This was put up by old line hokie on the techsideline football board. It's an average ranking of each ACC school by 6 different ranking methods.

http://www.brinkleys.org/users/tsl/Files...s14pdf.pdf

1 DUKE
2 NORTH CAROLINA
2 NOTRE DAME
2 VIRGINIA
5 GEORGIA TECH
6 BOSTON COLLEGE
7 WAKE FOREST
8 PITTSBURGH
9 VIRGINIA TECH
10 MIAMI
11 N.C. STATE
12 SYRACUSE
13 CLEMSON
14 FLORIDA STATE
15 LOUISVILLE

Flaws:

1) SAT rank can be heavily skewed by charitable outreach and/or government mandates. Georgia Tech just recently offered full ride to all Atlanta Public School System Valedictorians and Salutatorians regardless of other performance metrics, for example.

2) Several of these ranking systems have criteria that is not normalized per capita. If you are a .edu with enrollment 60,000 pulling down $10 bil in grants, in some ranking systems that is superior to a .edu with enrollment 10,000 pulling down $9 bil in grants.

3) Several of these ranking systems penalize schools which aren't broad in scope... much like Stanford competing in the Director's Cup by fielding a team in EVERY SINGLE SPORT the NCAA recognizes.

4) Several of these ranking systems do not penalize schools for utter BS majors of zero rigor and dubious value.


I put more stock in the AP pre-season Top 25 than most .edu ranking systems.

Yeah but watch the rankings of the 8th to 15th place schools when the Athletic Seasons Start. It will flip flop and thats what brings in the real working Capital for the Conference. Would probably look the same in all P5 Conferences.

This being basically a sports forum, why do academic rankings matter? Now, if somebody could come up with a way to measure how rigorous the courses are that are being taken by football and basketball players, that would be relevant.

Fact is, even if every athlete were taking the equivalent of a basket weaving major and had a 700 SAT, it would have zero impact on the academic rating of their school.

We have a ways to go, but we have made huge strides in the last decade. Being associated with the ACC is going to help us in a big way. It will only get better

(08-11-2014 07:19 AM)ken d Wrote:  This being basically a sports forum, why do academic rankings matter? Now, if somebody could come up with a way to measure how rigorous the courses are that are being taken by football and basketball players, that would be relevant.

Fact is, even if every athlete were taking the equivalent of a basket weaving major and had a 700 SAT, it would have zero impact on the academic rating of their school.

They don't matter, until ignorant Big Ten fanboys and realignment kooks show up proclaiming to be the new Ivy meaning that every university east of the Rockies has lined up to jump conferences because they'll all get a cut of the CIC's imaginary $8 billion pool of research money.

Meanwhile, the ACC, collectively, still boasts the highest average US News scores and highest average SAT scores even when swapping MD with UL. And JHU... still not in the CIC... and doesn't really give a sheet.

That said, I never even knew Money Magazine had a ranking. Everyone has a ranking these days. Great for selling copy.

I don't think ACC membership has much bearing on the academic ranking or quality of a school.

(08-11-2014 08:10 AM)rednblackattack Wrote:  We have a ways to go, but we have made huge strides in the last decade. Being associated with the ACC is going to help us in a big way. It will only get better

Louisville has done a fantastic job of building their athletics and using athletics as a marketing mechanism for the rest of the school. Building academics is quite a bit trickier, infinitely more political, more time consuming and expensive, and actually, no less competitive.

The biggest issue right now are UL's operational deficits and some major mismanagement which is causing the university to reorganize its financial structure. That reorganization can only be a good thing in the long run. The UMC is a drain too, as are most university-owned hospitals. There are major challenges and major areas of on-going concern that take time and money to fix, like its med school's accreditation being put on probation this March (frankly, that is a major embarrassment).

Undergrad student demand is up, and that is a good thing, but that is only one component (luckily, one of the ones that is measured by most rankings). But the reality is, with how lucrative the athletic department is, there should not be one additional dime being used to subsidize athletic operations coming from the school's general operations or strategic reserves. There are too many other major issues at the university itself that threaten the health of the actual overall institution itself. UL has a lot of work to do, but it also has huge potential.

