why the usnwr best college list is ridiculous

[Anonymous]

UC Merced is a top 50 school in US News' eyes. With a last reported average SAT score of 1080 (25% scored BELOW a 990), a 93% admission rate and yield rate of 9%.

Tell me again how influential and serious US News' rankings are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely nothing merit-based (academics) in the rankings.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings

For schools that require scores there was a 5% weight factor--and for those w/out scores 0%.

That was it. 95% was just pure Bullsh*t

The most heavily weighted "peer assessment" 20% ha!

Student-faculty ratio (prob one of the most important factors for undergrads)...a mere 3%

nothing on gpa/selectivity, etc.

Absolutely. Its lame. I wish it would go back to mostly about the student and faculty quality, class size, ratios, and academic opportunities for undergraduates(which endowment only hints at)

+100

My kid is at a T15, over our well-respected in-state option, and class size, ease of registration and actually getting first choice classes, professors actually teaching the undergrad courses instead of TAs, school size (1/2 size of the state school), living on campus 3-years (important to us vs everyone spreading out and having to find rentals after freshmen year), environment (not too heavily greek or alcohol fueled), ability to play club sports, etc. 5-year master's program top-rated in his field.

All of that ^^ was very high on his/our list. I attended public schools from Kindergarten all the way to graduate school. My kids did public K-8. I made the switch at the HS level to private for our kids---the difference for many reasons was night and day better. After that, it was very hard for me to look at my public university the same way. My kid's first month has been like a private conceirge service and the integration and the personal touches and the courses with a professor and just 5 other kids...vs my 300 lecture hall classes and I can't even remember a single professor---having to fill out a course registration card and not getting first choices, but maybe 2nd or 3rd, etc.

I think the original criteria when the usnwr first started was a better way to rank undergraduate colleges/experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UC Merced is a top 50 school in US News' eyes. With a last reported average SAT score of 1080 (25% scored BELOW a 990), a 93% admission rate and yield rate of 9%.

Tell me again how influential and serious US News' rankings are?

Merced is a UCINO "UC in Name Only" I would put Cal Poly Slow, Pomona and Long Beach/San Jose State above it just to start.

[Anonymous]

Simple solution. Put selectivity (test scores and class rank of enrolled students) back into the equation after 2025 (since many test optional schools are reverting by then). Those that remain test optional will be dinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UC Merced is a top 50 school in US News' eyes. With a last reported average SAT score of 1080 (25% scored BELOW a 990), a 93% admission rate and yield rate of 9%.

Tell me again how influential and serious US News' rankings are?

58th isn’t top 50.

Also that’s just in the university category. Would be closer to 100th if it were a combined list with LACs.

Is that still too high? Perhaps. But at least it’s not WSJ high! (18th including LACs!)

Also the last SAT scores were reported for the class entering in 2022. The avg was about 100 points higher than what you state (1176 vs 1080.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UC Merced is a top 50 school in US News' eyes. With a last reported average SAT score of 1080 (25% scored BELOW a 990), a 93% admission rate and yield rate of 9%.

Tell me again how influential and serious US News' rankings are?

The Merced ranking shows how political (moving away from merit), USNWR has become. By rewarding social mobility, pell grants and diversity, you wind upmtrwarfong a school that was established to provide educatiknal opportunity for the citizens in San Joaquin Valley and is only 7% white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it's still the gold standard, whether you like it or not.

For what. This list does not guarantee outcomes. I attended a shi----y big midwestern University with no prestige. But you would not know it unless I told you. And there are many like me.

DP. That’s why I like the WSJ rankings, which are based on outcomes.

WSJ puts its fingers heavily on the scales by using expected outcomes based on selectivity. But they don't do it based on expected earnings based on the mix of major. Major is the biggest determinant in earnings through the part of the career studied. This is why business-only schools like Babson rate high (Babson is #2). However, if you look at only income of business school graduates, Babson is nowhere near the top.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The most heavily weighted "peer assessment" 20% ha!

So? Colleges know a lot about each other. It’s a whole industry. People work or attend multiple institutions over time, meeting others who have done the same. It’s not unlike people in whatever line of business you might be familiar with knowing more about their competition than the general public. Peer review is integral to academia in general, and this peer assessment category which only USNWR has meaningful data on is a big part of what their rankings have fewer sanity test fails than those from other publications (like WSJ’s having UC Merced and San Jose State over Duke, Northwestern, UChicago, and Johns Hopkins). WSJ, Forbes, and even Niche over-rely on data only a few years out from college to try to do something different. All rankings are flawed, but USNWR is the least flawed, the least volatile, and more influential than all the others combined.

This makes no sense to me.
No, Amherst knows very little about Pomona and Pomona little about Wellesley. It’s not like their offices are in communication with each other. Their professors may have never even heard of the other and attended undergraduate universities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The most heavily weighted "peer assessment" 20% ha!

So? Colleges know a lot about each other. It’s a whole industry. People work or attend multiple institutions over time, meeting others who have done the same. It’s not unlike people in whatever line of business you might be familiar with knowing more about their competition than the general public. Peer review is integral to academia in general, and this peer assessment category which only USNWR has meaningful data on is a big part of what their rankings have fewer sanity test fails than those from other publications (like WSJ’s having UC Merced and San Jose State over Duke, Northwestern, UChicago, and Johns Hopkins). WSJ, Forbes, and even Niche over-rely on data only a few years out from college to try to do something different. All rankings are flawed, but USNWR is the least flawed, the least volatile, and more influential than all the others combined.

