US College Rankings, from the perspective of a college student

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are so many on this forum willing to ascribe their success to the college they attended instead of to their own hard work and lifelong efforts to create a good life for themselves? Do they really think they'd have been less happy and successful if they'd attended a college that was a bit less selective?

I was investigating college programs in CA for my daughter, and San Jose State ranked #1 on Money's list as "Most Transformative", which is what you are talking about here.

There are so many things the go into making a school "best" for any student. I think people put WAAAAY too much into the USNWR rankings, especially knowing top colleges lie/cheat to increase their rankings.

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?122755-San-Jose-State-University

Go with the data from the Department of Education

San Jose State seems ok but not too impressive

However if you are majoring in CS CE that type of stuff, then no need to pay too much attention about the ranking and such

[Anonymous]

I wasn't saying San Joe State is the best school in the country. Just that the outcomes for their students overall are very good. They serve a lot of lower income, first gen and/or minority students. The ones that do graduate so quite well for themselves.

Of course, salaries in places like CA are going to be larger than other places. And tech fields have larger salaries than say where I work (small nonprofit).

I still say that a lot more should go into rankings than what is done by USNWR and WSJ.

I like the rankings of student happiness and teaching quality. Those mean a lot more to me, honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona are qualitative on a different league, and higher, than UF.

And who the hell is UF?

UF is Florida.

While Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona are good schools, they are assessed separately from full-fledged universities.

That shows there's something fundamentally wrong with the list. I'd seriously question why X college is is ranked Y and not Z. It's too random.

Garbage in, garbage out.

More garbage in, more garbage out.

You're not making any sense. It is perfectly normal for LACs to be assessed separately from universities.

Yes, but should they be? Ranking is not so difficult. And applicants routinely apply to both types of schools. The current classifications are, in any event, silly to begin with: do Dartmouth and Princeton really have more in common with 30k plus undergraduate student factories like Michigan and Berkeley than they do the Williams Colleges of the world?

The top LACs are probably in the lower end of the T20 range. They really are excellent schools, just maybe a little overlooked.

There likely just outside the top 20. Seen here with Amherst at 22.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022

Fair. That seems accurate.

Not fair at all. I cannot believe that Williams and Amherst are lower ranked than Emory in this index. No way. Problem with all these rankings is the methodology is always set up to favor larger universities. Also, Emory is a school that has been caught cheating on rankings in the past.

Where would you rank Williams and Amherst then?

NP. Many colleges on this list are poorly ranked, so I won’t comment on it. But, starting with a blank slate, any competent undergrad ranking list (which necessarily would unify all colleges, large and small, which kids actually apply to) should probably have Williams 10-15; Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona 15-20; and Bowdoin 20-25.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona are qualitative on a different league, and higher, than UF.

And who the hell is UF?

UF is Florida.

While Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona are good schools, they are assessed separately from full-fledged universities.

That shows there's something fundamentally wrong with the list. I'd seriously question why X college is is ranked Y and not Z. It's too random.

Garbage in, garbage out.

More garbage in, more garbage out.

You're not making any sense. It is perfectly normal for LACs to be assessed separately from universities.

Yes, but should they be? Ranking is not so difficult. And applicants routinely apply to both types of schools. The current classifications are, in any event, silly to begin with: do Dartmouth and Princeton really have more in common with 30k plus undergraduate student factories like Michigan and Berkeley than they do the Williams Colleges of the world?

The top LACs are probably in the lower end of the T20 range. They really are excellent schools, just maybe a little overlooked.

There likely just outside the top 20. Seen here with Amherst at 22.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022

Fair. That seems accurate.

Not fair at all. I cannot believe that Williams and Amherst are lower ranked than Emory in this index. No way. Problem with all these rankings is the methodology is always set up to favor larger universities. Also, Emory is a school that has been caught cheating on rankings in the past.

Where would you rank Williams and Amherst then?

NP. Many colleges on this list are poorly ranked, so I won’t comment on it. But, starting with a blank slate, any competent undergrad ranking list (which necessarily would unify all colleges, large and small, which kids actually apply to) should probably have Williams 10-15; Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona 15-20; and Bowdoin 20-25.

