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:

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.

+1

[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.

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.

+1

NP. Who is saying either of those schools are "elite"?

[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:

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.

+1

NP. Who is saying either of those schools are "elite"?

Name which schools you consider to be elite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Never heard of this polling company, so I did a little research. How funny! Look at all these universities that are their CLIENTS! I'm sure they're not biased at all:

https://www.artsci.com/clients/higher-education

I took a look at the Niche list. I think the first 50 or so are very reasonable. That list makes a lot more sense than US News.

The list of top public universities is very similar to US News. Also, the methodology is not all that different from US News except that US News doesn't use student reviews.

About This List
The Top Public Universities ranking is based on rigorous analysis of academic, admissions, financial, and student life data from the U.S. Department of Education along for millions of reviews from students and alumni. The ranking compares over 500 public colleges and state universities. This year's rankings have introduced an Economic Mobility Index, which measures the economic status change for low-income students. ACT/SAT scores have been removed from rankings to reflect a general de-emphasis on test scores in the college admissions process.

NP.

The part speaks exclusively to the “DEI bump” given to schools who buy into DEI dogma.

The curtain on DEI is being pulled back and we can increasingly expect a return to sanity.

Yes!

[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:

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.

+1

NP. Who is saying either of those schools are "elite"?

Name which schools you consider to be elite

The Ivies + Stanford, MIT. Maybe one or two others.

[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:

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.

+1

NP. Who is saying either of those schools are "elite"?

Name which schools you consider to be elite

The Ivies + Stanford, MIT. Maybe one or two others.

Okay, by this definition, yes, neither would be elite.

[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:

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.

+1

NP. Who is saying either of those schools are "elite"?

Name which schools you consider to be elite

The Ivies + Stanford, MIT. Maybe one or two others.

Okay, by this definition, yes, neither would be elite.

By any definition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UC Merced=UMichigan, Purdue, Wisconsin, UVA, William and Mary, VA Tech

According to US News.

With a 1080 SAT, 90% acceptance rate, and 9% yield.

So this comment - why should this have anything to do with the quality of the college? Are you saying if Caltech and MIT had a high acceptance rate with the existing facilities it should drop out of the top 100?

You rather have professors that are not accomplished if the school is selective?

Professors don't make the school, the students do.

[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.

Nonsense. BU and BC are not competing for Pepperdine and Tulane students. Nor is Wake Forest below Pepperdine and Tulane.

Wake Forest..lol no. Wake Forest is not even in the same zip code. Tulane, Pepperdine, BU and BC are the same. You need to come out of the 1970’s.

It’s just Emory mom being Emory mom, she has an irrational hatred of Wake Forest ,or maybe just of college kids having fun.

Hilarious because that wasn't me. Clearly more than one on this forum thinks Wake is very overrated. It should have never been a T30, and glad US news fixed that mistake. Now for the topic at hand. My DCs school has suffered under the changes. I remember when Emory was 17 and UCLA was 25, they've pretty much switched due to the constant changes. But these DEI changes are cultural. DEI is almost dead due to a Trump win so US news will make changes to the methodology again. Frankly they'll have to because many of the metrics they use come from the DOE which this administration promises to close. So many of the privates will improve in the rankings including Wake and Tulane unfortunately.

[Anonymous]

WSJ had a better ranking than US news when it was with Times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UC Merced=UMichigan, Purdue, Wisconsin, UVA, William and Mary, VA Tech

According to US News.

With a 1080 SAT, 90% acceptance rate, and 9% yield.

So this comment - why should this have anything to do with the quality of the college? Are you saying if Caltech and MIT had a high acceptance rate with the existing facilities it should drop out of the top 100?

You rather have professors that are not accomplished if the school is selective?

Professors don't make the school, the students do.

Lol wow. Now I’ve heard it all on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s kind of absurd, really. But a good reminder that a lot of the info here is out of touch with reality.

Most people interested in a lac want 0 large auditorium classes to begin. There is a substantial difference in support for 10 students in a class than 100, a small-medium class at a university.

Thank you for proving the out of touch with reality point. The vast majority of classes at large universities are under 40-50 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Agree nothing like this at my kid’s ivy

I am certain you cannot make this claim with any degree of confidence. Tons of classes across dozens of subjects at a school you don’t even attend. You would probably be shocked at some of the things you would find.

[Anonymous]

Ahh the great annual college rankings debate, my favorite time of year when the insecurities of the self congratulatory progressives are on full display.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UC Merced=UMichigan, Purdue, Wisconsin, UVA, William and Mary, VA Tech

According to US News.

With a 1080 SAT, 90% acceptance rate, and 9% yield.

So this comment - why should this have anything to do with the quality of the college? Are you saying if Caltech and MIT had a high acceptance rate with the existing facilities it should drop out of the top 100?

You rather have professors that are not accomplished if the school is selective?

Professors don't make the school, the students do.

So, if you had a "school" with no professors. . .