(08-11-2014 11:27 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  I don't think ACC membership has much bearing on the academic ranking or quality of a school.

The only conference membership that has any bearing on academic rankings is the Ivy League.

(08-11-2014 02:21 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  This was put up by old line hokie on the techsideline football board. It's an average ranking of each ACC school by 6 different ranking methods.

http://www.brinkleys.org/users/tsl/Files...s14pdf.pdf

1 DUKE
2 NORTH CAROLINA
2 NOTRE DAME
2 VIRGINIA
5 GEORGIA TECH
6 BOSTON COLLEGE
7 WAKE FOREST
8 PITTSBURGH
9 VIRGINIA TECH
10 MIAMI
11 N.C. STATE
12 SYRACUSE
13 CLEMSON
14 FLORIDA STATE
15 LOUISVILLE

Well, I don't think FSU's SAT average is accurate. Its 25th percentile is 1110. It's 75th is 1280. But the average is 1120?

Also, FSU, VT, UM and NCSU are all tied in the AWRU rankings at "151-200", yet this VT fan lists VT as ranked higher than the other 3 in the chart. How convenient.

(08-11-2014 11:53 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Well, I don't think FSU's SAT average is accurate. Its 25th percentile is 1110. It's 75th is 1280. But the average is 1120?

Also, FSU, VT, UM and NCSU are all tied in the AWRU rankings at "151-200", yet this VT fan lists VT as ranked higher than the other 3 in the chart. How convenient.

The SAT averages are wrong. Pitt's actual CR+M SAT average last year (eg Fall 2013) was 1293.

The "pseudo-average" for Pitt last fall, which is what you seem most of the time and is derived by adding the 25th and 75th percentile cutoffs reported by Common Data Sets and dividing by two, was 1270.

(08-11-2014 12:02 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:53 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Well, I don't think FSU's SAT average is accurate. Its 25th percentile is 1110. It's 75th is 1280. But the average is 1120?

Also, FSU, VT, UM and NCSU are all tied in the AWRU rankings at "151-200", yet this VT fan lists VT as ranked higher than the other 3 in the chart. How convenient.

The SAT averages are wrong. Pitt's actual CR+M SAT average last year (eg Fall 2013) was 1293.

The "pseudo-average" for Pitt last fall, which is what you seem most of the time and is derived by adding the 25th and 75th percentile cutoffs reported by Common Data Sets and dividing by two, was 1270.

The "pseudo-average" SAT for ACC schools for Fall 2013 is the following.

Fall 2013

1 Duke 1455
2 Notre Dame 1430
3 Georgia Tech 1385
4 Boston College 1360
5 Virginia 1355
6 Wake Forest 1330
7 Miami 1325
8 North Carolina 1305
9 Pitt 1270
10 Clemson 1235
11 Virginia Tech 1220
12 Florida State 1195
13 NC State 1185
14 Syracuse 1155
15 Louisville 1135

ACC average 1289.333333
ACC median 1305

And here they are for the entire P5...