Bowdoin is way overrated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona are qualitative on a different league, and higher, than UF.

And who the hell is UF?

UF is Florida.

While Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona are good schools, they are assessed separately from full-fledged universities.

That shows there's something fundamentally wrong with the list. I'd seriously question why X college is is ranked Y and not Z. It's too random.

Garbage in, garbage out.

More garbage in, more garbage out.

You're not making any sense. It is perfectly normal for LACs to be assessed separately from universities.

Yes, but should they be? Ranking is not so difficult. And applicants routinely apply to both types of schools. The current classifications are, in any event, silly to begin with: do Dartmouth and Princeton really have more in common with 30k plus undergraduate student factories like Michigan and Berkeley than they do the Williams Colleges of the world?

The top LACs are probably in the lower end of the T20 range. They really are excellent schools, just maybe a little overlooked.

There likely just outside the top 20. Seen here with Amherst at 22.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022

Fair. That seems accurate.

Not fair at all. I cannot believe that Williams and Amherst are lower ranked than Emory in this index. No way. Problem with all these rankings is the methodology is always set up to favor larger universities. Also, Emory is a school that has been caught cheating on rankings in the past.

Where would you rank Williams and Amherst then?

NP. Many colleges on this list are poorly ranked, so I won’t comment on it. But, starting with a blank slate, any competent undergrad ranking list (which necessarily would unify all colleges, large and small, which kids actually apply to) should probably have Williams 10-15; Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona 15-20; and Bowdoin 20-25.

You delusional, it's not the 80s anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wasn't saying San Joe State is the best school in the country. Just that the outcomes for their students overall are very good. They serve a lot of lower income, first gen and/or minority students. The ones that do graduate so quite well for themselves.

Of course, salaries in places like CA are going to be larger than other places. And tech fields have larger salaries than say where I work (small nonprofit).

I still say that a lot more should go into rankings than what is done by USNWR and WSJ.

I like the rankings of student happiness and teaching quality. Those mean a lot more to me, honestly.

Student happiness is on the subjective side but can be somewhat objectively measured by the retention rate.
Happier the students, more of them coming back.

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/freshmen-least-most-likely-return

So you would consider various references

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona are qualitative on a different league, and higher, than UF.

And who the hell is UF?

UF is Florida.

While Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona are good schools, they are assessed separately from full-fledged universities.

That shows there's something fundamentally wrong with the list. I'd seriously question why X college is is ranked Y and not Z. It's too random.

Garbage in, garbage out.

More garbage in, more garbage out.

You're not making any sense. It is perfectly normal for LACs to be assessed separately from universities.

Yes, but should they be? Ranking is not so difficult. And applicants routinely apply to both types of schools. The current classifications are, in any event, silly to begin with: do Dartmouth and Princeton really have more in common with 30k plus undergraduate student factories like Michigan and Berkeley than they do the Williams Colleges of the world?

The top LACs are probably in the lower end of the T20 range. They really are excellent schools, just maybe a little overlooked.

There likely just outside the top 20. Seen here with Amherst at 22.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022

Fair. That seems accurate.

Not fair at all. I cannot believe that Williams and Amherst are lower ranked than Emory in this index. No way. Problem with all these rankings is the methodology is always set up to favor larger universities. Also, Emory is a school that has been caught cheating on rankings in the past.

Where would you rank Williams and Amherst then?

NP. Many colleges on this list are poorly ranked, so I won’t comment on it. But, starting with a blank slate, any competent undergrad ranking list (which necessarily would unify all colleges, large and small, which kids actually apply to) should probably have Williams 10-15; Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona 15-20; and Bowdoin 20-25.

The problem with this argument is that there are already rankings which combine the two, and none of these LACs are ranked that highly.

[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:Everyone knows Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona are qualitative on a different league, and higher, than UF.

And who the hell is UF?

UF is Florida.

While Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona are good schools, they are assessed separately from full-fledged universities.

That shows there's something fundamentally wrong with the list. I'd seriously question why X college is is ranked Y and not Z. It's too random.

Garbage in, garbage out.

More garbage in, more garbage out.

You're not making any sense. It is perfectly normal for LACs to be assessed separately from universities.

