Wake Forest ranking drop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

Sorry you’re not getting the responses you want. The top 20 did not change in the most recent US News shakeup because (1) they have been spending a lot on dei over the past decade or so, and (2) US News increased the weight given to factors that value lots of research funding.

The top 20 haven't changed over like the last 40 years...except maybe one or two and reshuffling the deck chairs.

What do the most recent changes have to do with anything?

They have, actually. Did you know UVA used to be ranked #9? It's changed a lot, in fact. Guessing you haven't reviewed the historical data at all, which makes sense for someone who sounds like they're talking out of their ass.

UVA was never, ever ranked #9...but, that was your ass talking.

https://www.aronfrishberg.com/projects/usnews

Try again! You really are an idiot, aren't you.

Dipshit...you know University of Chicago is not UVA, right?

Because you attached the graph for the University of Chicago.

Maybe look again with the correct college.

I usually let professionals deal with the disabled, but I'll make an exception for you. Go to the top of the page, look for an arrow (signifying a dropdown menu for those of us with common sense), and select whichever college tickles your fancy. Thanks!

Dipshit...please go look at UVA and get back to us on their literally non-existent #9 ranking.

It literally shows a #15 ranking—well into the t20. If you're desperate to see their #9 standing, proving you wrong even more, you can download this data set that goes back even further.

https://andyreiter.com/datasets/

How many times are you going to provide links to data that don't support the shit coming out of your ass?

Maybe another link that also doesn't show UVA at #9?

This is getting kind of comical.

Are you actually mentally ill? Scroll down to the national universities data set and click download. Then open the spreadsheet and scroll to the 80s. What is wrong with you?

...and it shows the best UVA ranking at 15, which it literally achieved in just the one year and it's average ranking over the entire time period is 24...once more, I have to throw the question back at you.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

Why do you think?

Because great schools will always be great schools...regardless of how the ranking methodology gets tweaked.

Then why is Dartmouth ranked #300+ on many lists?

The question was about USNews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

Sorry you’re not getting the responses you want. The top 20 did not change in the most recent US News shakeup because (1) they have been spending a lot on dei over the past decade or so, and (2) US News increased the weight given to factors that value lots of research funding.

The top 20 haven't changed over like the last 40 years...except maybe one or two and reshuffling the deck chairs.

What do the most recent changes have to do with anything?

They have, actually. Did you know UVA used to be ranked #9? It's changed a lot, in fact. Guessing you haven't reviewed the historical data at all, which makes sense for someone who sounds like they're talking out of their ass.

UVA was never, ever ranked #9...but, that was your ass talking.

https://www.aronfrishberg.com/projects/usnews

Try again! You really are an idiot, aren't you.

Dipshit...you know University of Chicago is not UVA, right?

Because you attached the graph for the University of Chicago.

Maybe look again with the correct college.

I usually let professionals deal with the disabled, but I'll make an exception for you. Go to the top of the page, look for an arrow (signifying a dropdown menu for those of us with common sense), and select whichever college tickles your fancy. Thanks!

Dipshit...please go look at UVA and get back to us on their literally non-existent #9 ranking.

It literally shows a #15 ranking—well into the t20. If you're desperate to see their #9 standing, proving you wrong even more, you can download this data set that goes back even further.

https://andyreiter.com/datasets/

How many times are you going to provide links to data that don't support the shit coming out of your ass?

Maybe another link that also doesn't show UVA at #9?

This is getting kind of comical.

Are you actually mentally ill? Scroll down to the national universities data set and click download. Then open the spreadsheet and scroll to the 80s. What is wrong with you?

...and it shows the best UVA ranking at 15, which it literally achieved in just the one year and it's average ranking over the entire time period is 24...once more, I have to throw the question back at you.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

Why do you think?

Because great schools will always be great schools...regardless of how the ranking methodology gets tweaked.

Then why is Dartmouth ranked #300+ on many lists?

The question was about USNews.

I don't think there was ever a question, just you trying to make a weird point (unclear exactly what it even is). But if there really were a set of good schools that were somehow (nebulously) the "best schools" then we would see them rise to the top on every list. But we don't. Dartmouth is ranked 300, NYU ranked 50, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

Sorry you’re not getting the responses you want. The top 20 did not change in the most recent US News shakeup because (1) they have been spending a lot on dei over the past decade or so, and (2) US News increased the weight given to factors that value lots of research funding.

The top 20 haven't changed over like the last 40 years...except maybe one or two and reshuffling the deck chairs.

What do the most recent changes have to do with anything?

