What happened to W&M, Brandeis, Tulane, Pepperdine and others..from historically T50 to outside looking in?

[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:Everyone needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178). Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong". Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings". Maybe just stick with that.

I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the smartest students know where they should go.

There is...it's called USNews. The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".

It doesn't matter if some schools maintained their place, they got rid of SO many factors related to undergraduate education experience, and so it's no longer a valid measure of that. Yada yada broken clock. Maybe Tulane and Pepperdine didn't but WF, W&M, BU, and BC all did and they all dropped a lot the last two years. Hell even WashU and NYU did.

lol Tulane, Pepperdine, BU and BC compete for the same students. W&M is a state school behind UVa and Vtech. WF is below all of these.

UVA: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
W&M: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
WF: 1450 (48% submitting scores)

VT: 1360 (48% submitting scores)

Try again.

W&M is a safety for UVA kids. UVA is a safety for T20 kids. Unless yield protection is a thing.

Somehow their enrolling SATs are identical as are their GPAs. I think if UVA were really the next step for t20 applicants their SAT median would be more similar to Harvard, Yale, etc.

Absolutely. The ivies plus MIT Stanford Duke Hopkins and a couple others all had 25th%ile SAT of enrolled students at 1470 or higher pre-test optional. UVA and William and Mary both had the 75th%ile at 1470or so. The top quarter of UVA (and WM) is the same as the top 3/4 of ivy/+ schools: they are not the same tier, and they are essentially tied as far as student quality. UVA and WM should both be about 25-30 national ranking. They are peers but neither is on par with ivy.

I guess peers in terms of test scores etc. but not overall peers due to UVA's size.

[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:Everyone needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178). Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong". Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings". Maybe just stick with that.

I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the smartest students know where they should go.

There is...it's called USNews. The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".

Not sure where you've been but these two and others mentioned do attract top students. "Smartest" isn't a concrete classification, btw.

Maybe because the kids that actually attend will freely admit they weren't the smartest kids at their school or the top kids.

Smartest doesn't have to mean just the top 1%, and probably better describes the top 10-15% of most schools.

How is the 10-15% the smartest? What would you call the 1% then? Talk about DEIing a superlative.

15% of American households are millionaires, would you not consider them some of the richest people in the country?

Millionaires? No not really when we have billionaires who own massive amounts of wealth and land.

[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:Everyone needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178). Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong". Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings". Maybe just stick with that.

I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the smartest students know where they should go.

There is...it's called USNews. The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".

Not sure where you've been but these two and others mentioned do attract top students. "Smartest" isn't a concrete classification, btw.

Maybe because the kids that actually attend will freely admit they weren't the smartest kids at their school or the top kids.

Smartest doesn't have to mean just the top 1%, and probably better describes the top 10-15% of most schools.

How is the 10-15% the smartest? What would you call the 1% then? Talk about DEIing a superlative.

15% of American households are millionaires, would you not consider them some of the richest people in the country?

It's certainly not a metric that is touted when discussing wealth...which is almost always about the top 1%.

When any 3rd party measures the wealth of a college student body they always comment on what %age comes from the top 1%...not the top 15% (or even the top 5% or top 10%).

0.1 percenters would laugh at 1 percenters who think they're wealthy. It's all subjective. Do you have any concrete numbers to back up any point?

You are right...because people care who is top 1% and who is literally #1. However, nobody cares about 15%.

I don't even know by "what numbers". Here are several articles talking about schools with student bodies from the top 1%.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2023/08/22/new-study-investigates-why-elite-colleges-favor-rich-kids/
https://edsource.org/updates/children-from-richest-families-more-likely-to-attend-ivy-league-schools-study-finds

[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:Everyone needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178). Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong". Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings". Maybe just stick with that.

I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the smartest students know where they should go.

There is...it's called USNews. The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".

Not sure where you've been but these two and others mentioned do attract top students. "Smartest" isn't a concrete classification, btw.

Maybe because the kids that actually attend will freely admit they weren't the smartest kids at their school or the top kids.

Smartest doesn't have to mean just the top 1%, and probably better describes the top 10-15% of most schools.

