PonyFans.com

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandrevie ... int=a557e6

SMU is ranked #60. I believe that means we dropped 2 places following the institution of a new methodology (still up 2 from the year before that..). Meanwhile, UT continues to fall, down to 52 from 46 in 2013; aTm is 69; Baylor's at 72; and TCU is at 82. Rice is at 18.
For what these rankings are worth, anyways...
I stopped before I found Houston, but unless he keeps only to the football board, I'm sure we'll learn it's actually a top-20 univ when the correct criteria is used to evaluate the schools

Houston is ranked at #190

Texas Tech #161

Disappointed that we moved down the list and not a few ticks up. Really thought we'd be right at 50. TCU moved up a few spots BTW.

Sometimes it can be a black box how these things are determined. Surprised we haven't moved slightly higher. I wasn't expecting top 50 this year, but certainly getting us closer. Good to see UChicago stay in the top 5.

Very surprised (shocked actually) that tcu jumped up. I remember a few years ago they weren't even in the top 100, and now they're getting closer to baylor, which is pretty silly. Baylor is a few levels above tcu, and their student body is much stronger. The class stats bear this out. Schools that I think are ranked too low and too high:

too low:
Tulane
SMU
UT-Austin
Tulsa (best school in OK)

Too high
Penn State
UCSD, UC Davis, UC SB, UCIrvine (the california publics get a lot of love, but Berkeley and UCLA are clearly notches above)
Yeshiva
UWashington
Georgia
A&M
Rutgers
TCU. They get the benefit of more applicants (a lot to do from their football program), but their student stats are levels below SMU and Baylor. In short, they get more applicants but they are not top high-caliber applicants.

StallionsModelT wrote:TCU moved up a few spots BTW.

10 spots.

Mustangs_Maroons wrote:TCU. They get the benefit of more applicants (a lot to do from their football program), but their student stats are levels below SMU and Baylor. In short, they get more applicants but they are not top high-caliber applicants.

Applicants are the only factor in the rankings?

FroggieFever wrote:

StallionsModelT wrote:TCU moved up a few spots BTW.

10 spots.

Mustangs_Maroons wrote:TCU. They get the benefit of more applicants (a lot to do from their football program), but their student stats are levels below SMU and Baylor. In short, they get more applicants but they are not top high-caliber applicants.

Applicants are the only factor in the rankings?

Nope, but applicants (IMO) are the best quantitative proxy for many other factors that go into rankings. The reason the top 20 schools are what they are is because of the student bodies (they choose to attend the schools because of the academic resources, the faculty, the curriculum, etc.). It is circular, but understanding the quality of the applicants gives one a good perspective of a school's standing. There is no denying that football has actually helped turned around the whole perception of tcu, and I credit them for using this to improve on other things. I think the biggest thing going for tcu is the perception that it is more competitive to get into then it really is. The number of applicants is one thing, but my point is that looking into the applicant pool, the quality (while certainly improving) is simply not there, as compared to other schools, such as Baylor. And frankly, I'm surprised to see rankings that would suggest it is even that close.

The smart rank (http://colleges.findthebest.com/) does a much better job of better capturing these stats and also takingo into account rankings for the top ranking sources. In this, tulane is 33, smu is 49, UT-Austin is 51, Tulsa is 60, baylor 77, tcu 95 and A&M 109.

Thought we would move up a couple of notches. Not sure how we didn't with the progress made in the average SAT and alumni giving increased percentage. One area we need to see improvement - our acceptance rate (of those we offer admittance to). That has got to move up. I think it will as we continue to improve academically - so that we are viewed as a school you might choose over Wake or Tulane or others we are grouped pretty close to. eventually we need to beat out the vandy's of the world but we are a ways off from that.

Tulane is actually not as hard to get into as it once was - I am surprised they have stayed where they are.

Its anecdotal, but TCU is really easy to get into. Their student quality is really not good - but Baylor is not tough either. Not sure why you would think there should be a big spread there.

gostangs wrote:One area we need to see improvement - our acceptance rate (of those we offer admittance to). That has got to move up.

