US News 2020 rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This used to be a ranking that parents and students could use to seriously determine the prestige of the school and academic strength of the incoming class profile without getting caught up in "woke" "social engineering" metrics. Now they too have fallen for this nonsense.

Why can't one ranking focus on prestige and just pure academic strength of the incoming students? You have other rankings that deal with all the "social mobility" nonsense.

Even before all this madness started, you could just look at the SAT (or ACT) scores, and that pretty much told you most of what you wanted to know. Some publications ranked by number of stars, etc.

Playing the USNews game has allowed some schools to shoot into the stratosphere because they could do it better, not because they are particularly good at educating undergrads.

This is a revealing comment.

From your perspective, a school’s quality is determined by its selectivity. In other words, college is just a gatekeeper thats separates the elite from the riff raff.

Another way of evaluating a college is how much does it actually improve the students. A school that takes less affluent kids and gives them a big leg up is arguably adding more value than a school that takes mostly rich kids and just helps them maintain their privileged position in society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

Because it’s 6.

What makes you think Stanford should be in the top tier with Princeton, Harvard, or Yale? Look at their endowment.
School. Enrollment. Endowment
Princeton. 8,000. 25 billion
Harvard. 20,000. 39 billion
Yale. 13,000. 29 billion
Stanford. 17,000. 26 billion

Less money means less resources. By that, Stanford belongs in where it is.

Harvard - founded 1636
Yale - founded 1701
Princeton - founded 1746
Stanford - founded 1885

Harvard has had 250 more years of alumni donations. How about measuring dollars spent on undergraduate education instead of raw endowment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One of the fascinating things about all the rankings is that they largely don't even attempt to measure schools based on what they are supposed to do -- educate. Perhaps too difficult to measure, but perhaps not enough actually care.

It appears they did that right there. So your kid going to go to Georgia State now? I didn’t think so.

That’s a snob post, bro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems odd to me that William and Mary is ranked 5 in undergraduate teaching and 15 (I think) in undergraduate research but lost ground overall.

Those rankings don't factor in the overall ranking. If they added undergraduate research to the overall ranking criteria, the top schools would go off and figure a way to get all students to do research.

William & Mary's been hurt by the social mobility (Pell Grant) component. I suspect UVA has as well in a sense, but it didn't cause them to drop as much, but it is certainly a disadvantaged there compared to UCLA and Berkeley, which have a much higher percentage of Pell recipients. The odd thing is UVA and W&M do a really good job of graduating the Pell recipients they do have. I think they are among the best.

William & Mary has also long been hurt by the resource ranking, which is below 100 or something like that. Some of the posts here focus on endowment, and certainly some schools like Princeton are richer than Croesus, but one of the big factors is having a medical school and medical center, and many of the top schools have a medical school. William & Mary doesn't have one. I suspect the biggest reason UCLA is above Berkeley, which probably has many in California scratching their heads, is because UCLA has one and Berkeley doesn't. I doubt that it makes any meaningful impact on undergraduate education there.

I vaguely recall that a few years ago, William and Mary was deciding whether to look at merging with some fairly nearby (not well ranked) medical school. I think they wisely passed, but I’m not sure.

[Anonymous]

This ain’t the dumber than dumb Florida of old, it seems!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems odd to me that William and Mary is ranked 5 in undergraduate teaching and 15 (I think) in undergraduate research but lost ground overall.

Those rankings don't factor in the overall ranking. If they added undergraduate research to the overall ranking criteria, the top schools would go off and figure a way to get all students to do research.

William & Mary's been hurt by the social mobility (Pell Grant) component. I suspect UVA has as well in a sense, but it didn't cause them to drop as much, but it is certainly a disadvantaged there compared to UCLA and Berkeley, which have a much higher percentage of Pell recipients. The odd thing is UVA and W&M do a really good job of graduating the Pell recipients they do have. I think they are among the best.

William & Mary has also long been hurt by the resource ranking, which is below 100 or something like that. Some of the posts here focus on endowment, and certainly some schools like Princeton are richer than Croesus, but one of the big factors is having a medical school and medical center, and many of the top schools have a medical school. William & Mary doesn't have one. I suspect the biggest reason UCLA is above Berkeley, which probably has many in California scratching their heads, is because UCLA has one and Berkeley doesn't. I doubt that it makes any meaningful impact on undergraduate education there.

