Local implications for Chicago and WashU falling in 2024 college rankings

[Anonymous]

Parents who have posted that they want to find good school that haven’t gone overboard with “woke,” have a look at the schools that dropped significantly in this ranking. As the Vandy letter explains so clearly, the rankings have devalued the schools devoting resources to small classes, tenured PhD profs, and, yes, in many cases creature comforts that appeal to “rich kids.” Wash U, in particular, dropped a lot because it ranked high on all those measures—the spending per student is very high—and is likely behind the curve on equity measures (it became need-blind only a year ago). To each their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago and W&M have a similar problem - kids don’t want rigorous academics without a big dose of fun. W&M is hampered by the VA rule that requires 2/3 of students cone from VA. W&M is more like a LAC and most of those schools have 2000 kids, not 6500. Trying to squeeze so many admits out of VA plays to the strengths of NOVA, which is wealthy and educated. Then, W&M gets hit for insufficient Pell and first-gen, who if they’re going to go to college want STEM, which W&M partly has, but not engineering.

WUSTL is a a great school, but also a rich kid’s school. Not a lot of poors there.

UChicago got 37,000 applications for the Class of 2026. About 2,000 kids were accepted, and 1,700 enrolled.

I don’t think they have a problem with kids not wanting to go there.

Poor kids don’t want to go there.

[Anonymous]

^ Poor kids want engineering. UChicago doesn’t have an engineering school.

[Anonymous]

I really hope fewer kids apply to Chicago based on this pseudoscientific clickbait fraud. The kids who really belong there (brilliant hard workers who don't care about partying or athletics) will have a better chance of getting in. The student body will be happier too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chicago and W&M have a similar problem - kids don’t want rigorous academics without a big dose of fun. W&M is hampered by the VA rule that requires 2/3 of students cone from VA. W&M is more like a LAC and most of those schools have 2000 kids, not 6500. Trying to squeeze so many admits out of VA plays to the strengths of NOVA, which is wealthy and educated. Then, W&M gets hit for insufficient Pell and first-gen, who if they’re going to go to college want STEM, which W&M partly has, but not engineering.

WUSTL is a a great school, but also a rich kid’s school. Not a lot of poors there.

From the plans it would look like they are planning to start offering some engineering in a few years, though, no? https://www.wm.edu/offices/facilities/departments-directors/fpdc/construction/currentprojects/isc4.php

I don't think it will ever become a big sports rah-rah school though and it is hard to imagine all FGLI are attracted to rah-rah by default.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really hope fewer kids apply to Chicago based on this pseudoscientific clickbait fraud. The kids who really belong there (brilliant hard workers who don't care about partying or athletics) will have a better chance of getting in. The student body will be happier too.

Totally agree. I was so sad when UChicago started taking the Common App.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago and W&M have a similar problem - kids don’t want rigorous academics without a big dose of fun. W&M is hampered by the VA rule that requires 2/3 of students cone from VA. W&M is more like a LAC and most of those schools have 2000 kids, not 6500. Trying to squeeze so many admits out of VA plays to the strengths of NOVA, which is wealthy and educated. Then, W&M gets hit for insufficient Pell and first-gen, who if they’re going to go to college want STEM, which W&M partly has, but not engineering.

WUSTL is a a great school, but also a rich kid’s school. Not a lot of poors there.

From the plans it would look like they are planning to start offering some engineering in a few years, though, no? https://www.wm.edu/offices/facilities/departments-directors/fpdc/construction/currentprojects/isc4.php

I don't think it will ever become a big sports rah-rah school though and it is hard to imagine all FGLI are attracted to rah-rah by default.

WM - and some other schools - don’t really fit on the national university list and it seems like WM should really be ranked with the liberal arts schools. They don’t really have many graduate programs, it’s basically an undergrad institution. That’s one of the many things about these rankings that are silly. You aren’t comparing apples to apples.

