UMD or W&M

[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.

DP with no 'dog in the fight': However you're not really answering the PP's question. You're "hiding" behind 'size of endowment' and "phenotype'. What phenotype are you talking about? How exactly does size of endowment translate into a ranking position? There were also schools with relatively small endowments that moved up significantly. Are endowments weighted that heavily to allow Princeton to stay up but then not prevent publics with minimal endowments to move up? Explain your thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Keep up, size of the endowment affects ability of private schools to admit and finance financial aid for first gen and Pell grant eligible kids. Public schools get these kids flue to low instate tuition. New rankings are very focused on these groups of kids, old ranking were not.

As I already explained, schools with small class sizes were particularly hurt by new rankings which dropped this criteria, along with category of classes taught by professors. Not all private schools have small class sizes, so dropping this criteria hurt only those that did well in this category. Wake, for example, has almost no classes with more than 50 students including intro business and STEM classes, this is extremely uncommon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you just admit you don't like the school and that's why you're being such a loser about this. Sorry things at home aren't working out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you just admit you don't like the school and that's why you're being such a loser about this. Sorry things at home aren't working out!

Sounds like a concession...I actually don't give a rats a** about W&M. I just find it comical that anyone decided to reference the drop in rankings with the old "it's not the school...blame the rankings". Everyone, do yourselves a favor and be proud of a 53 ranking...that is a great ranking.

To PP, on every argument you make, it doesn't hold. Emory has much smaller classes on average than W&M yet its ranking didn't move (I think it may have moved up a slot). All the private schools that dropped have what are considered very healthy endowments (Vanderbilt particularly), yet they dropped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you just admit you don't like the school and that's why you're being such a loser about this. Sorry things at home aren't working out!

Sounds like a concession...I actually don't give a rats a** about W&M. I just find it comical that anyone decided to reference the drop in rankings with the old "it's not the school...blame the rankings". Everyone, do yourselves a favor and be proud of a 53 ranking...that is a great ranking.

To PP, on every argument you make, it doesn't hold. Emory has much smaller classes on average than W&M yet its ranking didn't move (I think it may have moved up a slot). All the private schools that dropped have what are considered very healthy endowments (Vanderbilt particularly), yet they dropped.

No you're just exhausting because you have a vendetta and are also clearly not willing to think earnestly about this.

[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: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.

So you just admit you don't like the school and that's why you're being such a loser about this. Sorry things at home aren't working out!

Sounds like a concession...I actually don't give a rats a** about W&M. I just find it comical that anyone decided to reference the drop in rankings with the old "it's not the school...blame the rankings". Everyone, do yourselves a favor and be proud of a 53 ranking...that is a great ranking.

To PP, on every argument you make, it doesn't hold. Emory has much smaller classes on average than W&M yet its ranking didn't move (I think it may have moved up a slot). All the private schools that dropped have what are considered very healthy endowments (Vanderbilt particularly), yet they dropped.

No you're just exhausting because you have a vendetta and are also clearly not willing to think earnestly about this.

+1
Earlier PP sounds bizarrely obsessed with USNWR being an oracle of quality. The main OP question was which school and whether W&M was getting worse as it was ranked lower. It is objectively factual to point out that the shift in what was measured by USNWR is a major factor that led to climbs in huge public universities and drops by those schools that are not super rich (ie not the Ivys) and have a focus on issues USNWR now gives no “credit” for such as class size. Lots of families think small class size and professors teaching classes are worth more than high Pell Grant ratios. If you disagree well then yes USNWR is a great guide for what you are looking for.

[Anonymous]

I'm going to share an unpopular opinion. Real universities have engineering programs. There. I said it.

[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: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.

So you just admit you don't like the school and that's why you're being such a loser about this. Sorry things at home aren't working out!

Sounds like a concession...I actually don't give a rats a** about W&M. I just find it comical that anyone decided to reference the drop in rankings with the old "it's not the school...blame the rankings". Everyone, do yourselves a favor and be proud of a 53 ranking...that is a great ranking.

To PP, on every argument you make, it doesn't hold. Emory has much smaller classes on average than W&M yet its ranking didn't move (I think it may have moved up a slot). All the private schools that dropped have what are considered very healthy endowments (Vanderbilt particularly), yet they dropped.

