<p>I mean they could do more. From what I’ve seen and heard, more schools are trying to predict better. They can say it’s necessary because the common app has increased applications and because they want to save money in the admissions process and so on but it also reduces the acceptance rate while, presumably, increasing yield. Both are marketed as desirable metrics. (BTW, the best thing UR could do to increase applications would be to have a law school - and to create an undergrad biz school. I hope they don’t do either but that is what works.)</p>
<p>But I don’t mean to open a can of worms.</p>
<p>I’m not a fan of undergrad metrics in general. I’ve spent too much time analyzing them and their meaning to respect them. One example: if you look at application numbers for certain public schools, you see a self-limiting factor in which the status or raw level of acceptance is known in-state and so kids tend to slot themselves. And if you look at the in versus out state stats, they can be strikingly different for some schools. And further if you look into specific schools, you find they draw vast numbers from a few locations. NYU, for example, limits what it puts out but you can identify the main sources of applications and acceptances. Guess what? When you’re the large school in the largest city, you get a lot of applications from that area. Does that really equal “selectivity?” The more I went into the numbers, the more I questioned what the typical metrics even mean.</p>
<p>I’m much more in favor of grad school rankings. Why? Though they are mostly reputational, they reflect name recognition in the relevant community, which affects research and employment opportunities. That is why grad school rankings matter: your first job in academia stays with you for a long time. It doesn’t mean quality doesn’t rise over time, just that you have to include “over time” when you’re talking about academics. These rankings, the better ones, also include such things as the number of papers per faculty, number of citations per paper, etc. as ways of identifying the influence of the department in the field. But undergrad rankings? Total bull.</p>
<p>Trying to be honest, which isn’t always easy because it raises odd issues, I look at the percentage of Jews in a school. Why? Well, first, I’m Jewish so I don’t feel weird about it. Second, Jews are associated with high achievement and with an emphasis on academics. Third, the numbers for Jews at a number of prestigious schools tracks pretty well. (Note I’m not saying Jews are inherently intelligent or more intelligent. Also note that if you read David Brooks’ column about the decline in Jewish representation, the numbers he used were really, really off.)</p>
<p>Would people feel comfortable with a “Jewish ranking” system? We sort of have that. We also sort of have an “Asian ranking” system: top schools tend to have a high number of Asian students. (And here, I’ll point out that the vastness of Asia obviously means Asians aren’t inherently more intelligent, though it’s funny how the success of one group is attributed to “hard work” and the other to “genes” or some form of conspiracy.)</p>
<p>We also have an African-American ranking system, but that one tends to be inverse. We don’t like to talk about that one, if only because it’s so hard to separate race from poverty and racism and so much more. </p>
<p>I try to identify these things in myself because I try to be honest about how much they affect my thinking. UR, btw, is below WashU in Jewishness, which one could say reflects how American Jews view the schools (and which in turn, I believe, reflects the existence of a law school and an undergrad biz school). </p>
<p>One could argue what UR shoud do is invest in a Hillel. It’s worked for other schools. (And they are looking at something to do with the Interfaith Chapel, but not at a “Hillel” building.) </p>
<p>Again, my purpose is not to inflame or to argue but to discuss dispasionately.</p>