1 Vanderbilt 1490
2 Stanford 1475
3 Duke 1455
4 Northwestern 1445
5 Notre Dame 1430
6 Georgia Tech 1385
7 Michigan 1380
8 Cal-Berkeley 1375
8 USC 1375
10 Boston College 1360
11 Virginia 1355
12 Illinois 1350
13 Wake Forest 1330
14 Miami 1325
15 Maryland 1310
16 North Carolina 1305
17 Minnesota 1300
17 UCLA 1300
19 Wisconsin 1290
20 Pitt 1270
21 Florida 1265
21 Ohio State 1265
23 Texas 1260
24 Georgia 1240
25 Clemson 1235
26 Washington 1230
27 Baylor 1225
28 Virginia Tech 1220
29 Rutgers 1210
30 Purdue 1200
31 Florida State 1195
31 South Carolina 1195
33 NC State 1185
34 Texas A&M 1180
34 TCU 1180
36 Indiana 1175
36 Penn State 1175
38 Colorado 1170
38 Iowa 1170
38 Nebraska 1170
41 Auburn 1165
41 Missouri 1165
41 Tennessee 1165
44 Oklahoma 1155
44 Syracuse 1155
46 Arizona St 1145
46 Iowa St 1145
46 Kansas 1145
49 Louisville 1135
50 Kentucky 1130
51 Utah 1125.5
52 Arkansas 1125
52 Alabama 1125
54 Michigan St 1120
55 LSU 1117.5
56 Oregon 1115
57 Mississippi St 1110
57 Texas Tech 1110
59 Kansas St 1105
60 Oklahoma St 1100
61 Arizona 1095
61 Oregon St 1095
63 Mississippi 1085
64 West Virginia 1050
65 Washington St 1030

average 1222.507692
median 1185

*SAT not reported, converted from ACT.

BTW, the national average for the SAT was 1010.

And finally, here is what the averages for each of the P5 conferences (current membership) were....

ACC average 1289.333333
ACC median 1305

B10 average 1254.285714
B10 median 1237.5

P12 average 1210.875
P12 median 1157.5

SEC average 1182.678571
SEC median 1165

B12 average 1147.5
B12 median 1145

(08-11-2014 12:06 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 12:02 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 11:53 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  Well, I don't think FSU's SAT average is accurate. Its 25th percentile is 1110. It's 75th is 1280. But the average is 1120?

Also, FSU, VT, UM and NCSU are all tied in the AWRU rankings at "151-200", yet this VT fan lists VT as ranked higher than the other 3 in the chart. How convenient.

The SAT averages are wrong. Pitt's actual CR+M SAT average last year (eg Fall 2013) was 1293.

The "pseudo-average" for Pitt last fall, which is what you seem most of the time and is derived by adding the 25th and 75th percentile cutoffs reported by Common Data Sets and dividing by two, was 1270.

The "pseudo-average" SAT for ACC schools for Fall 2013 is the following.

Fall 2013

1 Duke 1455
2 Notre Dame 1430
3 Georgia Tech 1385
4 Boston College 1360
5 Virginia 1355
6 Wake Forest 1330
7 Miami 1325
8 North Carolina 1305
9 Pitt 1270
10 Clemson 1235
11 Virginia Tech 1220
12 Florida State 1195
13 NC State 1185
14 Syracuse 1155
15 Louisville 1135

ACC average 1289.333333
ACC median 1305

And here they are for the entire P5...

1 Vanderbilt 1490
2 Stanford 1475
3 Duke 1455
4 Northwestern 1445
5 Notre Dame 1430
6 Georgia Tech 1385
7 Michigan 1380
8 Cal-Berkeley 1375
8 USC 1375
10 Boston College 1360
11 Virginia 1355
12 Illinois 1350
13 Wake Forest 1330
14 Miami 1325
15 Maryland 1310
16 North Carolina 1305
17 Minnesota 1300
17 UCLA 1300
19 Wisconsin 1290
20 Pitt 1270
21 Florida 1265
21 Ohio State 1265
23 Georgia 1240
24 Clemson 1235
25 Washington 1230
26 Baylor 1225
27 Virginia Tech 1220
28 Rutgers 1210
29 Purdue 1200
30 Florida State 1195
30 South Carolina 1195
32 NC State 1185
33 Texas A&M 1180
33 TCU 1180
35 Indiana 1175
35 Penn State 1175
37 Colorado 1170
37 Iowa 1170
37 Nebraska 1170
40 Auburn 1165
40 Missouri 1165
40 Tennessee 1165
43 Texas 1260
44 Oklahoma 1155
44 Syracuse 1155
46 Arizona St 1145
46 Iowa St 1145
46 Kansas 1145*
49 Louisville 1135
50 Kentucky 1130
51 Utah 1125.5
52 Arkansas 1125
52 Alabama 1125
54 Michigan St 1120
55 LSU 1117.5
56 Oregon 1115
57 Mississippi St 1110
57 Texas Tech 1110
59 Kansas St 1105*
60 Oklahoma St 1100
61 Arizona 1095
61 Oregon St 1095
63 Mississippi 1085
64 West Virginia 1050
65 Washington St 1030

average 1222.507692
median 1185

*SAT not reported, converted from ACT.