They have, actually. Did you know UVA used to be ranked #9? It's changed a lot, in fact. Guessing you haven't reviewed the historical data at all, which makes sense for someone who sounds like they're talking out of their ass.

UVA was never, ever ranked #9...but, that was your ass talking.

https://www.aronfrishberg.com/projects/usnews

Try again! You really are an idiot, aren't you.

Dipshit...you know University of Chicago is not UVA, right?

Because you attached the graph for the University of Chicago.

Maybe look again with the correct college.

I usually let professionals deal with the disabled, but I'll make an exception for you. Go to the top of the page, look for an arrow (signifying a dropdown menu for those of us with common sense), and select whichever college tickles your fancy. Thanks!

Dipshit...please go look at UVA and get back to us on their literally non-existent #9 ranking.

It literally shows a #15 ranking—well into the t20. If you're desperate to see their #9 standing, proving you wrong even more, you can download this data set that goes back even further.

https://andyreiter.com/datasets/

How many times are you going to provide links to data that don't support the shit coming out of your ass?

Maybe another link that also doesn't show UVA at #9?

This is getting kind of comical.

Are you actually mentally ill? Scroll down to the national universities data set and click download. Then open the spreadsheet and scroll to the 80s. What is wrong with you?

...and it shows the best UVA ranking at 15, which it literally achieved in just the one year and it's average ranking over the entire time period is 24...once more, I have to throw the question back at you.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

Why do you think?

Because great schools will always be great schools...regardless of how the ranking methodology gets tweaked.

Then why is Dartmouth ranked #300+ on many lists?

The question was about USNews.

I don't think there was ever a question, just you trying to make a weird point (unclear exactly what it even is). But if there really were a set of good schools that were somehow (nebulously) the "best schools" then we would see them rise to the top on every list. But we don't. Dartmouth is ranked 300, NYU ranked 50, etc.

No...the question was specific to the USNews rankings. There literally was a question.

I don't even know what you are talking about...so Wake is #88 on Forbes, so I guess that means it's #46 on USNews is inflated?

Forbes lumps in liberal arts schools, so it's not Apples-to-Apples anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

Sorry you’re not getting the responses you want. The top 20 did not change in the most recent US News shakeup because (1) they have been spending a lot on dei over the past decade or so, and (2) US News increased the weight given to factors that value lots of research funding.

The top 20 haven't changed over like the last 40 years...except maybe one or two and reshuffling the deck chairs.

What do the most recent changes have to do with anything?

They have, actually. Did you know UVA used to be ranked #9? It's changed a lot, in fact. Guessing you haven't reviewed the historical data at all, which makes sense for someone who sounds like they're talking out of their ass.

UVA was never, ever ranked #9...but, that was your ass talking.

https://www.aronfrishberg.com/projects/usnews

Try again! You really are an idiot, aren't you.

Dipshit...you know University of Chicago is not UVA, right?

Because you attached the graph for the University of Chicago.

Maybe look again with the correct college.

I usually let professionals deal with the disabled, but I'll make an exception for you. Go to the top of the page, look for an arrow (signifying a dropdown menu for those of us with common sense), and select whichever college tickles your fancy. Thanks!

Dipshit...please go look at UVA and get back to us on their literally non-existent #9 ranking.

It literally shows a #15 ranking—well into the t20. If you're desperate to see their #9 standing, proving you wrong even more, you can download this data set that goes back even further.

https://andyreiter.com/datasets/

How many times are you going to provide links to data that don't support the shit coming out of your ass?

Maybe another link that also doesn't show UVA at #9?

This is getting kind of comical.

Are you actually mentally ill? Scroll down to the national universities data set and click download. Then open the spreadsheet and scroll to the 80s. What is wrong with you?

...and it shows the best UVA ranking at 15, which it literally achieved in just the one year and it's average ranking over the entire time period is 24...once more, I have to throw the question back at you.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

Why do you think?

Because great schools will always be great schools...regardless of how the ranking methodology gets tweaked.

Then why is Dartmouth ranked #300+ on many lists?

The question was about USNews.

I don't think there was ever a question, just you trying to make a weird point (unclear exactly what it even is). But if there really were a set of good schools that were somehow (nebulously) the "best schools" then we would see them rise to the top on every list. But we don't. Dartmouth is ranked 300, NYU ranked 50, etc.

No...the question was specific to the USNews rankings. There literally was a question.

I don't even know what you are talking about...so Wake is #88 on Forbes, so I guess that means it's #46 on USNews is inflated?

