Interesting Stats About MU's Incoming Freshman (2017)

[Eldon]

This is exactly right.

Notice on the list how many schools are tied with each other, meaning they have exactly the same score.

It's most likely the schools right behind them are just one tick lower.    If they publish the actual score we would see there's really not much difference between 50 and 90.

The score is published.

DePaul at #120 has a score of 46 (out of 100)
SLU at #94 has a score of 51
MU at #90 has a score of 52
Fordham at #61 has a score of 60
Nova at #46 has a score of 64
BC at #37 has a score of 70
GTown at #20 has a score of 80

The non-linearity that Lazar mentioned is immediately evident: DePaul would need only a four point increase in order to jump 30 spots, while Nova would need roughly a 16-point increase to jump the same number of spots. 

Put another way, there is a steep fall somewhere, probably near the very top of the rankings.  The cardinal ranking suggests that the resources spent on climbing the USWNR rankings exhibit diminishing returns and by 'diminishing' I mean 'holy-jeez-when-are-we-going-to-see-a-return-on-this investment'.

Even if USWNR made more noise about its cardinal ranking, it wouldn't hide the inherent flaws.  I mean, come on: any ranking that puts Northeastern on the same level as Boston University is hardly worth taking too seriously.

In fairness to USWNR, it's the nature of rankings--any ranking.  It reminds me of an old saying that goes along the lines of 'a thermometer is a good measure of temperature, but it is the heat of the room that matters.' 


EDIT: Typo (MU's score is 52, not 50)

[muwarrior69]

The score is published.

DePaul at #120 has a score of 46 (out of 100)
SLU at #94 has a score of 51
MU at #90 has a score of 50
Fordham at #61 has a score of 60
Nova at #46 has a score of 64
BC at #37 has a score of 70
GTown at #20 has a score of 80

The non-linearity that Lazar mentioned is immediately evident: DePaul would need only a four point increase in order to jump 30 spots, while Nova would need roughly a 16-point increase to jump the same number of spots. 

Put another way, there is a steep fall somewhere, probably near the very top of the rankings.  The cardinal ranking suggests that the resources spent on climbing the USWNR rankings exhibit diminishing returns and by 'diminishing' I mean 'holy-jeez-when-are-we-going-to-see-a-return-on-this investment'.

Even if USWNR made more noise about its cardinal ranking, it wouldn't hide the inherent flaws.  I mean, come on: any ranking that puts Northeastern on the same level as Boston University is hardly worth taking too seriously.

In fairness to USWNR, it's the nature of rankings--any ranking.  It reminds me of an old saying that goes along the lines of 'a thermometer is a good measure of temperature, but it is the heat of the room that matters.'

Is SLU's (51) score a typo? How can they be one point higher than MU (50) and be ranked lower at 94? Don't mean to be picky even though I am being picky.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Thanks Eldon.  I'm not sure where you found those because I can't find the cardinal scores anywhere.  But those numbers add further to my concern.  First, I find it concerning that the scores are whole numbers.  How does a complicated formula spit out whole numbers?  If the scores are being rounded up or down, then they're dumbing down their higher education rankings.

Secondly, the scores paint a grim picture for all but the upper crust universities.  I know Marquette ain't Princeton but is it only half the school Princeton is?  That is how the scores make it look but I'm not sure the gap is that big.

Third, the rankings become a self fulfilling prophecy.  The best students go to the highest ranked schools with the best reputations, which keep those schools highly ranked and their reputations strong.  It is what it is. 

[Disco Hippie]

He never answers this question.  Ever.