The new rankings have Tufts and a Rutgers tied. No question you can get a good education at Rutgers and the value for the money may make sense but I think it’s clear that the caliber of student at Tufts is a lot higher across the board. All else being equal I think Tufts is a better school. Now, in the real world, all else isn’t equal and I can certainly understand someone not wanting to pay for Tufts vs Rutgers but I think the new methodology has deviated from assessing the schools based on the overall quality of the education.

[Anonymous]

I'd argue that people whose understanding of the rankings is superficial enough that it affects whether or not they would apply to Chicago aren't actually smart enough to go there. Chicago as an academic institution is an absolute powerhouse, and I wouldn't blink an eye at any student who would choose it over HYP.

That said, one of the problems with college rankings is that they attempt to quantify an experience that cannot be completely quantified by applying a one-size-fits-all metric to schools that can't all be measured by that standard. Take, for example, the alumni giving rate that U.S. News used to include as part of its formula. It is a good measure of comparison with respect to the wealthiest private colleges and universities: it has never been any surprise that top-ranked liberal arts colleges and the Ivies with comparatively few graduate programs have high giving rates year after year while Harvard College, which caters to its grad programs, never has a giving rate above 35%. But this factor is fairly meaningless when used as an indication of alum satisfaction amongst graduates of public colleges and universities for the simple reason that these schools are perceived as being taxpayer-funded and for this reason do not inspire the kinds of donations that private schools do.

Or consider rankings based upon ROI. Traditionally, Chicago has attracted intensely academic students who then earn PhDs and go into academia. Consequently, because academics as a group make way less money than engineers or hedge fund employees, Chicago's ROI has been lower than those of peer schools whose alums disproportionately work on Wall St. Similarly, women's colleges have lower ROIs than those of coed peer schools. But the reason for this disparity has nothing to do with the quality of education at the schools themselves. Anyone with half a brain (which unfortunately is not most people, including many of those on this board) would know that several factors, including the fact that it's 2023 and women still do a disproportionate amount of hand-on parenting, affect whether women go into the highest-paid and most time-consuming professions. But the alums of women's colleges who do go into these professions have a very high success rate: most of the highest ranking women on Wall St. are Wellesley alums.

And yet, paradoxically, one of the benefits of college rankings is that they can introduce students and their families to great schools they might not have otherwise considered. A student from, say, NJ who is familiar only with schools on the East Coast might well become int'd in applying to Pomona after seeing that students there are competitive with those at, say, Williams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago and W&M have a similar problem - kids don’t want rigorous academics without a big dose of fun. W&M is hampered by the VA rule that requires 2/3 of students cone from VA. W&M is more like a LAC and most of those schools have 2000 kids, not 6500. Trying to squeeze so many admits out of VA plays to the strengths of NOVA, which is wealthy and educated. Then, W&M gets hit for insufficient Pell and first-gen, who if they’re going to go to college want STEM, which W&M partly has, but not engineering.

WUSTL is a a great school, but also a rich kid’s school. Not a lot of poors there.

From the plans it would look like they are planning to start offering some engineering in a few years, though, no? https://www.wm.edu/offices/facilities/departments-directors/fpdc/construction/currentprojects/isc4.php

I don't think it will ever become a big sports rah-rah school though and it is hard to imagine all FGLI are attracted to rah-rah by default.

WM - and some other schools - don’t really fit on the national university list and it seems like WM should really be ranked with the liberal arts schools. They don’t really have many graduate programs, it’s basically an undergrad institution. That’s one of the many things about these rankings that are silly. You aren’t comparing apples to apples.

The new rankings have Tufts and a Rutgers tied. No question you can get a good education at Rutgers and the value for the money may make sense but I think it’s clear that the caliber of student at Tufts is a lot higher across the board. All else being equal I think Tufts is a better school. Now, in the real world, all else isn’t equal and I can certainly understand someone not wanting to pay for Tufts vs Rutgers but I think the new methodology has deviated from assessing the schools based on the overall quality of the education.