Forbes lumps in liberal arts schools, so it's not Apples-to-Apples anyway.

1. Forbes also shows the research university rankings, which show the differences still.
2. What's the question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

Sorry you’re not getting the responses you want. The top 20 did not change in the most recent US News shakeup because (1) they have been spending a lot on dei over the past decade or so, and (2) US News increased the weight given to factors that value lots of research funding.

The top 20 haven't changed over like the last 40 years...except maybe one or two and reshuffling the deck chairs.

What do the most recent changes have to do with anything?

They have, actually. Did you know UVA used to be ranked #9? It's changed a lot, in fact. Guessing you haven't reviewed the historical data at all, which makes sense for someone who sounds like they're talking out of their ass.

UVA was never, ever ranked #9...but, that was your ass talking.

https://www.aronfrishberg.com/projects/usnews

Try again! You really are an idiot, aren't you.

Dipshit...you know University of Chicago is not UVA, right?

Because you attached the graph for the University of Chicago.

Maybe look again with the correct college.

I usually let professionals deal with the disabled, but I'll make an exception for you. Go to the top of the page, look for an arrow (signifying a dropdown menu for those of us with common sense), and select whichever college tickles your fancy. Thanks!

Dipshit...please go look at UVA and get back to us on their literally non-existent #9 ranking.

It literally shows a #15 ranking—well into the t20. If you're desperate to see their #9 standing, proving you wrong even more, you can download this data set that goes back even further.

https://andyreiter.com/datasets/

How many times are you going to provide links to data that don't support the shit coming out of your ass?

Maybe another link that also doesn't show UVA at #9?

This is getting kind of comical.

Are you actually mentally ill? Scroll down to the national universities data set and click download. Then open the spreadsheet and scroll to the 80s. What is wrong with you?

...and it shows the best UVA ranking at 15, which it literally achieved in just the one year and it's average ranking over the entire time period is 24...once more, I have to throw the question back at you.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

Why do you think?

Because great schools will always be great schools...regardless of how the ranking methodology gets tweaked.

Then why is Dartmouth ranked #300+ on many lists?

The question was about USNews.

I don't think there was ever a question, just you trying to make a weird point (unclear exactly what it even is). But if there really were a set of good schools that were somehow (nebulously) the "best schools" then we would see them rise to the top on every list. But we don't. Dartmouth is ranked 300, NYU ranked 50, etc.

No...the question was specific to the USNews rankings. There literally was a question.

I don't even know what you are talking about...so Wake is #88 on Forbes, so I guess that means it's #46 on USNews is inflated?

Forbes lumps in liberal arts schools, so it's not Apples-to-Apples anyway.

1. Forbes also shows the research university rankings, which show the differences still.
2. What's the question?

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

Seems like a straightforward question referencing the USNews rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

Sorry you’re not getting the responses you want. The top 20 did not change in the most recent US News shakeup because (1) they have been spending a lot on dei over the past decade or so, and (2) US News increased the weight given to factors that value lots of research funding.

The top 20 haven't changed over like the last 40 years...except maybe one or two and reshuffling the deck chairs.

What do the most recent changes have to do with anything?

They have, actually. Did you know UVA used to be ranked #9? It's changed a lot, in fact. Guessing you haven't reviewed the historical data at all, which makes sense for someone who sounds like they're talking out of their ass.

UVA was never, ever ranked #9...but, that was your ass talking.

https://www.aronfrishberg.com/projects/usnews

Try again! You really are an idiot, aren't you.

Dipshit...you know University of Chicago is not UVA, right?

Because you attached the graph for the University of Chicago.

Maybe look again with the correct college.

I usually let professionals deal with the disabled, but I'll make an exception for you. Go to the top of the page, look for an arrow (signifying a dropdown menu for those of us with common sense), and select whichever college tickles your fancy. Thanks!

Dipshit...please go look at UVA and get back to us on their literally non-existent #9 ranking.

It literally shows a #15 ranking—well into the t20. If you're desperate to see their #9 standing, proving you wrong even more, you can download this data set that goes back even further.

https://andyreiter.com/datasets/

How many times are you going to provide links to data that don't support the shit coming out of your ass?

Maybe another link that also doesn't show UVA at #9?

This is getting kind of comical.

Are you actually mentally ill? Scroll down to the national universities data set and click download. Then open the spreadsheet and scroll to the 80s. What is wrong with you?

...and it shows the best UVA ranking at 15, which it literally achieved in just the one year and it's average ranking over the entire time period is 24...once more, I have to throw the question back at you.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

Why do you think?

