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:

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.

[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?

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.

Again, you're admitting that the t20 differs by ranking. 🤦‍♂️

[Anonymous]

The best proxy for rankings is acceptance rate, yield, sat score, retention rate, job placement, salary outcomes, pre-professional outcomes.

Give me that data and I am happy.

[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:

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.

Dipshit...you know University of Chicago is not UVA, right?

Because you attached the graph for the University of Chicago.

Maybe look again with the correct college.

[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:

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.

Again, you're admitting that the t20 differs by ranking. 🤦‍♂️

I am saying they are basically the same...which is true...and WashU isn't in the top 20 to start, so not sure why it's referenced.

[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:

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.

Dipshit...you know University of Chicago is not UVA, right?

Because you attached the graph for the University of Chicago.

Maybe look again with the correct college.

I usually let professionals deal with the disabled, but I'll make an exception for you. Go to the top of the page, look for an arrow (signifying a dropdown menu for those of us with common sense), and select whichever college tickles your fancy. Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The best proxy for rankings is acceptance rate, yield, sat score, retention rate, job placement, salary outcomes, pre-professional outcomes.

Give me that data and I am happy.

Sorry, I care more about class sizes, and who’s teaching the class. Acceptance rate and yield are easily manipulated by accepting most students early decision.

[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:

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.

Dipshit...you know University of Chicago is not UVA, right?

Because you attached the graph for the University of Chicago.

Maybe look again with the correct college.

I usually let professionals deal with the disabled, but I'll make an exception for you. Go to the top of the page, look for an arrow (signifying a dropdown menu for those of us with common sense), and select whichever college tickles your fancy. Thanks!

Dipshit...please go look at UVA and get back to us on their literally non-existent #9 ranking.

[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:

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.

Dipshit...you know University of Chicago is not UVA, right?

Because you attached the graph for the University of Chicago.

Maybe look again with the correct college.

I usually let professionals deal with the disabled, but I'll make an exception for you. Go to the top of the page, look for an arrow (signifying a dropdown menu for those of us with common sense), and select whichever college tickles your fancy. Thanks!

Dipshit...please go look at UVA and get back to us on their literally non-existent #9 ranking.

It literally shows a #15 ranking—well into the t20. If you're desperate to see their #9 standing, proving you wrong even more, you can download this data set that goes back even further.

https://andyreiter.com/datasets/

[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:

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.

Dipshit...you know University of Chicago is not UVA, right?

Because you attached the graph for the University of Chicago.

Maybe look again with the correct college.

I usually let professionals deal with the disabled, but I'll make an exception for you. Go to the top of the page, look for an arrow (signifying a dropdown menu for those of us with common sense), and select whichever college tickles your fancy. Thanks!

Dipshit...please go look at UVA and get back to us on their literally non-existent #9 ranking.

It literally shows a #15 ranking—well into the t20. If you're desperate to see their #9 standing, proving you wrong even more, you can download this data set that goes back even further.

https://andyreiter.com/datasets/

How many times are you going to provide links to data that don't support the shit coming out of your ass?

Maybe another link that also doesn't show UVA at #9?

This is getting kind of comical.

[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:

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.

Dipshit...you know University of Chicago is not UVA, right?

Because you attached the graph for the University of Chicago.

Maybe look again with the correct college.

I usually let professionals deal with the disabled, but I'll make an exception for you. Go to the top of the page, look for an arrow (signifying a dropdown menu for those of us with common sense), and select whichever college tickles your fancy. Thanks!

Dipshit...please go look at UVA and get back to us on their literally non-existent #9 ranking.

It literally shows a #15 ranking—well into the t20. If you're desperate to see their #9 standing, proving you wrong even more, you can download this data set that goes back even further.

https://andyreiter.com/datasets/

How many times are you going to provide links to data that don't support the shit coming out of your ass?

Maybe another link that also doesn't show UVA at #9?

This is getting kind of comical.

Are you actually mentally ill? Scroll down to the national universities data set and click download. Then open the spreadsheet and scroll to the 80s. What is wrong with you?