When you say t50...
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Niche is the only ranking that matters. |
Anonymous
Those type of rankings are not that useful for undergrad. QS ranks Cornell at 16, Brown at 79, and Dartmouth at 243. But for undergrad those schools are not that different. |
Anonymous
If you live on TikTok |
Anonymous
| I personally tend to think in terms of top 30, top 60 top 90 |
Anonymous
That's just silly. You know a few grads. I know a few from each too, and to the reverse of your experience, the RPI ones I know blow the BC ones out of the water. Pointless right? Trying to make colleges a linear thing or to think any school is one size fits all is the most useless exercise. |
Anonymous
None of them matter. |
Anonymous
I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students. You can feel free to value other things |
Anonymous
I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate? |
Anonymous
No, it's just some of us recognize that class size is an important indicator of "quality education"--removing that allowed many large state schools to jump ahead for no actual reason. The quality of education is better at most of those 4-8K undergrad schools than a large state school, no matter how much Pell grants/FGLI they have. |
Anonymous
Exactly! Rochester dropped from 29 to 41? Nothing changed, except nobody values smaller environments for some reason. Same for Case. I'd take either of those anyday over Rutgers!! For undergrad both are leaps and bounds better. |
Anonymous
But the "rankings" do not consider class size and the academic benefits of that. The more opportunities to interact with profs at undergrad level. So the rankings are Flawed in a major way---when they eliminated Class size as a factor. So rank however you want, but if the system is flawed, the rankings mean much less. Same for undergrad engineering---the USNWR rankings are 100% "how other universities rank everyone". Of course everyone has heard of MIT/CalTech/Stanford/etc. Name brand U will naturally ranked higher, versus a smaller excellent engineering school that not everyone has heard about. Also, I'm certain there is a lot of "negotiating going on behind the scenes" You rank us X and we will rank you Y. So the rankings are useless really. |
Anonymous
1000% So if you believe a large state school is a better education for your UMC+ kid, simply because the rankings include that now, go for it. I will continue to believe the rankings are flawed and that access to professors, smaller class sizes,a nd all the opportunities that come with a much smaller undergrad population are in reality a better education. I don't need USNWR to tell me that. Firstly, at most smaller Universities in the T100, your kid can select any major they want. No Hunger Games 2,.0 to attempt to get one of a few slots (if any) if your kid was not Direct Admitted to Business, CS, Engineering, any stem major, etc. I consider it a better education if my kid can freely change majors or add one or add a minor, actually get into what they want and graduate in 4 years. My Flagship state U is T50, ranked (after the changes ) about the same as the top private school my kid is attending. The difference is, my kid did not have to have a 4.0 freshman/soph year to get into the exact engineering major they wanted (they were lucky enough to be admitted at the State University to Engineering, but then you fight for the exact major). My kid was also able to add a CS minor at their 50 private school, at the Flagship U (Top 5 for CS), it is not a possibility, even direct admit is damn near impossible. You simply cannot just take a CS course unless you are in the major already. So yeah, my kid is getting a much better education. They get ALL THE courses they need the first time---many at State U take 5+ years because they cannot get into classes, they fill up and you are stuck. And if my kid decided to change majors, they can and are not forced into a "non impacted major" like art history or English (almost every STEM/Business/CS/Eng at the State University are impacted and difficult to get into). So yeah, no way in hell the two schools are similar in quality---my kid is getting a much better education, access to research starting sophomore year (real meaningful research), TAing courses starting in Soph year, etc. No comparison at all |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
You two are missing the point. I asked what was the difference between Emory, WashU, Notre Dame, and Georgetown. How are the latter 2 more prestigious when they are ranked much lower globally? |
Anonymous
Your child’s elite school doesn’t even have graduate students as TAs? Are you suggesting your child is getting a better education simply because they don’t have to compete for their major? It seems that a university with rigorous entry requirements for engineering majors would produce graduates with stronger credentials. Based on your example, the private school may offer more convenience, but I didn’t see any evidence of stronger academics. In fact, the student who successfully navigates the challenges of the public school system you described is likely to be much better prepared for the real world. |