How is the 10-15% the smartest? What would you call the 1% then? Talk about DEIing a superlative.

15% of American households are millionaires, would you not consider them some of the richest people in the country?

It's certainly not a metric that is touted when discussing wealth...which is almost always about the top 1%.

When any 3rd party measures the wealth of a college student body they always comment on what %age comes from the top 1%...not the top 15% (or even the top 5% or top 10%).

0.1 percenters would laugh at 1 percenters who think they're wealthy. It's all subjective. Do you have any concrete numbers to back up any point?

You are right...because people care who is top 1% and who is literally #1. However, nobody cares about 15%.

I don't even know by "what numbers". Here are several articles talking about schools with student bodies from the top 1%.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2023/08/22/new-study-investigates-why-elite-colleges-favor-rich-kids/
https://edsource.org/updates/children-from-richest-families-more-likely-to-attend-ivy-league-schools-study-finds

And?

[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:Everyone needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178). Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong". Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings". Maybe just stick with that.

I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the smartest students know where they should go.

There is...it's called USNews. The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".

Not sure where you've been but these two and others mentioned do attract top students. "Smartest" isn't a concrete classification, btw.

Maybe because the kids that actually attend will freely admit they weren't the smartest kids at their school or the top kids.

Smartest doesn't have to mean just the top 1%, and probably better describes the top 10-15% of most schools.

How is the 10-15% the smartest? What would you call the 1% then? Talk about DEIing a superlative.

15% of American households are millionaires, would you not consider them some of the richest people in the country?

It's certainly not a metric that is touted when discussing wealth...which is almost always about the top 1%.

When any 3rd party measures the wealth of a college student body they always comment on what %age comes from the top 1%...not the top 15% (or even the top 5% or top 10%).

0.1 percenters would laugh at 1 percenters who think they're wealthy. It's all subjective. Do you have any concrete numbers to back up any point?

You are right...because people care who is top 1% and who is literally #1. However, nobody cares about 15%.

I don't even know by "what numbers". Here are several articles talking about schools with student bodies from the top 1%.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2023/08/22/new-study-investigates-why-elite-colleges-favor-rich-kids/
https://edsource.org/updates/children-from-richest-families-more-likely-to-attend-ivy-league-schools-study-finds

And?

what?

[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 needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178). Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong". Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings". Maybe just stick with that.

I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the smartest students know where they should go.

There is...it's called USNews. The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".

Not sure where you've been but these two and others mentioned do attract top students. "Smartest" isn't a concrete classification, btw.

Maybe because the kids that actually attend will freely admit they weren't the smartest kids at their school or the top kids.

Smartest doesn't have to mean just the top 1%, and probably better describes the top 10-15% of most schools.

Correct...and the kids going to Pepperdine and Tulane (from private schools) are outside the top 20%. Again, no secret.

Worse they are not even in the top half.

[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:Everyone needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178). Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong". Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings". Maybe just stick with that.

I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the smartest students know where they should go.

There is...it's called USNews. The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".

It doesn't matter if some schools maintained their place, they got rid of SO many factors related to undergraduate education experience, and so it's no longer a valid measure of that. Yada yada broken clock. Maybe Tulane and Pepperdine didn't but WF, W&M, BU, and BC all did and they all dropped a lot the last two years. Hell even WashU and NYU did.

lol Tulane, Pepperdine, BU and BC compete for the same students. W&M is a state school behind UVa and Vtech. WF is below all of these.

UVA: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
W&M: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
WF: 1450 (48% submitting scores)

VT: 1360 (48% submitting scores)

Try again.

W&M is a safety for UVA kids. UVA is a safety for T20 kids. Unless yield protection is a thing.

Somehow their enrolling SATs are identical as are their GPAs. I think if UVA were really the next step for t20 applicants their SAT median would be more similar to Harvard, Yale, etc.

Absolutely. The ivies plus MIT Stanford Duke Hopkins and a couple others all had 25th%ile SAT of enrolled students at 1470 or higher pre-test optional. UVA and William and Mary both had the 75th%ile at 1470or so. The top quarter of UVA (and WM) is the same as the top 3/4 of ivy/+ schools: they are not the same tier, and they are essentially tied as far as student quality. UVA and WM should both be about 25-30 national ranking. They are peers but neither is on par with ivy.

