2024 US News rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

cheating Kennedys?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

Oh hi again- you were just on the other post. The VT Boosting this morning is strong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WashU app numbers were already decreasing. This certainly won't help. WashU seems to care more about this stuff too. For instance what pull does WashU have over the schools ranked around it. CMU has better STEM academics, Emory and Georgetown are in better cities, UVA Umich and UNC are cheaper for instate students. WashU used to be ranked much higher than these schools that's no longer the case. It has no advantage.

[Anonymous]

Interesting comparison of Ivy League vs the field:

1. Princeton --- 2. MIT
3. Harvard --- 3. Stanford
5. Yale --- 7. Duke
6. Penn --- 7. Caltech
9. Brown --- 9. Northwestern
12. Columbia --- 9. Johns Hopkins
12. Cornell --- 12. UChicago
18. Dartmouth --- 15. Berkeley
Avg Ivy rank: 8.25 --- Avg. non-Ivy rank: 8

The non-ivies barely edge out the ivies! Basically MIT, Stanford, Duke, and Caltech have elevated enough to be able to go head-to-head with the top ivies (Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Penn)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

.

UNC as well so all of the publics in the T30.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting comparison of Ivy League vs the field:

1. Princeton --- 2. MIT
3. Harvard --- 3. Stanford
5. Yale --- 7. Duke
6. Penn --- 7. Caltech
9. Brown --- 9. Northwestern
12. Columbia --- 9. Johns Hopkins
12. Cornell --- 12. UChicago
18. Dartmouth --- 15. Berkeley
Avg Ivy rank: 8.25 --- Avg. non-Ivy rank: 8

The non-ivies barely edge out the ivies! Basically MIT, Stanford, Duke, and Caltech have elevated enough to be able to go head-to-head with the top ivies (Princeton, Harvard, Yale, Penn)

Until you get to Berkeley, the list correlates pretty well to endowment size. These are institutions that can give out lots of financial aid without impacting the classroom experience. Privates higher up can’t do both as easily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

WashU app numbers were already decreasing. This certainly won't help. WashU seems to care more about this stuff too. For instance what pull does WashU have over the schools ranked around it. CMU has better STEM academics, Emory and Georgetown are in better cities, UVA Umich and UNC are cheaper for instate students. WashU used to be ranked much higher than these schools that's no longer the case. It has no advantage.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why?

Because peer interactions in the class room is part of the education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why?

Duh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Minnesota beats both at #53.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

WashU app numbers were already decreasing. This certainly won't help. WashU seems to care more about this stuff too. For instance what pull does WashU have over the schools ranked around it. CMU has better STEM academics, Emory and Georgetown are in better cities, UVA Umich and UNC are cheaper for instate students. WashU used to be ranked much higher than these schools that's no longer the case. It has no advantage.

Can you prove what you say? If not, go on spewing your hate, ignorance and biases. Pathetic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Minnesota beats both at #53.

Is this the schools with over 70% acceptance rate?

Sounds totally BS ranking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why?

Because peer interactions in the class room is part of the education.

NP. I agree, though the only *cough* standardized way to do that would be by including scores. With test optional policies in place, that may be out the window, unless % submitting is accounted for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Minnesota beats both at #53.

Is this the schools with over 70% acceptance rate?

Sounds totally BS ranking

Your focus on acceptance rate is flawed