Wake Forest ranking drop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

[Anonymous]

It is good that schools like Rutgers and UC Merced are elevated and these snobby elitist private schools are pushed down.

Equity is a good thing and US News' use of non-academic factors hopefully changes our views of what a good student or college is. It isn't always about academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

I think you're the only one "trying to say" something. What is it, exactly? The truth is that US News relies heavily on spending metrics that have nothing to do with undergrad educational quality (spending also includes grad school spending) or even reputation. Why aren't the t20 schools the same across all rankings systems? Because it depends on what you measure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

Sorry you’re not getting the responses you want. The top 20 did not change in the most recent US News shakeup because (1) they have been spending a lot on dei over the past decade or so, and (2) US News increased the weight given to factors that value lots of research funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is good that schools like Rutgers and UC Merced are elevated and these snobby elitist private schools are pushed down.

Equity is a good thing and US News' use of non-academic factors hopefully changes our views of what a good student or college is. It isn't always about academics.

If you don’t care about the quality of education, sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

Sorry you’re not getting the responses you want. The top 20 did not change in the most recent US News shakeup because (1) they have been spending a lot on dei over the past decade or so, and (2) US News increased the weight given to factors that value lots of research funding.

The top 20 haven't changed over like the last 40 years...except maybe one or two and reshuffling the deck chairs.

What do the most recent changes have to do with anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

Sorry you’re not getting the responses you want. The top 20 did not change in the most recent US News shakeup because (1) they have been spending a lot on dei over the past decade or so, and (2) US News increased the weight given to factors that value lots of research funding.

The top 20 haven't changed over like the last 40 years...except maybe one or two and reshuffling the deck chairs.

What do the most recent changes have to do with anything?

Sweetie, read the op’s post and report back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

Sorry you’re not getting the responses you want. The top 20 did not change in the most recent US News shakeup because (1) they have been spending a lot on dei over the past decade or so, and (2) US News increased the weight given to factors that value lots of research funding.

The top 20 haven't changed over like the last 40 years...except maybe one or two and reshuffling the deck chairs.

What do the most recent changes have to do with anything?

They have, actually. Did you know UVA used to be ranked #9? It's changed a lot, in fact. Guessing you haven't reviewed the historical data at all, which makes sense for someone who sounds like they're talking out of their ass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

I think you're the only one "trying to say" something. What is it, exactly? The truth is that US News relies heavily on spending metrics that have nothing to do with undergrad educational quality (spending also includes grad school spending) or even reputation. Why aren't the t20 schools the same across all rankings systems? Because it depends on what you measure.

Except they basically are the same over all ranking systems. WSJ shakes it up a bit, but USNews, Forbest, World Rankings...you name it...all the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

Sorry you’re not getting the responses you want. The top 20 did not change in the most recent US News shakeup because (1) they have been spending a lot on dei over the past decade or so, and (2) US News increased the weight given to factors that value lots of research funding.

The top 20 haven't changed over like the last 40 years...except maybe one or two and reshuffling the deck chairs.

What do the most recent changes have to do with anything?

The recent changes are the entire reason this thread was made, dumbâss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

I think you're the only one "trying to say" something. What is it, exactly? The truth is that US News relies heavily on spending metrics that have nothing to do with undergrad educational quality (spending also includes grad school spending) or even reputation. Why aren't the t20 schools the same across all rankings systems? Because it depends on what you measure.

Except they basically are the same over all ranking systems. WSJ shakes it up a bit, but USNews, Forbest, World Rankings...you name it...all the same.

Except they aren't. Isn't dartmouth ranked like 300 by World rankings? And WashU is #30 according to Forbes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

Sorry you’re not getting the responses you want. The top 20 did not change in the most recent US News shakeup because (1) they have been spending a lot on dei over the past decade or so, and (2) US News increased the weight given to factors that value lots of research funding.

The top 20 haven't changed over like the last 40 years...except maybe one or two and reshuffling the deck chairs.