I guess peers in terms of test scores etc. but not overall peers due to UVA's size.

Agree UVa size is a negative. William&Mary is closer to an ivy/elite private in terms of feel (seminar classes, overall size). UVA is not a good ivy backup because the vibe is all wrong.

[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:Everyone needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178). Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong". Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings". Maybe just stick with that.

I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the smartest students know where they should go.

There is...it's called USNews. The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".

It doesn't matter if some schools maintained their place, they got rid of SO many factors related to undergraduate education experience, and so it's no longer a valid measure of that. Yada yada broken clock. Maybe Tulane and Pepperdine didn't but WF, W&M, BU, and BC all did and they all dropped a lot the last two years. Hell even WashU and NYU did.

lol Tulane, Pepperdine, BU and BC compete for the same students. W&M is a state school behind UVa and Vtech. WF is below all of these.

UVA: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
W&M: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
WF: 1450 (48% submitting scores)

VT: 1360 (48% submitting scores)

Try again.

W&M is a safety for UVA kids. UVA is a safety for T20 kids. Unless yield protection is a thing.

Somehow their enrolling SATs are identical as are their GPAs. I think if UVA were really the next step for t20 applicants their SAT median would be more similar to Harvard, Yale, etc.

Absolutely. The ivies plus MIT Stanford Duke Hopkins and a couple others all had 25th%ile SAT of enrolled students at 1470 or higher pre-test optional. UVA and William and Mary both had the 75th%ile at 1470or so. The top quarter of UVA (and WM) is the same as the top 3/4 of ivy/+ schools: they are not the same tier, and they are essentially tied as far as student quality. UVA and WM should both be about 25-30 national ranking. They are peers but neither is on par with ivy.

I guess peers in terms of test scores etc. but not overall peers due to UVA's size.

Agree UVa size is a negative. William&Mary is closer to an ivy/elite private in terms of feel (seminar classes, overall size). UVA is not a good ivy backup because the vibe is all wrong.

W&M is small but not as small as most ivies. UVA is like Cornell.

[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:Everyone needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178). Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong". Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings". Maybe just stick with that.

I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the smartest students know where they should go.

There is...it's called USNews. The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".

It doesn't matter if some schools maintained their place, they got rid of SO many factors related to undergraduate education experience, and so it's no longer a valid measure of that. Yada yada broken clock. Maybe Tulane and Pepperdine didn't but WF, W&M, BU, and BC all did and they all dropped a lot the last two years. Hell even WashU and NYU did.

lol Tulane, Pepperdine, BU and BC compete for the same students. W&M is a state school behind UVa and Vtech. WF is below all of these.

UVA: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
W&M: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
WF: 1450 (48% submitting scores)

VT: 1360 (48% submitting scores)

Try again.

W&M is a safety for UVA kids. UVA is a safety for T20 kids. Unless yield protection is a thing.

Somehow their enrolling SATs are identical as are their GPAs. I think if UVA were really the next step for t20 applicants their SAT median would be more similar to Harvard, Yale, etc.

Absolutely. The ivies plus MIT Stanford Duke Hopkins and a couple others all had 25th%ile SAT of enrolled students at 1470 or higher pre-test optional. UVA and William and Mary both had the 75th%ile at 1470or so. The top quarter of UVA (and WM) is the same as the top 3/4 of ivy/+ schools: they are not the same tier, and they are essentially tied as far as student quality. UVA and WM should both be about 25-30 national ranking. They are peers but neither is on par with ivy.

I guess peers in terms of test scores etc. but not overall peers due to UVA's size.

Agree UVa size is a negative. William&Mary is closer to an ivy/elite private in terms of feel (seminar classes, overall size). UVA is not a good ivy backup because the vibe is all wrong.

And I never said it was a negative. Some people would hate small environments. See: every single large university in the USA and the increasing popularity of schools like Alabama.

[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 needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178). Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong". Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings". Maybe just stick with that.

I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the smartest students know where they should go.

There is...it's called USNews. The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".