Because great schools will always be great schools...regardless of how the ranking methodology gets tweaked.

Then why is Dartmouth ranked #300+ on many lists?

The question was about USNews.

I don't think there was ever a question, just you trying to make a weird point (unclear exactly what it even is). But if there really were a set of good schools that were somehow (nebulously) the "best schools" then we would see them rise to the top on every list. But we don't. Dartmouth is ranked 300, NYU ranked 50, etc.

No...the question was specific to the USNews rankings. There literally was a question.

I don't even know what you are talking about...so Wake is #88 on Forbes, so I guess that means it's #46 on USNews is inflated?

Forbes lumps in liberal arts schools, so it's not Apples-to-Apples anyway.

1. Forbes also shows the research university rankings, which show the differences still.
2. What's the question?

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

Seems like a straightforward question referencing the USNews rankings.

Methodology. If the rankings measured proximity to the south pole, Wake would be higher than all ivies. Any other questions?

[Anonymous]

Back to the original question- looks like the data shows Wake and Lehigh tied in 2008 about rank 30. Lehigh instituted some growth initiatives and dipped in rankings but it’s now on the rise while Wake tanked. Don’t know the specific factors but I highly doubt Lehigh is benefiting from the DEI or Pell Grant factors. It’s likely job placement and ROI based on the Wall Street Journal ranking Lehigh #15 this year while Wake is ranked #46.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Back to the original question- looks like the data shows Wake and Lehigh tied in 2008 about rank 30. Lehigh instituted some growth initiatives and dipped in rankings but it’s now on the rise while Wake tanked. Don’t know the specific factors but I highly doubt Lehigh is benefiting from the DEI or Pell Grant factors. It’s likely job placement and ROI based on the Wall Street Journal ranking Lehigh #15 this year while Wake is ranked #46.

They're likely benefiting from spending metrics. Also, Wake and Lehigh are tied, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to Rhee 63
W&M: 41 to 54arger percentage
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

Larger percentage of Pell grant/first gen kids and for some, more research funding. Emory in particular has a long standing relationship with Questbridge. Also less affected by removal of class size and percentage of alumni giving as factors.

Emory does not have more questbridge students then say... Vanderbilt or WashU etc. The lot of you cannot grasp that the schools you're DC got into (ie Tufts, Wake, Tulane, W&M, BC etc) ARE NOT NOR WILL EVER BE peers with Emory. The reputation score is most important factor in most rankings where Emory is tied for 22. The others do not compare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a noticeable difference between Wake and Elon?

Yes. One has test scores comparable to UVA (Wake) and the other is essentially a public school that doesn't receive state funding (Elon).

What wrong with Elon being like a public school? You just compared Wake to a public school lol what a poor argument

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to Rhee 63
W&M: 41 to 54arger percentage
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

Larger percentage of Pell grant/first gen kids and for some, more research funding. Emory in particular has a long standing relationship with Questbridge. Also less affected by removal of class size and percentage of alumni giving as factors.

Emory does not have more questbridge students then say... Vanderbilt or WashU etc. The lot of you cannot grasp that the schools you're DC got into (ie Tufts, Wake, Tulane, W&M, BC etc) ARE NOT NOR WILL EVER BE peers with Emory. The reputation score is most important factor in most rankings where Emory is tied for 22. The others do not compare.

DP- You seem seriously mentally ill. If Emory’s decline in rankings triggers you this severely, then maybe it’s time to take a break. Look, it’s probably hard for Emory to attract top students in-state when they have to compete with GT and UGA.

[Anonymous]

25% of all Wake's students study business. According to Poets and Quants, its undergraduate business school is a top 20 school in the country.

That isn't going to change because of US News.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:25% of all Wake's students study business. According to Poets and Quants, its undergraduate business school is a top 20 school in the country.

That isn't going to change because of US News.

Most people haven’t heard of Poets and Quants but unfortunately many people blindly follow USNWR, so you’re kidding yourself if you think Wake’s huge USNWR ranking decline doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:25% of all Wake's students study business. According to Poets and Quants, its undergraduate business school is a top 20 school in the country.

That isn't going to change because of US News.

Correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:25% of all Wake's students study business. According to Poets and Quants, its undergraduate business school is a top 20 school in the country.

That isn't going to change because of US News.

Most people haven’t heard of Poets and Quants but unfortunately many people blindly follow USNWR, so you’re kidding yourself if you think Wake’s huge USNWR ranking decline doesn’t matter.

Hmmm if you hire in capital markets you know so there is that.