How can anyone take US News rankings seriously

[Anonymous]

The top 20 is nearly always the same, and no one cares about rankings below this. Who cares if a school is 70 or 75???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when Rutgers is now ranked higher than Tulane, CWRU, Miami, Wake, etc. after being perennially ranked in the 70s?

I say this as a second generation Indian-American, the college rankings obsession is almost solely a first-generation Indian and Asian striver thing.

+2 Go spend an hour on A2C. The obsession with rankings is crazy and most of the high school posters on A2C fall into the first-gen Asian and Indian striver demographic. Some say their parents will only let them apply to certain schools based only on USNWR rankings.

+3. They are prestige whores especially for Public and National Universities, and big US cities. Thankfully they have least interest in SLACs.

So, are you suggesting that US News ranking for SLACs can be taken seriously?

Not PP. To answer, it doesn't matter for LACs in Top 25, they are unique in their realm and bring similar value proposition for respective set of kids. In my opinion, specific US News ranking for SLACs doesn't matter, what matters whether they are in Top 25 or not.. Next 26 to 50 block has some stellar LACs that can be considered. Rest after 50 you have mostly safety LACs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about Pell grants. How important are Pell grants to you in terms of ranking a college or university?

Next year all these type of things are going away. So I guess the ranking will radically change again.

It’s only 11% of the methodology and it is more focused on Pell grant recipient performance than just the number of recipients. This has always been overstated on DCUM.

Except for a few schools, the bigger impact was the stuff that got dropped, some of which made sense (alumni giving) and some of which didn’t (faculty with terminal degrees).

It's the insecure white guys on DCUM trying to blame the USNWR rankings on "DEI."

Can't have too many schools with low income or brown people high in the rankings. But vapid party schools like Tulane? Great!

I'm not MAGA (about as far as you can get away from it---have never voted R for President and I first voted for Dukakis so that should tell you something). yet I don't care about how a school "performs for pell grant students" in terms of ranking it's "quALITY" Yes it is important and I want everyone to get a good education. But the quality of a school does not depend upon how well the poor kids turn out, because just like in public K-12, I smartly realize that a poor student will have more external struggles that cannot simply be overcome because someone at school does something, unless that is pay Tuition, R&B, and all expenses (flights to/from school, spending money, etc) so that the student literally can live like the rich kids and not stress over anything, oh and toss in a few K per month to the family at home so the student doesn't have to worry if Mom/Dad/Grandma have food or electricity.

This is exactly why including these criteria makes sense, as they are a measure of undergrad academic support and resources. Kids from high socioeconomic backgrounds will manage to graduate even if the school sucks and provides little support, because they have outside support and guidance. Kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have less of that and so what the school does or does not provide matters. The irony being that the people who hate it because they think it has nothing to do with the quality of the undergrad experience are missing that it is a way to measure undergrad quality (course instruction, academic counseling, course availability, support services, etc).

It’s the same for K-12 but your takeaway is the wrong one. When comparing K-12s, you can look at others of your similar socioeconomic background to determine how well your kid will do, but if you want to see how well the school does, look at how the kids with the least outside support do relative to those at other schools.

This is an intelligent comment that helped me see the current criteria in a new way. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine going to Amazon and the products had no reviews. I think it’s silly to “make your own ranking” but I love the idea of setting your own variables across a common data set.

But if I read those "amazon reviews" and the reason someone doesn't like product X (and scores it a 1 out of 10) is because it was 2 days late being delivered due to a local snow storm, then that really isn't relevant to me. I care about the ACTUAL product itself, not a snag with the delivery system that was an anomaly. Same for people who write bad TripAdvisor reviews because "20% tip is included with a group larger than 5", that has nothing to do with the quality of the restaurant, it's just a pissed off consumer who is cheap. But tells me nothing about the quality of the meal or the service provided.

My point was what parent has the time to independantly research 50 different schools so I think someone doing this research and sharing makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when Rutgers is now ranked higher than Tulane, CWRU, Miami, Wake, etc. after being perennially ranked in the 70s?

I say this as a second generation Indian-American, the college rankings obsession is almost solely a first-generation Indian and Asian striver thing.