It doesn't matter if some schools maintained their place, they got rid of SO many factors related to undergraduate education experience, and so it's no longer a valid measure of that. Yada yada broken clock. Maybe Tulane and Pepperdine didn't but WF, W&M, BU, and BC all did and they all dropped a lot the last two years. Hell even WashU and NYU did.

lol Tulane, Pepperdine, BU and BC compete for the same students. W&M is a state school behind UVa and Vtech. WF is below all of these.

UVA: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
W&M: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
WF: 1450 (48% submitting scores)
Tulane: 1450 (45% submitting scores)
BU: 1450 (40% submitting scores)
BC: 1470 (50% submitting scores)

Pepperdine: 1360 (21% submitting scores)
VT: 1360 (48% submitting scores)

Just to give a full picture....
The top schools on this list (except for UVA because of its size) are undoubtedly peer institutions. What are you talking about?

No clue what's going on at Pepperdine.

Thank you for being a voice of reason. There are a lot of delusional boosters of VT on dcum who think it is some top school. It is a midling school with a significantly lower SAT range than W&Mary and UVA, and at least the old rankings correctly sorted the three. VT admits many below average students from privates, and almost no one in the top 20% choose it in the end or ED when that was a thing. UVA admits from the top25% and WM from the top 30%, and there are people in the top 10% who occasionally choose to ED at one.

[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:Everyone needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178). Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong". Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings". Maybe just stick with that.

I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the smartest students know where they should go.

There is...it's called USNews. The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".

It doesn't matter if some schools maintained their place, they got rid of SO many factors related to undergraduate education experience, and so it's no longer a valid measure of that. Yada yada broken clock. Maybe Tulane and Pepperdine didn't but WF, W&M, BU, and BC all did and they all dropped a lot the last two years. Hell even WashU and NYU did.

lol Tulane, Pepperdine, BU and BC compete for the same students. W&M is a state school behind UVa and Vtech. WF is below all of these.

UVA: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
W&M: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
WF: 1450 (48% submitting scores)

VT: 1360 (48% submitting scores)

Try again.

W&M is a safety for UVA kids. UVA is a safety for T20 kids. Unless yield protection is a thing.

Somehow their enrolling SATs are identical as are their GPAs. I think if UVA were really the next step for t20 applicants their SAT median would be more similar to Harvard, Yale, etc.

Absolutely. The ivies plus MIT Stanford Duke Hopkins and a couple others all had 25th%ile SAT of enrolled students at 1470 or higher pre-test optional. UVA and William and Mary both had the 75th%ile at 1470or so. The top quarter of UVA (and WM) is the same as the top 3/4 of ivy/+ schools: they are not the same tier, and they are essentially tied as far as student quality. UVA and WM should both be about 25-30 national ranking. They are peers but neither is on par with ivy.

I guess peers in terms of test scores etc. but not overall peers due to UVA's size.

Agree UVa size is a negative. William&Mary is closer to an ivy/elite private in terms of feel (seminar classes, overall size). UVA is not a good ivy backup because the vibe is all wrong.

W&M is small but not as small as most ivies. UVA is like Cornell.

No. Yale is the same size as WM(6900 undergrads), Princeton and Dartmouth are smaller. All the others are bigger than WM. WM has all the feel of an ivy yet a less selective admission with a mildly lower range of SAT scores. It is used by many students as an ivy backup for these reasons.

[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 needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178). Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong". Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings". Maybe just stick with that.

I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the smartest students know where they should go.

There is...it's called USNews. The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".

It doesn't matter if some schools maintained their place, they got rid of SO many factors related to undergraduate education experience, and so it's no longer a valid measure of that. Yada yada broken clock. Maybe Tulane and Pepperdine didn't but WF, W&M, BU, and BC all did and they all dropped a lot the last two years. Hell even WashU and NYU did.

lol Tulane, Pepperdine, BU and BC compete for the same students. W&M is a state school behind UVa and Vtech. WF is below all of these.

Nonsense. BU and BC are not competing for Pepperdine and Tulane students. Nor is Wake Forest below Pepperdine and Tulane.

Wake Forest..lol no. Wake Forest is not even in the same zip code. Tulane, Pepperdine, BU and BC are the same. You need to come out of the 1970’s.

