New Wall Street Journal Rankings 2019

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are looking at the quality of education you can get, there are a lot of small schools who don't rank very well that have a great curriculum and good professors that are actually much better than Harvard, Stanford etc.

Look at this website that actually looks at the curriculum and what kids actually get taught.

https://www.whatwilltheylearn.com/

It is surprising more families don't pay attention to what these schools really teach for the money they extract

Once you get past that, you are really looking at "Prestige" and bragging rights. Not a good way to select your school, but....

For that, the USNews ranking is the best "Prestige" "Bragging ranking" there is, provided you ignore the strict ranking and just group different colleges into rough prestige tiers

All these other rankings are trying to appear "scientific" but don't measure anything meaningful.

The tool you link to gives Williams College a D- and Pepperdine an A+.

I'll pass.

www.bestbeaches.com ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, the best ranking happens when you combine a lot of different rankings (focusing only on the top 50 on WSJ)



So for top 10 universities, we have HYPMS, Caltech, UPenn, Duke, Brown, and Columbia. Only really missing UChicago, but they explicitly play to the US News rankings and thus might be a little overrated.
For top 5 LACs, we have Pomona, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Bowdoin. Almost no one would disagree with these 5, though the order might shift around.
For top 5 public Us, we have Berkeley, UCLA, U of M, UVA, and UNC Chapel Hill. Again, that exact order is pretty much how undergrad reputation for public universities go.

It's interesting to see how different rankings vary. WSJ does seem to favor public universities.

Instead of 1 crap in, 1 crap out, u get more crap in, more crap out.

I've lived near Berkeley and UCLA. I know they are really good schools overall (particularly Berkeley), but I can't say I have a great view on their undergraduate education. It seems like undergraduates are often the afterthought compared to research and graduate students.

If you want no advising, difficulty getting required classes, teaching assistant that are difficult to understand, and faculty who are entirely motivated by research and publishing, and the option of only living on campus for one year, they make great choices.

Plus only 20% OOS kids can get into the UC Cal schools now. And if they do, it often takes five or six years to get out because they can't get the classes they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, the best ranking happens when you combine a lot of different rankings (focusing only on the top 50 on WSJ)



So for top 10 universities, we have HYPMS, Caltech, UPenn, Duke, Brown, and Columbia. Only really missing UChicago, but they explicitly play to the US News rankings and thus might be a little overrated.
For top 5 LACs, we have Pomona, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Bowdoin. Almost no one would disagree with these 5, though the order might shift around.
For top 5 public Us, we have Berkeley, UCLA, U of M, UVA, and UNC Chapel Hill. Again, that exact order is pretty much how undergrad reputation for public universities go.

It's interesting to see how different rankings vary. WSJ does seem to favor public universities.

Niche?
Wallethub?
CollegeRaptor?
None of those sources have any real credibility.
It's like saying prep scholar is a reliable source of information for colleges.

+1. Needs to eliminate those and include USN&WR. Still, an interesting study

[Anonymous]

Link to the actual list - no subscription required!
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2019#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

Link to the world university rankings, including US unis
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2019/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

Interesting that the results are not consistent, and mean the methodologies must be different (but why use different methods?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO, the best ranking happens when you combine a lot of different rankings (focusing only on the top 50 on WSJ)



So for top 10 universities, we have HYPMS, Caltech, UPenn, Duke, Brown, and Columbia. Only really missing UChicago, but they explicitly play to the US News rankings and thus might be a little overrated.
For top 5 LACs, we have Pomona, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, and Bowdoin. Almost no one would disagree with these 5, though the order might shift around.
For top 5 public Us, we have Berkeley, UCLA, U of M, UVA, and UNC Chapel Hill. Again, that exact order is pretty much how undergrad reputation for public universities go.

It's interesting to see how different rankings vary. WSJ does seem to favor public universities.

Instead of 1 crap in, 1 crap out, u get more crap in, more crap out.

