When you say t50...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely flexible, since we're talking about US News here, which is crap to begin with. It would be nicer if DCUM could all use QS, THE or ARWU.

Why would that be used for U.S. UNDERGRADUATE education? They are largely research rankings.

If I am trying to determine the top colleges and universities, why would I only look at undergraduate education to determine top schools? Last I checked, cutting edge research was a key component of academia.

The argument is, sure the University of Washington advanced using AI to predict protein folding that will speed the development of new medicines, but they have larger Biology 101 classes than Wake Forest. U of W is a much more impactful university than Wake, by far.

Yes, that is exactly what you should look at, nothing more. How well does the school prepare a student over the first degree cycle. If you want to rank schools on research strength that is great, but it is not pertinent to undergraduate education.

At the undergraduate level, engineering, CS, accounting....they are all trades. You'll learn the same basic curriculum at any of them. ABET certified engineering programs all basically teach the same.

There is a reason that SLACs put a far greater proportion of their students into top B schools, Law schools, and PhD programs. They build a better product at the undergraduate level.

Having kids require grad school because they can’t get great jobs from undergrad sounds like failure to me.

You need to learn the difference between learning and training.

You are confused. It’s not that LAC students can’t get great jobs after their undergrad study. Plenty do. It’s that they often have higher expectations than just a good paying job, so go to grad school to qualify for the jobs which require the most education, often after a short break from school where they work in a job that prioritizes preparation for grad school over immediate financial rewards. That’s not for everyone, and that’s fine.

Not confused at all…especially when you make things up.

Know too many underemployed Swat and Haverford grads that had to attend grad school because their immediate options sucked.

Not all SLACs are equal…hence why CMC and Harvey Mudd grads as examples are able to productively enter the workforce on day 1.

[Anonymous]

Top 50 to me means schools ranked 31- 59. So UT Austin to Villanova.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Top 50 to me means schools ranked 31- 59. So UT Austin to Villanova.

This sounds much more like Top 59 since you are including school ranked through 59. I'm confused as to why the top 50 has to contain more than 50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely flexible, since we're talking about US News here, which is crap to begin with. It would be nicer if DCUM could all use QS, THE or ARWU.

Why would that be used for U.S. UNDERGRADUATE education? They are largely research rankings.

If I am trying to determine the top colleges and universities, why would I only look at undergraduate education to determine top schools? Last I checked, cutting edge research was a key component of academia.

The argument is, sure the University of Washington advanced using AI to predict protein folding that will speed the development of new medicines, but they have larger Biology 101 classes than Wake Forest. U of W is a much more impactful university than Wake, by far.

Yes, that is exactly what you should look at, nothing more. How well does the school prepare a student over the first degree cycle. If you want to rank schools on research strength that is great, but it is not pertinent to undergraduate education.

At the undergraduate level, engineering, CS, accounting....they are all trades. You'll learn the same basic curriculum at any of them. ABET certified engineering programs all basically teach the same.

There is a reason that SLACs put a far greater proportion of their students into top B schools, Law schools, and PhD programs. They build a better product at the undergraduate level.

Having kids require grad school because they can’t get great jobs from undergrad sounds like failure to me.

You need to learn the difference between learning and training.

You are confused. It’s not that LAC students can’t get great jobs after their undergrad study. Plenty do. It’s that they often have higher expectations than just a good paying job, so go to grad school to qualify for the jobs which require the most education, often after a short break from school where they work in a job that prioritizes preparation for grad school over immediate financial rewards. That’s not for everyone, and that’s fine.

Not confused at all…especially when you make things up.

Know too many underemployed Swat and Haverford grads that had to attend grad school because their immediate options sucked.

Not all SLACs are equal…hence why CMC and Harvey Mudd grads as examples are able to productively enter the workforce on day 1.

You aren't confused, you are just dim.

Going to grad school is playing the long game. I understand that you don't really understand it. The result is becoming engineers, CS majors, and accountants; rather than taking the learning path which educates you for the C-suite. Mudd is a neat little school in it's niche but I really don't understand your obsession with CMC. It's a great LAC with results and training similar to other top SLACs. It's results aren't any different than the others.