+2 Go spend an hour on A2C. The obsession with rankings is crazy and most of the high school posters on A2C fall into the first-gen Asian and Indian striver demographic. Some say their parents will only let them apply to certain schools based only on USNWR rankings.

+3. They are prestige whores especially for Public and National Universities, and big US cities. Thankfully they have least interest in SLACs.

So, are you suggesting that US News ranking for SLACs can be taken seriously?

Not PP. To answer, it doesn't matter for LACs in Top 25, they are unique in their realm and bring similar value proposition for respective set of kids. In my opinion, specific US News ranking for SLACs doesn't matter, what matters whether they are in Top 25 or not.. Next 26 to 50 block has some stellar LACs that can be considered. Rest after 50 you have mostly safety LACs.

Agree wholeheartedly with first part, but not where you say rest after 50 are safety colleges.

[Anonymous]

I generally agree with the OP's overall sentiment, but TBF there's also been something of a market correction for some schools.

Look at UMCP, which had been languishing in the low-mid 50s the last decade plus before rising to 44 (which is still absurdly low, but at least it's trending upward). They'll be even higher this year, maybe much more so.

And there are other ones, notably privates, that have enjoyed a little too rarefied an air in relation to their academic quality, and have now settled into their more appropriate level (although still a bit too high, at least in a couple cases).

Whether that's due to USNWR's adjusted criteria or something else, at least it's a bit more accurate now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I generally agree with the OP's overall sentiment, but TBF there's also been something of a market correction for some schools.

Look at UMCP, which had been languishing in the low-mid 50s the last decade plus before rising to 44 (which is still absurdly low, but at least it's trending upward). They'll be even higher this year, maybe much more so.

And there are other ones, notably privates, that have enjoyed a little too rarefied an air in relation to their academic quality, and have now settled into their more appropriate level (although still a bit too high, at least in a couple cases).

Whether that's due to USNWR's adjusted criteria or something else, at least it's a bit more accurate now.

Everyone will have their own opinion on this. Moreso jaded alumni than prospective college students.

Just use USNWR as a general reference point and move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about Pell grants. How important are Pell grants to you in terms of ranking a college or university?

Next year all these type of things are going away. So I guess the ranking will radically change again.

It’s only 11% of the methodology and it is more focused on Pell grant recipient performance than just the number of recipients. This has always been overstated on DCUM.

Except for a few schools, the bigger impact was the stuff that got dropped, some of which made sense (alumni giving) and some of which didn’t (faculty with terminal degrees).

It's the insecure white guys on DCUM trying to blame the USNWR rankings on "DEI."

Can't have too many schools with low income or brown people high in the rankings. But vapid party schools like Tulane? Great!

I'm not MAGA (about as far as you can get away from it---have never voted R for President and I first voted for Dukakis so that should tell you something). yet I don't care about how a school "performs for pell grant students" in terms of ranking it's "quALITY" Yes it is important and I want everyone to get a good education. But the quality of a school does not depend upon how well the poor kids turn out, because just like in public K-12, I smartly realize that a poor student will have more external struggles that cannot simply be overcome because someone at school does something, unless that is pay Tuition, R&B, and all expenses (flights to/from school, spending money, etc) so that the student literally can live like the rich kids and not stress over anything, oh and toss in a few K per month to the family at home so the student doesn't have to worry if Mom/Dad/Grandma have food or electricity.

This is exactly why including these criteria makes sense, as they are a measure of undergrad academic support and resources. Kids from high socioeconomic backgrounds will manage to graduate even if the school sucks and provides little support, because they have outside support and guidance. Kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have less of that and so what the school does or does not provide matters. The irony being that the people who hate it because they think it has nothing to do with the quality of the undergrad experience are missing that it is a way to measure undergrad quality (course instruction, academic counseling, course availability, support services, etc).

It’s the same for K-12 but your takeaway is the wrong one. When comparing K-12s, you can look at others of your similar socioeconomic background to determine how well your kid will do, but if you want to see how well the school does, look at how the kids with the least outside support do relative to those at other schools.

+++++++++++ Excellent post

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when Rutgers is now ranked higher than Tulane, CWRU, Miami, Wake, etc. after being perennially ranked in the 70s?

I say this as a second generation Indian-American, the college rankings obsession is almost solely a first-generation Indian and Asian striver thing.

