Talk:College and university rankings in the United States

"CPAI" seems made up and very close to being WP:OR

A Google search on "College Preeminence Admissions Index" yields only 9 results (three of which are in Wikipedia articles), and they all have something to do with someone at Stanford. The record of Wikipedia edits by the apparent contributor shows an overwhelming majority of edits having to do with implied or explicit superiority of that institution. But isn't it interesting that, if one looks up each of the first three cited references in this article, a search of each document shows no matches for "CPAI" or "index?"

Jeff in CA (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I just found two more made up original research rankings on here, the "YAR" ranking and the "Selectivity" ranking. This is unbelievable original research. I removed them, but a user named "Download" has repeatedly put them back in. We'll need to keep on eye on this page to make sure they stay off.--TDJankins (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll refrain from edit warring at this point, but I again suggest you review WP:NOR. It is ridiculous to think that ranking universities by selectivity is original research when it is one of the most basic and prominent ways of ranking colleges. A simple search will yield countless lists of colleges ranked by admit rate. (It's also unfair to assume that a user is trying to promote Stanford when it, in fact, is the most selective undergraduate research university. The ranking would be there regardless of Stanford's position.) I'll let someone else deal with this for now as I am not involved in this article. -download 01:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Smart move.--TDJankins (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Please be respectful in your responses TDJankins. "Smart move" is not helpful. I'm going to restore the "Selectivity" ranking. Ranking by selectivity (aka admission rate) is well established. For example, here is US News's version (with 2012 data): http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate?src=stats. To update this ranking with newer data for 2014 does not represent "original research" or a made-up ranking. Even though I worked on it, the "YAR" ranking is more questionable, since the first such rankings -- although dating from 2009 -- are in a blog source: http://mathacle.blogspot.com/search/label/Yield%20to%20Admit%20Ratio. However, I am also restoring that, since I believe the blog in question qualifies per wikipedia's guidance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_self-published_blogs. forestgomp (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Not only are these three original research, but there's also no way these Wikipedians evaluated every college in the US when THEY MADE (stitched together) these rankings. It's very hard to believe more than one person had a hand in these...--TDJankins (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I reiterate that the list does not fit the definition of original research. Allow me to suggest that just because the admission rates are cited individually does not mean a Wikipedian(s) produced the list individually. There are countless lists ranking selectivity (again, one of the most commonly used rankings) on the Internet, and a simple search will find them. -download 03:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like someone put the original research rankings back. As already stated, the rankings posted were made by Wikipedians and there's no way they considered every US college when they constructed these rankings. If you don't get by now that these are original research, then you will never get it. Just rest assured that they are indeed original research and they can't be on this page.--TDJankins (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I'm going to restore the "Selectivity" and "YAR" rankings. Repeating here, since TDJankins ignored my previous comments: Ranking by selectivity (aka admission rate) is well established. For example, here is US News's version (with 2012 data): http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/lowest-acceptance-rate?src=stats. To update this ranking with newer data for 2014 does not represent "original research" or a made-up ranking. Likewise, although "YAR" is originally from a blog source (http://mathacle.blogspot.com/search/label/Yield%20to%20Admit%20Ratio), that blog seems to be consistent with wikipedia's guidance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_self-published_blogs. Also, once again, please be more respectful in your comments TDJankins; "rest assured that they are indeed original research" is not an argument, it is condescension. forestgomp (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw your earlier comment. You did not "update" US News's selectivity ranking, you did not evaluate all the schools, and it would not be appropriate for you to update US News's selectivity ranking yourself even if you had evaluated all of the schools. Further, it's obvious that you're a sock, probably for "Download." There's no way that two separate people could so badly misunderstand the original research policy.--TDJankins (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither Selectivity nor YAR are original research as they are sourced, and draw no conclusions not directly supported by the sources. Cardbuff (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

