US News 2020 rankings

[Anonymous]

Also, Princeton has the highest endowment to student ratio on the planet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

Because Stanford lags behind the schools ahead for the faculty resources and alumni giving component.

Both of these are east-coast/other region favoring, given alumni traditions for donating funds and the cost of leaving penalty against California schools for faculty salaries.

Add +1 to +3 for most California schools and you'll have a more accurate ranking.

USNWR doesn't really matter to Stanford. Regardless of what USNWR says, Stanford is at top level in prestige with Harvard (and MIT in tech).

Not that it would happen but they’d sure care if they started to really tank. As silly as it all is the perception of excellence matters to a whole lot of people.

I think the USNWR reputation would go before Stanford. While Princeton is a great school and has been top ranked for 8 years or so, I don't know of anyone who really thinks it has overtaken Harvard at the pinnacle of the Ivy League. I'm sure cross-admit choices would show that.

Agreed. As far as what impresses the average person on the street (which really what people who care about rankings care about), Harvard is #1 and it will take a seismic shift to shake that. Dropping the H bomb.

The main USNews rankings are undergraduate focused. Princeton undergrad is generally seen as top-notch. Harvard has more graduate school prestige.

Princeton should have gained lots of prestige after USNews use the endowment to pump up their ranking for so many years. Even though their operating cost per student is not necessarily higher than that of other colleges. More endowment just means they have more in the bank, does not mean they spend more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Associated Press (very reputable) has the top 25 listed like this. This definitively shows BOTH Michigan and UMCP ranked higher than UVA, heads will explode! Noticeably absent are the Ivies and amazing schools such as Stanford, UCLA and Cal……..I mean UCF and Boise State ranked higher? Weird how they could fall that much this year, must see their methodology. I think its elitist bias against those elite West Coast PAC 12 schools.

1 Clemson
2 Alabama
3 Georgia
4 LSU
5 Oklahoma
6 Ohio State
7 Notre Dame
8 Auburn
9 Florida
10 Michigan
11 Utah
12 Texas
13 Penn State
14 Wisconsin
15 Oregon
16 Texas A&M
17 UCF
18 Michigan State
19 Iowa
20 Washington State
21 Maryland
22 Boise State
23 Washington
24 Southern California
25 Virginia

LOL...but what I love is that ND is on the top 20 list for just about everything...academics, endowment, football...a well rounded institution.

Yeah God!

[Anonymous]

Terrible town though. Complete dump. But otherwise ND is fab. Huge fan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

Because Stanford lags behind the schools ahead for the faculty resources and alumni giving component.

Both of these are east-coast/other region favoring, given alumni traditions for donating funds and the cost of leaving penalty against California schools for faculty salaries.

Add +1 to +3 for most California schools and you'll have a more accurate ranking.

USNWR doesn't really matter to Stanford. Regardless of what USNWR says, Stanford is at top level in prestige with Harvard (and MIT in tech).

Not that it would happen but they’d sure care if they started to really tank. As silly as it all is the perception of excellence matters to a whole lot of people.

I think the USNWR reputation would go before Stanford. While Princeton is a great school and has been top ranked for 8 years or so, I don't know of anyone who really thinks it has overtaken Harvard at the pinnacle of the Ivy League. I'm sure cross-admit choices would show that.

Agreed. As far as what impresses the average person on the street (which really what people who care about rankings care about), Harvard is #1 and it will take a seismic shift to shake that. Dropping the H bomb.

The main USNews rankings are undergraduate focused. Princeton undergrad is generally seen as top-notch. Harvard has more graduate school prestige.

They say it is undergraduate focused, and I'm sure Princeton is a fine undergraduate institution, but USNWR seems more like an overall assessment to me. The resources they include can be applicable to graduate education, research, medical, none of which are directly related to undergraduates. There is a separate ranking for teaching, but that doesn't apply to the main ranking.

[Anonymous]

Michigan at 25, lol. What a joke. Everyone in the know knows that UVA is a superior school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi guys serious question. Why is George Washington in DC so low. It has fallen to 70 from 63 and 50s before. Are you seriously going to tell me that Florida State is a better school?

It is usually compared to Boston University, Tulane, NYU, Wake, and similar which are 27 to 40.

My kid is being recruited for a sport and this is concerning. Other surveys have it 60s as well.

Because our School of Business sucks. I work at GW, but for a different college (ranked much higher btw), and GWSB is dragging the school down. It's so bad, the big consulting firms REFUSE to come to campus to recruit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
LOL...but what I love is that ND is on the top 20 list for just about everything...academics, endowment, football...a well rounded institution.

How many idiot athletes have been busted in cheating scandals and/or had to transfer? Notre Dame's sports obsession dents its academics and credibility. ND's (and Stanford's) course catalog has pretty much zero remedial courses, so when they let in all these idiot athletes, there's OBVIOUSLY rampant cheating and academic fraud from the get-go.

