2024 US News rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

You're seriously think so? Is there a past example of similar drops in ranking, followed by significant drops in apps?

Honest, question. I find this whole ranking and prestige discussion fascinating.

It will be interesting to see. The public schools that moved up to T25 were already lottery schools for oos students. Are top out of state students really going to start applying to Davis, Merced and Rutgers? Seems unlikely.

[Anonymous]

These are the dumbest US News rankings yet. Should just be called US Pell Grant rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These are the dumbest US News rankings yet. Should just be called US Pell Grant rankings.

I thought the suburban milk toast DC area moms were the classic PC crowd who would eat this DEI/PC bs up. Maybe do as I say not as I do going on again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Incredible, 32 pages of chest puffing

Most of it by UVA boosters. Honestly, they're rampant. There's lots of other schools on the list, but they won't be deterred.

Great kids go to UVA. Great kids go to UMich. They're both good schools. Enough with the trash talking, it's really affecting how I see UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Incredible, 32 pages of chest puffing

Most of it by UVA boosters. Honestly, they're rampant. There's lots of other schools on the list, but they won't be deterred.

Great kids go to UVA. Great kids go to UMich. They're both good schools. Enough with the trash talking, it's really affecting how I see UVA.

Stay on this thread for at least 6 months and you will see why UVA boosters are so annoyingly delusional not to mention crass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It doesn't dictate anything. You don't have to go by their rankings, or any rankings, for that matter. You just don't like their rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Michigan reports SAT 50% at 1350-1530. UVA reports at 1390- 1570. Michigan reports 50% ACT at 31-34. UVA at 32-35. So, yes, higher for UVA. The 75th percentil of last year's incoming class reports having a 4.53 GPA, a 35 ACT and a 1520,

This is not correct. Look at the Common Data Sets for the same year.

[Anonymous]

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

I noticed that too. A decent amount of separation from Indiana now (#73), which seems to be much more popular here at DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Michigan reports SAT 50% at 1350-1530. UVA reports at 1390- 1570. Michigan reports 50% ACT at 31-34. UVA at 32-35. So, yes, higher for UVA. The 75th percentil of last year's incoming class reports having a 4.53 GPA, a 35 ACT and a 1520,

This is not correct. Look at the Common Data Sets for the same year.

Not only is it incorrect, but Michigan recalculated GPAs on a 4.0 scale, so that metric is worthless. Furthermore, both Michigan and UVA have marginally higher scores etc than both UCB and UCLA. All that matters is this:

UCB/UCLA #1

Michigan. #3

And then the rest

UNC #4 etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A college education has the most impact for the non wealthy, so this ranking list makes more sense

So this new ranking works best for the poor - and that's fine. I'll bet that many (if not most) on DCUM don't fit that category though.

It works for more than just the "poor". Lots of middle/umc families cannot afford these crazy expensive colleges. These are the donut whole families.

The vast majority of college students are not wealthy, so again, this ranking list works for the vast majority of people in this country. DCUM crowd is not a reflection of this country.

But you can’t go for cheap to any of these top public of you don’t live in state. All of them charge as much as private schools for oos, with no merit.

UC schools, Michigan, UVA and WM are really the ~$70k+ institutions for OOS. Remainder are more reasonable and/or offer merit. UMD (now top 50) costs us $45k OOS. UVA engineering in-state is around $42k.

[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.

It's not obvious that a school should be ranked higher because those attending had higher SAT scores and grades in High School. Say you split Princeton (#1 in the current ranking) in half (facilities and professors teaching 50/50) and then put 1000 students in half A and 1000 in half B. If those in Half A has SATs of 1500+ and those in half B 1400-1500 - is Half A a better school and should be ranked 50 spots higher?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not obvious that a school should be ranked higher because those attending had higher SAT scores and grades in High School. Say you split Princeton (#1 in the current ranking) in half (facilities and professors teaching 50/50) and then put 1000 students in half A and 1000 in half B. If those in Half A has SATs of 1500+ and those in half B 1400-1500 - is Half A a better school and should be ranked 50 spots higher?

Quality of peer students should be a major factor.

[Anonymous]

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.

In Virginia (VA resident for 26 years), Michigan is regarded as a better school in general than UVA and UVA has a higher acceptance rate than Michigan. UVA should be ranked around 30.

I'm a college counselor. This is false. Usually, instate Virginians go to Michigan as OOS public if they can't get into the Virginia school of their choice. UVA has a lower acceptance rate at 16.3 percent compared to Michigan at 22.9 percent. UVA has been ranked at 25 for a long time (now 24) and a top public Ivy for decades. The only reason it dropped on the public list from no. 3 to 5 is due to the Pell Grant factor which USNWR seems hung up on, but the Virginia colleges can control because Pell Grants are assessed after admissions. So long as that factor remains, UVA and other economically stronger states will be lower on the public school lists. Michigan also takes in 50% OOS because it needs to drive up its stats. UVA doesn't need to do that. And, finally, Michigan's stats are not as good as UVAs. Michigan's SAT 50% is 1350-1530 and ACT is at 31-34. UVA is higher in both categories at 1390-1570 and 32-35.

And as to costs, the reasons that Virginians prefer in-state VA is because OOS Michigan is $76,295 a year and UVA is $36,316.

Yep. And I'm a Hokie. Frankly, I'd have my kids attend Tech over UMich as well. Huge cost savings for essentially the same level of education.

[Anonymous]

UVA needs to stop worrying about keeping up with Cal, UCLA, and Michigan. That ship has sailed. No more Kennedys are showing up for law school. No more “It’s us and Duke atop the ACC.”

You need to dust yourselves off and implement measures to stay ahead of VT. Those Hokies just curb-stomped the eggheads in Williamsburg, and they’re coming for you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All these rankings are one size fits all rankings. Instead of by fiat, why not have a ranking where you choose what factors are important to you and your student

+1

That was essentially what existed before USNWR. But people have gotten caught up in the USNWR annual horse race. USNWR knows an ordinal ranking is the secret sauce of their success, so they are going to maintain it.