[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:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

The US News rankings are deeply flawed. Two years ago, US News dropped things like class size, the qualifications of instructors, and the number of years it takes students to graduate. Instead, they prioritized the number of Pell Grant students at each school. These changes in the algorithm caused a number of private schools to drop, including some high endowment private schools that give excellent financial aid so that students don't need Pell Grants. Plus, they penalized schools for having smaller classes, professors with PhDs, and allowing the vast majority of students to graduate in four years. US News was clearly on a mission to boost public universities in their rankings.

Which, fine. It's their "magazine." But the effect was to make the US News rankings fairly useless for those who care about the quality of education. Most informed people don't think UC Merced with its 90 percent acceptance rate is a top 60 school. Only 30 percent of UC Merced students even graduate in 4 years. And yet US News ranks UC Merced much higher than hundreds of other schools that most regard as better academically. The whole ranking is filled with nonsense like that. People should look at US News if social mobility is their priority. But otherwise, look elsewhere if academics are important to you.

WSJ ratings are even more flawed than USNWR when it comes to rankings given their stew of ROI adjusted for "starting point" and graduation rates again adjusted for "similar socioeconomic profiles".

Which is why people are looking at Niche. WSJ dropped the ball - Babson at number 2? - with their very peculiar rankings. There's definitely a big space for a credible ranking after US News squandered their legitimacy.

Let’s face it…people are pissed about how Wake, Tulane, Tufts, William and Mary and a couple of others dropped in USNews.

So, fine, let’s use Niche:

- Wake is 48 vs 46 USnews
- Tulane is 69 vs 63 USNews
- Tufts is 47 vs 37 USNews
- W&M is 74 vs 54 USNews



Once more…these schools’ best rating are USNews. Niche, Forbes, WSJ, world rankings…they are all worse.

The only pissed people are either alumn morons who just follow the rankings. Anyone with an IQ over 80 realizes that new ranking methodologies are idiotic and it has negatively impacted these schools.

Only a blind IDIOT with no knowledge of history would NOT consider these schools T50.

A PP mentioned a historical ranking. Yes. Over the last 50 years these schools have been ranking in the top50. So YES, for purposes of discussing a t50, these schools are often mentioned….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Top 50 to me means schools ranked 31- 59. So UT Austin to Villanova.

This sounds much more like Top 59 since you are including school ranked through 59. I'm confused as to why the top 50 has to contain more than 50.

I'm allowing for space for changes in methodology. UCLA used to be T25, and Emory T20. They've switched but neither school is materially different.

[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:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

The US News rankings are deeply flawed. Two years ago, US News dropped things like class size, the qualifications of instructors, and the number of years it takes students to graduate. Instead, they prioritized the number of Pell Grant students at each school. These changes in the algorithm caused a number of private schools to drop, including some high endowment private schools that give excellent financial aid so that students don't need Pell Grants. Plus, they penalized schools for having smaller classes, professors with PhDs, and allowing the vast majority of students to graduate in four years. US News was clearly on a mission to boost public universities in their rankings.

Which, fine. It's their "magazine." But the effect was to make the US News rankings fairly useless for those who care about the quality of education. Most informed people don't think UC Merced with its 90 percent acceptance rate is a top 60 school. Only 30 percent of UC Merced students even graduate in 4 years. And yet US News ranks UC Merced much higher than hundreds of other schools that most regard as better academically. The whole ranking is filled with nonsense like that. People should look at US News if social mobility is their priority. But otherwise, look elsewhere if academics are important to you.

WSJ ratings are even more flawed than USNWR when it comes to rankings given their stew of ROI adjusted for "starting point" and graduation rates again adjusted for "similar socioeconomic profiles".

Which is why people are looking at Niche. WSJ dropped the ball - Babson at number 2? - with their very peculiar rankings. There's definitely a big space for a credible ranking after US News squandered their legitimacy.