Happy to answer that question.  The short answer is it doesn't matter in a practical sense and I'm certain Marquette does an outstanding job educating its students for future leadership roles in whatever career path they choose.   What frustrates me is I don't believe their ranking and how they're perceived nationally is commensurate with how great a school it is and I believe they can do a little better.   What I don't understand is why the majority of folks on here don't care about that as well.   Call me a superficial snob if you like but the appearance and perception is as important to me as reality and I don't think how MU is perceived, especially in the part of the country where I live, is remotely emblematic of how great an institution it is.  I get very frustrated when I represent MU at college fairs and am constantly grilled about Marquette's high admit rate by parents.   I am in favor of the moves MU is making in terms of the campus master plan and greater ties with the city and think the current President is a good leader and very nice man.  I just don't think they can continue to admit 8.4 / 10 of everyone who applies and not take a hit that's all.  I think there's an acknowledgement they'll take a hit for that, but as long as they're growing they don't really care.   I do.

[Eldon]

Thanks Eldon.  I'm not sure where you found those because I can't find the cardinal scores anywhere.  But those numbers add further to my concern.  First, I find it concerning that the scores are whole numbers.  How does a complicated formula spit out whole numbers?  If the scores are being rounded up or down, then they're dumbing down their higher education rankings.

Secondly, the scores paint a grim picture for all but the upper crust universities.  I know Marquette ain't Princeton but is it only half the school Princeton is?  That is how the scores make it look but I'm not sure the gap is that big.

Third, the rankings become a self fulfilling prophecy.  The best students go to the highest ranked schools with the best reputations, which keep those schools highly ranked and their reputations strong.  It is what it is.

The fact that the score is a whole number is likely the result of rounding.  I guess USWNR prefers to have ties rather than have two schools separated by 0.0007

[Tugg Speedman]

The fact that the score is a whole number is likely the result of rounding.  I guess USWNR prefers to have ties rather than have two schools separated by 0.0007

So MU needs 12 points to crack the top 50.

Any way to get a history of these scores?  (When MU was ranked #75 in 2014 did it have a higher score than it does now ranked #90?)


MU's US News Ranking History

http://publicuniversityhonors.com/2016/09/18/average-u-s-news-rankings-for-126-universities-2010-1017/

2007 = 81
2008 = 82
2009 = 77
2010 = 84
2011 = 75
2012 = 82
2013 = 83
2014 = 75
2015 = 76
2016 = 86
2017 = 86
2018 = 90

[Billy Hoyle]

My roommate for 3/4 years at MU has a son who is a Sr. at a large public school in suburban Chicago.  His son is extremely bright and a viable candidate for admission to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.  They flew out last weekend to tour those 3 schools and few others between Boston and Philadelphia, staying over at our house for a night to save on a hotel since we're halfway between Boston / Philly.  His son isn't considering Marquette at all, but we were talking about MU generally and he told me that while his son's high school still sends some students to Marquette every year, the numbers have dropped about 40% in the last 4 years. They used to send anywhere from 9-12 in a good year 4 -5 years ago but it's now like 4 or 5 students a year and it's been like that for the past several years even though the population of the school hasn't declined. He didn't know why specificaly but he shares many of my concerns about the direction of MU and suspects counselors at that high school just don't recommend Marquette with as much enthusiasm as they used to a few years ago.  This is just what he told me so I have no idea what the issue is or if it's even true, but have no reason not to believe him.  I found it interesting because I remember someone on this board a month or so ago also said MU had fallen out of favor among students at his local suburban Chicago high school recently and no it wasn't my roomate because he's not on here.  Im not suggesting any of this has to do with MU's new admissions/ recruiting strategy but I don't think that can be ruled out either.

It's a different time from when we were in college.  With the internet kids can more easily research schools outside of their region.  With so much sports broadcast kids can learn about schools outside of their region.  Who had heard of Gonzaga in 1992?  Until their 1999 Elite 8 run their incoming class was 500 and layoffs and building closures were happening (they would have dropped to D3 if not for that run).  Now they're a national draw for students.  I occasionally present at high schools and see the "college maps" indicating where seniors are going and they're spread out nationally now.  My finalists were MU, Xavier, Evansville and a few D3 liberal arts schools who were recruiting me for athletics. It's because they were regional and I knew the schools and could visit them rather easily.  There were some schools I was interested in learning more about that were outside the midwest (Fordham, St. Bonaventure are two that I remember) and I had to call or write to them to get info, but couldn't easily get to visit them. And when I didn't get the info that was that.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Thanks again Eldon.  Boy am I embarrassed.  It was staring me right in the face and I couldn't see it.  As I tell my wife in these situations, it was hidden in plain sight!