It’s just Emory mom being Emory mom, she has an irrational hatred of Wake Forest ,or maybe just of college kids having fun.

[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:Everyone needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178). Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong". Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings". Maybe just stick with that.

I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the smartest students know where they should go.

There is...it's called USNews. The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".

It doesn't matter if some schools maintained their place, they got rid of SO many factors related to undergraduate education experience, and so it's no longer a valid measure of that. Yada yada broken clock. Maybe Tulane and Pepperdine didn't but WF, W&M, BU, and BC all did and they all dropped a lot the last two years. Hell even WashU and NYU did.

lol Tulane, Pepperdine, BU and BC compete for the same students. W&M is a state school behind UVa and Vtech. WF is below all of these.

Nonsense. BU and BC are not competing for Pepperdine and Tulane students. Nor is Wake Forest below Pepperdine and Tulane.

Wake Forest..lol no. Wake Forest is not even in the same zip code. Tulane, Pepperdine, BU and BC are the same. You need to come out of the 1970’s.

It’s just Emory mom being Emory mom, she has an irrational hatred of Wake Forest ,or maybe just of college kids having fun.

Makes sense. No logical person would think WF does not belong with those colleges.

[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:Everyone needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178). Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong". Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings". Maybe just stick with that.

I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the smartest students know where they should go.

There is...it's called USNews. The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".

It doesn't matter if some schools maintained their place, they got rid of SO many factors related to undergraduate education experience, and so it's no longer a valid measure of that. Yada yada broken clock. Maybe Tulane and Pepperdine didn't but WF, W&M, BU, and BC all did and they all dropped a lot the last two years. Hell even WashU and NYU did.

lol Tulane, Pepperdine, BU and BC compete for the same students. W&M is a state school behind UVa and Vtech. WF is below all of these.

UVA: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
W&M: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
WF: 1450 (48% submitting scores)

VT: 1360 (48% submitting scores)

Try again.

W&M is a safety for UVA kids. UVA is a safety for T20 kids. Unless yield protection is a thing.

Somehow their enrolling SATs are identical as are their GPAs. I think if UVA were really the next step for t20 applicants their SAT median would be more similar to Harvard, Yale, etc.

Absolutely. The ivies plus MIT Stanford Duke Hopkins and a couple others all had 25th%ile SAT of enrolled students at 1470 or higher pre-test optional. UVA and William and Mary both had the 75th%ile at 1470or so. The top quarter of UVA (and WM) is the same as the top 3/4 of ivy/+ schools: they are not the same tier, and they are essentially tied as far as student quality. UVA and WM should both be about 25-30 national ranking. They are peers but neither is on par with ivy.

I guess peers in terms of test scores etc. but not overall peers due to UVA's size.

Agree UVa size is a negative. William&Mary is closer to an ivy/elite private in terms of feel (seminar classes, overall size). UVA is not a good ivy backup because the vibe is all wrong.

W&M is small but not as small as most ivies. UVA is like Cornell.

No. Yale is the same size as WM(6900 undergrads), Princeton and Dartmouth are smaller. All the others are bigger than WM. WM has all the feel of an ivy yet a less selective admission with a mildly lower range of SAT scores. It is used by many students as an ivy backup for these reasons.

W&M is just under 7100 undergrads now but yeah it's right in the middle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US News changed it’s rankings formula in a way that adversely affected these schools.

+1

USNWR no longer considers class sizes. Doesn't make sense at all. Because most educators would consider classes of 25-40 students a much better educational experience than 300+ (as they and parents should)

Ditch the rankings and go by what you know matters.

I am not aware if any college educators believe a college class size of 25-40 makes much of a difference than a class size of say 100...or even more.

Of course a college class size of 25-40 makes for a different experience than a class size of 100 students. In a class of <40, there will be many more opportunities for class discussion with the prof and the opportunity to build a relationship with the prof. No one is saying that all 100+ classes are bad, but nature of the interactions are fundamentally different in a smaller class than they are in a lecture hall. If you're the sort of student who enjoys conversing with professors and asking questions, you will prefer the former. If a student's only ambition in college is to get good grades, then this smaller class setting is probably less important to them.