Let’s face it…people are pissed about how Wake, Tulane, Tufts, William and Mary and a couple of others dropped in USNews.

So, fine, let’s use Niche:

- Wake is 48 vs 46 USnews
- Tulane is 69 vs 63 USNews
- Tufts is 47 vs 37 USNews
- W&M is 74 vs 54 USNews



Once more…these schools’ best rating are USNews. Niche, Forbes, WSJ, world rankings…they are all worse.

The only pissed people are either alumn morons who just follow the rankings. Anyone with an IQ over 80 realizes that new ranking methodologies are idiotic and it has negatively impacted these schools.

Only a blind IDIOT with no knowledge of history would NOT consider these schools T50.

A PP mentioned a historical ranking. Yes. Over the last 50 years these schools have been ranking in the top50. So YES, for purposes of discussing a t50, these schools are often mentioned….

Looking at the rankings of the four schools listed, W&M and Tulane are not currently Top 50 schools. I don’t keep track of yearly changes to ranking methodologies and don’t have a deep understanding of historical college rankings. When I want to know where a school is ranked, I typically go to the US News website, as it seems to be the most widely used source for college rankings. For that reason, I feel comfortable using it as a reference.

Younger people, who may lack your knowledge of college ranking history and are just beginning their research, will likely not see Tulane ranked in the T50 and therefore may not consider it a T50 school. At some point, if a school is not ranked in the T50, then it simply is not a T50 school.

Maybe I believe that the old ranking methodology was flawed and placed too much emphasis on factors like class size and percentage of graduates completing their degrees in four years. Perhaps a more diverse student body actually strengthens the educational experience by fostering soft skills, which are critical in both educational and professional settings.

On that note, it seems you could benefit from developing soft skills yourself—particularly in learning that effective communication doesn’t involve name-calling or ad hominem attacks simply because someone disagrees with you. Lastly, I find your use of the word "blind" problematic. Would a sighted individual make a better analysis of T50 schools simply by virtue of being sighted?

[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:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

The US News rankings are deeply flawed. Two years ago, US News dropped things like class size, the qualifications of instructors, and the number of years it takes students to graduate. Instead, they prioritized the number of Pell Grant students at each school. These changes in the algorithm caused a number of private schools to drop, including some high endowment private schools that give excellent financial aid so that students don't need Pell Grants. Plus, they penalized schools for having smaller classes, professors with PhDs, and allowing the vast majority of students to graduate in four years. US News was clearly on a mission to boost public universities in their rankings.

Which, fine. It's their "magazine." But the effect was to make the US News rankings fairly useless for those who care about the quality of education. Most informed people don't think UC Merced with its 90 percent acceptance rate is a top 60 school. Only 30 percent of UC Merced students even graduate in 4 years. And yet US News ranks UC Merced much higher than hundreds of other schools that most regard as better academically. The whole ranking is filled with nonsense like that. People should look at US News if social mobility is their priority. But otherwise, look elsewhere if academics are important to you.

WSJ ratings are even more flawed than USNWR when it comes to rankings given their stew of ROI adjusted for "starting point" and graduation rates again adjusted for "similar socioeconomic profiles".

Which is why people are looking at Niche. WSJ dropped the ball - Babson at number 2? - with their very peculiar rankings. There's definitely a big space for a credible ranking after US News squandered their legitimacy.

Let’s face it…people are pissed about how Wake, Tulane, Tufts, William and Mary and a couple of others dropped in USNews.

So, fine, let’s use Niche:

- Wake is 48 vs 46 USnews
- Tulane is 69 vs 63 USNews
- Tufts is 47 vs 37 USNews
- W&M is 74 vs 54 USNews



Once more…these schools’ best rating are USNews. Niche, Forbes, WSJ, world rankings…they are all worse.

The only pissed people are either alumn morons who just follow the rankings. Anyone with an IQ over 80 realizes that new ranking methodologies are idiotic and it has negatively impacted these schools.

Only a blind IDIOT with no knowledge of history would NOT consider these schools T50.

