Which universities have gone DOWN in stature over the years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's important to recognize that the concept of "stature" as it's thrown around on this site often has little to do with educational quality.

Small liberal arts colleges have been hurt (generally) in "stature" - not quality - by the bias of the stupid USNWR rankings towards large research universities. Which has led to the ghettoization of SLACs like Williams and Amherst on a separate list and the under-ranking of low-research "universities" like Dartmouth and Brown -- notwithstanding that the best of these are generally assessed as offering a better undergraduate educational experience. Those undergraduate-focused schools aren't hurting - they're growing their programs and endowment, they continue to turn away 8.5 or 9 applicants for every one they accept, more than half the students who are admitted chose to attend them, and their alums continue to out-earn those from bigger undergraduate diploma mills. But all that said, in terms of "stature" or "prestige" or the other dumb non-educational 'popularity/buzz' measures that DCUM airheads and uninformed chatter about endlessly, the smaller schools have come to be perceived as being somehow less prestigious (admittedly to a population of idiots), and less likely to attract common apps from families (because let's be honest, parents are a big part of the problem here) that are more focused on prestige/stature and rankings than on education quality.

A generation ago, it was harder (and reasonably so) to get into Amherst and Williams than into most Ivies; now it's easier to get into Williams than it is to get into Rice or USC (or fraudulent Columbia), which is simply bizarre and indefensible if we're talking about the quality of an undergraduate education. And another example of how the inventors/perpetrators of the USNWR ranking scheme have done great harm to US higher education and its users and should, if there's any justice, forever rot in hell.

Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's important to recognize that the concept of "stature" as it's thrown around on this site often has little to do with educational quality.

Small liberal arts colleges have been hurt (generally) in "stature" - not quality - by the bias of the stupid USNWR rankings towards large research universities. Which has led to the ghettoization of SLACs like Williams and Amherst on a separate list and the under-ranking of low-research "universities" like Dartmouth and Brown -- notwithstanding that the best of these are generally assessed as offering a better undergraduate educational experience. Those undergraduate-focused schools aren't hurting - they're growing their programs and endowment, they continue to turn away 8.5 or 9 applicants for every one they accept, more than half the students who are admitted chose to attend them, and their alums continue to out-earn those from bigger undergraduate diploma mills. But all that said, in terms of "stature" or "prestige" or the other dumb non-educational 'popularity/buzz' measures that DCUM airheads and uninformed chatter about endlessly, the smaller schools have come to be perceived as being somehow less prestigious (admittedly to a population of idiots), and less likely to attract common apps from families (because let's be honest, parents are a big part of the problem here) that are more focused on prestige/stature and rankings than on education quality.

A generation ago, it was harder (and reasonably so) to get into Amherst and Williams than into most Ivies; now it's easier to get into Williams than it is to get into Rice or USC (or fraudulent Columbia), which is simply bizarre and indefensible if we're talking about the quality of an undergraduate education. And another example of how the inventors/perpetrators of the USNWR ranking scheme have done great harm to US higher education and its users and should, if there's any justice, forever rot in hell.

Jesus Christ.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Bryn Mawr, Brandeis, Wellesley, Mt. Holy Oak, Bennington, Vassar, Sweet Briar, Lafayette, Muhlenberg, Dickinson

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&M is an obvious answer.

Ranking drop from 32 -> 38.
Acceptance rate went from 33% to 42%, higher than large publics like UT Austin and UMD. While large publics like Berkeley are reaching single-digit acceptance rates, W&M's is increasing.

Student enrollment has increased.

Their law school has gone completely downhill.

W&M used to be more difficult to get into than UVA, due to a smaller number seats. It had higher SAT scores than UVA, the highest among publics comparable to Berkley. It was compared to the smaller Ivies like Dartmouth/Brown and SLACs like Swarthmore. It attracted out-of-staters and wealthy internationals that would never consider a large public for OOS tuition, but would consider W&M due to the size and feel.

Nowadays, UVA is far more tougher to get in, has far higher SAT scores and far great national and international reach.

Per most recent CDS:

UVA 25th/75th percentile SAT - 1330-1490
W&M 25th/75th percentile SAT - 1360-1520

both have average GPAs of 4.3.