They draw the conclusions that these are indeed the rankings of Selectivity and YAR without evaluating all the schools. Providing sources for a few individual schools or a few subsets of schools does not mean all schools were evaluated. None of the sources evaluated all schools either (not even combined). This "Cardbuff" appears to be another sock account. How many socks does this guy have?--TDJankins (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Just the smallest bit of research on your part TDJankins would quickly show you that Cardbuff (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Cardbuff&dir=prev&target=Cardbuff), download (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Download&dir=prev&target=Download), and I, forestgomp (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Forestgomp&dir=prev&target=Forestgomp) are distinct users. I'm not sure why you feel the need to assume that those with differing opinions are engaging in subterfuge. As for your argument that these ranking didn't evaluate all schools: I think that is an appropriate criticism of a ranking, where true, but does not have anything to do with the inclusion/exclusion of a ranking. forestgomp (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@TDJankins, again, your accusations of sockpuppetry are very serious, unfounded, and completely unconstructive to reaching consensus. I restored the rankings on College and university rankings as well only because I, Cardbuff, and Forestgomp have provided reasonable justification as to why they pass Wikipedia's policies of WP:NOR and notability. However, your justification for deleting them seems to be based on, first of all, an incorrect assumption that the rankings are original research, second of all, a misunderstanding of what content is allowed by Wikipedia's original research policy, and finally, unwarranted personal attacks. Please do not delete the content again unless consensus is reached. -download 03:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The YAR is unquestionably original research by synthesis. Further, it's not even a ranking but a list of institutions sorted by this metric being hand-calculated by one or more Wikipedia editors. Either of those alone requires us to remove this list from this article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ElKevbo:

> "The YAR is unquestionably original research by synthesis."

Possibly? Yes. But "unquestionably"? No. Original research by synthesis "combine[s] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The sources referenced for any given school only are used to document the source descriptive statistics (yield and admission rate), not the YAR metric itself. Referencing the YAR metric is not required since it is a trivial calculation (yield divided by admission rate). Requiring that the YAR metric itself be referenced would be akin to saying that a total needs to be referenced when all of the individual element of a sum are already referenced.

> "it's not even a ranking but a list of institutions sorted by this metric..."

Any ranking is a list of something sorted by some metric.

> "...being hand-calculated by one or more Wikipedia editors"

I think this is a fair point. But if so, would it therefore be acceptable in your mind if Wikipedia editors instead referenced this page: http://mathacle.blogspot.com/2010/03/yield-to-admit-rate-yar-index-for-class.html ? It seems silly that that would be okay, but that the updated version of the same would not be....

forestgomp (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's usually a sign of WP:OR if you have to pull together data from many different websites and this is obviously what has happened here. Further, material included in an article should be included only with due weight so the fact that a single blog post describes something is insufficient to warrant its inclusion in an encyclopedia article.

I personally see the value in this particular calculation. But it hasn't been published or used by anyone significant so it just doesn't rise to the level of inclusion in this or any other article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you ElKevbo. Addressing your points:

> "It's usually a sign of WP:OR if you have to pull together data from many different websites... "

While it may be a "sign" of WP:OR, I think the views presented above refute that argument. In fact, WP:CALC indicates that "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources." I think that the YAR calculations are consistent with this thinking. Moreover, per WP:COUNTSORT, "counting and sorting are not original research and therefore can be included in any article where taking simple mathematical measures would add benefit."

> and this is obviously what has happened here.

Acknowledged. Although, as pointed out above, use of older data would make that unnecessary. The aggregation of data from multiple sources is only for the purpose of reflecting the most up-to-date information, and does not change the meaning or interpretation of the YAR.

> Further, material included in an article should be included only with due weight...

The concept of due weight is more about neutrality, fairness in representation, and suggestions regarding equivalency. It does not apply in this situation.

> ... so the fact that a single blog post describes something is insufficient to warrant its inclusion in an encyclopedia article.

I've acknowledged above that a blog is the primary/original source of this information (it is not a single post though; it includes many posts over many years). However, the yield/admit ratio is referenced elsewhere as well (e.g., http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/stanford-university/1176190-yield-to-admit-rate-ratio-for-class-of-2015.html) and seems to have some prevalence in the community.

> I personally see the value in this particular calculation. But it hasn't been published or used by anyone significant so it just doesn't rise to the level of inclusion in this or any other article.

Respectfully disagree. It isn't easy to judge whether a source represents "anyone significant" though....

forestgomp (talk) 13:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a routine calculation. The only people using it are you, a blog author, and someone on an Internet discussion board. Unless you can provide more credible sources indicating that scholars, reporters, policy makers, or experts use this then it has no place in this or any other encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

RE: "The only people using it are you, a blog author, and someone on an Internet discussion board." No need to personalize. It is true that I've worked on the YAR section, but I didn't add it. It was added by Tyhbvf in May as the "College Preeminence Admissions Index (CPAI)" I changed the name from CPAI to YAR because I thought CPAI was a made up term. As noted, however, the index was not made up (although I'd agree it is not widely recognized). forestgomp (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's not widely recognized then it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article. If the blog posts and the discussion board post are the only evidence you can find supporting this material then it clearly doesn't belong here or anywhere else in Wikipedia. Do you have any other sources?

