2024 US News rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This! Top 15 to Top 25 is a big difference. Emory and CMU were already T25, so students that were interested before will still be interested.

Please elaborate what the difference is? I can pay full tuition for my kids and I make no apologies for that. I'm an immigrant and a person of color and started with nothing and worked hard to achieve what I have today. I don't choose a college whether it went up or down some on one USNWR ranking. For us, fit and quality of education is most important, not number of Pell Grants.

WashU students care about rankings moreso than other students. Especially since the school is in horrible St Louis, and there's no smD1 sports. WashU relies on being top 20.

You've obviously never been there and spewing your own hate and prejudices

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:VT is 47
W&M has fallen to 53

as predicted. W&M got destroyed by the methodology changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's baffling that Michigan and UNC are ranked so high compared to UVA. In Virginia, Michigan is regarded as a safety school and UVA is much better. UVA has a much lower acceptance rate and the SAT scores are much higher, this ranking is a joke.

UVA is a public ivy and Michigan is a safety for public ivy.

Only in Virginia would people say this nonsense.

NP here. There is mno such thing as a "public ivy", and if you use that phrase, it makes you seem uneducated/ignorant/uninformed.

Yes, there is. IT's been around since the 1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Ivy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the ivys except Dartmouth moved up. Surprised by a few like UNC and UMich and poor WashU. Disappointed in Emory thought they would move up to 20.

UMich should be at the same ranking level as UCLA and Berkeley. It's more well rounded academically and geographically.

But it doesn't get the same star students. UCLA, , Bekerleys and UVAs stats are higher than Michigan for incoming students and applicants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree, if you want small class sizes, more professors with phds, and more money spent per student, you are going to get that at Wake or Tufts over Rutgers.

If you care more about social mobility, pick Rutgers.

That’s fine if you want those things, but those are luxuries. If Rutgers is enrolling essentially the same academic caliber of students as Wake or Tufts while also providing greater social mobility and not costing $90,000 per year, then that’s honestly more valuable information to the vast majority of people (even relatively affluent people in the upper middle class). Once again, the true academic elite (Ivy League and their peers) largely didn’t go down in these rankings. The next tier of private schools were getting an artificial boost based in the luxury good items that you mentioned compared to public schools with students with just as good or better academic qualifications and often higher-ranked programs in a lot of areas like engineering and business.

[Anonymous]

Does US News allow you to customize rankings to prioritize what you care about? As the WSJ does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ Half our neighborhood is attending UMich currently…”

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

If she lives in Arlington, no, it’s not. 6 out of 10 kids in the blocks surrounding us are at UMich or recently graduated.

You only have 10 kids in college in the, “blocks”
surrounding your household? How many of those 6 kids came from the same household? Doesn’t pass the smell test to be honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I disagree, if you want small class sizes, more professors with phds, and more money spent per student, you are going to get that at Wake or Tufts over Rutgers.

If you care more about social mobility, pick Rutgers.

That’s fine if you want those things, but those are luxuries. If Rutgers is enrolling essentially the same academic caliber of students as Wake or Tufts while also providing greater social mobility and not costing $90,000 per year, then that’s honestly more valuable information to the vast majority of people (even relatively affluent people in the upper middle class). Once again, the true academic elite (Ivy League and their peers) largely didn’t go down in these rankings. The next tier of private schools were getting an artificial boost based in the luxury good items that you mentioned compared to public schools with students with just as good or better academic qualifications and often higher-ranked programs in a lot of areas like engineering and business.

You're smoking Crack if you think Rutgers has the sane caliber students as Tufts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UN finally overtook UVA. It was just a matter of time. Next year UF will probably equal/pass UVA as well

UVA moved up from 25 to 24

And UNC Moved up to #22. UVA fell to #5 among the top publics.

Yea yea yea it’s basically tied with UNC so whatever. [/quote]


And lol for most readers here since UNC takes only 8% OOS and international. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the ivys except Dartmouth moved up. Surprised by a few like UNC and UMich and poor WashU. Disappointed in Emory thought they would move up to 20.

UMich should be at the same ranking level as UCLA and Berkeley. It's more well rounded academically and geographically.

But it doesn't get the same star students. UCLA, , Bekerleys and UVAs stats are higher than Michigan for incoming students and applicants.

Please do lump 'UVA' in with Berkeley and UCLA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All the ivys except Dartmouth moved up. Surprised by a few like UNC and UMich and poor WashU. Disappointed in Emory thought they would move up to 20.

UMich should be at the same ranking level as UCLA and Berkeley. It's more well rounded academically and geographically.

But it doesn't get the same star students. UCLA, , Bekerleys and UVAs stats are higher than Michigan for incoming students and applicants.

Not true at all. Check the stats for yourself

https://www.collegesimply.com/colleges/compare/university-of-california-berkeley-vs-university-of-california-los-angeles-vs-university-of-michigan-ann-arbor-vs-university-of-virginia-main-campus-vs-

They’re all comparable. You’re wrong again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does DCUM feel about Chicago being out of the top 10 in all major US rankings now (USNWR, WSJ, Forbes)? It has been a magnet for DC area students, especially from particular private schools where a number of kids were applying ED2.

Does it make applying ED2 to Hopkins looks a little better now?

Ranking changes do not change actual prestige. The tail does not wag the dog. US News is getting sillier and sillier.

USNEWS said it themselves in this article, which also outlines updates to methodology: https://www.usnews.com/education/blogs/college-rankings-blog/articles/2023-08-25/2024-best-colleges-rankings-coming-sept-18

Changes in methodology will induce changes in rank. There tend to be smaller changes in rank among those schools that typically place toward the very top or very bottom of the rankings. That's because their separation from most other schools insulates them somewhat from adjustments in methodological approach. In contrast, schools with data that resembles the breadth of other schools – which typically place toward the middle of the rankings, tied with several others – tend to incur changes that are larger in scale.

Bottom line, elite schools will remain in the top 20...they'll continue to shift around year to year, but they are typically reliably always ranked highly because they have the breadth of qualities needed to stay there.

Or is the arbitrary cutoff top 15 or 25 or 30?
There are not too many schools that are in even the top 25 of the recent USNWR, WSJ, and Forbes rankings this year.
Even Brown, Willams, Chicago, Notre Dame, CalTech, Pomona, and Hopkins wouldn't make it for all 3.
Not surprising that HYPSM are highly ranked in all 3. Penn, Duke, Northwestern, Dartmouth, Columbia, Cornell, Georgetown, and USC also make the top 25 in all 3 rankings.
For LACs, only Amherst and Swarthmore are in the top 25 of all 3 (Forbes and WSJ rank LACs in with national universities).

There are not too many schools that rank consistently high regardless of methodology changes.

Usually, it is talked about as T25 as law schools are talked about as T14

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you talking about?

24 < 25

Did you take any math classes in your life?

Anonymous wrote:It is noticeable that all the top publics went up in rankings except for one. Only UVA went down and out of top 25. Wonder why?

No. It’s at 24.

I thought UVA was at 26?

It is at 26. Went from 25 to 26.

No, UVA went from 25 to 24.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does US News allow you to customize rankings to prioritize what you care about? As the WSJ does.

No, it doesn't and that's why is not all that helpful to many. Applicants have different priorities when looking for colleges but USN tries to dictate what is important to them by fiat.

[Anonymous]

Michigan State starts to look fairly interesting in these new rankings. #60 with an 88% acceptance rate.