Perhaps W&M’s higher acceptance rate is a function of some other factor other than the caliber of students they attract. Maybe since UVA and has more prominent sports and a better college town and is bigger it appeals to more kids who apply that are more borderline. W&M is bit more niche in that it a very small public, so more like a SLAC. Williamsburg is pretty sleepy too.

Maybe, just maybe, acceptance rate is not a good indication of how good a school is at any rate.

NNo they don't., the GPA of the actual class that enrolled at UVA last fall had a 4.52 at the 75th percentile, a 4.39 at the median and a 4.23 for the bottom 25th percentile. W&M's student profile runs lower: 4.50 at the 75th, 4.30 at the 50th and a 4.08 at the bottom 25th.


UVA also beats W&M wiht ACT scores, the 74th/50th/30th percentiles are 35/34/32 for UVA and for W&M the ACTSare 34/33/31

At the 75th percentile, SAT score/GPA is 1520/4.50 at W&M and 1510/4.52 at UVA. Virtually the same. The difference in the last couple of years has been at the lower half, with UVA higher. It used to be the opposite if you look at SCHEV historical data. When W&M had higher average SAT scores than UVA, I did not think UVA is in decline. I just think there are trends that play out over some period of time and then new trends emerge. W&M needs to get more applicants to better fill out the bottom half stats.

In USNEWS rankings, both UVA and W&M have been hurt by the inclusion of the social mobility metrics based on Pell Grant recipients. Both schools are relatively low in percentage of students receiving Pell Grants particularly compared to schools in other states like the UC universities. Outside of that, the big movers in USNWR in my recollection have been private universities (Chicago, Vanderbilt, Northeastern, etc.) They seem to have more levers to pull in rankings than public schools.

They are not virtually the same. UVA is higher in 8 categories than W&M. Also you conveniently didn't address the ACT issue. ACT scores get exponentially more difficult to get closer to the top of the pyramid. A 36 is achieved by only 3,655 - 4,4,044 (changes every year) of the 1.6M taking the test, or .313% of the students taking it. A 35 is only 11,983 students .925% of test applicants nationwide. The fact that the 75th percentile of enrolled student at UVA has a 35 or better is astounding. W&M can boast only a 34 taps into a different level below. Here's the chart


ACT Score # of Students Percentage of All Test Takers
36 4,055 0.313%
35 11,983 0.925%
34 15,875 1.226%
33 18,424 1.422%

ACT is not very fine grained, so W&M could have 35 ACT at the 76th percentile, but 34 at the 75th percentile. UVA just went from 34 to 35 at this past year, so they were probably at 35 at close to 75th last year. SAT is more fine grained in score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's important to recognize that the concept of "stature" as it's thrown around on this site often has little to do with educational quality.

Small liberal arts colleges have been hurt (generally) in "stature" - not quality - by the bias of the stupid USNWR rankings towards large research universities. Which has led to the ghettoization of SLACs like Williams and Amherst on a separate list and the under-ranking of low-research "universities" like Dartmouth and Brown -- notwithstanding that the best of these are generally assessed as offering a better undergraduate educational experience. Those undergraduate-focused schools aren't hurting - they're growing their programs and endowment, they continue to turn away 8.5 or 9 applicants for every one they accept, more than half the students who are admitted chose to attend them, and their alums continue to out-earn those from bigger undergraduate diploma mills. But all that said, in terms of "stature" or "prestige" or the other dumb non-educational 'popularity/buzz' measures that DCUM airheads and uninformed chatter about endlessly, the smaller schools have come to be perceived as being somehow less prestigious (admittedly to a population of idiots), and less likely to attract common apps from families (because let's be honest, parents are a big part of the problem here) that are more focused on prestige/stature and rankings than on education quality.

A generation ago, it was harder (and reasonably so) to get into Amherst and Williams than into most Ivies; now it's easier to get into Williams than it is to get into Rice or USC (or fraudulent Columbia), which is simply bizarre and indefensible if we're talking about the quality of an undergraduate education. And another example of how the inventors/perpetrators of the USNWR ranking scheme have done great harm to US higher education and its users and should, if there's any justice, forever rot in hell.

