Will Wake ever be in the #30s again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. It was a fluke to begin with.

No really. I’m a 1996 grad, and before USNWR changing its methodology, it had been 25-30 since at least around 1990 (??), when it moved from regional to national and cut tied with the Baptist convention. 20+ years isn’t a fluke.

The new USNWR rankings just happen to be brutal for the more expensive midsized universities without large PhD programs, that focus on small classes and quality of undergrad teaching, which are no longer considered. They hit the same bump as WM, Tulane and other midsize private (except WM, which is the most expensive public for instate students in the nation)— even Vanderbilt put out a statement about their dropping in rankings.

In the end, either small classes, quality of undergrad teaching, etc matter to you. In which case USNWR isn’t that helpful right now. Or you are invested in Pell Grant numbers/ think they are one of the leading indicators of a quality education, in which case they are. My DD is at WM, and, compared with her peers at larger VA universities, really benefits from small class size (but is ADHD), got a great summer internship through a professor, etc. I value the things USNWR no longer measures. BUT reasonable minds can differ. And there really now a zillion rankings. Before relying on rankings, look hard at the underlying methodology and choose one that aligns with what you believe to be important in a college— be that Pell Grant, class size, 4/6 yer grad rate, qualifications of entering students— whatever. As it happens USNWR no longer aligns with what I believe to be most important factor in a quality education. But, you do you.

I will say the quality of education at multiple colleges did not rise or fall 20-30 places in one year, which also happened to be the year USNWR changed methodology. True changes in the quality of a college happen more slowly. If you always thought Wake, WM, Tulane, etc were overrated, then they came in line with your expectations. If you thought these schools were correctly ranked, they didn’t all suddenly start to provide a less valuable education because USNWR now has a DEI focus.

I will say it’s funny to see FCPs parents who pay so much money to buy a home zoned to send kids to a high school with low FARMS rates bending over backwards to tout USNWR ranking that give a huge boost based on FARMS rates. Langley parents are filing lawsuit after lawsuit and recalling school board members to keep their school less than 2% FARMS. And bemoaned VT’s DEI focus for years because they thought it hurt their kids with admissions. But suddenly love Pell Grant students at VT because it raised their ranking. I mean…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that US News categorized WF as a regional school, and when it first was recategorized as national it was nowhere near the top 30. What goes around comes around.

Honestly, let’s get serious: does anyone really think WF is anywhere near as strong as UVA or UNC? Nope.

You’re not only bitter, but also not very good with facts. US News moved WF from regional to national university in 1996. It debuted on that list as No. 31, which actually is as close as one can get to T30 without being in it. From 1997 to 2023, WF was ranked in the range of 23-30. That’s incredible stable.

Given how strong the anti DEI movement is at the moment , don’t fall in love with the current rankings.

People state that rankings don't matter, then complain when a school's ranking drops.

Social mobility ranking weightings are appropriate. Everything can't be geared towards rich white kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that US News categorized WF as a regional school, and when it first was recategorized as national it was nowhere near the top 30. What goes around comes around.

Honestly, let’s get serious: does anyone really think WF is anywhere near as strong as UVA or UNC? Nope.

You’re not only bitter, but also not very good with facts. US News moved WF from regional to national university in 1996. It debuted on that list as No. 31, which actually is as close as one can get to T30 without being in it. From 1997 to 2023, WF was ranked in the range of 23-30. That’s incredible stable.

Given how strong the anti DEI movement is at the moment , don’t fall in love with the current rankings.

People state that rankings don't matter, then complain when a school's ranking drops.

Social mobility ranking weightings are appropriate. Everything can't be geared towards rich white kids.

Where is the complaint? I merely corrected multiple misstatements from someone who clearly hates,WF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that US News categorized WF as a regional school, and when it first was recategorized as national it was nowhere near the top 30. What goes around comes around.

Honestly, let’s get serious: does anyone really think WF is anywhere near as strong as UVA or UNC? Nope.

You’re not only bitter, but also not very good with facts. US News moved WF from regional to national university in 1996. It debuted on that list as No. 31, which actually is as close as one can get to T30 without being in it. From 1997 to 2023, WF was ranked in the range of 23-30. That’s incredible stable.

Given how strong the anti DEI movement is at the moment , don’t fall in love with the current rankings.

People state that rankings don't matter, then complain when a school's ranking drops.

Social mobility ranking weightings are appropriate. Everything can't be geared towards rich white kids.