A PP mentioned a historical ranking. Yes. Over the last 50 years these schools have been ranking in the top50. So YES, for purposes of discussing a t50, these schools are often mentioned….

Looking at the rankings of the four schools listed, W&M and Tulane are not currently Top 50 schools. I don’t keep track of yearly changes to ranking methodologies and don’t have a deep understanding of historical college rankings. When I want to know where a school is ranked, I typically go to the US News website, as it seems to be the most widely used source for college rankings. For that reason, I feel comfortable using it as a reference.

Younger people, who may lack your knowledge of college ranking history and are just beginning their research, will likely not see Tulane ranked in the T50 and therefore may not consider it a T50 school. At some point, if a school is not ranked in the T50, then it simply is not a T50 school.

Maybe I believe that the old ranking methodology was flawed and placed too much emphasis on factors like class size and percentage of graduates completing their degrees in four years. Perhaps a more diverse student body actually strengthens the educational experience by fostering soft skills, which are critical in both educational and professional settings.

On that note, it seems you could benefit from developing soft skills yourself—particularly in learning that effective communication doesn’t involve name-calling or ad hominem attacks simply because someone disagrees with you. Lastly, I find your use of the word "blind" problematic. Would a sighted individual make a better analysis of T50 schools simply by virtue of being sighted?

+1

The USNews ranking is for students and parents researching colleges TODAY. Not 20 years ago , or even 3 years ago. The alumni who don't like the current ranking because their private college slipped can STFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely flexible, since we're talking about US News here, which is crap to begin with. It would be nicer if DCUM could all use QS, THE or ARWU.

Why would that be used for U.S. UNDERGRADUATE education? They are largely research rankings.

If I am trying to determine the top colleges and universities, why would I only look at undergraduate education to determine top schools? Last I checked, cutting edge research was a key component of academia.

The argument is, sure the University of Washington advanced using AI to predict protein folding that will speed the development of new medicines, but they have larger Biology 101 classes than Wake Forest. U of W is a much more impactful university than Wake, by far.

Yes, that is exactly what you should look at, nothing more. How well does the school prepare a student over the first degree cycle. If you want to rank schools on research strength that is great, but it is not pertinent to undergraduate education.

At the undergraduate level, engineering, CS, accounting....they are all trades. You'll learn the same basic curriculum at any of them. ABET certified engineering programs all basically teach the same.

There is a reason that SLACs put a far greater proportion of their students into top B schools, Law schools, and PhD programs. They build a better product at the undergraduate level.

Having kids require grad school because they can’t get great jobs from undergrad sounds like failure to me.

You need to learn the difference between learning and training.

You are confused. It’s not that LAC students can’t get great jobs after their undergrad study. Plenty do. It’s that they often have higher expectations than just a good paying job, so go to grad school to qualify for the jobs which require the most education, often after a short break from school where they work in a job that prioritizes preparation for grad school over immediate financial rewards. That’s not for everyone, and that’s fine.

Not confused at all…especially when you make things up.

Know too many underemployed Swat and Haverford grads that had to attend grad school because their immediate options sucked.

Not all SLACs are equal…hence why CMC and Harvey Mudd grads as examples are able to productively enter the workforce on day 1.

Which is more likely…

The top grad schools keep accepting alumni from these schools into their ultra-selective programs attended by tomorrow’s leading experts across most fields because those students could only get jobs that “sucked” after college and the grad schools (apparently unlike their own less educated undergrad officials) don’t know how to evaluate ability…

…or….

The top grad schools keep accepting these alumni because their academic programs and work experience in jobs after college makes them the most qualified candidates for these ultra-selective programs?

You don’t seem to understand that top students will often use the gap between college and grad school on jobs better for learning specific skills relevant to grad programs than for immediate earning power because they have their eyes on a longer term prize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely flexible, since we're talking about US News here, which is crap to begin with. It would be nicer if DCUM could all use QS, THE or ARWU.

Why would that be used for U.S. UNDERGRADUATE education? They are largely research rankings.