+1 I really think this is going to hurt the USNWR--people always complained about its lack of credibility, but the new methodology coming at a time when test optional is also shaking things up, just is a bridge too far. I think it's going to be like GreatSchools rankings where a larger majority of people think they are crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago and W&M have a similar problem - kids don’t want rigorous academics without a big dose of fun. W&M is hampered by the VA rule that requires 2/3 of students cone from VA. W&M is more like a LAC and most of those schools have 2000 kids, not 6500. Trying to squeeze so many admits out of VA plays to the strengths of NOVA, which is wealthy and educated. Then, W&M gets hit for insufficient Pell and first-gen, who if they’re going to go to college want STEM, which W&M partly has, but not engineering.

WUSTL is a a great school, but also a rich kid’s school. Not a lot of poors there.

From the plans it would look like they are planning to start offering some engineering in a few years, though, no? https://www.wm.edu/offices/facilities/departments-directors/fpdc/construction/currentprojects/isc4.php

I don't think it will ever become a big sports rah-rah school though and it is hard to imagine all FGLI are attracted to rah-rah by default.

WM - and some other schools - don’t really fit on the national university list and it seems like WM should really be ranked with the liberal arts schools. They don’t really have many graduate programs, it’s basically an undergrad institution. That’s one of the many things about these rankings that are silly. You aren’t comparing apples to apples.

The new rankings have Tufts and a Rutgers tied. No question you can get a good education at Rutgers and the value for the money may make sense but I think it’s clear that the caliber of student at Tufts is a lot higher across the board. All else being equal I think Tufts is a better school. Now, in the real world, all else isn’t equal and I can certainly understand someone not wanting to pay for Tufts vs Rutgers but I think the new methodology has deviated from assessing the schools based on the overall quality of the education.

+1 I really think this is going to hurt the USNWR--people always complained about its lack of credibility, but the new methodology coming at a time when test optional is also shaking things up, just is a bridge too far. I think it's going to be like GreatSchools rankings where a larger majority of people think they are crap.

+1. US News is trying to get the tail to wag the dog. Not how it works. They've been slowly making changes for years, but such a large change in a single year will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd argue that people whose understanding of the rankings is superficial enough that it affects whether or not they would apply to Chicago aren't actually smart enough to go there. Chicago as an academic institution is an absolute powerhouse, and I wouldn't blink an eye at any student who would choose it over HYP.

That said, one of the problems with college rankings is that they attempt to quantify an experience that cannot be completely quantified by applying a one-size-fits-all metric to schools that can't all be measured by that standard. Take, for example, the alumni giving rate that U.S. News used to include as part of its formula. It is a good measure of comparison with respect to the wealthiest private colleges and universities: it has never been any surprise that top-ranked liberal arts colleges and the Ivies with comparatively few graduate programs have high giving rates year after year while Harvard College, which caters to its grad programs, never has a giving rate above 35%. But this factor is fairly meaningless when used as an indication of alum satisfaction amongst graduates of public colleges and universities for the simple reason that these schools are perceived as being taxpayer-funded and for this reason do not inspire the kinds of donations that private schools do.

Or consider rankings based upon ROI. Traditionally, Chicago has attracted intensely academic students who then earn PhDs and go into academia. Consequently, because academics as a group make way less money than engineers or hedge fund employees, Chicago's ROI has been lower than those of peer schools whose alums disproportionately work on Wall St. Similarly, women's colleges have lower ROIs than those of coed peer schools. But the reason for this disparity has nothing to do with the quality of education at the schools themselves. Anyone with half a brain (which unfortunately is not most people, including many of those on this board) would know that several factors, including the fact that it's 2023 and women still do a disproportionate amount of hand-on parenting, affect whether women go into the highest-paid and most time-consuming professions. But the alums of women's colleges who do go into these professions have a very high success rate: most of the highest ranking women on Wall St. are Wellesley alums.

And yet, paradoxically, one of the benefits of college rankings is that they can introduce students and their families to great schools they might not have otherwise considered. A student from, say, NJ who is familiar only with schools on the East Coast might well become int'd in applying to Pomona after seeing that students there are competitive with those at, say, Williams.

