Wake Forest ranking drop?

[Anonymous]

The spreadsheet says #15 at the earliest instance...

[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:

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?

Only UNCCH was ever ranked in the t10. Yes, UNC was a t10 school for a little while.

[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:

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?

Only UNCCH was ever ranked in the t10. Yes, UNC was a t10 school for a little while.

Yes, I am the disabled one after all. Still proves my point. UNC was once a t10, now it isn't even in the t20. Rankings have changed A LOT over time.

[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:

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?

...and it shows the best UVA ranking at 15, which it literally achieved in just the one year and it's average ranking over the entire time period is 24...once more, I have to throw the question back at you.

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

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:

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?

...and it shows the best UVA ranking at 15, which it literally achieved in just the one year and it's average ranking over the entire time period is 24...once more, I have to throw the question back at you.

So what? It just shows that the rankings change. Emory was in the t20 for decades and now it's about to fall out of the t25.

[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:

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?

Only UNCCH was ever ranked in the t10. Yes, UNC was a t10 school for a little while.

Yes, I am the disabled one after all. Still proves my point. UNC was once a t10, now it isn't even in the t20. Rankings have changed A LOT over time.

It was top 10 once...in the first year of the US News rankings...by 1989 and every year thereafter it was solidly between 20 - 30, in fact it has been ranked between 25 - 30 since 1996.

[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:

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?

Only UNCCH was ever ranked in the t10. Yes, UNC was a t10 school for a little while.

Yes, I am the disabled one after all. Still proves my point. UNC was once a t10, now it isn't even in the t20. Rankings have changed A LOT over time.

It was top 10 once...in the first year of the US News rankings...by 1989 and every year thereafter it was solidly between 20 - 30, in fact it has been ranked between 25 - 30 since 1996.

So has Wake Forest? Until recently...

[Anonymous]

Wow Penn was ranked 19, 15, 20....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

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:

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?

...and it shows the best UVA ranking at 15, which it literally achieved in just the one year and it's average ranking over the entire time period is 24...once more, I have to throw the question back at you.

So what? It just shows that the rankings change. Emory was in the t20 for decades and now it's about to fall out of the t25.

Yeah, rankings change...as they should and methodologies change. BTW, Emory started the rankings back in the very beginning at 25 and now they are 24.

Not sure why the latest ranking change is so egregious, but a change made in 2015 or 2005 or 1995 or 1990 is fine.

So, to get back to the original topic...why is Wake falling to 46 a problem then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

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:

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?

...and it shows the best UVA ranking at 15, which it literally achieved in just the one year and it's average ranking over the entire time period is 24...once more, I have to throw the question back at you.

So what? It just shows that the rankings change. Emory was in the t20 for decades and now it's about to fall out of the t25.

Yeah, rankings change...as they should and methodologies change. BTW, Emory started the rankings back in the very beginning at 25 and now they are 24.

Not sure why the latest ranking change is so egregious, but a change made in 2015 or 2005 or 1995 or 1990 is fine.

So, to get back to the original topic...why is Wake falling to 46 a problem then?

I never said it was a "problem?" You seemed to be making some weird argument about t20 schools never changing, which they have.

[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:

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?

Only UNCCH was ever ranked in the t10. Yes, UNC was a t10 school for a little while.

Yes, I am the disabled one after all. Still proves my point. UNC was once a t10, now it isn't even in the t20. Rankings have changed A LOT over time.

It was top 10 once...in the first year of the US News rankings...by 1989 and every year thereafter it was solidly between 20 - 30, in fact it has been ranked between 25 - 30 since 1996.

So has Wake Forest? Until recently...

Yet, UNC is still 27.

[Anonymous]

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.

BC remained the same at 37. Rochester (previously 38) dropped to the 60s.

[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:

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?

Only UNCCH was ever ranked in the t10. Yes, UNC was a t10 school for a little while.

Yes, I am the disabled one after all. Still proves my point. UNC was once a t10, now it isn't even in the t20. Rankings have changed A LOT over time.

It was top 10 once...in the first year of the US News rankings...by 1989 and every year thereafter it was solidly between 20 - 30, in fact it has been ranked between 25 - 30 since 1996.

So has Wake Forest? Until recently...

Yet, UNC is still 27.

You're so close! Why do you think that is? Hint: it starts with an M.

[Anonymous]

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.

BC remained the same at 37. Rochester (previously 38) dropped to the 60s.

BC dropped from 32 to 37. It's ranked #59 by Forbes, lower than many of its "peer" schools.

[Anonymous]

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.

BC remained the same at 37. Rochester (previously 38) dropped to the 60s.

Rochester dropped to #47. Get your facts straight. 🤦‍♂️