This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Inaugural WSJ/THE Ranking of US Colleges. [1] [2] [3]
References
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)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Inaugural WSJ/THE Ranking of US Colleges. [1] [2] [3]
References
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)
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)