Most elite schools have big research budgets and the academic awards to show for it. When you start pulling in Nobel prizes and spending hundreds of millions in research annually – and your student:fac ratio is 10:1, you have a brilliant student body, etc. – then you are truly elite, IMO, at the undergrad level. That research and those faculty awards will impact the undergraduate education quality, and it will improve the quality of the grad programs as well, resulting in a more robust university overall.
But where the awards and research advances really help most is in the Prestige department, and that is huge when it comes to being recognized as truly elite.
They look at 9 metrics: Total Research, Federal Research, Endowment Assets, Annual Giving, National Academy, Faculty Awards, PostDoc appointments, SAT scores and National Merit Scholars.
We’ve already talked about why Research funding is important. Endowment Assets/Annual Giving relates to the resources available to the University. National Academy/Faculty Awards speaks to faculty quality. Post Doc appointments and SAT Scores indicates the research university ability to attract the best undergraduate students possible and produce advanced doctoral graduates (which recognizes the significance of research university training of advanced students for doctoral degrees).
I’m sure we can come up with other metrics, this is just one groups attempt to measure research universities.
Lets look at an example. Northeastern University has a power ranking of 106, just ahead of the University of Central Florida (107) and UC-Santa Cruz (108). While NEU is strong in facility/students, it’s weak in research funding (compared to it’s peers).
Raising in the rankings can help schools recruit students and raise money, but to be an “elite” research university (top 100? 50?), you need research funding, resources, faculty and students (including grad students).
Perhaps, but remember, its zero-sum game. For 'SC (or any other school) to “rise”, another school has to un-rise. And 'SC has a particular problem in that it is overshadowed in its home state: at best, a #4, or maybe a #5 for undergrad (including Pomona) in the state prestige game.
Of research Unis, It is virtually impossible for 'SC to overtake Stanford, Cal, Caltech, in its own backyard. Kinda hard to gain national recognition when other neighbors already have the high PA scores.
But my anecdote was about law school rankings. Over the past couple of years, 'SC Law has been losing ground to UCLA law, and that is solely based on chasing top students by offering merit scholarships. USC has chosen not to play that game as much as others, and as a result, is losing ground, at least in the profession of law.
They have high demand. WSTUL went to wait list. I think IIRC, after May when everybody knows where everybody is going, the ones who was not offered a spot anywhere. That’s what I was told. Perhaps he simplified it for my understanding.
You like to mine data to show that Northeastern is not up to your standards. Only 26% of NU’s students come from New England, let alone the Boston area. The 2015 SAT/ACT test scores for Northeastern are higher than for BC and dramatically higher than BU. Check each school’s website And yes, I aw aware of the NUIn option.
yeah but Dr. Google, search cc for the gazillion threads on yield. Lotsa possibilities (and why yield is a meaningless stat.)
For example, perhaps 'SC had a lower than expected yield in 2013, so they over-compensated in '14, and made more offers. Or, they offered more money than other comparable schools (to boost rankings). Or, the alternative, they chose to lessen the rat race chase of grades/mcat scores (and rankings); thus, it would be really easy to end up with a higher yield. Or, (the cynic in me talking, since 'SC had a history of it, at least at the undergrad level), 'SC just manipulated the definition of WL.
Does Medical school work that way? From my coworker it was WSUTL that practiced that, they didn’t believe his kid will go there because her sister picked USC over WSUTL.
One reason for picking USC over WUSTL is the location and the weather - especially when the student is from the west coast. The pay rate for doctors depends on the specialty and not on the “prestige” of the med school. So it matters less unless in some cases (e.g., pursuing academic medicine.)
In particular, I heard that if California kids can manage to stay in-state, they would rather choose to “stay put” rather than temporarily “being on exile” to another state and then struggle to come back to their home state later on. Chasing for prestigious institution is more common in the population of college applicants than the professional school applicants (maybe with the exception of Asian kids?)
Re: Manipulation of WL (at the professional school admission level)
Many schools could give an applicant a “silence treatment” because there is no requirement for the school to notify the applicants of their admission status like the college admissions do. There is also some school that will reject a applicant on the same day they receive his/her application fees. The definition of WL could be very vague. There is a joke that goes like this: a student could be notified of his/her admission one day before the first day of the first semester and he or she is struggling to get to the school.
Actually, because there are relatively few admission slots, many admittances could be negotiated live over a phone call and they only offer the admission to those applicants who promise to attend on the spot. So the definition of yield is not as meaningful as that for college admission. The definition of WL is also murky, because the “silence treatment” could last till a much later date (or even forever.)
Because of the unbalance between the demand and the supply, one side has the absolute power over the other side about what they can do. The side with the lower hand really do not have much bargaining power over those with the upper hand, possibly with the exception of “hooked” applicants because there were so few of them and everybody tries to recruit them. I heard of a case that a school happens to recruit zero of them for two consecutive years by a bad luck and the admission dean was under a great pressure to score at least a few of them in the third year.
Also some students pick USC over other school because of a certain specialty. USC maybe the Harvard of one type of specialty. I’m refraining from mentioning the specialty but I was told by my friend.
I don’t “mine statistics”. Our school’s naviance data is what it is. That shows that among the students of one of the best in close not City of Boston high schools what student applications look like. I have no idea why NEU people are so defensive.
My daughter graduated from NEU in 2013. Before she was done, she commented that the incoming students were far more competitive that her class was and she doubted that she would have been accepted if applying in 2012.
My youngest was denied acceptance ( not as strong an applicant as her older sister )
Her friend who was the class valedictorian was also not accepted
The data for NEU isn’t really fair when it comes to rankings since it generally is a 5 year program ( due to the co-ops ) I was disappointed that my youngest got denied when they admitted a mediocre classmate of hers for a sport rather than academic stats…
However, I still respect the school and without a doubt , they gave my other daughter an amazing education and connections that have had a major impact on her
I discount any business publications valuation of colleges. They consider income of grads too much. If a higher percentage/greater numbers of a U’s grads go into the job market instead of grad or professional school that yields different data than if the top students do not etc.
What percent of colleges should be considered elite? If it is a constant the only way one college can become elite is to bump another one from that list. Or, if you allow increasing numbers the term becomes meaningless or at least less meaningful. btw- schools east coast people often consider elite are merely better in their region- totally unheard of elsewhere (unless one frequents CC). Using acceptance rates just means more people apply- often on the east coast because of the myriads of people and colleges. Midrange (25-75%ile) ACT /SAT scores seems a better indicator.