I really don’t see how social mobility makes the product better or worse. Even for non-rich kids who may experience just as much uplift at a school that doesn’t rank well on social mobility as one that does (because it has fewer poor kids, but the poor kids it does have likely do well). World class institutions are now being judged on their ability to deliver remedial education at scale. Makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

The switch in methodology really benefits large schools that are accessible to unhooked high-stats kids and affordable to donut-hole families. Like most smallish test-optional schools the actual number of high-scoring students at Wake is pretty small, similar to schools like Syracuse, Iowa, or KU. What Wake offers that those bigger schools don’t is the ability to exclude more students, and the sense of superiority that a low admissions rate seems to engender. Some people care about that. Others prefer a less expensive, less exclusive school with a much larger cohort of high-scoring students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The switch in methodology really benefits large schools that are accessible to unhooked high-stats kids and affordable to donut-hole families. Like most smallish test-optional schools the actual number of high-scoring students at Wake is pretty small, similar to schools like Syracuse, Iowa, or KU. What Wake offers that those bigger schools don’t is the ability to exclude more students, and the sense of superiority that a low admissions rate seems to engender. Some people care about that. Others prefer a less expensive, less exclusive school with a much larger cohort of high-scoring students.

If you think Syracuse is less expensive for DC-area kids, you haven't done your homework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The switch in methodology really benefits large schools that are accessible to unhooked high-stats kids and affordable to donut-hole families. Like most smallish test-optional schools the actual number of high-scoring students at Wake is pretty small, similar to schools like Syracuse, Iowa, or KU. What Wake offers that those bigger schools don’t is the ability to exclude more students, and the sense of superiority that a low admissions rate seems to engender. Some people care about that. Others prefer a less expensive, less exclusive school with a much larger cohort of high-scoring students.

What drugs are you on?

48 percent of kids at Wake submit test scores with a median SAT of 1450. My Wake student had a 1500 and a 3.8 at a private with grade deflation and top rigor.

32 percent of kids at Syracuse submit with a median of 1340
79 percent submit at Iowa with a median of 1240
79 percent submitted at KU with a median of 1160

Not one of these four schools is in the same tier as the others. You just spew complete nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The switch in methodology really benefits large schools that are accessible to unhooked high-stats kids and affordable to donut-hole families. Like most smallish test-optional schools the actual number of high-scoring students at Wake is pretty small, similar to schools like Syracuse, Iowa, or KU. What Wake offers that those bigger schools don’t is the ability to exclude more students, and the sense of superiority that a low admissions rate seems to engender. Some people care about that. Others prefer a less expensive, less exclusive school with a much larger cohort of high-scoring students.

What drugs are you on?

48 percent of kids at Wake submit test scores with a median SAT of 1450. My Wake student had a 1500 and a 3.8 at a private with grade deflation and top rigor.

32 percent of kids at Syracuse submit with a median of 1340
79 percent submit at Iowa with a median of 1240
79 percent submitted at KU with a median of 1160

Not one of these four schools is in the same tier as the others. You just spew complete nonsense.

Each of those schools is a different size. Wake is the smallest. Each school has about the same number of high-scoring students. Of course that means the percentage is higher at Wake. And percentage is very important to some people, obviously including you. Which is fine. It allows for the big fish/small pond effect, which certainly benefits some kids. But for some other kids, a small pond can feel, well, small. People seeking a school with a large number of high-scoring students would be better off at a school like UVA or UMD or Wisconsin.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The switch in methodology really benefits large schools that are accessible to unhooked high-stats kids and affordable to donut-hole families. Like most smallish test-optional schools the actual number of high-scoring students at Wake is pretty small, similar to schools like Syracuse, Iowa, or KU. What Wake offers that those bigger schools don’t is the ability to exclude more students, and the sense of superiority that a low admissions rate seems to engender. Some people care about that. Others prefer a less expensive, less exclusive school with a much larger cohort of high-scoring students.

What drugs are you on?

48 percent of kids at Wake submit test scores with a median SAT of 1450. My Wake student had a 1500 and a 3.8 at a private with grade deflation and top rigor.

32 percent of kids at Syracuse submit with a median of 1340
79 percent submit at Iowa with a median of 1240
79 percent submitted at KU with a median of 1160

Not one of these four schools is in the same tier as the others. You just spew complete nonsense.

Each of those schools is a different size. Wake is the smallest. Each school has about the same number of high-scoring students. Of course that means the percentage is higher at Wake. And percentage is very important to some people, obviously including you. Which is fine. It allows for the big fish/small pond effect, which certainly benefits some kids. But for some other kids, a small pond can feel, well, small. People seeking a school with a large number of high-scoring students would be better off at a school like UVA or UMD or Wisconsin.

