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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that it's not wise to rely on rankings without context. As noted, the current rankings are made up of criteria weighed in ways which likely matter only to some people. If you care about academic excellence, you have to drill down to those specific criteria - admitted student GPA and test scores, class sizes, % of classes taught by actual faculty instead of by TAs, % of students graduating in 4 years, etc. If you care about, or more highly value, other criteria, look at those. In the end, the specific ranking given a school reflects the ranking formula, which may not reflect any particular applicant's or employer's values.

In other words, to evaluate a school you have to weigh for yourself the criteria which matter to you, not blindly accept the conclusory ranking derived from criteria which matter to the ranking organization.

TAs are better teachers than professors.

TAs have no incentive to go above and beyond considering they rotate out every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this thread is any evidence, students who get into both UVA and WM and choose UVA will just move on with life. Those that choose WM will spend their time justifying their choice.

Clearly, W&M boosters have become as insufferable as UVA boosters; however, no one on this thread is discussing UVA. Why do you keep bring it up?

Except for the multiple UVA and Tech boosters taking digs at it of course

How on earth would you know who is "taking digs" at UVA? Besides which, NO ONE is talking about UVA here - just you. Quit trolling, you're beyond transparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
Frankly, a class with only ten students sounds incredibly dull. The sweet spot is 30-50.

Dull? Maybe if your peers are dry as a brick. You all would have died if you had to do a tutorial at Oxford.

Sounds like you know exactly of what you speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this thread is any evidence, students who get into both UVA and WM and choose UVA will just move on with life. Those that choose WM will spend their time justifying their choice.

You could say the same thing about the UVA boosters constantly talking about how it's so much better, how W&M is a safety for UVA, Ivy level, yada yada - if it's clearly better you wouldn't need to rub it in everyone's faces 24/7 esp when the stats don't agree with that. Why does every thread that so much as mentions W&M draw a hoard of haters that make their entire DCUM brand attacking it?

+1
If UVA was that much better they would have 100% submitting test scores and a 1570 median like the ivies but they don't and in fact have the exact same test stats as W&M.

+2. WM is just as good as UVA and we just need to spread the facts to as many people as we can.

My goodness... the insecurity of the UVA and W&M boosters is palpable. No one cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this thread is any evidence, students who get into both UVA and WM and choose UVA will just move on with life. Those that choose WM will spend their time justifying their choice.

You could say the same thing about the UVA boosters constantly talking about how it's so much better, how W&M is a safety for UVA, Ivy level, yada yada - if it's clearly better you wouldn't need to rub it in everyone's faces 24/7 esp when the stats don't agree with that. Why does every thread that so much as mentions W&M draw a hoard of haters that make their entire DCUM brand attacking it?

+1
If UVA was that much better they would have 100% submitting test scores and a 1570 median like the ivies but they don't and in fact have the exact same test stats as W&M.

+2. WM is just as good as UVA and we just need to spread the facts to as many people as we can.

My goodness... the insecurity of the UVA and W&M boosters is palpable. No one cares.

You say while commenting showing that you do care

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that it's not wise to rely on rankings without context. As noted, the current rankings are made up of criteria weighed in ways which likely matter only to some people. If you care about academic excellence, you have to drill down to those specific criteria - admitted student GPA and test scores, class sizes, % of classes taught by actual faculty instead of by TAs, % of students graduating in 4 years, etc. If you care about, or more highly value, other criteria, look at those. In the end, the specific ranking given a school reflects the ranking formula, which may not reflect any particular applicant's or employer's values.

In other words, to evaluate a school you have to weigh for yourself the criteria which matter to you, not blindly accept the conclusory ranking derived from criteria which matter to the ranking organization.

Sure. Yadda yadda yadda. Only here on tiny DCUM do people bother to "drill down" to specific criteria. The rest of the country simply uses the rankings to gauge where schools fall in relation to one another. Or, IOW, they "blindly accept the conclusory ranking" and that's that. I'm sorry it rankles you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that it's not wise to rely on rankings without context. As noted, the current rankings are made up of criteria weighed in ways which likely matter only to some people. If you care about academic excellence, you have to drill down to those specific criteria - admitted student GPA and test scores, class sizes, % of classes taught by actual faculty instead of by TAs, % of students graduating in 4 years, etc. If you care about, or more highly value, other criteria, look at those. In the end, the specific ranking given a school reflects the ranking formula, which may not reflect any particular applicant's or employer's values.

