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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again W&M was literally never behind VTech until the ranking changes. You're making my point for me.

DP. But it is now. And the vast majority of Americans use USNWR as at least one resource to help choose colleges.

Not anymore

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VT: 1360 (48% submitting scores)

Try again.

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

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

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

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

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

Are you the same person who always says this? No. W&M is not close to an ivy or elite private in ANY way. I mean, seriously? Do you hear yourself?
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VT: 1360 (48% submitting scores)

Try again.

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

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

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

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

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

Are you the same person who always says this? No. W&M is not close to an ivy or elite private in ANY way. I mean, seriously? Do you hear yourself?
DP

Not the PP.

W&M stats-wise is identical to UVA. If UVA is close to an "elite private" (i don't even know what the cutoff for that would be) because of its student body's academic chops, W&M has the exact same chops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No clue what's going on at Pepperdine.

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

DP. It's interesting that you have absolutely zero citations to back up the bolded claims. Nothing - just your "feelings." Plenty of "top kids" at our highly ranked NOVA public chose VT as their first choice - and would absolutely continue to ED it if they would bring back ED. You really, really don't know what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VT: 1360 (48% submitting scores)

Try again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W&M is absolutely nothing like an Ivy. Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

+1

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

Ditch the rankings and go by what you know matters.

Most schools do not have classes of 300+. And if they do, only a few. But do continue to exaggerate.

Look at the size of CS classes at UVA. https://louslist.org/page.php?Semester=1252&Type=Group&Group=CompSci

Sure, only a couple above 300, but you don't get a lecture below 150 people until 4th year. You can't pretend that's the same experience as CS at smaller schools like W&M where you won't find a class above 45, even at the intro level.
https://registration.wm.edu/?keyword=Csci&srcdb=202520

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VT: 1360 (48% submitting scores)

Try again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

W&M is absolutely nothing like an Ivy. Good grief.

They are talking about size you clown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody in Virginia with a kid applying to college thinks VT is better than W&M.

Wow... speak for yourself. The kids who choose VT aren't at all interested in W&M. Sorry to disappoint.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody in Virginia with a kid applying to college thinks VT is better than W&M.

WM is the angry elf from the movie Elf.

Seriously! As is the W&M booster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody in Virginia with a kid applying to college thinks VT is better than W&M.

Wow... speak for yourself. The kids who choose VT aren't at all interested in W&M. Sorry to disappoint.
DP

No one said that. The comment was about reputation, not application overlap/goals for college. Anyone could deduce that a 30,000+ school is a very different experience than a 7,000 school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody in Virginia with a kid applying to college thinks VT is better than W&M.

WM is the angry elf from the movie Elf.

Seriously! As is the W&M booster.

Not just one "booster".

There are multiple people on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UC Merced is equivalent to UMichigan.

The students admitted to UC Merced are of the same caliber as those admitted to UMichigan. I'm sure if you taught a class divided equally between UC Merced students and UMichigan students you would not see a difference.

Likewise the quality of undergraduate instruction is exactly the same.

Institutionally, the same resources available to UMichigan are available to UC Merced.

This isn't to pick on UMichigan (you can substitute any other large research university like UVA, UNC, Purdue, UMass, VA Tech, Texas, Iowa, etc).

No, these schools are not all interchangeable in terms of their student populations. I teach at a suburban high school. The students who are applying to UM, UVA and UT, are very different from the students applying to UIowa. And for the record, I love UIowa.

US News #s before social mobility:
UVA: 25
Michigan: 28
Austin: 56
Purdue: 56
VTech: 69
Merced: 165

The current US News is the reflection of the school TODAY! Who cares what the ranking was from 2 or 5 or 10 years ago. US News says UC Merced is roughly equivalent to those schools, by roughly equivalent, about in the same band. US News is used as a bible by a huge percentage of people. UC Merced is on par with those schools if you believe in US News.

US News overhauled its entire methodology. You are either a troll or unable to understand cause and effect.

DP. I think the point is that 99% of Americans simply don't care as obsessively as you clearly do about the "methodology." USNWR will continue to be the primary college ranking source in the U.S. for most people. Continue to seethe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The popular professors in large classes are creating shows for the students: https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2024/12/outlandish-skits-bring-flair-to-one-of-browns-largest-cs-courses
Top private universities like Brown are cutting course sections and increasing class sizes. I don't know what average class size means, when the popular majors have mostly large (to very large) lecture courses.

It’s really embarrassing that an elite institution not only thinks this is okay, but actively promotes this to its students, wasting time and tuition dollars. This is also not good teaching; it’s a mockery of education. I’m hoping this ridiculous show doesn’t spread to DS’s ivy

Snort. Listen to yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UC Merced is equivalent to UMichigan.

The students admitted to UC Merced are of the same caliber as those admitted to UMichigan. I'm sure if you taught a class divided equally between UC Merced students and UMichigan students you would not see a difference.

Likewise the quality of undergraduate instruction is exactly the same.

Institutionally, the same resources available to UMichigan are available to UC Merced.

This isn't to pick on UMichigan (you can substitute any other large research university like UVA, UNC, Purdue, UMass, VA Tech, Texas, Iowa, etc).

No, these schools are not all interchangeable in terms of their student populations. I teach at a suburban high school. The students who are applying to UM, UVA and UT, are very different from the students applying to UIowa. And for the record, I love UIowa.

US News #s before social mobility:
UVA: 25
Michigan: 28
Austin: 56
Purdue: 56
VTech: 69
Merced: 165

The current US News is the reflection of the school TODAY! Who cares what the ranking was from 2 or 5 or 10 years ago. US News says UC Merced is roughly equivalent to those schools, by roughly equivalent, about in the same band. US News is used as a bible by a huge percentage of people. UC Merced is on par with those schools if you believe in US News.

US News overhauled its entire methodology. You are either a troll or unable to understand cause and effect.

DP. I think the point is that 99% of Americans simply don't care as obsessively as you clearly do about the "methodology." USNWR will continue to be the primary college ranking source in the U.S. for most people. Continue to seethe.

Because of US News's continuous decline in relevancy, Niche is now the #1 most used rankings system in the U.S.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5810fea5e58c62bd729121cc/t/66df2c8af65e4f679f507a20/1725901962868/studentPOLL+September+2024+Rankings.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For example, US News no longer cares if colleges offer small classes. It does now care about number of Pell Grant recipients. Those are fine priorities. If they are yours, use current U News as your guide. If they are not, go back 3-4 years and follow those rankings.

This 1000%. While I am very happy if my kid's school supports the Pell Grant Recipients and other lower income students on campus (it's best for our society if we help ensure everyone gets a college degree that wants one), it doesn't affect my kid's education at all. However, taking majority of courses with only 25-40 students has a major impact on my kid's education. It means better access to professors as well (profs know you when you actually have discussions during classes and when the Prof actually has office hours as well rather than 10+ TAs holding various office hours.)

DP. Which school has "10+ TAs holding various office hours? My DC attends a large school and knows all of her professors, and they know her by name as well. I love the fiction that is being created on this thread.

I have a kid at college ranked #150++ a huge state school - all my kids classes have fewer than 30 students except one large seminar required for all honors college students. My kids middle school had bigger classes.

+1
I also have a kid a large state university and the majority of classes are between 20-40 students. Very, very few are the large auditorium-style classes. I think people who are SLAC boosters have no actual idea of what life is like at a large school.