You don’t understand what median means, just completely clueless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The switch in methodology really benefits large schools that are accessible to unhooked high-stats kids and affordable to donut-hole families. Like most smallish test-optional schools the actual number of high-scoring students at Wake is pretty small, similar to schools like Syracuse, Iowa, or KU. What Wake offers that those bigger schools don’t is the ability to exclude more students, and the sense of superiority that a low admissions rate seems to engender. Some people care about that. Others prefer a less expensive, less exclusive school with a much larger cohort of high-scoring students.

What drugs are you on?

48 percent of kids at Wake submit test scores with a median SAT of 1450. My Wake student had a 1500 and a 3.8 at a private with grade deflation and top rigor.

32 percent of kids at Syracuse submit with a median of 1340
79 percent submit at Iowa with a median of 1240
79 percent submitted at KU with a median of 1160

Not one of these four schools is in the same tier as the others. You just spew complete nonsense.

Each of those schools is a different size. Wake is the smallest. Each school has about the same number of high-scoring students. Of course that means the percentage is higher at Wake. And percentage is very important to some people, obviously including you. Which is fine. It allows for the big fish/small pond effect, which certainly benefits some kids. But for some other kids, a small pond can feel, well, small. People seeking a school with a large number of high-scoring students would be better off at a school like UVA or UMD or Wisconsin.

Please share where you went to college so I can make sure my child does not attend. This reasoning is embarrassing AF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. It was a fluke to begin with.

No really. I’m a 1996 grad, and before USNWR changing its methodology, it had been 25-30 since at least around 1990 (??), when it moved from regional to national and cut tied with the Baptist convention. 20+ years isn’t a fluke.

The new USNWR rankings just happen to be brutal for the more expensive midsized universities without large PhD programs, that focus on small classes and quality of undergrad teaching, which are no longer considered. They hit the same bump as WM, Tulane and other midsize private (except WM, which is the most expensive public for instate students in the nation)— even Vanderbilt put out a statement about their dropping in rankings.

In the end, either small classes, quality of undergrad teaching, etc matter to you. In which case USNWR isn’t that helpful right now. Or you are invested in Pell Grant numbers/ think they are one of the leading indicators of a quality education, in which case they are. My DD is at WM, and, compared with her peers at larger VA universities, really benefits from small class size (but is ADHD), got a great summer internship through a professor, etc. I value the things USNWR no longer measures. BUT reasonable minds can differ. And there really now a zillion rankings. Before relying on rankings, look hard at the underlying methodology and choose one that aligns with what you believe to be important in a college— be that Pell Grant, class size, 4/6 yer grad rate, qualifications of entering students— whatever. As it happens USNWR no longer aligns with what I believe to be most important factor in a quality education. But, you do you.

I will say the quality of education at multiple colleges did not rise or fall 20-30 places in one year, which also happened to be the year USNWR changed methodology. True changes in the quality of a college happen more slowly. If you always thought Wake, WM, Tulane, etc were overrated, then they came in line with your expectations. If you thought these schools were correctly ranked, they didn’t all suddenly start to provide a less valuable education because USNWR now has a DEI focus.

I will say it’s funny to see FCPs parents who pay so much money to buy a home zoned to send kids to a high school with low FARMS rates bending over backwards to tout USNWR ranking that give a huge boost based on FARMS rates. Langley parents are filing lawsuit after lawsuit and recalling school board members to keep their school less than 2% FARMS. And bemoaned VT’s DEI focus for years because they thought it hurt their kids with admissions. But suddenly love Pell Grant students at VT because it raised their ranking. I mean…

Thank you for this.
So much good stuff here and I agree with SOOO much of it.
For a humanities major - focused on small classes, and interaction with full professors (no TAs ever please), this is what we are looking for.
sometimes the people here seem to be focused on the wrong things. I don't know if it's bc they (parents) regret their own career or academic choices. Maybe they are stuck in dead-end jobs? Or maybe they don't understand how finance, banking, consulting, PE/HF work and they've idealized things? It doesn't really make sense.
Not DMV if that matters.
I'm in industry and I can tell you Wake is viewed more positively on Wall Street than VT or UMD.
I guess this is for a different post - if anyone ever creates something that talks about what's driving parental neurosis, happy to weigh in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The switch in methodology really benefits large schools that are accessible to unhooked high-stats kids and affordable to donut-hole families. Like most smallish test-optional schools the actual number of high-scoring students at Wake is pretty small, similar to schools like Syracuse, Iowa, or KU. What Wake offers that those bigger schools don’t is the ability to exclude more students, and the sense of superiority that a low admissions rate seems to engender. Some people care about that. Others prefer a less expensive, less exclusive school with a much larger cohort of high-scoring students.