If I am trying to determine the top colleges and universities, why would I only look at undergraduate education to determine top schools? Last I checked, cutting edge research was a key component of academia.

The argument is, sure the University of Washington advanced using AI to predict protein folding that will speed the development of new medicines, but they have larger Biology 101 classes than Wake Forest. U of W is a much more impactful university than Wake, by far.

Yes, that is exactly what you should look at, nothing more. How well does the school prepare a student over the first degree cycle. If you want to rank schools on research strength that is great, but it is not pertinent to undergraduate education.

At the undergraduate level, engineering, CS, accounting....they are all trades. You'll learn the same basic curriculum at any of them. ABET certified engineering programs all basically teach the same.

There is a reason that SLACs put a far greater proportion of their students into top B schools, Law schools, and PhD programs. They build a better product at the undergraduate level.

Having kids require grad school because they can’t get great jobs from undergrad sounds like failure to me.

You need to learn the difference between learning and training.

You are confused. It’s not that LAC students can’t get great jobs after their undergrad study. Plenty do. It’s that they often have higher expectations than just a good paying job, so go to grad school to qualify for the jobs which require the most education, often after a short break from school where they work in a job that prioritizes preparation for grad school over immediate financial rewards. That’s not for everyone, and that’s fine.

Not confused at all…especially when you make things up.

Know too many underemployed Swat and Haverford grads that had to attend grad school because their immediate options sucked.

Not all SLACs are equal…hence why CMC and Harvey Mudd grads as examples are able to productively enter the workforce on day 1.

Which is more likely…

The top grad schools keep accepting alumni from these schools into their ultra-selective programs attended by tomorrow’s leading experts across most fields because those students could only get jobs that “sucked” after college and the grad schools (apparently unlike their own less educated undergrad officials) don’t know how to evaluate ability…

…or….

The top grad schools keep accepting these alumni because their academic programs and work experience in jobs after college makes them the most qualified candidates for these ultra-selective programs?

You don’t seem to understand that top students will often use the gap between college and grad school on jobs better for learning specific skills relevant to grad programs than for immediate earning power because they have their eyes on a longer term prize.

Well then all these SLAC alums would be so wealthy…except they aren’t for the most part.

Hence, why when looking at the undergraduate schools of CEOs, PE folks hedge fund folks, tech founders, etc., these SLACs are poorly represented on a percentage and nominal basis.

So what’s this “longer term prize” you are pulling out of your ass?

[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:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

The US News rankings are deeply flawed. Two years ago, US News dropped things like class size, the qualifications of instructors, and the number of years it takes students to graduate. Instead, they prioritized the number of Pell Grant students at each school. These changes in the algorithm caused a number of private schools to drop, including some high endowment private schools that give excellent financial aid so that students don't need Pell Grants. Plus, they penalized schools for having smaller classes, professors with PhDs, and allowing the vast majority of students to graduate in four years. US News was clearly on a mission to boost public universities in their rankings.

Which, fine. It's their "magazine." But the effect was to make the US News rankings fairly useless for those who care about the quality of education. Most informed people don't think UC Merced with its 90 percent acceptance rate is a top 60 school. Only 30 percent of UC Merced students even graduate in 4 years. And yet US News ranks UC Merced much higher than hundreds of other schools that most regard as better academically. The whole ranking is filled with nonsense like that. People should look at US News if social mobility is their priority. But otherwise, look elsewhere if academics are important to you.

WSJ ratings are even more flawed than USNWR when it comes to rankings given their stew of ROI adjusted for "starting point" and graduation rates again adjusted for "similar socioeconomic profiles".

Which is why people are looking at Niche. WSJ dropped the ball - Babson at number 2? - with their very peculiar rankings. There's definitely a big space for a credible ranking after US News squandered their legitimacy.

Let’s face it…people are pissed about how Wake, Tulane, Tufts, William and Mary and a couple of others dropped in USNews.