While I agree with most of your premise, the bolded above is incorrect. Williams snd Rice are both 9% acceptance rates and USC is 12%. Williams is still
superior to both as reflected in their higher average GPAs and test scores of accepted students.

[Anonymous]

Georgetown and Dartmouth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's important to recognize that the concept of "stature" as it's thrown around on this site often has little to do with educational quality.

Small liberal arts colleges have been hurt (generally) in "stature" - not quality - by the bias of the stupid USNWR rankings towards large research universities. Which has led to the ghettoization of SLACs like Williams and Amherst on a separate list and the under-ranking of low-research "universities" like Dartmouth and Brown -- notwithstanding that the best of these are generally assessed as offering a better undergraduate educational experience. Those undergraduate-focused schools aren't hurting - they're growing their programs and endowment, they continue to turn away 8.5 or 9 applicants for every one they accept, more than half the students who are admitted chose to attend them, and their alums continue to out-earn those from bigger undergraduate diploma mills. But all that said, in terms of "stature" or "prestige" or the other dumb non-educational 'popularity/buzz' measures that DCUM airheads and uninformed chatter about endlessly, the smaller schools have come to be perceived as being somehow less prestigious (admittedly to a population of idiots), and less likely to attract common apps from families (because let's be honest, parents are a big part of the problem here) that are more focused on prestige/stature and rankings than on education quality.

A generation ago, it was harder (and reasonably so) to get into Amherst and Williams than into most Ivies; now it's easier to get into Williams than it is to get into Rice or USC (or fraudulent Columbia), which is simply bizarre and indefensible if we're talking about the quality of an undergraduate education. And another example of how the inventors/perpetrators of the USNWR ranking scheme have done great harm to US higher education and its users and should, if there's any justice, forever rot in hell.

While I agree with most of your premise, the bolded above is incorrect. Williams snd Rice are both 9% acceptance rates and USC is 12%. Williams is still
superior to both as reflected in their higher average GPAs and test scores of accepted students.

Rice has higher academic standards than Williams

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^Also, a lot of people blame W&M's decreasing stature on it's reputation as an all work-no play school for grinds. That was an actually positive thing, because it attracted the studious kids, made sure the dumb ones avoided the place, and increased the degree's value among employers.

Schools like U. Chicago, Hopkins and Swarthmore are known to be far more demanding, filled with grinds and places where fun goes to die. All three of those schools have increased in stature greatly over the past 20 years. Because their reputation brought additional academic prestige, better students, better professors, and better employers to the school.

Meanwhile W&M tried to become more like UVA, putting money into Greek Life and sports stadiums. The result was UVA-lite, at a higher cost than UVA, with a lower ranking, worse job prospects, worse professors, fewer resources, etc. etc. Plain mismanagement by the administration.

Compare the reputation of the school among the older generations now in their 60s to those in their 20s today. The older generation thinks it's one of the best schools in the country for undergraduate rigor. The younger generation thinks it's an oversized middling liberal arts college similar to so many other oversized middling liberal arts colleges in the country today.

Most of your post is just a DCUM hack job with no facts, but I'll just pick one of your points, that W&M has "worse professors". If you are looking at quality of instruction, W&M is ranked much higher in USNWR for undergraduate teaching, and is also higher in all the survey based questions on professors in Princeton Review and Niche (Are professors prepared, available, understandable, interested in student success, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bryn Mawr, Brandeis, Wellesley, Mt. Holy Oak, Bennington, Vassar, Sweet Briar, Lafayette, Muhlenberg, Dickinson

Not Lafayette (my kid was rejected FWIW).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's important to recognize that the concept of "stature" as it's thrown around on this site often has little to do with educational quality.

Small liberal arts colleges have been hurt (generally) in "stature" - not quality - by the bias of the stupid USNWR rankings towards large research universities. Which has led to the ghettoization of SLACs like Williams and Amherst on a separate list and the under-ranking of low-research "universities" like Dartmouth and Brown -- notwithstanding that the best of these are generally assessed as offering a better undergraduate educational experience. Those undergraduate-focused schools aren't hurting - they're growing their programs and endowment, they continue to turn away 8.5 or 9 applicants for every one they accept, more than half the students who are admitted chose to attend them, and their alums continue to out-earn those from bigger undergraduate diploma mills. But all that said, in terms of "stature" or "prestige" or the other dumb non-educational 'popularity/buzz' measures that DCUM airheads and uninformed chatter about endlessly, the smaller schools have come to be perceived as being somehow less prestigious (admittedly to a population of idiots), and less likely to attract common apps from families (because let's be honest, parents are a big part of the problem here) that are more focused on prestige/stature and rankings than on education quality.