This makes no sense to me.
No, Amherst knows very little about Pomona and Pomona little about Wellesley. It’s not like their offices are in communication with each other. Their professors may have never even heard of the other and attended undergraduate universities.

Many of my professors at Williams hadn’t heard of the school until they put their job application in. These are people with PhDs from Harvard and uchicago

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The most heavily weighted "peer assessment" 20% ha!

So? Colleges know a lot about each other. It’s a whole industry. People work or attend multiple institutions over time, meeting others who have done the same. It’s not unlike people in whatever line of business you might be familiar with knowing more about their competition than the general public. Peer review is integral to academia in general, and this peer assessment category which only USNWR has meaningful data on is a big part of what their rankings have fewer sanity test fails than those from other publications (like WSJ’s having UC Merced and San Jose State over Duke, Northwestern, UChicago, and Johns Hopkins). WSJ, Forbes, and even Niche over-rely on data only a few years out from college to try to do something different. All rankings are flawed, but USNWR is the least flawed, the least volatile, and more influential than all the others combined.

This makes no sense to me.
No, Amherst knows very little about Pomona and Pomona little about Wellesley. It’s not like their offices are in communication with each other. Their professors may have never even heard of the other and attended undergraduate universities.

Many of my professors at Williams hadn’t heard of the school until they put their job application in. These are people with PhDs from Harvard and uchicago

You sound foolish when you say “many”…honestly, it’s likely a tiny minority that honestly hadn’t heard of Williams who teach there.

[Anonymous]

How does JMU drop 24 spots?

They had great football and basketball seasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is absolutely nothing merit-based (academics) in the rankings.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings

For schools that require scores there was a 5% weight factor--and for those w/out scores 0%.

That was it. 95% was just pure Bullsh*t

The most heavily weighted "peer assessment" 20% ha!

Student-faculty ratio (prob one of the most important factors for undergrads)...a mere 3%

nothing on gpa/selectivity, etc.

Absolutely. Its lame. I wish it would go back to mostly about the student and faculty quality, class size, ratios, and academic opportunities for undergraduates(which endowment only hints at)

+100

My kid is at a T15, over our well-respected in-state option, and class size, ease of registration and actually getting first choice classes, professors actually teaching the undergrad courses instead of TAs, school size (1/2 size of the state school), living on campus 3-years (important to us vs everyone spreading out and having to find rentals after freshmen year), environment (not too heavily greek or alcohol fueled), ability to play club sports, etc. 5-year master's program top-rated in his field.

All of that ^^ was very high on his/our list. I attended public schools from Kindergarten all the way to graduate school. My kids did public K-8. I made the switch at the HS level to private for our kids---the difference for many reasons was night and day better. After that, it was very hard for me to look at my public university the same way. My kid's first month has been like a private conceirge service and the integration and the personal touches and the courses with a professor and just 5 other kids...vs my 300 lecture hall classes and I can't even remember a single professor---having to fill out a course registration card and not getting first choices, but maybe 2nd or 3rd, etc.

I think the original criteria when the usnwr first started was a better way to rank undergraduate colleges/experiences.

I agree that the issues with the old USNWR model pale in comparison to the new model (more mobility/Pell focused). The old model could be gamed but at least it included factors that potentially benefitted an undergraduate. The new model elevates schools that ironically, may not be the best for Pell grant eligible students to receive the best education or even the best overall financial aid package.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The most heavily weighted "peer assessment" 20% ha!

So? Colleges know a lot about each other. It’s a whole industry. People work or attend multiple institutions over time, meeting others who have done the same. It’s not unlike people in whatever line of business you might be familiar with knowing more about their competition than the general public. Peer review is integral to academia in general, and this peer assessment category which only USNWR has meaningful data on is a big part of what their rankings have fewer sanity test fails than those from other publications (like WSJ’s having UC Merced and San Jose State over Duke, Northwestern, UChicago, and Johns Hopkins). WSJ, Forbes, and even Niche over-rely on data only a few years out from college to try to do something different. All rankings are flawed, but USNWR is the least flawed, the least volatile, and more influential than all the others combined.

This makes no sense to me.
No, Amherst knows very little about Pomona and Pomona little about Wellesley. It’s not like their offices are in communication with each other. Their professors may have never even heard of the other and attended undergraduate universities.

Many of my professors at Williams hadn’t heard of the school until they put their job application in. These are people with PhDs from Harvard and uchicago

I actually don't believe you. Maybe 30 years ago when there was no internet, but today all professors know of Pomona's rise on USNWR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UC Merced is a top 50 school in US News' eyes. With a last reported average SAT score of 1080 (25% scored BELOW a 990), a 93% admission rate and yield rate of 9%.

Tell me again how influential and serious US News' rankings are?

The Merced ranking shows how political (moving away from merit), USNWR has become. By rewarding social mobility, pell grants and diversity, you wind upmtrwarfong a school that was established to provide educatiknal opportunity for the citizens in San Joaquin Valley and is only 7% white.

"you wind up
rewarding" ^^

[Anonymous]

“I think the original criteria when the usnwr first started was a better way to rank undergraduate colleges/experiences.”

I agree. Put Cal and Michigan back in the top ten where they belong.