Yale selectivity - why only a 96?

<p>Basically, I was leafing through a Princeton Review book the other day at Border's (I think it was 361 best colleges or something, but I forget) and noticed that in terms of selectivity, the author only gave a 96/100 rating to Yale while peer institutions (Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, etc) <em>all</em> had a 99/100 selectivity ranking. Seeing as Yale's acceptance rate was something like 5.8% for RD admits this year, this seems like an aberration.</p>

<p>I'm genuinely curious - why is this?</p>

<p>Ignore Princeton Review scores.</p>

<p>Thank you</p>

<p>^ thanks...</p>

<p>unless the author has a personal vendetta against the school though, it just seems weird, y'know?</p>

<p>the survey is embarrassingly flawed. however, in the newest version, I believe Yale received a rating of 99.</p>

<p>Are the latest scores to be found on PR's website?</p>

<p>Agreed with the above. Schools that are obviously more selective than others sometimes get lower selectivity scores than the less selective ones. All of PR's numbers--unless reported directly by the college--and rankings are flawed and to be taken with a grain (or a whole barrel) of salt.</p>

<p>PRs rankings are garbage. Total garbage.</p>

<p>No school is more selective than Yale. Not even Harvard. (And I'm not saying that Harvard is less selective than Yale.)</p>

<p>By the way, from PR's newest ratings on its site, Yale has a 99.</p>

<p>UCLA has a 98, whereas Berkeley has a 97. UC Santa Cruz has a 93.</p>

<p>Really, PR is complete crap.</p>

<p>princeton review is crap. use their info to get a brief synopsis of the schools. their rankings and other stuff are completely useless...</p>

<p>PR is terrible. Yale is not even ranked in the top 10 best libraries even though it has the 2nd most volumes and GORGEOUS facilities...</p>

<p>If memory serves, last year, for academic quality, the PR (in its eternal wisdom) granted Brown University a rating of 75 or 80. It was ridiculously low. I am sure they fixed it this year.</p>

<p>The PR is very flawed.</p>

<p>Amherst was ranked 7th worst in financial aid this year, even though they meet 100% of need and don't require any loans.</p>

<p>PR's value is entirely in the descriptions of academics and the student body that give you some idea of what the school "feels" like. There is almost no value in the rankings.</p>

<p>Need is what a school determines to be need.
What I don't understand is, the federal government says we should only have to pay x amount, and the Office of Financial Aid somehow decides that it's reasonable to conclude that we can somehow pay three times that amount.</p>

<p>NYU doesn't guarantee to meet 100 percent demonstrated need, and they pretty much gave me the same package, so, hey, I guess those rankings really are meaningless.</p>

<p>Tons of colleges guarantee to "meet 100 percent of demonstrated need," but not many of them top the list.</p>

<p>I agree with PR "Top ______ schools" but the rest is crap.</p>

<p>I mean as Catfish said most schools like Amherst($1.5 Billion in Endowment) will grant 100% FA need. Harvard and Brown no longer allow you to graduate with debt in most cases.</p>

<p>How can those schools not "allow" one to graduate without debt?
If they find out that your family took out loans, will they throw you out?</p>

<p>Also, Dartmouth students appear to be rather disappointed too.
Which lends a sliver of credibility to the list, no?</p>

<p>So, would John McCain have become who is now if he hadn't been white?</p>

<p>Can we assume that his admission to the Naval Academy may have been influenced by being the son and grandson of four-star admirals?</p>

<p>His father graduated from the Naval Academy in 1931, eighteen years before that institution first graduated a black student, and thirteen years before there the Navy commissioned its first black officers. Had McCain's father and grandfather been black, it's a very safe bet they wouldn't have become four star admirals, and likely that John would have had to find another school to scrape through.</p>