UMD or W&M

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Money matters but not the most important consideration. I was under the impression that UMD is on upward trajectory whilst W&M is moving opposite direction. I have been wondering about that.

W&M alum here. I was shocked at the lower ranking it has now so went down the rabbit hole on looking at why it was dropping. Big reasons are parts that to me don’t feel like defects impacting my kids: ratings no longer value smaller class sizes but I think my kid would do well in smaller classes; ratings value higher Pell Grant attendee numbers but my kid isn’t eligible for that so it’s irrelevant for me and I don’t see a “barbell” student body make up as desirable. In short, it doesn’t sound like W&M has changed the fundamentals of its education. Rather it sounds like USNWR changed what it prioritized in ways that seem to advantage top end private schools and very large public flagships.

Stop blaming the rankings when your school drops and others don’t or even go up. The true top schools didn’t go anywhere in the rankings, however, schools that for years gamed the rankings to try to go up saw a large drop.

DP: W&M never gamed any rankings. PP is correct--the features that make W&M a great school--small class sizes and a focus on undergraduate teaching despite being classed as a research university--are just not prioritized in the new USNWR--but many people find them more valuable than what the rankings currently prioritize. The Pell grant focus is misguided IMO--it is leading top institutions to prioritize giving aid to poor kids and then relying on full-pay UMC+ students to make up the difference--leading to a "barbell" economic distribution where MC/lower end of UMC families are not attending top schools due to finances but poor and wealthier UMC/rich people are. It also privileges schools in LCOLA where there are more Pell grant recipients since it's a federal standard. The data clearly shows this.

W&M --despite being expensive for a public school--does offer the most comprehensive need-based financial aid among VA publics which makes it affordable for high stats students who are not low-income enough to receive Pell grants, but middle class.

I think USNWR should either stay out of the social engineering aspects of college in their rankings OR do a more continuous measure of parental income to see who the schools are really serving rather than a Pell grant cut-off point. A well-educated middle class is essential to a functioning society and is generally the group that values higher education the most and the ranking system is driving admissions and college-level financial aid policies that leave the middle class less likely to attend top schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish we had W&M in Maryland.

Me too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are equal in reputation so would let student pick which they prefer, assuming cost is similar.

They absolutely aren't

You're right. UMD is ranked higher (46) than WM (53).
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

And yet, according to Parchment, when applicants are admitted to both, they choose W&M over UMD-CP 70% to 30%. Revealed preference tells us a lot more than pseudoscience rankings.

preferences can be about many things, and not necessarily about academics.

[Anonymous]

Two different types of colleges. One large. One mid size. Both have good academic reputations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC is accepted to UMD Carillon (in-state) and W&M Monroe Scholars program. Wants to be Econ major. Has a slight preference for a smaller college. Any thoughts/insights appreciated!

UMD has a T20 econ department. W&M does not. This is a no brainer.

This is the problem with ranking sites... they are so different.

https://www.collegefactual.com/majors/social-sciences/economics/rankings/top-ranked/

UMD #38
W&M #78

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Money matters but not the most important consideration. I was under the impression that UMD is on upward trajectory whilst W&M is moving opposite direction. I have been wondering about that.

W&M alum here. I was shocked at the lower ranking it has now so went down the rabbit hole on looking at why it was dropping. Big reasons are parts that to me don’t feel like defects impacting my kids: ratings no longer value smaller class sizes but I think my kid would do well in smaller classes; ratings value higher Pell Grant attendee numbers but my kid isn’t eligible for that so it’s irrelevant for me and I don’t see a “barbell” student body make up as desirable. In short, it doesn’t sound like W&M has changed the fundamentals of its education. Rather it sounds like USNWR changed what it prioritized in ways that seem to advantage top end private schools and very large public flagships.

Stop blaming the rankings when your school drops and others don’t or even go up. The true top schools didn’t go anywhere in the rankings, however, schools that for years gamed the rankings to try to go up saw a large drop.

DP: W&M never gamed any rankings. PP is correct--the features that make W&M a great school--small class sizes and a focus on undergraduate teaching despite being classed as a research university--are just not prioritized in the new USNWR--but many people find them more valuable than what the rankings currently prioritize. The Pell grant focus is misguided IMO--it is leading top institutions to prioritize giving aid to poor kids and then relying on full-pay UMC+ students to make up the difference--leading to a "barbell" economic distribution where MC/lower end of UMC families are not attending top schools due to finances but poor and wealthier UMC/rich people are. It also privileges schools in LCOLA where there are more Pell grant recipients since it's a federal standard. The data clearly shows this.