Yes, but should they be? Ranking is not so difficult. And applicants routinely apply to both types of schools. The current classifications are, in any event, silly to begin with: do Dartmouth and Princeton really have more in common with 30k plus undergraduate student factories like Michigan and Berkeley than they do the Williams Colleges of the world?

The top LACs are probably in the lower end of the T20 range. They really are excellent schools, just maybe a little overlooked.

There likely just outside the top 20. Seen here with Amherst at 22.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022

Fair. That seems accurate.

Not fair at all. I cannot believe that Williams and Amherst are lower ranked than Emory in this index. No way. Problem with all these rankings is the methodology is always set up to favor larger universities. Also, Emory is a school that has been caught cheating on rankings in the past.

Where would you rank Williams and Amherst then?

NP. Many colleges on this list are poorly ranked, so I won’t comment on it. But, starting with a blank slate, any competent undergrad ranking list (which necessarily would unify all colleges, large and small, which kids actually apply to) should probably have Williams 10-15; Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona 15-20; and Bowdoin 20-25.

The problem with this argument is that there are already rankings which combine the two, and none of these LACs are ranked that highly.

+1, they sound like Berkeley boosters. Always putting it in the top 10 where it doesn't belong.

[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:Everyone knows Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona are qualitative on a different league, and higher, than UF.

And who the hell is UF?

UF is Florida.

While Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona are good schools, they are assessed separately from full-fledged universities.

That shows there's something fundamentally wrong with the list. I'd seriously question why X college is is ranked Y and not Z. It's too random.

Garbage in, garbage out.

More garbage in, more garbage out.

You're not making any sense. It is perfectly normal for LACs to be assessed separately from universities.

Yes, but should they be? Ranking is not so difficult. And applicants routinely apply to both types of schools. The current classifications are, in any event, silly to begin with: do Dartmouth and Princeton really have more in common with 30k plus undergraduate student factories like Michigan and Berkeley than they do the Williams Colleges of the world?

The top LACs are probably in the lower end of the T20 range. They really are excellent schools, just maybe a little overlooked.

There likely just outside the top 20. Seen here with Amherst at 22.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022

Fair. That seems accurate.

Not fair at all. I cannot believe that Williams and Amherst are lower ranked than Emory in this index. No way. Problem with all these rankings is the methodology is always set up to favor larger universities. Also, Emory is a school that has been caught cheating on rankings in the past.

Where would you rank Williams and Amherst then?

NP. Many colleges on this list are poorly ranked, so I won’t comment on it. But, starting with a blank slate, any competent undergrad ranking list (which necessarily would unify all colleges, large and small, which kids actually apply to) should probably have Williams 10-15; Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona 15-20; and Bowdoin 20-25.

The problem with this argument is that there are already rankings which combine the two, and none of these LACs are ranked that highly.

If you base your college list off the top 10, then you're an idiot

[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:Everyone knows Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona are qualitative on a different league, and higher, than UF.

And who the hell is UF?

UF is Florida.

While Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona are good schools, they are assessed separately from full-fledged universities.

That shows there's something fundamentally wrong with the list. I'd seriously question why X college is is ranked Y and not Z. It's too random.

Garbage in, garbage out.

More garbage in, more garbage out.

You're not making any sense. It is perfectly normal for LACs to be assessed separately from universities.

Yes, but should they be? Ranking is not so difficult. And applicants routinely apply to both types of schools. The current classifications are, in any event, silly to begin with: do Dartmouth and Princeton really have more in common with 30k plus undergraduate student factories like Michigan and Berkeley than they do the Williams Colleges of the world?

The top LACs are probably in the lower end of the T20 range. They really are excellent schools, just maybe a little overlooked.

There likely just outside the top 20. Seen here with Amherst at 22.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022

Fair. That seems accurate.

Not fair at all. I cannot believe that Williams and Amherst are lower ranked than Emory in this index. No way. Problem with all these rankings is the methodology is always set up to favor larger universities. Also, Emory is a school that has been caught cheating on rankings in the past.

Where would you rank Williams and Amherst then?

NP. Many colleges on this list are poorly ranked, so I won’t comment on it. But, starting with a blank slate, any competent undergrad ranking list (which necessarily would unify all colleges, large and small, which kids actually apply to) should probably have Williams 10-15; Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona 15-20; and Bowdoin 20-25.