What do the most recent changes have to do with anything?

They have, actually. Did you know UVA used to be ranked #9? It's changed a lot, in fact. Guessing you haven't reviewed the historical data at all, which makes sense for someone who sounds like they're talking out of their ass.

UVA was never, ever ranked #9...but, that was your ass talking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

I think you're the only one "trying to say" something. What is it, exactly? The truth is that US News relies heavily on spending metrics that have nothing to do with undergrad educational quality (spending also includes grad school spending) or even reputation. Why aren't the t20 schools the same across all rankings systems? Because it depends on what you measure.

Except they basically are the same over all ranking systems. WSJ shakes it up a bit, but USNews, Forbest, World Rankings...you name it...all the same.

Do you realize you just admitted they differ across different ranking systems? 🤦‍♂️

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

Sorry you’re not getting the responses you want. The top 20 did not change in the most recent US News shakeup because (1) they have been spending a lot on dei over the past decade or so, and (2) US News increased the weight given to factors that value lots of research funding.

The top 20 haven't changed over like the last 40 years...except maybe one or two and reshuffling the deck chairs.

What do the most recent changes have to do with anything?

They have, actually. Did you know UVA used to be ranked #9? It's changed a lot, in fact. Guessing you haven't reviewed the historical data at all, which makes sense for someone who sounds like they're talking out of their ass.

UVA was never, ever ranked #9...but, that was your ass talking.

https://www.aronfrishberg.com/projects/usnews

Try again! You really are an idiot, aren't you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of mid-size schools had their rankings change after US News started favoring poor people schools. Case Western, Tulane, William and Mary, Dartmouth, Emory, Northeastern, Boston College, Tufts, etc. all had ranking drops even though nothing changed.

Some of these schools are not like the others if you look at the actual drops:

Dartmouth: 12 to 15
Emory: 22 to 24
BC: 36 to 37
Case: 44 to 51
Northeastern: 44 to 54
Tulane: 44 to 63
W&M: 41 to 54
Wake: 29 to 46
Tufts: 32 to 37

Wish someone would explain why Dartmouth, Emory, BC...even Tufts really didn't drop much at all, while the others dropped more precipitously.

This was your list BTW.

When they rolled out the new methodology Dartmouth had a big drop from 12 to 18. UCLA and Berkeley went from 20 and 22 to tied at 15 that year.

And now they are back to 15...what's your point? Didn't seem like it took them much to come back three slots.

You seem to be arguing that something other than methodology changed when that isn't the case.

No...just pointing out that it doesn't matter they went to 18...they are now 15. Again, what's your point?

That the methodology shift caused huge changes for many schools. What's yours?

Except it didn't...it caused huge changes for exactly 4 or 5 schools...that's it.

Are you joking? At least 50 schools of note and hundreds that are pretty much irrelevant saw some sort of change. UC Merced, VA Tech saw huge jumps due to economic diversity being weighted more.

https://supertutortv.com/videos/u-s-news-world-report-shake-up/

But that didn't impact most private schools...just 4 or 5.

Somehow all the other top privates remained top privates.

The T20 didn’t change much because they all have tons of research money and that was weighed more heavily than previously through various factors.

This make no sense...if the T20 are the same over many, many years of USNews rankings, through all their methodology changes...then what are you trying to say?

I think you're the only one "trying to say" something. What is it, exactly? The truth is that US News relies heavily on spending metrics that have nothing to do with undergrad educational quality (spending also includes grad school spending) or even reputation. Why aren't the t20 schools the same across all rankings systems? Because it depends on what you measure.

Except they basically are the same over all ranking systems. WSJ shakes it up a bit, but USNews, Forbest, World Rankings...you name it...all the same.

Except they aren't. Isn't dartmouth ranked like 300 by World rankings? And WashU is #30 according to Forbes.

Forbes mixes in liberal arts schools...but WashU isn't top 20 regardless. Even then, if you remove the liberal arts colleges WashU is 24...which is pretty close to Top 20.