W&M --despite being expensive for a public school--does offer the most comprehensive need-based financial aid among VA publics which makes it affordable for high stats students who are not low-income enough to receive Pell grants, but middle class.

I think USNWR should either stay out of the social engineering aspects of college in their rankings OR do a more continuous measure of parental income to see who the schools are really serving rather than a Pell grant cut-off point. A well-educated middle class is essential to a functioning society and is generally the group that values higher education the most and the ranking system is driving admissions and college-level financial aid policies that leave the middle class less likely to attend top schools.

Of course you think it is correct, because you are crying over the ranking the methodology. Personally, I think any school in the Top 100 is a good school, so not sure why somebody decided to start crying over W&M's 53 ranking.

However, you are now in a long line of Tulane, Wash U, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc. who are crying over their particular school dropping when their peer schools did not, and maybe even went up in the rankings. It would be one thing if every school dropped uniformly, but the fact is they did not.

BTW, W&M is ranked 212 by the WSJ rankings...so you should be thankful it is 53 by USNews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Money matters but not the most important consideration. I was under the impression that UMD is on upward trajectory whilst W&M is moving opposite direction. I have been wondering about that.

W&M alum here. I was shocked at the lower ranking it has now so went down the rabbit hole on looking at why it was dropping. Big reasons are parts that to me don’t feel like defects impacting my kids: ratings no longer value smaller class sizes but I think my kid would do well in smaller classes; ratings value higher Pell Grant attendee numbers but my kid isn’t eligible for that so it’s irrelevant for me and I don’t see a “barbell” student body make up as desirable. In short, it doesn’t sound like W&M has changed the fundamentals of its education. Rather it sounds like USNWR changed what it prioritized in ways that seem to advantage top end private schools and very large public flagships.

Stop blaming the rankings when your school drops and others don’t or even go up. The true top schools didn’t go anywhere in the rankings, however, schools that for years gamed the rankings to try to go up saw a large drop.

DP: W&M never gamed any rankings. PP is correct--the features that make W&M a great school--small class sizes and a focus on undergraduate teaching despite being classed as a research university--are just not prioritized in the new USNWR--but many people find them more valuable than what the rankings currently prioritize. The Pell grant focus is misguided IMO--it is leading top institutions to prioritize giving aid to poor kids and then relying on full-pay UMC+ students to make up the difference--leading to a "barbell" economic distribution where MC/lower end of UMC families are not attending top schools due to finances but poor and wealthier UMC/rich people are. It also privileges schools in LCOLA where there are more Pell grant recipients since it's a federal standard. The data clearly shows this.

W&M --despite being expensive for a public school--does offer the most comprehensive need-based financial aid among VA publics which makes it affordable for high stats students who are not low-income enough to receive Pell grants, but middle class.

I think USNWR should either stay out of the social engineering aspects of college in their rankings OR do a more continuous measure of parental income to see who the schools are really serving rather than a Pell grant cut-off point. A well-educated middle class is essential to a functioning society and is generally the group that values higher education the most and the ranking system is driving admissions and college-level financial aid policies that leave the middle class less likely to attend top schools.

Of course you think it is correct, because you are crying over the ranking the methodology. Personally, I think any school in the Top 100 is a good school, so not sure why somebody decided to start crying over W&M's 53 ranking.

However, you are now in a long line of Tulane, Wash U, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc. who are crying over their particular school dropping when their peer schools did not, and maybe even went up in the rankings. It would be one thing if every school dropped uniformly, but the fact is they did not.

BTW, W&M is ranked 212 by the WSJ rankings...so you should be thankful it is 53 by USNews.

You clearly don't understand the argument or how to make sense of data or the impact of ranking criteria.

[Anonymous]

I have a kid at Wake. The college counselor thought W&M was a target school for her and Wake a low reach. Like op, we are oos for W& M. I imagine Tufts would line up similarly to Wake in this comparison.

That said, had she applied and been accepted to W&M (she didn’t apply because wanted better sports/more social school), I would have let her chose whichever she wanted to attend because reputationally, they are close enough. Same here with MD and W and M.

I’ll add that the parchment data is particularly meaningless here because it does not account for state of residence of the students, my guess is most kids go with the cheaper instate option.