Right. But you have idiots on this board like the one who declared that alums aren’t visiting UChicago that much because it doesn’t have Greek life and high profile sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd argue that people whose understanding of the rankings is superficial enough that it affects whether or not they would apply to Chicago aren't actually smart enough to go there. Chicago as an academic institution is an absolute powerhouse, and I wouldn't blink an eye at any student who would choose it over HYP.

That said, one of the problems with college rankings is that they attempt to quantify an experience that cannot be completely quantified by applying a one-size-fits-all metric to schools that can't all be measured by that standard. Take, for example, the alumni giving rate that U.S. News used to include as part of its formula. It is a good measure of comparison with respect to the wealthiest private colleges and universities: it has never been any surprise that top-ranked liberal arts colleges and the Ivies with comparatively few graduate programs have high giving rates year after year while Harvard College, which caters to its grad programs, never has a giving rate above 35%. But this factor is fairly meaningless when used as an indication of alum satisfaction amongst graduates of public colleges and universities for the simple reason that these schools are perceived as being taxpayer-funded and for this reason do not inspire the kinds of donations that private schools do.

Or consider rankings based upon ROI. Traditionally, Chicago has attracted intensely academic students who then earn PhDs and go into academia. Consequently, because academics as a group make way less money than engineers or hedge fund employees, Chicago's ROI has been lower than those of peer schools whose alums disproportionately work on Wall St. Similarly, women's colleges have lower ROIs than those of coed peer schools. But the reason for this disparity has nothing to do with the quality of education at the schools themselves. Anyone with half a brain (which unfortunately is not most people, including many of those on this board) would know that several factors, including the fact that it's 2023 and women still do a disproportionate amount of hand-on parenting, affect whether women go into the highest-paid and most time-consuming professions. But the alums of women's colleges who do go into these professions have a very high success rate: most of the highest ranking women on Wall St. are Wellesley alums.

And yet, paradoxically, one of the benefits of college rankings is that they can introduce students and their families to great schools they might not have otherwise considered. A student from, say, NJ who is familiar only with schools on the East Coast might well become int'd in applying to Pomona after seeing that students there are competitive with those at, say, Williams.

You are the one who's clueless. Your perception of U Chicago is outdated at best. The "intellectual powerhouse" where most students go onto PhDs was 30 years (maybe when you went to college). Today, it's more common that U Chicago students gun for investment banking on Wall St. The school caters to B+ students from elite private schools (if you ED). U Chicago is accepting 10-15+ kids every year from these tiny private schools. This image of U Chicago being for "quirky intellectual" kids is so outdated. Out of the 7 kids I know that went there, not a single one fit that mold. In fact, I would say 6 out of the 7 were partiers (still solid academic students but definitely not serious intellectuals).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd argue that people whose understanding of the rankings is superficial enough that it affects whether or not they would apply to Chicago aren't actually smart enough to go there. Chicago as an academic institution is an absolute powerhouse, and I wouldn't blink an eye at any student who would choose it over HYP.

That said, one of the problems with college rankings is that they attempt to quantify an experience that cannot be completely quantified by applying a one-size-fits-all metric to schools that can't all be measured by that standard. Take, for example, the alumni giving rate that U.S. News used to include as part of its formula. It is a good measure of comparison with respect to the wealthiest private colleges and universities: it has never been any surprise that top-ranked liberal arts colleges and the Ivies with comparatively few graduate programs have high giving rates year after year while Harvard College, which caters to its grad programs, never has a giving rate above 35%. But this factor is fairly meaningless when used as an indication of alum satisfaction amongst graduates of public colleges and universities for the simple reason that these schools are perceived as being taxpayer-funded and for this reason do not inspire the kinds of donations that private schools do.