So, fine, let’s use Niche:

- Wake is 48 vs 46 USnews
- Tulane is 69 vs 63 USNews
- Tufts is 47 vs 37 USNews
- W&M is 74 vs 54 USNews



Once more…these schools’ best rating are USNews. Niche, Forbes, WSJ, world rankings…they are all worse.

The only pissed people are either alumn morons who just follow the rankings. Anyone with an IQ over 80 realizes that new ranking methodologies are idiotic and it has negatively impacted these schools.

Only a blind IDIOT with no knowledge of history would NOT consider these schools T50.

A PP mentioned a historical ranking. Yes. Over the last 50 years these schools have been ranking in the top50. So YES, for purposes of discussing a t50, these schools are often mentioned….

How many times does someone have to make the point that the ONLY rankings where these schools fared decent were USNews.

To this day, they are still ranked highest by USNews, but for some reason literally every 3rd party is wrong.

[Anonymous]

I think of it as top 35 or so national universities and top 15 or so LACs. The test scores of all those institutions are elite.

I don’t include the military academies because they’re a whole other thing. Same for places like Juilliard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely flexible, since we're talking about US News here, which is crap to begin with. It would be nicer if DCUM could all use QS, THE or ARWU.

Why would that be used for U.S. UNDERGRADUATE education? They are largely research rankings.

If I am trying to determine the top colleges and universities, why would I only look at undergraduate education to determine top schools? Last I checked, cutting edge research was a key component of academia.

The argument is, sure the University of Washington advanced using AI to predict protein folding that will speed the development of new medicines, but they have larger Biology 101 classes than Wake Forest. U of W is a much more impactful university than Wake, by far.

Yes, that is exactly what you should look at, nothing more. How well does the school prepare a student over the first degree cycle. If you want to rank schools on research strength that is great, but it is not pertinent to undergraduate education.

At the undergraduate level, engineering, CS, accounting....they are all trades. You'll learn the same basic curriculum at any of them. ABET certified engineering programs all basically teach the same.

There is a reason that SLACs put a far greater proportion of their students into top B schools, Law schools, and PhD programs. They build a better product at the undergraduate level.

Having kids require grad school because they can’t get great jobs from undergrad sounds like failure to me.

You need to learn the difference between learning and training.

You are confused. It’s not that LAC students can’t get great jobs after their undergrad study. Plenty do. It’s that they often have higher expectations than just a good paying job, so go to grad school to qualify for the jobs which require the most education, often after a short break from school where they work in a job that prioritizes preparation for grad school over immediate financial rewards. That’s not for everyone, and that’s fine.

Not confused at all…especially when you make things up.

Know too many underemployed Swat and Haverford grads that had to attend grad school because their immediate options sucked.

Not all SLACs are equal…hence why CMC and Harvey Mudd grads as examples are able to productively enter the workforce on day 1.

Which is more likely…

The top grad schools keep accepting alumni from these schools into their ultra-selective programs attended by tomorrow’s leading experts across most fields because those students could only get jobs that “sucked” after college and the grad schools (apparently unlike their own less educated undergrad officials) don’t know how to evaluate ability…

…or….

The top grad schools keep accepting these alumni because their academic programs and work experience in jobs after college makes them the most qualified candidates for these ultra-selective programs?

You don’t seem to understand that top students will often use the gap between college and grad school on jobs better for learning specific skills relevant to grad programs than for immediate earning power because they have their eyes on a longer term prize.

Well then all these SLAC alums would be so wealthy…except they aren’t for the most part.

Hence, why when looking at the undergraduate schools of CEOs, PE folks hedge fund folks, tech founders, etc., these SLACs are poorly represented on a percentage and nominal basis.

So what’s this “longer term prize” you are pulling out of your ass?

So you don’t know those with a grad degree make on average over 20% more over their lifetime than those without? Or you don’t know the schools we are talking about having much higher than average grad school placement rates across all degree levels/types? Or you don’t know that College Scorecard measures earnings too soon after graduation to capture those grad degree boosts?