Finally, as someone who lives in MD, I think some of the Virginians here are not giving it enough credit. It’s our flagship, and has become significantly more competitive for admissions over the past decade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Money matters but not the most important consideration. I was under the impression that UMD is on upward trajectory whilst W&M is moving opposite direction. I have been wondering about that.

W&M alum here. I was shocked at the lower ranking it has now so went down the rabbit hole on looking at why it was dropping. Big reasons are parts that to me don’t feel like defects impacting my kids: ratings no longer value smaller class sizes but I think my kid would do well in smaller classes; ratings value higher Pell Grant attendee numbers but my kid isn’t eligible for that so it’s irrelevant for me and I don’t see a “barbell” student body make up as desirable. In short, it doesn’t sound like W&M has changed the fundamentals of its education. Rather it sounds like USNWR changed what it prioritized in ways that seem to advantage top end private schools and very large public flagships.

Stop blaming the rankings when your school drops and others don’t or even go up. The true top schools didn’t go anywhere in the rankings, however, schools that for years gamed the rankings to try to go up saw a large drop.

DP: W&M never gamed any rankings. PP is correct--the features that make W&M a great school--small class sizes and a focus on undergraduate teaching despite being classed as a research university--are just not prioritized in the new USNWR--but many people find them more valuable than what the rankings currently prioritize. The Pell grant focus is misguided IMO--it is leading top institutions to prioritize giving aid to poor kids and then relying on full-pay UMC+ students to make up the difference--leading to a "barbell" economic distribution where MC/lower end of UMC families are not attending top schools due to finances but poor and wealthier UMC/rich people are. It also privileges schools in LCOLA where there are more Pell grant recipients since it's a federal standard. The data clearly shows this.

W&M --despite being expensive for a public school--does offer the most comprehensive need-based financial aid among VA publics which makes it affordable for high stats students who are not low-income enough to receive Pell grants, but middle class.

I think USNWR should either stay out of the social engineering aspects of college in their rankings OR do a more continuous measure of parental income to see who the schools are really serving rather than a Pell grant cut-off point. A well-educated middle class is essential to a functioning society and is generally the group that values higher education the most and the ranking system is driving admissions and college-level financial aid policies that leave the middle class less likely to attend top schools.

Of course you think it is correct, because you are crying over the ranking the methodology. Personally, I think any school in the Top 100 is a good school, so not sure why somebody decided to start crying over W&M's 53 ranking.

However, you are now in a long line of Tulane, Wash U, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc. who are crying over their particular school dropping when their peer schools did not, and maybe even went up in the rankings. It would be one thing if every school dropped uniformly, but the fact is they did not.

BTW, W&M is ranked 212 by the WSJ rankings...so you should be thankful it is 53 by USNews.

But they did drop uniformly. All the schools that moved up significantly were large publics and the decliners were all privates , particularly small privates (William and Mary treated like a small private because it shares characteristics with them here). The schools that fell the most had scored particularly high on the small classes and classes taught by professors categories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Money matters but not the most important consideration. I was under the impression that UMD is on upward trajectory whilst W&M is moving opposite direction. I have been wondering about that.

W&M alum here. I was shocked at the lower ranking it has now so went down the rabbit hole on looking at why it was dropping. Big reasons are parts that to me don’t feel like defects impacting my kids: ratings no longer value smaller class sizes but I think my kid would do well in smaller classes; ratings value higher Pell Grant attendee numbers but my kid isn’t eligible for that so it’s irrelevant for me and I don’t see a “barbell” student body make up as desirable. In short, it doesn’t sound like W&M has changed the fundamentals of its education. Rather it sounds like USNWR changed what it prioritized in ways that seem to advantage top end private schools and very large public flagships.

Stop blaming the rankings when your school drops and others don’t or even go up. The true top schools didn’t go anywhere in the rankings, however, schools that for years gamed the rankings to try to go up saw a large drop.

DP: W&M never gamed any rankings. PP is correct--the features that make W&M a great school--small class sizes and a focus on undergraduate teaching despite being classed as a research university--are just not prioritized in the new USNWR--but many people find them more valuable than what the rankings currently prioritize. The Pell grant focus is misguided IMO--it is leading top institutions to prioritize giving aid to poor kids and then relying on full-pay UMC+ students to make up the difference--leading to a "barbell" economic distribution where MC/lower end of UMC families are not attending top schools due to finances but poor and wealthier UMC/rich people are. It also privileges schools in LCOLA where there are more Pell grant recipients since it's a federal standard. The data clearly shows this.