A generation ago, it was harder (and reasonably so) to get into Amherst and Williams than into most Ivies; now it's easier to get into Williams than it is to get into Rice or USC (or fraudulent Columbia), which is simply bizarre and indefensible if we're talking about the quality of an undergraduate education. And another example of how the inventors/perpetrators of the USNWR ranking scheme have done great harm to US higher education and its users and should, if there's any justice, forever rot in hell.

While I agree with most of your premise, the bolded above is incorrect. Williams snd Rice are both 9% acceptance rates and USC is 12%. Williams is still
superior to both as reflected in their higher average GPAs and test scores of accepted students.

Rice has higher academic standards than Williams

A high standard Rice (or Williams) product would cite independently verifiable facts in making a claim.

[Anonymous]

Ca' Foscari University of Venice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's important to recognize that the concept of "stature" as it's thrown around on this site often has little to do with educational quality.

Small liberal arts colleges have been hurt (generally) in "stature" - not quality - by the bias of the stupid USNWR rankings towards large research universities. Which has led to the ghettoization of SLACs like Williams and Amherst on a separate list and the under-ranking of low-research "universities" like Dartmouth and Brown -- notwithstanding that the best of these are generally assessed as offering a better undergraduate educational experience. Those undergraduate-focused schools aren't hurting - they're growing their programs and endowment, they continue to turn away 8.5 or 9 applicants for every one they accept, more than half the students who are admitted chose to attend them, and their alums continue to out-earn those from bigger undergraduate diploma mills. But all that said, in terms of "stature" or "prestige" or the other dumb non-educational 'popularity/buzz' measures that DCUM airheads and uninformed chatter about endlessly, the smaller schools have come to be perceived as being somehow less prestigious (admittedly to a population of idiots), and less likely to attract common apps from families (because let's be honest, parents are a big part of the problem here) that are more focused on prestige/stature and rankings than on education quality.

A generation ago, it was harder (and reasonably so) to get into Amherst and Williams than into most Ivies; now it's easier to get into Williams than it is to get into Rice or USC (or fraudulent Columbia), which is simply bizarre and indefensible if we're talking about the quality of an undergraduate education. And another example of how the inventors/perpetrators of the USNWR ranking scheme have done great harm to US higher education and its users and should, if there's any justice, forever rot in hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&M is an obvious answer.

Ranking drop from 32 -> 38.
Acceptance rate went from 33% to 42%, higher than large publics like UT Austin and UMD. While large publics like Berkeley are reaching single-digit acceptance rates, W&M's is increasing.

Student enrollment has increased.

Their law school has gone completely downhill.

W&M used to be more difficult to get into than UVA, due to a smaller number seats. It had higher SAT scores than UVA, the highest among publics comparable to Berkley. It was compared to the smaller Ivies like Dartmouth/Brown and SLACs like Swarthmore. It attracted out-of-staters and wealthy internationals that would never consider a large public for OOS tuition, but would consider W&M due to the size and feel.

Nowadays, UVA is far more tougher to get in, has far higher SAT scores and far great national and international reach.

Per most recent CDS:

UVA 25th/75th percentile SAT - 1330-1490
W&M 25th/75th percentile SAT - 1360-1520

both have average GPAs of 4.3.

Perhaps W&M’s higher acceptance rate is a function of some other factor other than the caliber of students they attract. Maybe since UVA and has more prominent sports and a better college town and is bigger it appeals to more kids who apply that are more borderline. W&M is bit more niche in that it a very small public, so more like a SLAC. Williamsburg is pretty sleepy too.

Maybe, just maybe, acceptance rate is not a good indication of how good a school is at any rate.