[warriorchick]

Happy to answer that question.  The short answer is it doesn't matter in a practical sense and I'm certain Marquette does an outstanding job educating its students for future leadership roles in whatever career path they choose.   What frustrates me is I don't believe their ranking and how they're perceived nationally is commensurate with how great a school it is and I believe they can do a little better.   What I don't understand is why the majority of folks on here don't care about that as well.   Call me a superficial snob if you like but the appearance and perception is as important to me as reality and I don't think how MU is perceived, especially in the part of the country where I live, is remotely emblematic of how great an institution it is.  I get very frustrated when I represent MU at college fairs and am constantly grilled about Marquette's high admit rate by parents.   I am in favor of the moves MU is making in terms of the campus master plan and greater ties with the city and think the current President is a good leader and very nice man.  I just don't think they can continue to admit 8.4 / 10 of everyone who applies and not take a hit that's all.  I think there's an acknowledgement they'll take a hit for that, but as long as they're growing they don't really care.   I do.

I, too, have worked college fairs for Marquette, and not once has a parent or prospective student mentioned or asked about the acceptance rate. It is apparent that we run around in different circles, and  it sounds like Marquette is not particularly interested in killing themselves to enroll the students you are trying to get. Simply stated, Marquette doesn't want to be the school you want them to be, and I am fine with that. I still don't get why you aren't.

[B. McBannerson]

So MU needs 12 points to crack the top 50.

Any way to get a history of these scores?  (When MU was ranked #75 in 2014 did it have a higher score than it does now ranked #90?)


MU's US News Ranking History

http://publicuniversityhonors.com/2016/09/18/average-u-s-news-rankings-for-126-universities-2010-1017/

2007 = 81
2008 = 82
2009 = 77
2010 = 84
2011 = 75
2012 = 82
2013 = 83
2014 = 75
2015 = 76
2016 = 86
2017 = 86
2018 = 90

would it not be better to put the percentile they were in?  75 in 2014 looks better than 90 in 2018, but if there are 100 more schools in 2018 than 2014, it's a different story.

[Disco Hippie]

I, too, have worked college fairs for Marquette, and not once has a parent or prospective student mentioned or asked about the acceptance rate. It is apparent that we run around in different circles, and  it sounds like Marquette is not particularly interested in killing themselves to enroll the students you are trying to get. Simply stated, Marquette doesn't want to be the school you want them to be, and I am fine with that. I still don't get why you aren't.

I'm not in any way suggesting that Marquette should try turn itself into Yale or Princeton, or even BC or Georgetown, nor do I think they should aggressively recruit students from the Northeast in particular which I acknowledge is not an efficient use of their resources.  They're a Midwestern school and that's where the majority of their students are always going to come from.  I don't run in different circles either.  Yes there are a lot of elitist snobs in my area but they're not the types that are likely to send their kids to a school like Marquette anyway, and believe me, I'm not trying to get them to.   

That said, I've been both a volunteer rep at college fairs out here as well as just someone who is contacted occasionally from parents of prospective students or students themselves that are interested in Marquette through word of mouth simply based on being an alum in the area that can provide perspective.  There aren't that many of us here and it's difficult for interested students to find many alums or current students from this area that they can talk to compared to schools like Fordham or Syracuse.

