Wake Forest ranking drop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

W&M is the only public on this list. Generally, public schools fared better with the new methodology. Maybe W&M’s small size prevents it from offering huge aid? Or is it something else?

Who knows…usually the lower in state tuition helps alleviate any aid concerns.

I know W&M has a fairly high OOS attendance rate.

[Anonymous]

Stop giving so much credence to these "rankings." The schools haven't changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stop giving so much credence to these "rankings." The schools haven't changed.

Too late lol if these schools touted their ranking for decades, don’t suddenly decide that the rankings don’t matter now that you don’t like where your school is ranked. If the schools haven’t changed maybe they didn’t deserve the higher ranking to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Wake has ridiculously small class sizes and nearly all classes taught by a full professor. Lehigh apparently does not, as it went up in rankings when these factors were removed.

Hm. Only about 30% of Wake’s faculty hold the rank of full professor. The rest are assistant, associate, and full/part-time lecturers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop giving so much credence to these "rankings." The schools haven't changed.

Too late lol if these schools touted their ranking for decades, don’t suddenly decide that the rankings don’t matter now that you don’t like where your school is ranked. If the schools haven’t changed maybe they didn’t deserve the higher ranking to begin with.

But the rankings criteria has changed in ways that give advantages to large schools, schools with high percentage Pell grant and high percentage first gen.

If the ranking criteria had remained the same and schools dropped, that would be meaningful. But that isn’t what occurred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Wake has ridiculously small class sizes and nearly all classes taught by a full professor. Lehigh apparently does not, as it went up in rankings when these factors were removed.

Hm. Only about 30% of Wake’s faculty hold the rank of full professor. The rest are assistant, associate, and full/part-time lecturers.

You’re right, I misspoke. No TAs teach classes at Wake. I would ask if you were happy now, but you clearly are always miserable and so weirdly fixated on Wake that you start threads about it every week to troll. And that is pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:25% of all Wake's students study business. According to Poets and Quants, its undergraduate business school is a top 20 school in the country.

That isn't going to change because of US News.

Most people haven’t heard of Poets and Quants but unfortunately many people blindly follow USNWR, so you’re kidding yourself if you think Wake’s huge USNWR ranking decline doesn’t matter.

Applications to Wake have gone up each of the past two years since the ranking methodology was changed.

Applications don’t matter. Has their yield increased or decreased?

I doubt it’s changed if student interest in the school is increasing. Why don’t you research that and report back, Emory mom.

You haven’t actually proven that interest is increasing. Applications are up at most places that people on here care about. You can either run the numbers and show us that Wake’s app increase is higher than the average increase or calculate yield to see if that has increased. You make that claim, you can run the numbers to prove your point. Until then nobody believes you.

You are certifiably insane. Last year, Wake received a record number of applications. Source— their admissions blog, google it. I have no idea how that compares to other schools nor do I care.

When you people don’t have any actual arguments they pivot to personal insults and double down on a weak argument, just as you’ve done. JMU received record apps this year, so they are just like Wake now based on your argument.

Did someone say that JMU had decreasing apps, because that was said about Wake and what I responded to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You’re right, I misspoke. No TAs teach classes at Wake. I would ask if you were happy now, but you clearly are always miserable and so weirdly fixated on Wake that you start threads about it every week to troll. And that is pathetic.

Sorry? I’m a very infrequent poster on this board, and I’m not sure I’ve ever said anything about Wake before.

I should’ve clarified my explanation: the fact that the majority of Wake’s faculty do not have the rank of full professor is not a AT ALL a bad thing. I don’t think there is a university in the country that has the lion’s share of its faculty at the rank of full. The majority that are at assistant and associate level are still full-time and tenure-track.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to Rhee 63
W&M: 41 to 54arger percentage
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

Larger percentage of Pell grant/first gen kids and for some, more research funding. Emory in particular has a long standing relationship with Questbridge. Also less affected by removal of class size and percentage of alumni giving as factors.