NNo they don't., the GPA of the actual class that enrolled at UVA last fall had a 4.52 at the 75th percentile, a 4.39 at the median and a 4.23 for the bottom 25th percentile. W&M's student profile runs lower: 4.50 at the 75th, 4.30 at the 50th and a 4.08 at the bottom 25th.


UVA also beats W&M wiht ACT scores, the 74th/50th/30th percentiles are 35/34/32 for UVA and for W&M the ACTSare 34/33/31

At the 75th percentile, SAT score/GPA is 1520/4.50 at W&M and 1510/4.52 at UVA. Virtually the same. The difference in the last couple of years has been at the lower half, with UVA higher. It used to be the opposite if you look at SCHEV historical data. When W&M had higher average SAT scores than UVA, I did not think UVA is in decline. I just think there are trends that play out over some period of time and then new trends emerge. W&M needs to get more applicants to better fill out the bottom half stats.

In USNEWS rankings, both UVA and W&M have been hurt by the inclusion of the social mobility metrics based on Pell Grant recipients. Both schools are relatively low in percentage of students receiving Pell Grants particularly compared to schools in other states like the UC universities. Outside of that, the big movers in USNWR in my recollection have been private universities (Chicago, Vanderbilt, Northeastern, etc.) They seem to have more levers to pull in rankings than public schools.

They are not virtually the same. UVA is higher in 8 categories than W&M. Also you conveniently didn't address the ACT issue. ACT scores get exponentially more difficult to get closer to the top of the pyramid. A 36 is achieved by only 3,655 - 4,4,044 (changes every year) of the 1.6M taking the test, or .313% of the students taking it. A 35 is only 11,983 students .925% of test applicants nationwide. The fact that the 75th percentile of enrolled student at UVA has a 35 or better is astounding. W&M can boast only a 34 taps into a different level below. Here's the chart


ACT Score # of Students Percentage of All Test Takers
36 4,055 0.313%
35 11,983 0.925%
34 15,875 1.226%
33 18,424 1.422%

ACT is not very fine grained, so W&M could have 35 ACT at the 76th percentile, but 34 at the 75th percentile. UVA just went from 34 to 35 at this past year, so they were probably at 35 at close to 75th last year. SAT is more fine grained in score.

But it doesn't. I think you lost this argument, but by all means, contiue to argue!

[Anonymous]

While I agree with most of your premise, the bolded above is incorrect. Williams snd Rice are both 9% acceptance rates and USC is 12%. Williams is still
superior to both as reflected in their higher average GPAs and test scores of accepted students.

Thanks for catching - i think i was going off outdated data.
The current USNWR says the acceptance rate at Williams is 15% compared to 11% at Rice and 11% at Tulane (swapping out for USC). Rice and Tulane are excellent schools, but i'd agree at the undergraduate level Williams is probably superior, as reflected not just in higher average GPAs and test scores for accepted students as you note, but also in the 'Peer Assessment' section of the USNWR ranking where US News polls other university administrators what they think (the 'expert opinion': for Williams, 4.7 of 5; for Rice, 4.1; for Tulane, 3.6). And yet, Rice and Tulane now attract a greater number of applicants relative to available spaces than Williams (or Amherst -- peer assessment of 4.6) does - which I think reinforces the notion that the biases of USNWR's university-centric methodology, compounded over the past four decades, have created and perpetuated market failures in higher education admissions.

And the ones who are being harmed by these market failures aren't the schools themselves but the applicants. Whose families, either because of poor information or the effects of the DCUM echo chamber and others like it, have a misguided sense that USNWR's ranking = educational quality. (If anything, the peer assessment and alumni income - which cut across USNWR's artificial distinctions between "universities" and "colleges" and "national" vs "regional" -- are probably the more reliable measures.) How have educators been complicit in allowing such a flawed USNWR system come to play such a disproportionate role in college admissions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&M is an obvious answer.

Ranking drop from 32 -> 38.
Acceptance rate went from 33% to 42%, higher than large publics like UT Austin and UMD. While large publics like Berkeley are reaching single-digit acceptance rates, W&M's is increasing.

Student enrollment has increased.

Their law school has gone completely downhill.