I've been doing this for over 15 years and up until about 3 years ago, couldn't recall a single instance where the acceptance rate has ever come up in a conversation with a prospective student or their parents.  That has changed significantly in the last couple of years and although it doesn't always come up, It's an issue that's been raised probably in 75% of the conversations I've had in the last couple of years.  They'll bring it up innocently enough and just mention it as a data point and say something like hey you know I noticed Marquette's acceptance rate is X, which seems kind of high and noticeably higher than some of the other schools we're considering.  Can you shed any light on why that's the case?   Quite frankly I don't have a good answer for that and it's a question I'd rather not entertain in the first place.  What this tells me is that the difference between a 67% acceptance rate where it's historically been, and a 75% or 84% acceptance rate as it was this past year, is highly significant because it wasn't something anyone questioned or more likely even noticed a couple of years ago but it's something they routinely do now.  That's my concern.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I'm not in any way suggesting that Marquette should try turn itself into Yale or Princeton, or even BC or Georgetown, nor do I think they should aggressively recruit students from the Northeast in particular which I acknowledge is not an efficient use of their resources.  They're a Midwestern school and that's where the majority of their students are always going to come from.  I don't run in different circles either.  Yes there are a lot of elitist snobs in my area but they're not the types that are likely to send their kids to a school like Marquette anyway, and believe me, I'm not trying to get them to.   

That said, I've been both a volunteer rep at college fairs out here as well as just someone who is contacted occasionally from parents of prospective students or students themselves that are interested in Marquette through word of mouth simply based on being an alum in the area that can provide perspective.  There aren't that many of us here and it's difficult for interested students to find many alums or current students from this area that they can talk to compared to schools like Fordham or Syracuse.

I've been doing this for over 15 years and up until about 3 years ago, couldn't recall a single instance where the acceptance rate has ever come up in a conversation with a prospective student or their parents.  That has changed significantly in the last couple of years and although it doesn't always come up, It's an issue that's been raised probably in 75% of the conversations I've had in the last couple of years.  They'll bring it up innocently enough and just mention it as a data point and say something like hey you know I noticed Marquette's acceptance rate is X, which seems kind of high and noticeably higher than some of the other schools we're considering.  Can you shed any light on why that's the case?  Quite frankly I don't have a good answer for that and it's a question I'd rather not entertain in the first place.  What this tells me is that the difference between a 67% acceptance rate where it's historically been, and a 75% or 84% acceptance rate as it was this past year, is highly significant because it wasn't something anyone questioned or more likely even noticed a couple of years ago but it's something they routinely do now.  That's my concern.

I feel like you've been given several in this thread.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Short answer: Marquette is an early adopter of targeted recruiting.  They are trying to eliminate applications from students that either won't get accepted or have no interest in attending MU in the first place.

[warriorchick]

Short answer: Marquette is an early adopter of targeted recruiting.  They are trying to eliminate applications from students that either won't get accepted or have no interest in attending MU in the first place.

There you go, Disco. Print this out and tape it onto a 3x5 card.

One other thing: If you are representing Marquette at college recruiting functions and are "constantly" being asked a question that you can't answer, why aren't you contacting the admissions office to get that answer? Isn't that what  most people in your position would do?

[B. McBannerson]

Disco, you make some good points.  Don't worry about the arrows you are taking.  All opinions welcome here, sort of.


One thing lost in much of this is where else are MU kids being accepted.  I can give you an example of my MU offspring and their peers (roommates, etc) that were accepted to schools like Gonzaga, Notre Dame, Madison, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan State, Ohio State, Oregon, Illinois, BC, to name a few.

They chose MU.  It was the right fit for them.  They had ample opportunities, some of the same schools you are holding up as comparisons to. 

I, also, would like the acceptance rate numbers to change because some people do hold that in high regard, but it is important to note that the number of applications is low, most people applying to MU are serious about applying.  Madison, UCLA, Notre Dame, etc, get 50% of their applications because it's ingrained in their heads as the state school or some dream notion, with no possibility of ever getting admitted.  MU isn't going to fit that bill.  Which is fine.

[Tugg Speedman]

I, also, would like the acceptance rate numbers to change because some people do hold that in high regard, but it is important to note that the number of applications is low, most people applying to MU are serious about applying.  Madison, UCLA, Notre Dame, etc, get 50% of their applications because it's ingrained in their heads as the state school or some dream notion, with no possibility of ever getting admitted.  MU isn't going to fit that bill.  Which is fine.

The schools with the 10 highest number of applications.  Can you guess the trend?