(The history of this section and the various single-purpose accounts that have added the material and defended it in Talk is a separate issue.) ElKevbo (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

RE: "If it's not widely recognized then it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia article." To my knowledge, there is no requirement that something be "widely recognized" to be incorporated within a wikipedia page (although notability is a requirement for an individual article/page). If you can reference such a requirement, and since I can't find additional non-discussion sources, I would be in agreement with the removal. FWIW, however, there are numerous discussions on College Confidential, including for example this one where it is discussed as a new ranking system ("Desirability Ratio").

RE: "...the various single-purpose accounts..." This strikes me as gratuitous, coming from a "scholar of U.S. higher education" such as yourself. forestgomp (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me just start by saying that creating and defending these made up rankings represent the worst editing and illogical rationalization I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I know Tyhbvf enjoys the barnstar Download gave him for his edits on the Stanford page, but you do Stanford no service by making up rankings and posting them on Wikipedia. I used to think Stanford was a pretty good school, but if they can turn out people this illogical, then not so much. Hopefully this is indeed just one person, because if it's four then that would look significantly bad for Stanford's output, especially four that just happened to come together on this page to do the worst editing in the history of Wikipedia.--TDJankins (talk) 04:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

TDJankins: I think you need to review the dispute resolution page. As noted by both download and myself, you continue to engage in nonconstructive personal attacks, don't assume good faith, accuse others of sock puppetry without evidence, and in general display a pattern of harassment. forestgomp (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of nonconstructive personal attacks, not assuming good faith, accusing others of sock puppetry without evidence, and in general displaying a pattern of harassment? Those are some serious accusations. Do you have any evidence that I don't have any evidence that you are engaging in sock puppetry and not acting in good faith? Do you have any evidence that I'm engaging in personal attacks and displaying a general pattern of harassment? Let me remind you to assume good faith. Your accusations are unfounded and could constitute harassment.--TDJankins (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

> "Are you accusing me of nonconstructive personal attacks, not assuming good faith, accusing others of sock puppetry without evidence, and in general displaying a pattern of harassment?"

Yes.

> "Do you have any evidence that I don't have any evidence that you are engaging in sock puppetry and not acting in good faith?"

What?? Are you asking me provide evidence that you don't have any evidence (i.e. prove a negative)? Since you've made the accusations, don't you think it is important for you to show evidence? Or are people guilty until proven innocent in your mind? (essentially the very definition of not acting in good faith). Still, I already provided you above with links to the editing history for myself, Cardbuff, and download. Isn't that evidence? What more would you need, my life history?

> "Do you have any evidence that I'm engaging in personal attacks and displaying a general pattern of harassment?"

Seriously? You don't think this sentence qualifies as a personal attack?: "I used to think Stanford was a pretty good school, but if they can turn out people this illogical, then not so much.." FWIW, BTW, I attended the University of Virginia, which wasn't even listed in the YAR ranking. forestgomp (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Stanford editor(s) caught again posting fake rankings

The Stanford editor(s) has put up another made up original research ranking. He calls it the "Acceptance Rate (Selectivity)" ranking. There was a "Top 100 Lowest Acceptance Rates" list put out by US News for 2013, but the Stanford editor is using this and a random website that has some acceptance rate data for 2014 to create his own original research ranking. I tried to appease him by renaming the section "Top 100 Lowest Acceptance Rates" and limiting it to the 2013 US News list, but he keeps reverting it to his original research ranking.--TDJankins (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know anything about a "Stanford editor" but one or more editors are indeed edit warring to preserve this list synthesizing two different sources into one list which is unquestionably and expressly disallowed by Wikipedia's foundational policy forbidding original research. Moreover, a mere listing of selectivity or any other single metric doesn't meet the definition of "ranking" as presented in this article ("various combinations of various contributing factors"). ElKevbo (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

One or more editors are adamant about keeping this material in the article but are refusing to engage in discussion except by using edit summaries when readding the material to the article. This isn't helpful or productive. ElKevbo (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The rankings were included because they are based on sourced material, and do not imply any conclusion not supported by the sourced material. Thus, they are not original research. However, because you insist on removing them, I will edit description to hopefully appease you. Cardbuff (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

First, it's not a ranking. Do you see how this is the only subsection that doesn't explicitly describe the list as a ranking published by a specific group or publisher? That's because it's just a list of institutions sorted using one specific criteria and not an actual ranking system as described in the lead of this article.

Second, this section relies solely on one crappy source (for a purported ranking system; it's a perfectly fine article for what it was intended to be). Not only does it explicitly say that the list is preliminary but it's also quite explicit in that the list is very incomplete and is only "drawn from the top 20 schools on each of two sets of the U.S. News & World Report rankings, for liberal arts colleges and national universities."