W&M used to be more difficult to get into than UVA, due to a smaller number seats. It had higher SAT scores than UVA, the highest among publics comparable to Berkley. It was compared to the smaller Ivies like Dartmouth/Brown and SLACs like Swarthmore. It attracted out-of-staters and wealthy internationals that would never consider a large public for OOS tuition, but would consider W&M due to the size and feel.

Nowadays, UVA is far more tougher to get in, has far higher SAT scores and far great national and international reach.

Per most recent CDS:

UVA 25th/75th percentile SAT - 1330-1490
W&M 25th/75th percentile SAT - 1360-1520

both have average GPAs of 4.3.

Perhaps W&M’s higher acceptance rate is a function of some other factor other than the caliber of students they attract. Maybe since UVA and has more prominent sports and a better college town and is bigger it appeals to more kids who apply that are more borderline. W&M is bit more niche in that it a very small public, so more like a SLAC. Williamsburg is pretty sleepy too.

Maybe, just maybe, acceptance rate is not a good indication of how good a school is at any rate.

NNo they don't., the GPA of the actual class that enrolled at UVA last fall had a 4.52 at the 75th percentile, a 4.39 at the median and a 4.23 for the bottom 25th percentile. W&M's student profile runs lower: 4.50 at the 75th, 4.30 at the 50th and a 4.08 at the bottom 25th.


UVA also beats W&M wiht ACT scores, the 74th/50th/30th percentiles are 35/34/32 for UVA and for W&M the ACTSare 34/33/31

At the 75th percentile, SAT score/GPA is 1520/4.50 at W&M and 1510/4.52 at UVA. Virtually the same. The difference in the last couple of years has been at the lower half, with UVA higher. It used to be the opposite if you look at SCHEV historical data. When W&M had higher average SAT scores than UVA, I did not think UVA is in decline. I just think there are trends that play out over some period of time and then new trends emerge. W&M needs to get more applicants to better fill out the bottom half stats.

In USNEWS rankings, both UVA and W&M have been hurt by the inclusion of the social mobility metrics based on Pell Grant recipients. Both schools are relatively low in percentage of students receiving Pell Grants particularly compared to schools in other states like the UC universities. Outside of that, the big movers in USNWR in my recollection have been private universities (Chicago, Vanderbilt, Northeastern, etc.) They seem to have more levers to pull in rankings than public schools.

They are not virtually the same. UVA is higher in 8 categories than W&M. Also you conveniently didn't address the ACT issue. ACT scores get exponentially more difficult to get closer to the top of the pyramid. A 36 is achieved by only 3,655 - 4,4,044 (changes every year) of the 1.6M taking the test, or .313% of the students taking it. A 35 is only 11,983 students .925% of test applicants nationwide. The fact that the 75th percentile of enrolled student at UVA has a 35 or better is astounding. W&M can boast only a 34 taps into a different level below. Here's the chart


ACT Score # of Students Percentage of All Test Takers
36 4,055 0.313%
35 11,983 0.925%
34 15,875 1.226%
33 18,424 1.422%

ACT is not very fine grained, so W&M could have 35 ACT at the 76th percentile, but 34 at the 75th percentile. UVA just went from 34 to 35 at this past year, so they were probably at 35 at close to 75th last year. SAT is more fine grained in score.

But it doesn't. I think you lost this argument, but by all means, contiue to argue!

DP: I don't have a dog in this fight but I don't think PP lost the argument that they are virtually the same in terms of academic qualifications of students. This is splitting hairs to the nth degree. These are not differences that matter in assessing academic caliber of students. You can keep drilling down further-- you can look at the the percentage of test takers in each category==whether more took the SAT or ACT, the number of times they took the test, the full distribution not just the interquartile range, how this has shifted year to year etc. etc. and UVA could always be .5 percentile higher and this would still not be in the realm of meaningful differences.

The big differences are UVA is a larger school with more grad programs in a traditional college town; W&M is a smaller school with a LAC focus. W&M costs more. They enroll very similar students in terms of academic preparation/competency but who have different tastes in schools. Or who can afford different schools. UVA being cheaper and a more typical college experience is more popular. W&M is also popular but slightly more niche. In my opinion, you're splitting hairs when most reasonable people look at these meaningful differences.