BTW, the national average for the SAT was 1010.

And finally, here is what the averages for each of the P5 conferences (current membership) were....

ACC average 1289.333333
ACC median 1305

B10 average 1254.285714
B10 median 1237.5

P12 average 1210.875
P12 median 1157.5

SEC average 1182.678571
SEC median 1165

B12 average 1147.5
B12 median 1145

Where are you getting these SAT numbers from? Some of this, like the low ranking for Texas, looks odd. Also, I thought that the West Coast schools mostly used the ACT and that, in fact, ACT usage was spreading rapidly across the country. Would the SAT numbers be accurate and meaningful if many admissions are based on the ACT?

(08-11-2014 12:20 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Where are you getting these SAT numbers from? Some of this, like the low ranking for Texas, looks odd. Also, I thought that the West Coast schools mostly used the ACT and that, in fact, ACT usage was spreading rapidly across the country. Would the SAT numbers be accurate and meaningful if many admissions are based on the ACT?

Each school's own common data sets for 2013-2014 as of Feb 21, 2014.

UT is correct, but out of order (I'll resort and fix that above). Many schools that have higher level of ACT submissions also convert to SAT because most rankings use SAT scores (or conversions thereto) for ranking/comparisons. In the case of Kansas and Kansas St, they only reported ACT, so their score was converted for them (there are standard score converting tables).

These numbers (again "pseudo-averages) are derived from what were reported from each school and can also be found in the data at the Princeton Review, and what is used by the CMUP, etc.

(08-11-2014 12:35 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 12:20 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Where are you getting these SAT numbers from? Some of this, like the low ranking for Texas, looks odd. Also, I thought that the West Coast schools mostly used the ACT and that, in fact, ACT usage was spreading rapidly across the country. Would the SAT numbers be accurate and meaningful if many admissions are based on the ACT?

Each school's own common data sets for 2013-2014 as of Feb 21, 2014.

UT is correct, but out of order (I'll fix that). Many schools that have higher level of ACT submissions also convert to SAT because most rankings use SAT scores (or conversions thereto) for ranking/comparisons. In the case of Kansas and Kansas St, they only reported ACT, so their score was converted for them (there are standard score converting tables).

These numbers are what was reported from each school.

If Texas' numbers are correct, why aren't they ranked 22nd instead of 42nd? Something is wrong - either the score or the rank.

Cuse's will or should be going up...Our last Chancellor relaxed admissions standards to increase diversity..the new Chancellor appears to be pulling back.

The member institutions of the Atlantic Coast Conference again lead the way among Power 5 conferences in the latest “Best Colleges” rankings released by US News & World Report.

Duke boasts the league’s highest ranking at 7th and is joined in the Top 30 by new member institution Notre Dame (18), Virginia (t-23), Wake Forest (t-23) and North Carolina (30). Also in the Top 50 are Boston College (31), Georgia Tech (36) and Miami (47). Beyond the top 50 are Clemson, Maryland and new ACC members Pittsburgh and Syracuse (all tied at 62), followed by Virginia Tech (69), Florida State (91) and NC State (101).
-- theacc.com

THE GOLD STANDARD

(08-11-2014 12:40 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 12:35 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(08-11-2014 12:20 PM)Hallcity Wrote:  Where are you getting these SAT numbers from? Some of this, like the low ranking for Texas, looks odd. Also, I thought that the West Coast schools mostly used the ACT and that, in fact, ACT usage was spreading rapidly across the country. Would the SAT numbers be accurate and meaningful if many admissions are based on the ACT?