The problem with this argument is that there are already rankings which combine the two, and none of these LACs are ranked that highly.

If you base your college list off the top 10, then you're an idiot

This doesnt make any sense.

[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:Everyone knows Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona are qualitative on a different league, and higher, than UF.

And who the hell is UF?

UF is Florida.

While Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona are good schools, they are assessed separately from full-fledged universities.

That shows there's something fundamentally wrong with the list. I'd seriously question why X college is is ranked Y and not Z. It's too random.

Garbage in, garbage out.

More garbage in, more garbage out.

You're not making any sense. It is perfectly normal for LACs to be assessed separately from universities.

Yes, but should they be? Ranking is not so difficult. And applicants routinely apply to both types of schools. The current classifications are, in any event, silly to begin with: do Dartmouth and Princeton really have more in common with 30k plus undergraduate student factories like Michigan and Berkeley than they do the Williams Colleges of the world?

The top LACs are probably in the lower end of the T20 range. They really are excellent schools, just maybe a little overlooked.

There likely just outside the top 20. Seen here with Amherst at 22.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022

Fair. That seems accurate.

Not fair at all. I cannot believe that Williams and Amherst are lower ranked than Emory in this index. No way. Problem with all these rankings is the methodology is always set up to favor larger universities. Also, Emory is a school that has been caught cheating on rankings in the past.

Where would you rank Williams and Amherst then?

NP. Many colleges on this list are poorly ranked, so I won’t comment on it. But, starting with a blank slate, any competent undergrad ranking list (which necessarily would unify all colleges, large and small, which kids actually apply to) should probably have Williams 10-15; Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona 15-20; and Bowdoin 20-25.

The problem with this argument is that there are already rankings which combine the two, and none of these LACs are ranked that highly.

If you base your college list off the top 10, then you're an idiot

Any of the top 50 colleges are going to give you a good education. Fit anyone?

[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:Everyone knows Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona are qualitative on a different league, and higher, than UF.

And who the hell is UF?

UF is Florida.

While Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona are good schools, they are assessed separately from full-fledged universities.

That shows there's something fundamentally wrong with the list. I'd seriously question why X college is is ranked Y and not Z. It's too random.

Garbage in, garbage out.

More garbage in, more garbage out.

You're not making any sense. It is perfectly normal for LACs to be assessed separately from universities.

Yes, but should they be? Ranking is not so difficult. And applicants routinely apply to both types of schools. The current classifications are, in any event, silly to begin with: do Dartmouth and Princeton really have more in common with 30k plus undergraduate student factories like Michigan and Berkeley than they do the Williams Colleges of the world?

The top LACs are probably in the lower end of the T20 range. They really are excellent schools, just maybe a little overlooked.

There likely just outside the top 20. Seen here with Amherst at 22.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022

Fair. That seems accurate.

Not fair at all. I cannot believe that Williams and Amherst are lower ranked than Emory in this index. No way. Problem with all these rankings is the methodology is always set up to favor larger universities. Also, Emory is a school that has been caught cheating on rankings in the past.

Where would you rank Williams and Amherst then?

NP. Many colleges on this list are poorly ranked, so I won’t comment on it. But, starting with a blank slate, any competent undergrad ranking list (which necessarily would unify all colleges, large and small, which kids actually apply to) should probably have Williams 10-15; Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona 15-20; and Bowdoin 20-25.

The problem with this argument is that there are already rankings which combine the two, and none of these LACs are ranked that highly.

+1, they sound like Berkeley boosters. Always putting it in the top 10 where it doesn't belong.

I think you mean UVA strivers.

[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:Everyone knows Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona are qualitative on a different league, and higher, than UF.

And who the hell is UF?

UF is Florida.

While Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona are good schools, they are assessed separately from full-fledged universities.

That shows there's something fundamentally wrong with the list. I'd seriously question why X college is is ranked Y and not Z. It's too random.

Garbage in, garbage out.

More garbage in, more garbage out.

You're not making any sense. It is perfectly normal for LACs to be assessed separately from universities.