I've lived near Berkeley and UCLA. I know they are really good schools overall (particularly Berkeley), but I can't say I have a great view on their undergraduate education. It seems like undergraduates are often the afterthought compared to research and graduate students.

If you want no advising, difficulty getting required classes, teaching assistant that are difficult to understand, and faculty who are entirely motivated by research and publishing, and the option of only living on campus for one year, they make great choices.

On the flip side, if your kid was actually a star student, they wouldn't need that type of hand-holding. To them, doing well in an undergraduate curriculum is just an after-thought, and the material is basically the same between almost all schools which are easily accessible knowledge to the layman.
The main goal of a star student would be to interact with graduate students and professors to get up to date with the most modern research and knowledge that literally can't be found anywhere else.

I never thought of a commitment to teaching as hand holding. It just seems like the thing universities should do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This ranking is so random except for the top 1-7. US Naval Academy is at #80 behind many public universities. No logic to its ranking.

There is logic and the rankings are not random. Read the methodology.

They have stuff like research citations that aren't going to be too relevant to academies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Link to the actual list - no subscription required!
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2019#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

Link to the world university rankings, including US unis
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2019/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

Interesting that the results are not consistent, and mean the methodologies must be different (but why use different methods?)

The Times Higher Education unit didn't stop tinkering with their world rankings until they got Oxford and Cambridge to the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Link to the actual list - no subscription required!
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2019#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

Link to the world university rankings, including US unis
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2019/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

Interesting that the results are not consistent, and mean the methodologies must be different (but why use different methods?)

The Times Higher Education unit didn't stop tinkering with their world rankings until they got Oxford and Cambridge to the top.

That list is from 2019. The current list is 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are looking at the quality of education you can get, there are a lot of small schools who don't rank very well that have a great curriculum and good professors that are actually much better than Harvard, Stanford etc.

Look at this website that actually looks at the curriculum and what kids actually get taught.

https://www.whatwilltheylearn.com/


The tool you link to gives Williams College a D- and Pepperdine an A+.

I'll pass.

That is exactly the point. Name wise and reputation wise, Williams has a lot more credibility but when you really look under the covers, the curriculum at Williams and other Elites have been watered down to such an extent that unless a kid is really determined to get a well rounded education, they offer very one dimensional educational experience.

When you don't require your students to have a "college level" understanding of US history and economics for example (and don't tell me taking an AP class in school is the same, it is not), they will be terrible voters and poor citizens unless they learn all this on the side.

This was not the case 50 years ago. A lot of these colleges are just milking their reputations and are doing students a huge disservice, yet if you just look at "Is Williams more prestigious than Pepperdine", then USNews ranking is where you should go.

This is the only site that I know of that went through the curriculum of so many colleges with a fine toothed comb and critically evaluates what kids are really forced to learn in college. You can ofcourse get a great education at many schools that get a D in this ranking, but you would need to be very focused, a great planner and have a lot of determination to strike out on your own and disregard the path the college lays out. This is about getting an education.

For example, it is outrageous what Harvard considers a good Literature, Math or science course to fulfill their gen ed requirements and get an undergraduate degree. Have you really looked a the curriculum? For an earnest student, there are great courses, but Harvard has too many "backdoors" for students to get by without understanding and many do opt for fluff courses that barely have any real rigor because the college lets them do that. In doing that Harvard is failing in its mission of creating leaders, plain and simple.

I would use some combination of the "Prestige based" USNews ranking and the Acta rating to determine the happy medium of which schools to choose. For example, if I were looking for a reputable school where my kid would get a good education, I would be very reluctant to spend my money on the schools which get lower than a B grade on the acta site. I would then take the A and B grade institutions and use the USNews ranking to narrow down my selection. So two of the Ivies make the cut "Cornell" and "Columbia". FOr the other schools, your kid would really need to be very cognizant on what a well rounded education is and have the discipline to take a good list of survey courses in critical areas. Otherwise they have just turned their undergrad school to a glorified trade school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are looking at the quality of education you can get, there are a lot of small schools who don't rank very well that have a great curriculum and good professors that are actually much better than Harvard, Stanford etc.