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/the-short-list-college/articles/2017-09-14/10-colleges-with-the-most-applications

Below are the 10 schools with the highest number of applications for fall 2016. Unranked schools, which did not meet certain criteria required by U.S. News to be numerically ranked, were not considered for this report.
   
School                                  Number of applications   U.S. News rank and category
University of California—Los Angeles   97,121   21 (tie), National Universities
University of California—San Diego   84,209   42 (tie), National Universities
University of California—Berkeley   82,581   21 (tie), National Universities
University of California—Irvine   77,810   42 (tie), National Universities
University of California—Santa Barbara   77,098   37 (tie), National Universities
University of California—Davis   67,472   46 (tie), National Universities
California State University—Long Beach   60,732   39, Regional Universities (West)
New York University   60,724   30 (tie), National Universities
San Diego State University   60,691   140 (tie), National Universities
Boston University   57,441   37 (tie), National Universities

---------------

Other schools of interest

Madison http://www.wisc.edu/about/facts/ 29,536 (2016)

Marquette https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/marquette-university/applying/entering-class-stats/
20,486 (2016)

Notre Dame http://admissions.nd.edu/apply/admission-statistics/
19,566 (2017)

[Tugg Speedman]

Regarding this 74% acceptance rate.  Consider these two schools ....

http://admissions.nd.edu/apply/admission-statistics/
19,566 APPLICATIONS
3,700 ADMITTED
2,050 ENROLLED
YIELD 55% (% of accepted that enrolled)

https://www.collegefactual.com/colleges/marquette-university/applying/entering-class-stats/
Acceptance and Enrollment Stats (Fall 2016)
Applicant Total   20,486
Accepted   15,202
Enrolled   1,876
Yield 12.3%

---------------------

The reason MU's acceptance rate is so high is that its yield (% of accepted students that enroll) is so low.  To get 1 student to enroll it has to accept 8 kids.  ND has to accept 2 kids to get 1 to enroll.

Does MU need more applications?  No, it gets more than ND now, it does a good job on this front  What MU needs is the right students, the ones that will actually enroll.  THat is why its strategy of focusing on the Jesuit schools in the midwest is smart.  They visit the school and enroll.

Once its yield goes up the acceptance rate can start going way down.

[4everwarriors]

Yield = desirability. No surprise, hey?

[Tugg Speedman]

Yield = desirability. No surprise, hey?

Yield = right fit.  No surprise hey?

Something's right fit can be cost.  Think in-state tuition.

[Tugg Speedman]

This story is about school with 25 schools with the lowest yield rate and why that is.  MU is on the list.  Drexel is #1 along with St. Johns, Seton Hall, Fordham, San Fran and Denver.  As they suggest below, cost can be the biggest driver of this decision.

https://graphiq-stories.graphiq.com/stories/12724/colleges-lowest-admission-yield-rates#2-Sonoma-State-University

The goal of any college admission staff is to assemble the best class possible. Once acceptance letters are sent out, however, the challenge then becomes convincing accepted students to actually enroll. Perk packages and a welcoming atmosphere are all crucial to the wooing process, but for a number of reasons, some colleges have a difficult time securing commitments.

With this in mind, StartClass has found the 25 colleges with the lowest admission yield rates. The list was made using the most recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics and reflects the 2014-15 academic year. Only schools with at least 5,000 undergraduate students were considered.

It's important to note that a low admission yield rate does not mean a school is necessarily performing poorly. Drexel University, for example, appears high on this list, but its yield rate is negatively impacted by the school's use of the "Fast App," an online application that makes it possible to apply to Drexel with a click of a button. The Fast App resulted in a 300 percent increase in applications from 2005 to 2015, and many applicants knew very little about the school and only applied because it was extremely convenient to do so. The school's yield rate fell from 32 percent to 8 percent in just over a decade because, according to Randy Deike, senior vice president of the Office of Enrollment Management and Student Success, the admission staff was forced to admit a high percentage of applicants. Drexel discontinued the use of the Fast App in January 2015.