Yes, but should they be? Ranking is not so difficult. And applicants routinely apply to both types of schools. The current classifications are, in any event, silly to begin with: do Dartmouth and Princeton really have more in common with 30k plus undergraduate student factories like Michigan and Berkeley than they do the Williams Colleges of the world?

The top LACs are probably in the lower end of the T20 range. They really are excellent schools, just maybe a little overlooked.

There likely just outside the top 20. Seen here with Amherst at 22.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022

Fair. That seems accurate.

Not fair at all. I cannot believe that Williams and Amherst are lower ranked than Emory in this index. No way. Problem with all these rankings is the methodology is always set up to favor larger universities. Also, Emory is a school that has been caught cheating on rankings in the past.

Where would you rank Williams and Amherst then?

NP. Many colleges on this list are poorly ranked, so I won’t comment on it. But, starting with a blank slate, any competent undergrad ranking list (which necessarily would unify all colleges, large and small, which kids actually apply to) should probably have Williams 10-15; Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona 15-20; and Bowdoin 20-25.

The problem with this argument is that there are already rankings which combine the two, and none of these LACs are ranked that highly.

Pomona is top 20 on forbes and niche (combined 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:Everyone knows Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona are qualitative on a different league, and higher, than UF.

And who the hell is UF?

UF is Florida.

While Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona are good schools, they are assessed separately from full-fledged universities.

That shows there's something fundamentally wrong with the list. I'd seriously question why X college is is ranked Y and not Z. It's too random.

Garbage in, garbage out.

More garbage in, more garbage out.

You're not making any sense. It is perfectly normal for LACs to be assessed separately from universities.

Yes, but should they be? Ranking is not so difficult. And applicants routinely apply to both types of schools. The current classifications are, in any event, silly to begin with: do Dartmouth and Princeton really have more in common with 30k plus undergraduate student factories like Michigan and Berkeley than they do the Williams Colleges of the world?

The top LACs are probably in the lower end of the T20 range. They really are excellent schools, just maybe a little overlooked.

There likely just outside the top 20. Seen here with Amherst at 22.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022

Fair. That seems accurate.

Not fair at all. I cannot believe that Williams and Amherst are lower ranked than Emory in this index. No way. Problem with all these rankings is the methodology is always set up to favor larger universities. Also, Emory is a school that has been caught cheating on rankings in the past.

Where would you rank Williams and Amherst then?

NP. Many colleges on this list are poorly ranked, so I won’t comment on it. But, starting with a blank slate, any competent undergrad ranking list (which necessarily would unify all colleges, large and small, which kids actually apply to) should probably have Williams 10-15; Amherst, Swarthmore, and Pomona 15-20; and Bowdoin 20-25.

The problem with this argument is that there are already rankings which combine the two, and none of these LACs are ranked that highly.

If you base your college list off the top 10, then you're an idiot

Any of the top 50 colleges are going to give you a good education. Fit anyone?

Ranking and prestige is important, but fit is the most important thing.
No one would pick a school just for the ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone knows Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona are qualitative on a different league, and higher, than UF.

And who the hell is UF?

UF is Florida.

While Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona are good schools, they are assessed separately from full-fledged universities.

That shows there's something fundamentally wrong with the list. I'd seriously question why X college is is ranked Y and not Z. It's too random.

Garbage in, garbage out.

More garbage in, more garbage out.

You're not making any sense. It is perfectly normal for LACs to be assessed separately from universities.

Yes, but should they be? Ranking is not so difficult. And applicants routinely apply to both types of schools. The current classifications are, in any event, silly to begin with: do Dartmouth and Princeton really have more in common with 30k plus undergraduate student factories like Michigan and Berkeley than they do the Williams Colleges of the world?

The top LACs are probably in the lower end of the T20 range. They really are excellent schools, just maybe a little overlooked.

There likely just outside the top 20. Seen here with Amherst at 22.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022

Fair. That seems accurate.

Not fair at all. I cannot believe that Williams and Amherst are lower ranked than Emory in this index. No way. Problem with all these rankings is the methodology is always set up to favor larger universities. Also, Emory is a school that has been caught cheating on rankings in the past.

WSJ uses DOE data give it a rest. Emory is a better school, get over it. The fact that Emory have you more pause than USC is telling.