Look at this website that actually looks at the curriculum and what kids actually get taught.

https://www.whatwilltheylearn.com/


The tool you link to gives Williams College a D- and Pepperdine an A+.

I'll pass.

That is exactly the point. Name wise and reputation wise, Williams has a lot more credibility but when you really look under the covers, the curriculum at Williams and other Elites have been watered down to such an extent that unless a kid is really determined to get a well rounded education, they offer very one dimensional educational experience.

What is your evidence of that? It flies in the face of every other bit of information I have seen, including every review, guidebook, visit, discussion with college counselors and professors. I have to call BS. Total BS.

When you don't require your students to have a "college level" understanding of US history and economics for example (and don't tell me taking an AP class in school is the same, it is not), they will be terrible voters and poor citizens unless they learn all this on the side.

So just list colleges that have strong core curricula so people that value that can choose them. UChi, Columbia, etc.

This was not the case 50 years ago. A lot of these colleges are just milking their reputations and are doing students a huge disservice, yet if you just look at "Is Williams more prestigious than Pepperdine", then USNews ranking is where you should go.

I'm not even gonna argue this one, or concede I might be wrong on this point. You'll get a better education from better professors at Williams or (open curriculum) Amherst than you will at Pepperdine, in almost every discipline. End period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Link to the actual list - no subscription required!
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2019#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

Link to the world university rankings, including US unis
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2019/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

Interesting that the results are not consistent, and mean the methodologies must be different (but why use different methods?)

These are a year old. Not sure when they’ll release the 2020 WSJ/THE rankings on their website

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Link to the actual list - no subscription required!
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2019#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

Link to the world university rankings, including US unis
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2019/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

Interesting that the results are not consistent, and mean the methodologies must be different (but why use different methods?)

The Times Higher Education unit didn't stop tinkering with their world rankings until they got Oxford and Cambridge to the top.

That list is from 2019. The current list is 2020.

The world university rankings 2020 are not out yet. Publish date is 11 September.

[Anonymous]

Outside of the Ivies & Ivy-Plus (10 to 15 colleges, max), rankings 15 to 200, no matter where your college is, DOES NOT MATTER. Nobody cares about non-elite rankings -- except insecure psychotic striver parents who need some scoreboard to prove to the world their kid isn't just another dime a dozen 'above average' teen (spoiler: that's really all they are). You all sound so low class arguing about 20-something v 40-something. Or 50-something v 100-something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Outside of the Ivies & Ivy-Plus (10 to 15 colleges, max), rankings 15 to 200, no matter where your college is, DOES NOT MATTER. Nobody cares about non-elite rankings -- except insecure psychotic striver parents who need some scoreboard to prove to the world their kid isn't just another dime a dozen 'above average' teen (spoiler: that's really all they are). You all sound so low class arguing about 20-something v 40-something. Or 50-something v 100-something.

Sorry, but I don't buy your argument. A school considered to be in the top 25-50 is a lot more respected than #200. How can you say it doesn't matter beyond the top 15. I say it doesn't matter where you are on the top 15...lump those schools together for that matter.

[Anonymous]

The methodology favors

-schools in CA, urban areas, etc. where there are many diverse applicants. My school got slammed for this, but it’s located in an state with low diversity, and there’s only so much recruitment that can be done to bring in diverse students

-schools in urban areas or with engineering and business majors, as starting incomes is a big factor. My school gets slammed because it’s located in an area that doesn’t have high paying jobs, it’s a SLAC that doesn’t offer technical or business degrees, and many grads choose to go into lower paying professions like teaching, academia, music performance, or public service.

-schools that have big endowments and can spend more money on students. Or conversely public schools that charge less in tuition. My school has a low student-teacher ratio, only allows teaching by actual PHDs, and has great rankings when it comes to things like intellectual challenge and student satisfaction. But because the school does this while spending less money than other schools, it gets dinged big time. (I do concede that schools with big endowments that use the money to fund scholarships and reduce student loans is an important factor.)