Other factors, such as in-state and out-of-state tuition prices, can also impact schools' admission yield rates. Of the 25 colleges on the list, 17 are located in New York or California, two states among the highest in cost of living.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Increasing numbers and percentages of Black and Hispanic students are attending college. Between 2000 and 2015, the percentage of college students who were Black rose from 11.7 to 14.1 percent, and the percentage of students who were Hispanic rose from 9.9 to 17.3 percent (source). Also, the percentage of Hispanic 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled in college and university increased from 21.7 percent in 2000 to 36.6 percent in 2015, and the percentage of Black 18- to 24-year-olds enrolled increased from 30.5 percent to 34.9 percent in that same period

[dgies9156]

Let me start by saying that focusing attention on college rankings from a failed newsmagazine generally thought to be third of three publications in its genre somehow impresses me as irrational. I don't get why US News is a big deal in anything.

People who spend their lives worrying about where their college, or any college for that matter, ranks, needs to get a life. That goes for all of you college administrators who spend millions to influence US News.

As for Marquette, if it's the right school for high schoolers selecting a college, they'll go there. Much has to do with the major a person wants to study, the location (yes, believe it or not, Milwaukee's winters affect people's decisions, as does the urban location, noise etc.), what they want in a social life, how much money a university gives a student and even where the Dad or Mom went to college.

I wanted my children to go to Marquette badly -- and I told them their mother and I would find a way to pay for it if they did. But despite having a raving Marquette loyalist for a parent, Marquette was not right for our children, and they went where it was best for them and their needs (P.S. -- my daughter is still a die-hard Warrior fan!).

Having a great basketball team matters (c'mon Wojo, you need to be back in the Top 10 ASAP!) because it gets people to look at a school. We were a much more diverse school when Al was head coach and we were Top 5 than we were when Dukiet was head coach and we were nowhere to be found. That's why the university under Father Wild recommitted itself to Warrior basketball. Most people won't come to us because the basketball program is great, but it might get them to look.

Ultimately, it's what comes out and how they do in the world that really matters.

[GGGG]

Let me start by saying that focusing attention on college rankings from a failed newsmagazine generally thought to be third of three publications in its genre somehow impresses me as irrational. I don't get why US News is a big deal in anything.

People who spend their lives worrying about where their college, or any college for that matter, ranks, needs to get a life. That goes for all of you college administrators who spend millions to influence US News.

As for Marquette, if it's the right school for high schoolers selecting a college, they'll go there. Much has to do with the major a person wants to study, the location (yes, believe it or not, Milwaukee's winters affect people's decisions, as does the urban location, noise etc.), what they want in a social life, how much money a university gives a student and even where the Dad or Mom went to college.

I wanted my children to go to Marquette badly -- and I told them their mother and I would find a way to pay for it if they did. But despite having a raving Marquette loyalist for a parent, Marquette was not right for our children, and they went where it was best for them and their needs (P.S. -- my daughter is still a die-hard Warrior fan!).

Having a great basketball team matters (c'mon Wojo, you need to be back in the Top 10 ASAP!) because it gets people to look at a school. We were a much more diverse school when Al was head coach and we were Top 5 than we were when Dukiet was head coach and we were nowhere to be found. That's why the university under Father Wild recommitted itself to Warrior basketball. Most people won't come to us because the basketball program is great, but it might get them to look.

Ultimately, it's what comes out and how they do in the world that really matters.

You, sir, are on a roll this morning.

[Tugg Speedman]

Let me start by saying that focusing attention on college rankings from a failed newsmagazine generally thought to be third of three publications in its genre somehow impresses me as irrational. I don't get why US News is a big deal in anything.

People who spend their lives worrying about where their college, or any college for that matter, ranks, needs to get a life. That goes for all of you college administrators who spend millions to influence US News.

As for Marquette, if it's the right school for high schoolers selecting a college, they'll go there. Much has to do with the major a person wants to study, the location (yes, believe it or not, Milwaukee's winters affect people's decisions, as does the urban location, noise etc.), what they want in a social life, how much money a university gives a student and even where the Dad or Mom went to college.