Wes Waggoner (former TCU Asst. Dean of Admission) is now the Dean of Admission at SMU. He'll do just fine and will notch this up.

gostangs wrote:Tulane is actually not as hard to get into as it once was - I am surprised they have stayed where they are.

Correct.

gostangs wrote:Its anecdotal, but TCU is really easy to get into. Their student quality is really not good - but Baylor is not tough either. Not sure why you would think there should be a big spread there.

I disagree about TCU, though agree about Baylor. TCU deemphasizes standardized testing in its Admissions process (not its scholarship process, however), whereas SMU emphasizes it (Turner gave every Admissions Officer a brick with "1300" on it -- the combined scores for critical reading and math --, for instance). TCU doesn't place nearly as much emphasis in the SAT/ACT as SMU (and nearly every other institution of higher education in this country). The quality of applicants (and students) is comparable.

You're obviously informed. Not much to argue in your post.

You can bet our basketball team will now help if fb doesn't w/ drawing prospective students.

i am sorry - but you are just incorrect on the quality of students being comparable. The average SAT score IS the measure for the quality of the student - the higher they score - the higher the quality of the student body. Our incoming freshman class is over 1300 - higher than any school in Texas except for Rice - ahead of UT by a fair amount and WAAAAY ahead of TCU. Ask Wes - he will tell you about the differences.

Not saying TCU is not improving - they clearly have. But they are no comparable to SMU at this point. Not even close.

By the way - it swings both ways. We are well behind Vanderbilt, Wake, USC and Northwestern. Those are the schools that we are going to catch, but we aren't there yet.

gostangs wrote:i am sorry - but you are just incorrect on the quality of students being comparable. The average SAT score IS the measure for the quality of the student - the higher they score - the higher the quality of the student body. Our incoming freshman class is over 1300 - higher than any school in Texas except for Rice - ahead of UT by a fair amount and WAAAAY ahead of TCU. Ask Wes - he will tell you about the differences.

Not saying TCU is not improving - they clearly have. But they are no comparable to SMU at this point. Not even close.

By the way - it swings both ways. We are well behind Vanderbilt, Wake, USC and Northwestern. Those are the schools that we are going to catch, but we aren't there yet.

ACT/SAT is just one basis, and the only basis your opinion seems to be influenced by. TCU, as I mentioned, doesn't place much stock in that basis, therefore, it isn't THE measure for the quality of student in this scenario between the two institutions.

The quality of the student (though not exclusive to an ACT/SAT score), is comparable.

Wes will confirm this.

He absolutely will not - i have asked him myself point blank. What is the independent metric by which you say they are comparable? I am using the metric used by every reputable school in the country. TCU uses it just as much as anyone else, you just don't pull the kind of students that score as well. Your student quality is comparable with Baylor, and very much ahead of TTU and light years ahead of Houston. The ranking is very known - its not a mystery.

gostangs wrote:He absolutely will not - i have asked him myself point blank. What is the independent metric by which you say they are comparable? I am using the metric used by every reputable school in the country. TCU uses it just as much as anyone else, you just don't pull the kind of students that score as well. Your student quality is comparable with Baylor, and very much ahead of TTU and light years ahead of Houston. The ranking is very known - its not a mystery.

He will, and he has.

I'm not suggesting there's a cross-collateralized metric. TCU's basis is rigor of curriculum. SMU's is test scores (ACT/SAT). Though to suggest that "TCU uses it just as much as anyone else" is wildly incorrect.

It's hard to snap back and forth with you. As I mentioned previously, you're obviously informed and I agree with 98% of your assessments, though suggest that you're misinformed with the remaining 2%.

Seriously - ask him. He has seen both and knows the truth. TCU says it is rigor of curriculum because they aren't there yet on standardized scores - the way EVERYONE else measures student quality. Even Wake - who says they don't care about standardized scores anymore, still publish where they come out when Princeton Review asks them. The only thing you can really measure is percentage of your student body that is in the top ten percent of their HS class, or some sort of standardized test. I am not saying it is the only thing to look at with admissions decisions, its just the way you measure how you did when the dust settles.