In other words, to evaluate a school you have to weigh for yourself the criteria which matter to you, not blindly accept the conclusory ranking derived from criteria which matter to the ranking organization.

TAs are better teachers than professors.

My DC is a senior at a large state school and has never had a TA teaching class. Ever.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that it's not wise to rely on rankings without context. As noted, the current rankings are made up of criteria weighed in ways which likely matter only to some people. If you care about academic excellence, you have to drill down to those specific criteria - admitted student GPA and test scores, class sizes, % of classes taught by actual faculty instead of by TAs, % of students graduating in 4 years, etc. If you care about, or more highly value, other criteria, look at those. In the end, the specific ranking given a school reflects the ranking formula, which may not reflect any particular applicant's or employer's values.

In other words, to evaluate a school you have to weigh for yourself the criteria which matter to you, not blindly accept the conclusory ranking derived from criteria which matter to the ranking organization.

Sure. Yadda yadda yadda. Only here on tiny DCUM do people bother to "drill down" to specific criteria. The rest of the country simply uses the rankings to gauge where schools fall in relation to one another. Or, IOW, they "blindly accept the conclusory ranking" and that's that. I'm sorry it rankles you.

They don't though, someone actually posted the numbers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this thread is any evidence, students who get into both UVA and WM and choose UVA will just move on with life. Those that choose WM will spend their time justifying their choice.

You could say the same thing about the UVA boosters constantly talking about how it's so much better, how W&M is a safety for UVA, Ivy level, yada yada - if it's clearly better you wouldn't need to rub it in everyone's faces 24/7 esp when the stats don't agree with that. Why does every thread that so much as mentions W&M draw a hoard of haters that make their entire DCUM brand attacking it?

+1
If UVA was that much better they would have 100% submitting test scores and a 1570 median like the ivies but they don't and in fact have the exact same test stats as W&M.

+2. WM is just as good as UVA and we just need to spread the facts to as many people as we can.

My goodness... the insecurity of the UVA and W&M boosters is palpable. No one cares.

You say while commenting showing that you do care

I care in as much as I'm sick to death of the trolls on this thread and their ridiculous pissing match. Grow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that it's not wise to rely on rankings without context. As noted, the current rankings are made up of criteria weighed in ways which likely matter only to some people. If you care about academic excellence, you have to drill down to those specific criteria - admitted student GPA and test scores, class sizes, % of classes taught by actual faculty instead of by TAs, % of students graduating in 4 years, etc. If you care about, or more highly value, other criteria, look at those. In the end, the specific ranking given a school reflects the ranking formula, which may not reflect any particular applicant's or employer's values.

In other words, to evaluate a school you have to weigh for yourself the criteria which matter to you, not blindly accept the conclusory ranking derived from criteria which matter to the ranking organization.

Sure. Yadda yadda yadda. Only here on tiny DCUM do people bother to "drill down" to specific criteria. The rest of the country simply uses the rankings to gauge where schools fall in relation to one another. Or, IOW, they "blindly accept the conclusory ranking" and that's that. I'm sorry it rankles you.

They don't though, someone actually posted the numbers

What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that it's not wise to rely on rankings without context. As noted, the current rankings are made up of criteria weighed in ways which likely matter only to some people. If you care about academic excellence, you have to drill down to those specific criteria - admitted student GPA and test scores, class sizes, % of classes taught by actual faculty instead of by TAs, % of students graduating in 4 years, etc. If you care about, or more highly value, other criteria, look at those. In the end, the specific ranking given a school reflects the ranking formula, which may not reflect any particular applicant's or employer's values.

In other words, to evaluate a school you have to weigh for yourself the criteria which matter to you, not blindly accept the conclusory ranking derived from criteria which matter to the ranking organization.