Emory does not have more questbridge students then say... Vanderbilt or WashU etc. The lot of you cannot grasp that the schools you're DC got into (ie Tufts, Wake, Tulane, W&M, BC etc) ARE NOT NOR WILL EVER BE peers with Emory. The reputation score is most important factor in most rankings where Emory is tied for 22. The others do not compare.

DP- You seem seriously mentally ill. If Emory’s decline in rankings triggers you this severely, then maybe it’s time to take a break. Look, it’s probably hard for Emory to attract top students in-state when they have to compete with GT and UGA.

Most GT and UGa students don't/couldn't get into Emory, so how does that work?

Cite?

Easy,... per CDS
Emory- instate AR 12.7%, 1480-1540, 32-35
GT- Instate AR 33%, 1370-1530, 30-34
UGA-Instae AR 50%, 1230-1410, 27-32

Do you have anything other than outdated stats? lol we all know admissions isn’t just based on stats. Try harder.

These are 2024 numbers, what ate you talking about. PP said Emory is struggling to get instate students but how when they can't get into Emory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop giving so much credence to these "rankings." The schools haven't changed.

Too late lol if these schools touted their ranking for decades, don’t suddenly decide that the rankings don’t matter now that you don’t like where your school is ranked. If the schools haven’t changed maybe they didn’t deserve the higher ranking to begin with.

But the rankings criteria has changed in ways that give advantages to large schools, schools with high percentage Pell grant and high percentage first gen.

If the ranking criteria had remained the same and schools dropped, that would be meaningful. But that isn’t what occurred.

To which most of us say...so what. None of this much explains why Tulane and Wake were negatively impacted the most dramatically by far, especially when compared to their peer schools.

Wake doesn't really rank highly anywhere...it's much worse at Forbes and WSJ, neither of which care that much about those things. If anything, you would expect it to rank very highly if the main rankings were based on student outcomes and salaries...but it doesn't rank highly there either.

[Anonymous]

Wake is a peer of Emory. Wake's affluence obviously rubs people wrong, but it still give a lot of need based aid and has increaed it appreciably in the past decade.

[Anonymous]

Wake is not popular among Asian students, Emory is. DCUM has a lot of Asian posters. Pretty much explains this whole thread and every other thread about Wake.

[Anonymous]

My Asian kid looked at Wake. Great school but they didn’t feel that it was the best fit socially. They wanted a place with a more urban vibe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to Rhee 63
W&M: 41 to 54arger percentage
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

Larger percentage of Pell grant/first gen kids and for some, more research funding. Emory in particular has a long standing relationship with Questbridge. Also less affected by removal of class size and percentage of alumni giving as factors.

Emory does not have more questbridge students then say... Vanderbilt or WashU etc. The lot of you cannot grasp that the schools you're DC got into (ie Tufts, Wake, Tulane, W&M, BC etc) ARE NOT NOR WILL EVER BE peers with Emory. The reputation score is most important factor in most rankings where Emory is tied for 22. The others do not compare.

DP- You seem seriously mentally ill. If Emory’s decline in rankings triggers you this severely, then maybe it’s time to take a break. Look, it’s probably hard for Emory to attract top students in-state when they have to compete with GT and UGA.

Most GT and UGa students don't/couldn't get into Emory, so how does that work?

Cite?

Easy,... per CDS
Emory- instate AR 12.7%, 1480-1540, 32-35
GT- Instate AR 33%, 1370-1530, 30-34
UGA-Instae AR 50%, 1230-1410, 27-32

Do you have anything other than outdated stats? lol we all know admissions isn’t just based on stats. Try harder.

These are 2024 numbers, what ate you talking about. PP said Emory is struggling to get instate students but how when they can't get into Emory?

You haven’t proven they can’t get in. You don’t even know if top kids apply to Emory. Why would they when GT and UGA offer just as much if not more when you consider the overall experience. How’s Emory school spirit compared to UGA? LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wake is a peer of Emory. Wake's affluence obviously rubs people wrong, but it still give a lot of need based aid and has increaed it appreciably in the past decade.

It's not. Emory doesn't name Wake a peer so the feeling inst mutual.