn causes it to be more well known…and leads to more people applying…and well the cycle repeats itself.</p>
<p>As for the generousness of alumni, part of me wonders whether the rate of contribution would be different if one factored in the alumni’s parent’s income level before they attended a University like Princeton, Yale, or Harvard. </p>
<p>Everyone knows that the more financially well off you are…the easier certain things will be for you in life. Such as getting into an ivy-league school.</p>
<p>Edit: I should add that when I tell people where I go to school, and they recognize it, I get universal praise and admiration. It certainly doesn’t feel like a “#15” school.</p>