What drugs are you on?

48 percent of kids at Wake submit test scores with a median SAT of 1450. My Wake student had a 1500 and a 3.8 at a private with grade deflation and top rigor.

32 percent of kids at Syracuse submit with a median of 1340
79 percent submit at Iowa with a median of 1240
79 percent submitted at KU with a median of 1160

Not one of these four schools is in the same tier as the others. You just spew complete nonsense.

Each of those schools is a different size. Wake is the smallest. Each school has about the same number of high-scoring students. Of course that means the percentage is higher at Wake. And percentage is very important to some people, obviously including you. Which is fine. It allows for the big fish/small pond effect, which certainly benefits some kids. But for some other kids, a small pond can feel, well, small. People seeking a school with a large number of high-scoring students would be better off at a school like UVA or UMD or Wisconsin.

Please share where you went to college so I can make sure my child does not attend. This reasoning is embarrassing AF.

I went to a private college, smaller than Wake, where the median SAT is higher than the median SAT at Wake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The switch in methodology really benefits large schools that are accessible to unhooked high-stats kids and affordable to donut-hole families. Like most smallish test-optional schools the actual number of high-scoring students at Wake is pretty small, similar to schools like Syracuse, Iowa, or KU. What Wake offers that those bigger schools don’t is the ability to exclude more students, and the sense of superiority that a low admissions rate seems to engender. Some people care about that. Others prefer a less expensive, less exclusive school with a much larger cohort of high-scoring students.

What drugs are you on?

48 percent of kids at Wake submit test scores with a median SAT of 1450. My Wake student had a 1500 and a 3.8 at a private with grade deflation and top rigor.

32 percent of kids at Syracuse submit with a median of 1340
79 percent submit at Iowa with a median of 1240
79 percent submitted at KU with a median of 1160

Not one of these four schools is in the same tier as the others. You just spew complete nonsense.

Each of those schools is a different size. Wake is the smallest. Each school has about the same number of high-scoring students. Of course that means the percentage is higher at Wake. And percentage is very important to some people, obviously including you. Which is fine. It allows for the big fish/small pond effect, which certainly benefits some kids. But for some other kids, a small pond can feel, well, small. People seeking a school with a large number of high-scoring students would be better off at a school like UVA or UMD or Wisconsin.

Please share where you went to college so I can make sure my child does not attend. This reasoning is embarrassing AF.

I went to a private college, smaller than Wake, where the median SAT is higher than the median SAT at Wake.

And yet not willing to disclose on an anonymous message board? Seriously, I want to make sure my tuition dollars are not wasted.

[Anonymous]

The university that's really a big LAC does not seem to be faring well lately in the rankings. See W&M.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The switch in methodology really benefits large schools that are accessible to unhooked high-stats kids and affordable to donut-hole families. Like most smallish test-optional schools the actual number of high-scoring students at Wake is pretty small, similar to schools like Syracuse, Iowa, or KU. What Wake offers that those bigger schools don’t is the ability to exclude more students, and the sense of superiority that a low admissions rate seems to engender. Some people care about that. Others prefer a less expensive, less exclusive school with a much larger cohort of high-scoring students.

What drugs are you on?

48 percent of kids at Wake submit test scores with a median SAT of 1450. My Wake student had a 1500 and a 3.8 at a private with grade deflation and top rigor.

32 percent of kids at Syracuse submit with a median of 1340
79 percent submit at Iowa with a median of 1240
79 percent submitted at KU with a median of 1160

Not one of these four schools is in the same tier as the others. You just spew complete nonsense.

Each of those schools is a different size. Wake is the smallest. Each school has about the same number of high-scoring students. Of course that means the percentage is higher at Wake. And percentage is very important to some people, obviously including you. Which is fine. It allows for the big fish/small pond effect, which certainly benefits some kids. But for some other kids, a small pond can feel, well, small. People seeking a school with a large number of high-scoring students would be better off at a school like UVA or UMD or Wisconsin.

Please share where you went to college so I can make sure my child does not attend. This reasoning is embarrassing AF.

So the best schools are the largest schools because they have the largest numbers of high scorers? 🤯🤯🤯