New US News rankings are out

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poor Terp Boy - #63 when UVA is #25 is not easy to accept.

THE. Bugs you, doesn’t it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor Terp Boy - #63 when UVA is #25 is not easy to accept.

THE. Bugs you, doesn’t it?

Don’t forget QS. Ouch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poor Terp Boy - #63 when UVA is #25 is not easy to accept.

Among public schools

UVA - 3
UMD - 22

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not number of Pell grants. It is the graduation rate for Pell grant recipients. Which seems fair.

Actually, it's both. Look it up.

As posted above, it not both. It is the graduation rate of Pell grant recipients in both an absolute value, and relative to non recipients.

It is absolutely NOT that simple. As was posted above, "[s]cores for the new social mobility indicators were then adjusted by the proportion of the entering class that was awarded Pell Grants because achieving a higher low-income student graduation rate is more challenging with a larger proportion of low-income students."

Looking beyond the UC schools, Grinnell is a good example of a school that clearly benefited from the change. It has a high percentage of Pell grant recipients compared to most elite SLACs, and they graduate at the same rate as non-Pell recipients. The school jumped from #18 to #11.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not number of Pell grants. It is the graduation rate for Pell grant recipients. Which seems fair.

Actually, it's both. Look it up.

As posted above, it not both. It is the graduation rate of Pell grant recipients in both an absolute value, and relative to non recipients.

It is absolutely NOT that simple. As was posted above, "[s]cores for the new social mobility indicators were then adjusted by the proportion of the entering class that was awarded Pell Grants because achieving a higher low-income student graduation rate is more challenging with a larger proportion of low-income students."

Looking beyond the UC schools, Grinnell is a good example of a school that clearly benefited from the change. It has a high percentage of Pell grant recipients compared to most elite SLACs, and they graduate at the same rate as non-Pell recipients. The school jumped from #18 to #11.

Perhaps UVA and W&M will now start rejecting even more students from NOVA because their income is too high to qualify for Pell . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not number of Pell grants. It is the graduation rate for Pell grant recipients. Which seems fair.

Actually, it's both. Look it up.

As posted above, it not both. It is the graduation rate of Pell grant recipients in both an absolute value, and relative to non recipients.

It is absolutely NOT that simple. As was posted above, "[s]cores for the new social mobility indicators were then adjusted by the proportion of the entering class that was awarded Pell Grants because achieving a higher low-income student graduation rate is more challenging with a larger proportion of low-income students."

Looking beyond the UC schools, Grinnell is a good example of a school that clearly benefited from the change. It has a high percentage of Pell grant recipients compared to most elite SLACs, and they graduate at the same rate as non-Pell recipients. The school jumped from #18 to #11.

Perhaps UVA and W&M will now start rejecting even more students from NOVA because their income is too high to qualify for Pell . . .

That's an interesting thought. This change could benefit students who are from lower-cost-of-living areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor Terp Boy - #63 when UVA is #25 is not easy to accept.

Among public schools

UVA - 3
UMD - 22

QS 192. 192! Hilarious. Basically a shithole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor Terp Boy - #63 when UVA is #25 is not easy to accept.

Among public schools

UVA - 3
UMD - 22

QS 192. 192! Hilarious. Basically a shithole.

What is QS?

Here's another stat for you.

UVA: ugly and sad losers, 100%
UMD: awesome, 100%

[Anonymous]

An advantage of the WSJ/THE rankings are that they include SLACs in the same ranking so you can see where the SLACS fall in relation to larger schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL

I guarantee Stanford and Yale win like 95% of the dual admits vs Columbia and Chicago.

But I guess they have to sell magazines and generate website clicks.

These rankings aren’t about who would win the dual-admits, aka prestige. They include a lot of other measures like retention, graduation rates, scores, and more.

That said, agree they wouldn’t sell anything if the rankings didn’t change from year to year. So Stanford drops down to 7 this year, even if the index is just a few decimal places away from the colleges above ot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An advantage of the WSJ/THE rankings are that they include SLACs in the same ranking so you can see where the SLACS fall in relation to larger schools.

So did Forbes. I've heard some say they are like comparing apples and oranges, but in fact students apply to both, so there is merit in combining them.

I actually think Forbes is now the best ranking. The change in methodology in USNWR has had some strange outcomes. I know it remains the gold standard, but at the same time, I don't feel as comfortable using it as a reference point for my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LOL

I guarantee Stanford and Yale win like 95% of the dual admits vs Columbia and Chicago.

But I guess they have to sell magazines and generate website clicks.

These rankings aren’t about who would win the dual-admits, aka prestige. They include a lot of other measures like retention, graduation rates, scores, and more.

That said, agree they wouldn’t sell anything if the rankings didn’t change from year to year. So Stanford drops down to 7 this year, even if the index is just a few decimal places away from the colleges above ot

Stanford is a strange case. USNWR has it at 7 and that is about where it has typically been for a while, but I would say its only real rival right now for overall supremacy is Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The metrics used by USNews is junk now. Social Mobility as measured by graduation rate of Pell Grant recipients?!!! Total BS!!
They have also removed admit rate completely and lowered the weight for scores and class rank. They just randomly adjust these percentages or weights and tweak them till they get the answer they want. Pathetic.

But they still give so much weight to the ranking by other college heads which makes it just a stupid subjective list!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An advantage of the WSJ/THE rankings are that they include SLACs in the same ranking so you can see where the SLACS fall in relation to larger schools.

So did Forbes. I've heard some say they are like comparing apples and oranges, but in fact students apply to both, so there is merit in combining them.

I actually think Forbes is now the best ranking. The change in methodology in USNWR has had some strange outcomes. I know it remains the gold standard, but at the same time, I don't feel as comfortable using it as a reference point for my kids.

I agree. Its one list. Just easier to look at. USNWR has shown its prejudice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UF! As a grad, I like to see that ranking!

Me too! What a great 4 years I had there. Walked out with minimal debt and straight into a job in my field. And lifelong friends.

I thought the experience was a great mix: competitive without being crushingly stressful, Greek but not too Greek, every major imaginable, beautiful campus. A ton of things to do and lots of school spirit.

Go Gators!

UF has been quietly climbing many rankings. Endowment is up and research $$ is approaching nearly $1B/year.