And why did you personally calculate the "Selectivity (Acceptance Rate)" for two of the institutions to two decimal figures but left the others at one decimal figure? The article, incidentally, doesn't use any decimal points so I'm also curious why you believe it's acceptable to go beyond the cited source. ElKevbo (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a ranking; just not necessarily one that includes every possible school, which no ranking system ever does; not one. Nevertheless, because of the latter concession, I purposely did not use the term "ranking" precisely because you would object that not every school is included. Second, the source is a solid one, for the ranking as well, given that my paragraph does not purport to include every college in the ranking. Third, the decimal point calculations are accurate, based upon the numbers included in the source article. Cardbuff (talk) 04:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Problems of the Acceptance rate and Admissions yield subsections

I think these two parts are problematic. It's completely redundant to intentionally put something like "Stanford has topped Harvard" since the tables down there present the results quite clearly. I can't see a good reason to do so (why don't we compare it with Yale, Princeton or MIT then?). Besides, the "competitiveness" mentioned in the Acceptance rate section is also a matter of "quality", depending upon the strength of the fellow rivals. College A accepts 5 out of 100 students who scored an average of A- in the exam while College B admits 6 but most of the hundred people attained an A grade. So, which college is more "competitive" to get in? While the admission percentage of College A is lower, the competition may be more fierce for applicants to fulfill the threshold in other dimensions set by College B. ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 14:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

USA Today and CollegeFactual

USA Today seems to be making a big push with their rankings in combination with a new ranking firm, CollegeFactual. We should probably cover that here. [1] -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Howard University Acceptance rate

Can anyone double check the Howard University Acceptance rate which, at the moment, is reported to be about 16% but when looking at other online sources seems in the 40-50% range instead? See for example https://www.google.com.au/search?num=100&site=webhp&q=Howard+University+admission+rate&oq=Howard+University+admission+rate&gs_l=serp.12..0.207619.207619.0.208372.1.1.0.0.0.0.207.207.2-1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..0.1.207.C2Ld6fU8VeU — Preceding unsigned comment added by World33 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

That was one of several errors in the table so I removed it altogether. I don't think it's necessary in this article but if anyone disagrees you'll need to fix and update the table before readding it. ElKevbo (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Pedit1:, if you believe this table should remain then you must fix it. It's not aligned with the cited source and someone edited it (and all other tables) to include state flags which is against the Manual of Style. ElKevbo (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

Are there any criteria for which rankings are included in this article? As far as I can tell, the only criterion is "a Wikipedia editor was willing to write it and no one else disagreed strongly enough to delete it." It seems like there should be a stronger, more selective criteria than that! One option is to defer to our policy about notability by requiring that entries each have their own article. That may be too stringent so it may be better to simply require multiple independent reliable sources that describe the ranking system as being especially important, noteworthy, or interesting. In other words, we'd require some sources that do not simply note the existence of the system or describing its methodology but makes credible assertions that justify its inclusion in an encyclopedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Acceptance rate and admissions yield

Two sections of this article - "Acceptance rate (selectivity)" and "Admissions yield" - are not rankings. As described in the lead of this article, rankings are composite measures ("consider combinations of measures") created by individuals or organizations. These sections merely define common terms and only one, yield, even attempts to place institutions in an order using that term. However, even that one is problematic because the table is merely a collection of Wikipedia editor-selected figures from random colleges and universities without any apparent attempt at rigor. I attempted to remove these sections but another editor has objected so I invite comment from others. ElKevbo (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

WSJ/Times Higher Education US College Rankings

Inaugural WSJ/THE Ranking of US Colleges.

References

Proposed merge of Criticism of college and university rankings (North America) into College and university rankings in the United States

Having one article on the rankings themselves and another on criticisms is effectively a WP:POVFORK. There will be plenty of room in the main article to cover criticisms if the criticisms article is brought into compliance with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE (removing the excessive quotations and news-like detail on each spat), especially given that it'd be appropriate to devote a large portion of the main article to criticisms. I note that the criticisms article has the scope of North America whereas the proposed merge destination is the U.S., but there's very little about Canada/Central America in the criticisms article, and that can be put in Rankings of universities in Canada, so there shouldn't be any major scope issues here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• Totally agree. -- Beland (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

• agree Shorouq★The★Super★ninja2 (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support Altanner1991 (talk) 08:41, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Altanner1991 (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

U.S. News rankings across history

If the links don't work, they can be accessed at archive.org.

U.S. News Rankings for 57 Leading Universities, 1983–2007 - Public University Honors

U.S. News National University Rankings, 2008-2015 - Public University Honors

Average U.S. News Rankings for 123 Universities: 2015-2022 - Public University Honors

Altanner1991 (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2022 (UTC)