[Anonymous]

Rankings like U.S. News conflate things that I think are better left separate to be meaningful for the people who use it. Some just want to see relative "prestige" (for lack of a better word), some want empirical "value for money" rankings, and the "social mobility" inputs that have been added is probably going to be more important to lower income groups and perhaps politicians. Putting them together makes muddies the water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The person pretending to be a UVA person bashing Michigan is just trying to work people up. Anyone who went to UVA knows that Michigan (and Berkeley, UCLA, etc) are excellent schools that are always in the same neighborhood in these rankings.

No. They all are much better than Uva overall!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL...but what I love is that ND is on the top 20 list for just about everything...academics, endowment, football...a well rounded institution.

How many idiot athletes have been busted in cheating scandals and/or had to transfer? Notre Dame's sports obsession dents its academics and credibility. ND's (and Stanford's) course catalog has pretty much zero remedial courses, so when they let in all these idiot athletes, there's OBVIOUSLY rampant cheating and academic fraud from the get-go.

Sorry you feel that way. I still think it's awesome that a school with high academic standards (you cannot argue that) can also have a great football team where players are required to carry a full course load (unlike other schools) and are held accountable. Yes, there will be cheating...just as there is cheating with non football players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi guys serious question. Why is George Washington in DC so low. It has fallen to 70 from 63 and 50s before. Are you seriously going to tell me that Florida State is a better school?

It is usually compared to Boston University, Tulane, NYU, Wake, and similar which are 27 to 40.

My kid is being recruited for a sport and this is concerning. Other surveys have it 60s as well.

Because our School of Business sucks. I work at GW, but for a different college (ranked much higher btw), and GWSB is dragging the school down. It's so bad, the big consulting firms REFUSE to come to campus to recruit.

A couple of years ago. USNews adjusted their formula in a way that seems to have benefited schools with “poorer” students (socioeconomically) that are otherwise strong. This seems to have benefited most of the schools in Florida. Also, Florida is a rapidly-growing state. The top publics have become quite competitive simply due to the increasing population.

Alabama bet on the wrong horse by focusing on enticing out-of-state students with scholarships instead of focusing on improving the graduation rates and selectivity. That’s the risk of trying to play for rankings: the formula can change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The person pretending to be a UVA person bashing Michigan is just trying to work people up. Anyone who went to UVA knows that Michigan (and Berkeley, UCLA, etc) are excellent schools that are always in the same neighborhood in these rankings.

No. They all are much better than Uva overall!

Are they for undergraduates? I've lived near both both Berkeley and UCLA and really, really question their commitment to educating undergraduates. Have less insight to Michigan and UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi guys serious question. Why is George Washington in DC so low. It has fallen to 70 from 63 and 50s before. Are you seriously going to tell me that Florida State is a better school?

It is usually compared to Boston University, Tulane, NYU, Wake, and similar which are 27 to 40.

My kid is being recruited for a sport and this is concerning. Other surveys have it 60s as well.

Because our School of Business sucks. I work at GW, but for a different college (ranked much higher btw), and GWSB is dragging the school down. It's so bad, the big consulting firms REFUSE to come to campus to recruit.

A couple of years ago. USNews adjusted their formula in a way that seems to have benefited schools with “poorer” students (socioeconomically) that are otherwise strong. This seems to have benefited most of the schools in Florida. Also, Florida is a rapidly-growing state. The top publics have become quite competitive simply due to the increasing population.

Alabama bet on the wrong horse by focusing on enticing out-of-state students with scholarships instead of focusing on improving the graduation rates and selectivity. That’s the risk of trying to play for rankings: the formula can change.

It seems to have benefited UC schools significantly as well. California is the richest state by some measures and the poorest state by some measures. There are many kids on Pell Grants, and that has boosted UC schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The person pretending to be a UVA person bashing Michigan is just trying to work people up. Anyone who went to UVA knows that Michigan (and Berkeley, UCLA, etc) are excellent schools that are always in the same neighborhood in these rankings.

No. They all are much better than Uva overall!

Are they for undergraduates? I've lived near both both Berkeley and UCLA and really, really question their commitment to educating undergraduates. Have less insight to Michigan and UVA.

Probably a good measure of focus on undergraduates is the Undergraduate Teaching ranking, which places the public schools as follows:

3. Georgia State
5. William and Mary
8. Miami University Ohio
10. ASU
12. UMBC
13. Michigan
23. Ohio State
23. UVA
34. UC Berkley
35. UC Riverside
29. Georgia Tech
40. UC Merced
40. UC Santa Cruz
40. U of Georgia
49. University of Central Florida
49. University of Florida
49. UT Austin