Or consider rankings based upon ROI. Traditionally, Chicago has attracted intensely academic students who then earn PhDs and go into academia. Consequently, because academics as a group make way less money than engineers or hedge fund employees, Chicago's ROI has been lower than those of peer schools whose alums disproportionately work on Wall St. Similarly, women's colleges have lower ROIs than those of coed peer schools. But the reason for this disparity has nothing to do with the quality of education at the schools themselves. Anyone with half a brain (which unfortunately is not most people, including many of those on this board) would know that several factors, including the fact that it's 2023 and women still do a disproportionate amount of hand-on parenting, affect whether women go into the highest-paid and most time-consuming professions. But the alums of women's colleges who do go into these professions have a very high success rate: most of the highest ranking women on Wall St. are Wellesley alums.

And yet, paradoxically, one of the benefits of college rankings is that they can introduce students and their families to great schools they might not have otherwise considered. A student from, say, NJ who is familiar only with schools on the East Coast might well become int'd in applying to Pomona after seeing that students there are competitive with those at, say, Williams.

You are the one who's clueless. Your perception of U Chicago is outdated at best. The "intellectual powerhouse" where most students go onto PhDs was 30 years (maybe when you went to college). Today, it's more common that U Chicago students gun for investment banking on Wall St. The school caters to B+ students from elite private schools (if you ED). U Chicago is accepting 10-15+ kids every year from these tiny private schools. This image of U Chicago being for "quirky intellectual" kids is so outdated. Out of the 7 kids I know that went there, not a single one fit that mold. In fact, I would say 6 out of the 7 were partiers (still solid academic students but definitely not serious intellectuals).

Are those kids happy at Chicago? The kids from my son's DC private who attend Chicago are also smart but generally not serious intellectuals... but are they fish out of water at Chicago? Is much of the rest of the study body quirky intellectuals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago and W&M have a similar problem - kids don’t want rigorous academics without a big dose of fun. W&M is hampered by the VA rule that requires 2/3 of students cone from VA. W&M is more like a LAC and most of those schools have 2000 kids, not 6500. Trying to squeeze so many admits out of VA plays to the strengths of NOVA, which is wealthy and educated. Then, W&M gets hit for insufficient Pell and first-gen, who if they’re going to go to college want STEM, which W&M partly has, but not engineering.

WUSTL is a a great school, but also a rich kid’s school. Not a lot of poors there.

From the plans it would look like they are planning to start offering some engineering in a few years, though, no? https://www.wm.edu/offices/facilities/departments-directors/fpdc/construction/currentprojects/isc4.php

I don't think it will ever become a big sports rah-rah school though and it is hard to imagine all FGLI are attracted to rah-rah by default.

WM - and some other schools - don’t really fit on the national university list and it seems like WM should really be ranked with the liberal arts schools. They don’t really have many graduate programs, it’s basically an undergrad institution. That’s one of the many things about these rankings that are silly. You aren’t comparing apples to apples.

The new rankings have Tufts and a Rutgers tied. No question you can get a good education at Rutgers and the value for the money may make sense but I think it’s clear that the caliber of student at Tufts is a lot higher across the board. All else being equal I think Tufts is a better school. Now, in the real world, all else isn’t equal and I can certainly understand someone not wanting to pay for Tufts vs Rutgers but I think the new methodology has deviated from assessing the schools based on the overall quality of the education.

The difference in selectivity between Tufts and Rutgers is significant. Not to mention that Rutgers multi campus structure is really unappealing to most kids, no one likes shuttling around on the bus every day to get to their classes. This is why real life decisions probably should be made apart from the rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chicago and W&M have a similar problem - kids don’t want rigorous academics without a big dose of fun. W&M is hampered by the VA rule that requires 2/3 of students cone from VA. W&M is more like a LAC and most of those schools have 2000 kids, not 6500. Trying to squeeze so many admits out of VA plays to the strengths of NOVA, which is wealthy and educated. Then, W&M gets hit for insufficient Pell and first-gen, who if they’re going to go to college want STEM, which W&M partly has, but not engineering.

WUSTL is a a great school, but also a rich kid’s school. Not a lot of poors there.

Yup. +10