W&M --despite being expensive for a public school--does offer the most comprehensive need-based financial aid among VA publics which makes it affordable for high stats students who are not low-income enough to receive Pell grants, but middle class.

I think USNWR should either stay out of the social engineering aspects of college in their rankings OR do a more continuous measure of parental income to see who the schools are really serving rather than a Pell grant cut-off point. A well-educated middle class is essential to a functioning society and is generally the group that values higher education the most and the ranking system is driving admissions and college-level financial aid policies that leave the middle class less likely to attend top schools.

Of course you think it is correct, because you are crying over the ranking the methodology. Personally, I think any school in the Top 100 is a good school, so not sure why somebody decided to start crying over W&M's 53 ranking.

However, you are now in a long line of Tulane, Wash U, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc. who are crying over their particular school dropping when their peer schools did not, and maybe even went up in the rankings. It would be one thing if every school dropped uniformly, but the fact is they did not.

BTW, W&M is ranked 212 by the WSJ rankings...so you should be thankful it is 53 by USNews.

But they did drop uniformly. All the schools that moved up significantly were large publics and the decliners were all privates , particularly small privates (William and Mary treated like a small private because it shares characteristics with them here). The schools that fell the most had scored particularly high on the small classes and classes taught by professors categories.

No they didn't...why didn't Princeton drop...why did Brown move up...why didn't JHU drop...why did Emory remain basically the same. Do you claim to know so much about other schools to be able to parse the differences?

This is the classic...blame the rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they are equal in reputation so would let student pick which they prefer, assuming cost is similar.

They absolutely aren't

You're right. UMD is ranked higher (46) than WM (53).
https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

And yet, according to Parchment, when applicants are admitted to both, they choose W&M over UMD-CP 70% to 30%. Revealed preference tells us a lot more than pseudoscience rankings.

preferences can be about many things, and not necessarily about academics.

Yes, but what makes a university “better” than another if not the revealed preference of a population who can choose between them? What you think is important is NOT the only criteria in evaluating a university. And there is no way accurate way to measure the “academics” between the two in a way that you can say flatly one is stronger than the other. Sure UMD is bigger and offers things that W&M does not, but what W&M does do I think it does quite well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Money matters but not the most important consideration. I was under the impression that UMD is on upward trajectory whilst W&M is moving opposite direction. I have been wondering about that.

W&M alum here. I was shocked at the lower ranking it has now so went down the rabbit hole on looking at why it was dropping. Big reasons are parts that to me don’t feel like defects impacting my kids: ratings no longer value smaller class sizes but I think my kid would do well in smaller classes; ratings value higher Pell Grant attendee numbers but my kid isn’t eligible for that so it’s irrelevant for me and I don’t see a “barbell” student body make up as desirable. In short, it doesn’t sound like W&M has changed the fundamentals of its education. Rather it sounds like USNWR changed what it prioritized in ways that seem to advantage top end private schools and very large public flagships.

Stop blaming the rankings when your school drops and others don’t or even go up. The true top schools didn’t go anywhere in the rankings, however, schools that for years gamed the rankings to try to go up saw a large drop.

DP: W&M never gamed any rankings. PP is correct--the features that make W&M a great school--small class sizes and a focus on undergraduate teaching despite being classed as a research university--are just not prioritized in the new USNWR--but many people find them more valuable than what the rankings currently prioritize. The Pell grant focus is misguided IMO--it is leading top institutions to prioritize giving aid to poor kids and then relying on full-pay UMC+ students to make up the difference--leading to a "barbell" economic distribution where MC/lower end of UMC families are not attending top schools due to finances but poor and wealthier UMC/rich people are. It also privileges schools in LCOLA where there are more Pell grant recipients since it's a federal standard. The data clearly shows this.

W&M --despite being expensive for a public school--does offer the most comprehensive need-based financial aid among VA publics which makes it affordable for high stats students who are not low-income enough to receive Pell grants, but middle class.

I think USNWR should either stay out of the social engineering aspects of college in their rankings OR do a more continuous measure of parental income to see who the schools are really serving rather than a Pell grant cut-off point. A well-educated middle class is essential to a functioning society and is generally the group that values higher education the most and the ranking system is driving admissions and college-level financial aid policies that leave the middle class less likely to attend top schools.

Of course you think it is correct, because you are crying over the ranking the methodology. Personally, I think any school in the Top 100 is a good school, so not sure why somebody decided to start crying over W&M's 53 ranking.