I wanted my children to go to Marquette badly -- and I told them their mother and I would find a way to pay for it if they did. But despite having a raving Marquette loyalist for a parent, Marquette was not right for our children, and they went where it was best for them and their needs (P.S. -- my daughter is still a die-hard Warrior fan!).

Having a great basketball team matters (c'mon Wojo, you need to be back in the Top 10 ASAP!) because it gets people to look at a school. We were a much more diverse school when Al was head coach and we were Top 5 than we were when Dukiet was head coach and we were nowhere to be found. That's why the university under Father Wild recommitted itself to Warrior basketball. Most people won't come to us because the basketball program is great, but it might get them to look.

Ultimately, it's what comes out and how they do in the world that really matters.

First, I don't disagree with you but in the world we live in rankings, and this ranking in particular, matters.

The failing US News & World Report was the first to invent college rankings in 1983 and it still enjoys its first mover advantage.

So, if we could wave a wand and change MU's ranking from 90 to 40, it would matter.  MU's yield would go up and its acceptance rate would go down.  Disco would be thrilled.

The administration is right for trying to make its academic reputation as high as possible. Whether or not they're trying to game these numbers will never know.

But do you win if you do game the numbers? Yes, see Northeastern University in Boston.  They gamed the system, moved up a lot and essentially won.  Money and prestige flowed to the school just because they moved up a lot on this ranking alone.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2014/08/26/how-northeastern-gamed-the-college-rankings/

Some schools even cheat to get their ranking up, because it matters that much.

In 2008, Baylor University told newly admitted students that they’d receive a $300 campus-bookstore credit if they retook their SATs, and $1,000 a year in student aid if the scores improved by more than 50 points. In 2009, an administrator at Clemson University, whose president shared Freeland’s rankings fixation, admitted the school misrepresented financial information and purposefully rated institutions low on the peer assessments.

In 2011, Iona College officials admitted to misreporting acceptance rates, SAT scores, graduation rates, and alumni donation amounts over the course of a decade. In 2012, Claremont McKenna College copped to misreporting SAT scores for several years. Also in 2012, George Washington University admitted to inflating the percentage of students who graduated at the top of their high school classes, and Emory University said it had misreported high school GPAs for four years and SAT scores for nearly a dozen years.

-----------

So yes it shouldn't matter but it does

[B. McBannerson]

Let me start by saying that focusing attention on college rankings from a failed newsmagazine generally thought to be third of three publications in its genre somehow impresses me as irrational. I don't get why US News is a big deal in anything.

People who spend their lives worrying about where their college, or any college for that matter, ranks, needs to get a life. That goes for all of you college administrators who spend millions to influence US News.

As for Marquette, if it's the right school for high schoolers selecting a college, they'll go there. Much has to do with the major a person wants to study, the location (yes, believe it or not, Milwaukee's winters affect people's decisions, as does the urban location, noise etc.), what they want in a social life, how much money a university gives a student and even where the Dad or Mom went to college.

I wanted my children to go to Marquette badly -- and I told them their mother and I would find a way to pay for it if they did. But despite having a raving Marquette loyalist for a parent, Marquette was not right for our children, and they went where it was best for them and their needs (P.S. -- my daughter is still a die-hard Warrior fan!).

Having a great basketball team matters (c'mon Wojo, you need to be back in the Top 10 ASAP!) because it gets people to look at a school. We were a much more diverse school when Al was head coach and we were Top 5 than we were when Dukiet was head coach and we were nowhere to be found. That's why the university under Father Wild recommitted itself to Warrior basketball. Most people won't come to us because the basketball program is great, but it might get them to look.

Ultimately, it's what comes out and how they do in the world that really matters.

Good stuff.  I did not want my offspring to go to MU, yet one did.  Maybe better said, I wanted them to explore other options which they had many.  MU was an after thought for them, but as scholarship money started coming in, school visits, size, comfort, urban, etc, it became the right fit.