2024 US News rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony here is that the public schools produce more social mobility only for in state students who are already applying in droves. Most charge private school tuition at full freight to out of staters.

UCLA and Cal charge roughly $20K less per year than most of the top 25 privates. My DD is at UCLA and her tuition is lower than the DC private school that she graduated from!

What is her tuition/room&board for out of state with no financial aid?

[Anonymous]

“ Half our neighborhood is attending UMich currently…”

Congrats for the most ridiculous comment of the day thus far!

[Anonymous]

I had to take off work I'm so upset. Yes I know I'm being dramatic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of this is based on hard academic merit. It's social factors and diversity and first gen and holistic measures.

[b]Only a school that requires all test scores (not test optional), gpa, course rigor[b] and known for quality education should be in the top 10.

It's no longer a purely 'academic' list.

Georgetown does.

[Anonymous]

I think the new methodology removing class rank raises a legit issue about the ranking removing too many academic-focused factors, but by the same token, the class size and alumni engagement factors were too easily gamed by a lot of private schools and artificially propped them up.

Ultimately, I think the new rankings overall are better in clarifying, “Which schools are actually worth paying $90,000 per year over our in-state flagship?” The rankings still indicate that there’s a clear difference by going to an Ivy or its other peers in the top 20-ish, but maybe people will be dissuaded from thinking that paying a lot extra for, say, Tufts or Wake Forest is going to result in materially different outcomes compared to many of the major public flagships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of this is based on hard academic merit. It's social factors and diversity and first gen and holistic measures.

Only a school that requires all test scores (not test optional), gpa, course rigor and known for quality education should be in the top 10.

It's no longer a purely 'academic' list.

And you think it used to be? Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This year's rankings placed a greater emphasis on social mobility ignoring many academic factors.

the vast majority of people in this country are not wealthy, so the ranking makes more sense to the vast majority of people in this country.

I realize that the wealthy prefer to have their own biased wealthy colleges at the top rankings, though. Maybe you ought to get Town & Country magazine to create a list just for the rich people.

Only wealthy people care about academic factors? Good to know.

Being able to graduate college and increase social mobility is more important to people who are not wealthy, which is the vast majority of people in this country.

Only wealthy people who can buy their way into expensive colleges via ED, college counselors and activities care about the "eliteness" of a college. So yea, go call Town & Country.

Except when increasing social mobility is almost entirely a function of who they let in and not of the education provided to the students once they are admitted. The public schools attract more lower income students, that is pretty much the sole reason for their improvement as a group this year.

However, top publics were dinged hard for decades due to heavy weights based on money. About time - you shoudn't be able to 'buy' higher rankings with money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:None of this is based on hard academic merit. It's social factors and diversity and first gen and holistic measures.

Only a school that requires all test scores (not test optional), gpa, course rigor and known for quality education should be in the top 10.

It's no longer a purely 'academic' list.

since when is donation and legacy about academics? Oh, right, when the list reflects your opinion.

The company discarded five factors that often favored wealthy colleges and together made up 18 percent of a school’s score, including undergraduate class sizes, alumni giving rates and high school class standing...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This year's rankings placed a greater emphasis on social mobility ignoring many academic factors.

the vast majority of people in this country are not wealthy, so the ranking makes more sense to the vast majority of people in this country.

I realize that the wealthy prefer to have their own biased wealthy colleges at the top rankings, though. Maybe you ought to get Town & Country magazine to create a list just for the rich people.

Only wealthy people care about academic factors? Good to know.

Being able to graduate college and increase social mobility is more important to people who are not wealthy, which is the vast majority of people in this country.

Only wealthy people who can buy their way into expensive colleges via ED, college counselors and activities care about the "eliteness" of a college. So yea, go call Town & Country.

Except when increasing social mobility is almost entirely a function of who they let in and not of the education provided to the students once they are admitted. The public schools attract more lower income students, that is pretty much the sole reason for their improvement as a group this year.

However, top publics were dinged hard for decades due to heavy weights based on money. About time - you shoudn't be able to 'buy' higher rankings with money.

Exactly. When USNWR started in the rankings business, many of the top schools were publics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The irony here is that the public schools produce more social mobility only for in state students who are already applying in droves. Most charge private school tuition at full freight to out of staters.

UCLA and Cal charge roughly $20K less per year than most of the top 25 privates. My DD is at UCLA and her tuition is lower than the DC private school that she graduated from!

My kid graduated from Berkeley recently and it was less expensive than all of the privates being considered due to scholarship money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the new methodology removing class rank raises a legit issue about the ranking removing too many academic-focused factors, but by the same token, the class size and alumni engagement factors were too easily gamed by a lot of private schools and artificially propped them up.

Ultimately, I think the new rankings overall are better in clarifying, “Which schools are actually worth paying $90,000 per year over our in-state flagship?” The rankings still indicate that there’s a clear difference by going to an Ivy or its other peers in the top 20-ish, but maybe people will be dissuaded from thinking that paying a lot extra for, say, Tufts or Wake Forest is going to result in materially different outcomes compared to many of the major public flagships.

agree.

The T10 are still the same - the top ivies, and I include MIT in that.

But, I never understood why some of the other expensive privates were ranked so high. All things being equal for the student, if the outcome for students attending an expensive private is not much different than the outcome of similar background students going to a cheaper in state public flag ship, then how is the expensive private any "better"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People only went to Washu because it was T15. Apps are going to crater this year and next.

Nice try

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm oddly joyous to see all the Southern private schools drop like flies in the rankings. Vanderbilt, WashU, Rice, Tulane, Emory, Wake Forest all down. As much as I hate to say it, I think Duke is basically carrying the reputation of the entire region, or it would be the foremost educational backwater of the US by a wide margin.

You didn't do to well in geography lessons, did you?

None of the Top 25 privates fell out the T25. Unlike West coasts USC.

NYU?
However the last thing I would worry about are these two schools.
USC is actually doing pretty well.
A lot of people claimed it'll get kicked out of T30 without knowing what they are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This year's rankings placed a greater emphasis on social mobility ignoring many academic factors.

the vast majority of people in this country are not wealthy, so the ranking makes more sense to the vast majority of people in this country.

I realize that the wealthy prefer to have their own biased wealthy colleges at the top rankings, though. Maybe you ought to get Town & Country magazine to create a list just for the rich people.

Only wealthy people care about academic factors? Good to know.

Being able to graduate college and increase social mobility is more important to people who are not wealthy, which is the vast majority of people in this country.

Only wealthy people who can buy their way into expensive colleges via ED, college counselors and activities care about the "eliteness" of a college. So yea, go call Town & Country.

Except when increasing social mobility is almost entirely a function of who they let in and not of the education provided to the students once they are admitted. The public schools attract more lower income students, that is pretty much the sole reason for their improvement as a group this year.

However, top publics were dinged hard for decades due to heavy weights based on money. About time - you shoudn't be able to 'buy' higher rankings with money.

Exactly. When USNWR started in the rankings business, many of the top schools were publics.

So true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People only went to Washu because it was T15. Apps are going to crater this year and next.

Nice try

If you don’t think that dropping to 24 is going to cause a lot of potential applicants to look elsewhere you’re crazy.