I vaguely recall that a few years ago, William and Mary was deciding whether to look at merging with some fairly nearby (not well ranked) medical school. I think they wisely passed, but I’m not sure.

Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk. It was going to become William & Mary Medical School. I think they were going to look at basic science education at ERMS being provided in part by W&M staff, but the commute time is significant. It was determined not make financial sense after the due diligence was done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One of the fascinating things about all the rankings is that they largely don't even attempt to measure schools based on what they are supposed to do -- educate. Perhaps too difficult to measure, but perhaps not enough actually care.

It appears they did that right there. So your kid going to go to Georgia State now? I didn’t think so.

That’s a snob post, bro.

Sure but at least I’m not a hypocrite

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One of the fascinating things about all the rankings is that they largely don't even attempt to measure schools based on what they are supposed to do -- educate. Perhaps too difficult to measure, but perhaps not enough actually care.

It appears they did that right there. So your kid going to go to Georgia State now? I didn’t think so.

No. The overall USNews ranking everyone focuses on doesn't take teaching into account. This is a separate list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This used to be a ranking that parents and students could use to seriously determine the prestige of the school and academic strength of the incoming class profile without getting caught up in "woke" "social engineering" metrics. Now they too have fallen for this nonsense.

Why can't one ranking focus on prestige and just pure academic strength of the incoming students? You have other rankings that deal with all the "social mobility" nonsense.

Even before all this madness started, you could just look at the SAT (or ACT) scores, and that pretty much told you most of what you wanted to know. Some publications ranked by number of stars, etc.

Playing the USNews game has allowed some schools to shoot into the stratosphere because they could do it better, not because they are particularly good at educating undergrads.

This is a revealing comment.

From your perspective, a school’s quality is determined by its selectivity. In other words, college is just a gatekeeper thats separates the elite from the riff raff.

Another way of evaluating a college is how much does it actually improve the students. A school that takes less affluent kids and gives them a big leg up is arguably adding more value than a school that takes mostly rich kids and just helps them maintain their privileged position in society.

That's not what I think. I just don't think USNWR adds anything that tells us which schools do anything that improve the lives of students. USNWR itself has added no value. It largely measures inputs. Schools focus, above all, on increasing their ranking by manipulating the inputs used (e.g., before acceptance rate was dropped, driving up the number of applicants through marketing so it could reject them and lower acceptance rate.)

[Anonymous]

Times World Rankings

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2020/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

This has more to do with graduate research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Times World Rankings

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2020/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

This has more to do with graduate research.

And Michigan comes out ahead once again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

One of the fascinating things about all the rankings is that they largely don't even attempt to measure schools based on what they are supposed to do -- educate. Perhaps too difficult to measure, but perhaps not enough actually care.

It appears they did that right there. So your kid going to go to Georgia State now? I didn’t think so.

No. The overall USNews ranking everyone focuses on doesn't take teaching into account. This is a separate list.

Why do you care what other people use? You wanted the list and it exists so you can use it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times World Rankings

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2020/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

This has more to do with graduate research.

And Michigan comes out ahead once again.

As well it should, it spends over a half a billion of your tuition dollars on research every year. Funny they don't put that in brochures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This ranking has become a joke. It's formula now favors really rich privates that can lavish their endowment funds on "poor" students, over colleges that may try to focus on getting academically well prepared students and not discriminate based on SES.

This change in the ranking methodology will hurt middle class students a lot as colleges try to appease these idiots by now bringing in more Pell grant students at the lower end and fill the rest of the class with rich full pays to make up for the lost revenue. The folks that will suffer are deserving middle class kids that need financial aid but are not poor enough to qualify for Pell grants

I wonder where this money is coming from. The Times World ranking has % of international students for schools like Rochester (31%), Harvard (24%), Yale (26%), Boston University (27%), NYU (33%), Brandeis (27%), Columbia (37%). That is a very high percentage of international students. USNWR reports lower % so how can anyone tell if anything in these rankings is accurate of just schools chasing dollars and trying to boost rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Times World Rankings

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2020/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats

This has more to do with graduate research.

And Michigan comes out ahead once again.

As well it should, it spends over a half a billion of your tuition dollars on research every year. Funny they don't put that in brochures.

I'm surprised that this is such a bugaboo for you. Tons of undergraduate and graduate students get to participate in those research projects. That is valuable experience.

https://lsa.umich.edu/urop/students.html