Not that everyone does or should prioritize earnings above all else; some would rather be an expert in their field or pursue a career of public service or have a certain lifestyle or whatever. But if we are looking at large numbers and not relying on anecdotes of the neighbor’s kids, grad degree recipients do already out-earn those that stop after undergraduate study. If you think that’s going to trend towards favoring less education with advances in AI and an increasingly skilled global workforce, you aren’t paying attention.

[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:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

The US News rankings are deeply flawed. Two years ago, US News dropped things like class size, the qualifications of instructors, and the number of years it takes students to graduate. Instead, they prioritized the number of Pell Grant students at each school. These changes in the algorithm caused a number of private schools to drop, including some high endowment private schools that give excellent financial aid so that students don't need Pell Grants. Plus, they penalized schools for having smaller classes, professors with PhDs, and allowing the vast majority of students to graduate in four years. US News was clearly on a mission to boost public universities in their rankings.

Which, fine. It's their "magazine." But the effect was to make the US News rankings fairly useless for those who care about the quality of education. Most informed people don't think UC Merced with its 90 percent acceptance rate is a top 60 school. Only 30 percent of UC Merced students even graduate in 4 years. And yet US News ranks UC Merced much higher than hundreds of other schools that most regard as better academically. The whole ranking is filled with nonsense like that. People should look at US News if social mobility is their priority. But otherwise, look elsewhere if academics are important to you.

WSJ ratings are even more flawed than USNWR when it comes to rankings given their stew of ROI adjusted for "starting point" and graduation rates again adjusted for "similar socioeconomic profiles".

Which is why people are looking at Niche. WSJ dropped the ball - Babson at number 2? - with their very peculiar rankings. There's definitely a big space for a credible ranking after US News squandered their legitimacy.

Let’s face it…people are pissed about how Wake, Tulane, Tufts, William and Mary and a couple of others dropped in USNews.

So, fine, let’s use Niche:

- Wake is 48 vs 46 USnews
- Tulane is 69 vs 63 USNews
- Tufts is 47 vs 37 USNews
- W&M is 74 vs 54 USNews



Once more…these schools’ best rating are USNews. Niche, Forbes, WSJ, world rankings…they are all worse.

The only pissed people are either alumn morons who just follow the rankings. Anyone with an IQ over 80 realizes that new ranking methodologies are idiotic and it has negatively impacted these schools.

Only a blind IDIOT with no knowledge of history would NOT consider these schools T50.

A PP mentioned a historical ranking. Yes. Over the last 50 years these schools have been ranking in the top50. So YES, for purposes of discussing a t50, these schools are often mentioned….

Looking at the rankings of the four schools listed, W&M and Tulane are not currently Top 50 schools. I don’t keep track of yearly changes to ranking methodologies and don’t have a deep understanding of historical college rankings. When I want to know where a school is ranked, I typically go to the US News website, as it seems to be the most widely used source for college rankings. For that reason, I feel comfortable using it as a reference.

Younger people, who may lack your knowledge of college ranking history and are just beginning their research, will likely not see Tulane ranked in the T50 and therefore may not consider it a T50 school. At some point, if a school is not ranked in the T50, then it simply is not a T50 school.

Maybe I believe that the old ranking methodology was flawed and placed too much emphasis on factors like class size and percentage of graduates completing their degrees in four years. Perhaps a more diverse student body actually strengthens the educational experience by fostering soft skills, which are critical in both educational and professional settings.

On that note, it seems you could benefit from developing soft skills yourself—particularly in learning that effective communication doesn’t involve name-calling or ad hominem attacks simply because someone disagrees with you. Lastly, I find your use of the word "blind" problematic. Would a sighted individual make a better analysis of T50 schools simply by virtue of being sighted?

+1

The USNews ranking is for students and parents researching colleges TODAY. Not 20 years ago , or even 3 years ago. The alumni who don't like the current ranking because their private college slipped can STFU.

The public school students are acting too brave. They will complain when US news goes back to the old methodology

[Anonymous]

“Acting too brave”… what does this even mean? I will not complain if my alma matar moves 15 or 50 places. It doesn’t impact my life. What’s funny is how much people people care.