No you're just exhausting because you have a vendetta and are also clearly not willing to think earnestly about this.

+1
Earlier PP sounds bizarrely obsessed with USNWR being an oracle of quality. The main OP question was which school and whether W&M was getting worse as it was ranked lower. It is objectively factual to point out that the shift in what was measured by USNWR is a major factor that led to climbs in huge public universities and drops by those schools that are not super rich (ie not the Ivys) and have a focus on issues USNWR now gives no “credit” for such as class size. Lots of families think small class size and professors teaching classes are worth more than high Pell Grant ratios. If you disagree well then yes USNWR is a great guide for what you are looking for.

I think a school ranked 53 is a great school. Why the W&M folks are so ashamed at that ranking is beyond me, and they felt the need to bring it up in the context of this thread is bizarre. Nobody asked about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to share an unpopular opinion. Real universities have engineering programs. There. I said it.

I’m an engineer. My kid is not. The best school for his area of interest is a SLAC. And I went to a Tech university.

Not every kid wants stem. I’m a female in stem and find all these stem obsessed people (usually parents who were poor I’m stem themselves and now think they have a genius) tiresome.

I work with some people that can’t communicate at all, socially awkward.

Fwiw, my non Stem husband only has a BA and makes $500k to my $200k. My salary topped out.

[Anonymous]

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

+1

VA has so many better options. Something for every type of kid. SLAC, traditional, Tech, etc.

[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: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.

So you just admit you don't like the school and that's why you're being such a loser about this. Sorry things at home aren't working out!

Sounds like a concession...I actually don't give a rats a** about W&M. I just find it comical that anyone decided to reference the drop in rankings with the old "it's not the school...blame the rankings". Everyone, do yourselves a favor and be proud of a 53 ranking...that is a great ranking.

To PP, on every argument you make, it doesn't hold. Emory has much smaller classes on average than W&M yet its ranking didn't move (I think it may have moved up a slot). All the private schools that dropped have what are considered very healthy endowments (Vanderbilt particularly), yet they dropped.

No you're just exhausting because you have a vendetta and are also clearly not willing to think earnestly about this.

+1
Earlier PP sounds bizarrely obsessed with USNWR being an oracle of quality. The main OP question was which school and whether W&M was getting worse as it was ranked lower. It is objectively factual to point out that the shift in what was measured by USNWR is a major factor that led to climbs in huge public universities and drops by those schools that are not super rich (ie not the Ivys) and have a focus on issues USNWR now gives no “credit” for such as class size. Lots of families think small class size and professors teaching classes are worth more than high Pell Grant ratios. If you disagree well then yes USNWR is a great guide for what you are looking for.

I think a school ranked 53 is a great school. Why the W&M folks are so ashamed at that ranking is beyond me, and they felt the need to bring it up in the context of this thread is bizarre. Nobody asked about it.

Because people are making the argument that it now means Maryland is a better school academically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP with no 'dog in the fight': However you're not really answering the PP's question. You're "hiding" behind 'size of endowment' and "phenotype'. What phenotype are you talking about? How exactly does size of endowment translate into a ranking position? There were also schools with relatively small endowments that moved up significantly. Are endowments weighted that heavily to allow Princeton to stay up but then not prevent publics with minimal endowments to move up? Explain your thinking.

FWIW--there are multiple people arguing in these threads. I was arguing earlier against the ranking criteria (and disagreed with any expectation that schools would fall uniformly since obviously the role of change in rankings' criteria is to shift what is more or less valued and not so that schools do NOT fall uniformly).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to share an unpopular opinion. Real universities have engineering programs. There. I said it.

So the University of Chicago isnt a real university?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Certainly, it depends on when and who took the survey, and what their majors are.

Harvard is the most popular on parchment, but a serious student would choose UMD over Harvard for CS.

Parchment also shows Michigan State as top 20 most popular. You think an Econ major would choose Mich State over W&M?

Also, the stats on parchment for the colleges are almost 10 years old. A lot has changed in 10 years.

[Anonymous]

My kid was choosing between UMD and UVA. We are in state for UMD. I offered kid UMD plus paying for graduate school. Or UVA alone. He took UMD. No way would I pay for W&M over UMD in state.