However, you are now in a long line of Tulane, Wash U, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc. who are crying over their particular school dropping when their peer schools did not, and maybe even went up in the rankings. It would be one thing if every school dropped uniformly, but the fact is they did not.

BTW, W&M is ranked 212 by the WSJ rankings...so you should be thankful it is 53 by USNews.

But they did drop uniformly. All the schools that moved up significantly were large publics and the decliners were all privates , particularly small privates (William and Mary treated like a small private because it shares characteristics with them here). The schools that fell the most had scored particularly high on the small classes and classes taught by professors categories.

No they didn't...why didn't Princeton drop...why did Brown move up...why didn't JHU drop...why did Emory remain basically the same. Do you claim to know so much about other schools to be able to parse the differences?

This is the classic...blame the rankings.

If you are a MD grad, you’re not doing your position and the school any favors here. If you really understood the rankings and all the factors you wouldn’t be pushing this narrative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Money matters but not the most important consideration. I was under the impression that UMD is on upward trajectory whilst W&M is moving opposite direction. I have been wondering about that.

W&M alum here. I was shocked at the lower ranking it has now so went down the rabbit hole on looking at why it was dropping. Big reasons are parts that to me don’t feel like defects impacting my kids: ratings no longer value smaller class sizes but I think my kid would do well in smaller classes; ratings value higher Pell Grant attendee numbers but my kid isn’t eligible for that so it’s irrelevant for me and I don’t see a “barbell” student body make up as desirable. In short, it doesn’t sound like W&M has changed the fundamentals of its education. Rather it sounds like USNWR changed what it prioritized in ways that seem to advantage top end private schools and very large public flagships.

Stop blaming the rankings when your school drops and others don’t or even go up. The true top schools didn’t go anywhere in the rankings, however, schools that for years gamed the rankings to try to go up saw a large drop.

Yeah if you think W&M, a school that was in the top 30s for decades was gaming the rankings, you need to step out and let the adults talk.

Sorry…it likely dropped for good reason. Funny all the cry babies when a school drops.

Sounds like you are one of the little babies.

Nobody is crying but ok? You're just thinking illogically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Money matters but not the most important consideration. I was under the impression that UMD is on upward trajectory whilst W&M is moving opposite direction. I have been wondering about that.

W&M alum here. I was shocked at the lower ranking it has now so went down the rabbit hole on looking at why it was dropping. Big reasons are parts that to me don’t feel like defects impacting my kids: ratings no longer value smaller class sizes but I think my kid would do well in smaller classes; ratings value higher Pell Grant attendee numbers but my kid isn’t eligible for that so it’s irrelevant for me and I don’t see a “barbell” student body make up as desirable. In short, it doesn’t sound like W&M has changed the fundamentals of its education. Rather it sounds like USNWR changed what it prioritized in ways that seem to advantage top end private schools and very large public flagships.

Stop blaming the rankings when your school drops and others don’t or even go up. The true top schools didn’t go anywhere in the rankings, however, schools that for years gamed the rankings to try to go up saw a large drop.

DP: W&M never gamed any rankings. PP is correct--the features that make W&M a great school--small class sizes and a focus on undergraduate teaching despite being classed as a research university--are just not prioritized in the new USNWR--but many people find them more valuable than what the rankings currently prioritize. The Pell grant focus is misguided IMO--it is leading top institutions to prioritize giving aid to poor kids and then relying on full-pay UMC+ students to make up the difference--leading to a "barbell" economic distribution where MC/lower end of UMC families are not attending top schools due to finances but poor and wealthier UMC/rich people are. It also privileges schools in LCOLA where there are more Pell grant recipients since it's a federal standard. The data clearly shows this.

W&M --despite being expensive for a public school--does offer the most comprehensive need-based financial aid among VA publics which makes it affordable for high stats students who are not low-income enough to receive Pell grants, but middle class.

I think USNWR should either stay out of the social engineering aspects of college in their rankings OR do a more continuous measure of parental income to see who the schools are really serving rather than a Pell grant cut-off point. A well-educated middle class is essential to a functioning society and is generally the group that values higher education the most and the ranking system is driving admissions and college-level financial aid policies that leave the middle class less likely to attend top schools.

Of course you think it is correct, because you are crying over the ranking the methodology. Personally, I think any school in the Top 100 is a good school, so not sure why somebody decided to start crying over W&M's 53 ranking.