+2 Go spend an hour on A2C. The obsession with rankings is crazy and most of the high school posters on A2C fall into the first-gen Asian and Indian striver demographic. Some say their parents will only let them apply to certain schools based only on USNWR rankings.

+3. They are prestige whores especially for Public and National Universities, and big US cities. Thankfully they have least interest in SLACs.

Do you realize how awful, ignorant and hurtful your comments are? Signed 2nd gen Indian-American SLAC grad who encouraged SLAC’s for their kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when Rutgers is now ranked higher than Tulane, CWRU, Miami, Wake, etc. after being perennially ranked in the 70s?

I say this as a second generation Indian-American, the college rankings obsession is almost solely a first-generation Indian and Asian striver thing.

+2 Go spend an hour on A2C. The obsession with rankings is crazy and most of the high school posters on A2C fall into the first-gen Asian and Indian striver demographic. Some say their parents will only let them apply to certain schools based only on USNWR rankings.

+3. They are prestige whores especially for Public and National Universities, and big US cities. Thankfully they have least interest in SLACs.

So, are you suggesting that US News ranking for SLACs can be taken seriously?

Not the PP: No, the rankings for top SLACs has issues as can be seen by the swings once the social mobility changes to the ranking methodology were added in 2018 for 2019. But, I think that the top 20 or so SLACs are all of extremely high quality and more similar than different and the next 20-30 and beyond are also excellent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when Rutgers is now ranked higher than Tulane, CWRU, Miami, Wake, etc. after being perennially ranked in the 70s?

I say this as a second generation Indian-American, the college rankings obsession is almost solely a first-generation Indian and Asian striver thing.

+2 Go spend an hour on A2C. The obsession with rankings is crazy and most of the high school posters on A2C fall into the first-gen Asian and Indian striver demographic. Some say their parents will only let them apply to certain schools based only on USNWR rankings.

+3. They are prestige whores especially for Public and National Universities, and big US cities. Thankfully they have least interest in SLACs.

Do you realize how awful, ignorant and hurtful your comments are? Signed 2nd gen Indian-American SLAC grad who encouraged SLAC’s for their kid.

PP does have a point though. May not like the choice of words but not wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when Rutgers is now ranked higher than Tulane, CWRU, Miami, Wake, etc. after being perennially ranked in the 70s?

I say this as a second generation Indian-American, the college rankings obsession is almost solely a first-generation Indian and Asian striver thing.

+2 Go spend an hour on A2C. The obsession with rankings is crazy and most of the high school posters on A2C fall into the first-gen Asian and Indian striver demographic. Some say their parents will only let them apply to certain schools based only on USNWR rankings.

+3. They are prestige whores especially for Public and National Universities, and big US cities. Thankfully they have least interest in SLACs.

Do you realize how awful, ignorant and hurtful your comments are? Signed 2nd gen Indian-American SLAC grad who encouraged SLAC’s for their kid.

You are the exception to the rule. I live in the heart of Silicon valley and the obsession with T20 universities and top among the immigrant and first gen Asian population is overwhelming. There is little interest in the SLACs because they carry no prestige back home while UCSC can be passed off as UC which has prestige.

There was a lot of chatter at my kids school when the Val chose Williams over UCB, UCLA and other “better” options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about Pell grants. How important are Pell grants to you in terms of ranking a college or university?

Next year all these type of things are going away. So I guess the ranking will radically change again.

Except for a few schools, the bigger impact was the stuff that got dropped, some of which made sense (alumni giving) and some of which didn’t (faculty with terminal degrees).

If the College has less faculty with terminal degrees than my kids’ high school, he is not going there….How in the world this is not a part of the rankings is absurd….
And Class size….another ridiculous one….100 vs 12 in a class….give me a break

Exactly!!! Class size and who teaches the courses matters and it should matter in the rankings.
And graduation rates matter as well, but I'm smart enough to read the data and understand when there are Real issues and what's expected. If there is an engineering school, odds are those kids might take more than 4 years---it's hard and many need an extra semester or two to get thru as it's often 18-19 credits versus 15 each semester. Also, many engineering majors do a coop program (they are the original majors that have done it for decades). So yeah, it's not unusual for there to be a 40-50% 4 year graduation rate, but as long as the 5 or 6 year year hits 85%+ That is awesome.