Sure. Yadda yadda yadda. Only here on tiny DCUM do people bother to "drill down" to specific criteria. The rest of the country simply uses the rankings to gauge where schools fall in relation to one another. Or, IOW, they "blindly accept the conclusory ranking" and that's that. I'm sorry it rankles you.

They don't though, someone actually posted the numbers

What?

Percentage of students that use rankings. It's low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that it's not wise to rely on rankings without context. As noted, the current rankings are made up of criteria weighed in ways which likely matter only to some people. If you care about academic excellence, you have to drill down to those specific criteria - admitted student GPA and test scores, class sizes, % of classes taught by actual faculty instead of by TAs, % of students graduating in 4 years, etc. If you care about, or more highly value, other criteria, look at those. In the end, the specific ranking given a school reflects the ranking formula, which may not reflect any particular applicant's or employer's values.

In other words, to evaluate a school you have to weigh for yourself the criteria which matter to you, not blindly accept the conclusory ranking derived from criteria which matter to the ranking organization.

Sure. Yadda yadda yadda. Only here on tiny DCUM do people bother to "drill down" to specific criteria. The rest of the country simply uses the rankings to gauge where schools fall in relation to one another. Or, IOW, they "blindly accept the conclusory ranking" and that's that. I'm sorry it rankles you.

They don't though, someone actually posted the numbers

What?

Percentage of students that use rankings. It's low.

Credible source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that it's not wise to rely on rankings without context. As noted, the current rankings are made up of criteria weighed in ways which likely matter only to some people. If you care about academic excellence, you have to drill down to those specific criteria - admitted student GPA and test scores, class sizes, % of classes taught by actual faculty instead of by TAs, % of students graduating in 4 years, etc. If you care about, or more highly value, other criteria, look at those. In the end, the specific ranking given a school reflects the ranking formula, which may not reflect any particular applicant's or employer's values.

In other words, to evaluate a school you have to weigh for yourself the criteria which matter to you, not blindly accept the conclusory ranking derived from criteria which matter to the ranking organization.

Sure. Yadda yadda yadda. Only here on tiny DCUM do people bother to "drill down" to specific criteria. The rest of the country simply uses the rankings to gauge where schools fall in relation to one another. Or, IOW, they "blindly accept the conclusory ranking" and that's that. I'm sorry it rankles you.

They don't though, someone actually posted the numbers

What?

Percentage of students that use rankings. It's low.

It's low but most importantly only like 10% of students use rankings to find specific ranks (i.e. #46 WF, #40 Rutgers) and something like 40% use rankings to find specific data about schools (acceptance rates, GPA, SAT, etc.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that it's not wise to rely on rankings without context. As noted, the current rankings are made up of criteria weighed in ways which likely matter only to some people. If you care about academic excellence, you have to drill down to those specific criteria - admitted student GPA and test scores, class sizes, % of classes taught by actual faculty instead of by TAs, % of students graduating in 4 years, etc. If you care about, or more highly value, other criteria, look at those. In the end, the specific ranking given a school reflects the ranking formula, which may not reflect any particular applicant's or employer's values.

In other words, to evaluate a school you have to weigh for yourself the criteria which matter to you, not blindly accept the conclusory ranking derived from criteria which matter to the ranking organization.

Sure. Yadda yadda yadda. Only here on tiny DCUM do people bother to "drill down" to specific criteria. The rest of the country simply uses the rankings to gauge where schools fall in relation to one another. Or, IOW, they "blindly accept the conclusory ranking" and that's that. I'm sorry it rankles you.

They don't though, someone actually posted the numbers

What?

Percentage of students that use rankings. It's low.

Credible source?

If you really want to find the source comb through the thread yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
Frankly, a class with only ten students sounds incredibly dull. The sweet spot is 30-50.

Dull? Maybe if your peers are dry as a brick. You all would have died if you had to do a tutorial at Oxford.

+1, anyone thinking 30-50 students is the adequate size is someone who wants to hide behind ignorance and not participate fully in course. They’ll say they like hearing “ideas bounce around” but it’s truly just passive learning. For centuries, small seminar and tutorial have been the leading ways to have rigorous, thoughtful education. If it didn’t matter, we’d just have massive courses for upper divs.