Each school's own common data sets for 2013-2014 as of Feb 21, 2014.

UT is correct, but out of order (I'll fix that). Many schools that have higher level of ACT submissions also convert to SAT because most rankings use SAT scores (or conversions thereto) for ranking/comparisons. In the case of Kansas and Kansas St, they only reported ACT, so their score was converted for them (there are standard score converting tables).

These numbers are what was reported from each school.

If Texas' numbers are correct, why aren't they ranked 22nd instead of 42nd? Something is wrong - either the score or the rank.

Yes, I had it sorted wrong. I edited my original post so that the sort is now corrected with UT at #23. The actual SAT numbers are all correct as of Feb when I originally compiled it (schools are free to update their own documents though). You can see UT's scores for yourself (sec C, page 4) here: http://www.utexas.edu/sites/default/file...013_AY.pdf

FYI, UT-Austin is one of the few schools that also reports actual averages (1261), but the "pseudo average" was used to match the other schools (as that is how is done for almost all rankings that use SATs).

(08-11-2014 12:51 PM)green Wrote:  

The member institutions of the Atlantic Coast Conference again lead the way among Power 5 conferences in the latest “Best Colleges” rankings released by US News & World Report.

Duke boasts the league’s highest ranking at 7th and is joined in the Top 30 by new member institution Notre Dame (18), Virginia (t-23), Wake Forest (t-23) and North Carolina (30). Also in the Top 50 are Boston College (31), Georgia Tech (36) and Miami (47). Beyond the top 50 are Clemson, Maryland and new ACC members Pittsburgh and Syracuse (all tied at 62), followed by Virginia Tech (69), Florida State (91) and NC State (101).
-- theacc.com

THE GOLD STANDARD

US News Rankings are easy to game. It's as easy as having your accepted students retake the SAT in the summer before matriculation and altering your application fee structure and application policies to gin up applications that you will accept. Emory was caught at this a few years ago http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/emory...gs/nRMSY/. Baylor and Clemson have also been criticized for gaming their rankings.

From the Chronicle of Higher Ed: http://chronicle.com/article/In-Clemson-...rov/47707/

In Clemson Rankings Controversy, Most College Officials Assume Everyone Games the System


In Clemson Rankings Controversy, Most College Officials Assume Everyone Games the System

Last week’s controversy over a Clemson University official’s admission that the land-grant institution had “walked the fine line between illegal, unethical, and really interesting” in efforts to rise in the U.S. News & World Report rankings reminded us of a special report we published two years ago.

In remarks at a meeting of the Association for Institutional Research, the Clemson official, Catherine E. Watt, said that the university’s single-minded pursuit of a higher ranking had led it to manipulate class sizes, to double its tuition so it would lower student-faculty ratios, and to rank all other colleges but Clemson as “below average” in U.S. News surveys of academic reputation. Clemson quickly denied that it had ever sought to manipulate its U.S. News ranking, insisting that Ms. Watt’s comments were “outrageous” examples of “urban legends.”

But even if true, the steps Clemson allegedly took to influence U.S. News would hardly be unusual, to judge from The Chronicle’s 2007 report, which noted that the magazine’s rankings had become the tail wagging the higher-education dog, by changing how many college officials set their institutional priorities.

For example, colleges have solicited nominal donations from alumni, in order to raise their giving percentages; encouraged applications from students they had no intention of accepting, in order to increase the appearance of selectivity; and creatively interpreted how they should report the required data to U.S. News. Colleges are reluctant to admit that they “game” the figures, but most such methods are so well known that many officials assume that most of their competitors engage in them.


The other problem with US News is that opinion is about 50% of the metric and it really only applied to undergraduate education and some intuitions focus more on graduate education than undergraduate education - a good example would be the difference between Wake Forest and VT - Wake is undergrad focused, VT is highly graduate focused.

GT has the most wins of any of the Top 7 public Universities since 2008!!! How do you like them apples! Go Jackets![attachment=5751]