However, you are now in a long line of Tulane, Wash U, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc. who are crying over their particular school dropping when their peer schools did not, and maybe even went up in the rankings. It would be one thing if every school dropped uniformly, but the fact is they did not.

BTW, W&M is ranked 212 by the WSJ rankings...so you should be thankful it is 53 by USNews.

But they did drop uniformly. All the schools that moved up significantly were large publics and the decliners were all privates , particularly small privates (William and Mary treated like a small private because it shares characteristics with them here). The schools that fell the most had scored particularly high on the small classes and classes taught by professors categories.

No they didn't...why didn't Princeton drop...why did Brown move up...why didn't JHU drop...why did Emory remain basically the same. Do you claim to know so much about other schools to be able to parse the differences?

This is the classic...blame the rankings.

Because of the size of their endowments. But that’s affects different ranking factors.

Again, nearly all the schools moving up shared the same phenotype and all the schools moving down shared another. You seem to have trouble with logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Money matters but not the most important consideration. I was under the impression that UMD is on upward trajectory whilst W&M is moving opposite direction. I have been wondering about that.

W&M alum here. I was shocked at the lower ranking it has now so went down the rabbit hole on looking at why it was dropping. Big reasons are parts that to me don’t feel like defects impacting my kids: ratings no longer value smaller class sizes but I think my kid would do well in smaller classes; ratings value higher Pell Grant attendee numbers but my kid isn’t eligible for that so it’s irrelevant for me and I don’t see a “barbell” student body make up as desirable. In short, it doesn’t sound like W&M has changed the fundamentals of its education. Rather it sounds like USNWR changed what it prioritized in ways that seem to advantage top end private schools and very large public flagships.

Stop blaming the rankings when your school drops and others don’t or even go up. The true top schools didn’t go anywhere in the rankings, however, schools that for years gamed the rankings to try to go up saw a large drop.

DP: W&M never gamed any rankings. PP is correct--the features that make W&M a great school--small class sizes and a focus on undergraduate teaching despite being classed as a research university--are just not prioritized in the new USNWR--but many people find them more valuable than what the rankings currently prioritize. The Pell grant focus is misguided IMO--it is leading top institutions to prioritize giving aid to poor kids and then relying on full-pay UMC+ students to make up the difference--leading to a "barbell" economic distribution where MC/lower end of UMC families are not attending top schools due to finances but poor and wealthier UMC/rich people are. It also privileges schools in LCOLA where there are more Pell grant recipients since it's a federal standard. The data clearly shows this.

W&M --despite being expensive for a public school--does offer the most comprehensive need-based financial aid among VA publics which makes it affordable for high stats students who are not low-income enough to receive Pell grants, but middle class.

I think USNWR should either stay out of the social engineering aspects of college in their rankings OR do a more continuous measure of parental income to see who the schools are really serving rather than a Pell grant cut-off point. A well-educated middle class is essential to a functioning society and is generally the group that values higher education the most and the ranking system is driving admissions and college-level financial aid policies that leave the middle class less likely to attend top schools.

Of course you think it is correct, because you are crying over the ranking the methodology. Personally, I think any school in the Top 100 is a good school, so not sure why somebody decided to start crying over W&M's 53 ranking.

However, you are now in a long line of Tulane, Wash U, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc. who are crying over their particular school dropping when their peer schools did not, and maybe even went up in the rankings. It would be one thing if every school dropped uniformly, but the fact is they did not.

BTW, W&M is ranked 212 by the WSJ rankings...so you should be thankful it is 53 by USNews.

But they did drop uniformly. All the schools that moved up significantly were large publics and the decliners were all privates , particularly small privates (William and Mary treated like a small private because it shares characteristics with them here). The schools that fell the most had scored particularly high on the small classes and classes taught by professors categories.

No they didn't...why didn't Princeton drop...why did Brown move up...why didn't JHU drop...why did Emory remain basically the same. Do you claim to know so much about other schools to be able to parse the differences?

This is the classic...blame the rankings.

Because of the size of their endowments. But that’s affects different ranking factors.

Again, nearly all the schools moving up shared the same phenotype and all the schools moving down shared another. You seem to have trouble with logic.

Ooops...now it is the endowment size. You claiming Vanderbilt, Tulane, Wake have tiny endowments? What's the next excuse?

I actually thought at 53 W&M was ranked pretty high compared to what I would expect.

Now I think maybe the WSJ has it right at 212.