Thoughts on U Richmond

[Anonymous]

W&L boosters are like W&M boosters, crying about their old rankings while failing to take any responsibility about why they can’t keep up with the new metrics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA is clearly better than all the schools mentioned on this thread…

Oh brother. Not if the kid doesn’t want to go a big school. Not that you prestige whores ever consider fit. Lots of kids with similar objective measures at all of the schools mentioned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:W&L boosters are like W&M boosters, crying about their old rankings while failing to take any responsibility about why they can’t keep up with the new metrics.

??

No, some people just think that the old rankings were more relevant to the quality of education provided by a school (ex average class size) than the factors emphasized in the new rankings (ex # of Pell Grant recipients enrolled).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&L boosters are like W&M boosters, crying about their old rankings while failing to take any responsibility about why they can’t keep up with the new metrics.

??

No, some people just think that the old rankings were more relevant to the quality of education provided by a school (ex average class size) than the factors emphasized in the new rankings (ex # of Pell Grant recipients enrolled).

Bullshit lol people liked them when they liked what they said. Now they pretend they used to be scientific but they never were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&L boosters are like W&M boosters, crying about their old rankings while failing to take any responsibility about why they can’t keep up with the new metrics.

??

No, some people just think that the old rankings were more relevant to the quality of education provided by a school (ex average class size) than the factors emphasized in the new rankings (ex # of Pell Grant recipients enrolled).

This is so tired. The “new rankings” are mostly about academic quality. Many schools didn’t move; if yours did, maybe it should keep up with everyone else who can provide an education for all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&L boosters are like W&M boosters, crying about their old rankings while failing to take any responsibility about why they can’t keep up with the new metrics.

??

No, some people just think that the old rankings were more relevant to the quality of education provided by a school (ex average class size) than the factors emphasized in the new rankings (ex # of Pell Grant recipients enrolled).

This is so tired. The “new rankings” are mostly about academic quality. Many schools didn’t move; if yours did, maybe it should keep up with everyone else who can provide an education for all.

I’m not sure why you are so bothered by the fact the some people find the factors measured in the pre 2020 US News rankings to be more relevant to college quality than the current rankings. There are quite a few different college ranking systems out there (WSJ, Forbes, US News, Niche, etc) and all place weight on different factors. It’s up to parents and students to figure out what each ranking system measures and determine what system most closely matches their idea of a high quality college. Opinions will differ and that’s ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&L boosters are like W&M boosters, crying about their old rankings while failing to take any responsibility about why they can’t keep up with the new metrics.

??

No, some people just think that the old rankings were more relevant to the quality of education provided by a school (ex average class size) than the factors emphasized in the new rankings (ex # of Pell Grant recipients enrolled).

This is so tired. The “new rankings” are mostly about academic quality. Many schools didn’t move; if yours did, maybe it should keep up with everyone else who can provide an education for all.

I’m not sure why you are so bothered by the fact the some people find the factors measured in the pre 2020 US News rankings to be more relevant to college quality than the current rankings. There are quite a few different college ranking systems out there (WSJ, Forbes, US News, Niche, etc) and all place weight on different factors. It’s up to parents and students to figure out what each ranking system measures and determine what system most closely matches their idea of a high quality college. Opinions will differ and that’s ok.

It's 2025.

No one is going back to 2020.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&L boosters are like W&M boosters, crying about their old rankings while failing to take any responsibility about why they can’t keep up with the new metrics.

??

No, some people just think that the old rankings were more relevant to the quality of education provided by a school (ex average class size) than the factors emphasized in the new rankings (ex # of Pell Grant recipients enrolled).

This is so tired. The “new rankings” are mostly about academic quality. Many schools didn’t move; if yours did, maybe it should keep up with everyone else who can provide an education for all.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&L boosters are like W&M boosters, crying about their old rankings while failing to take any responsibility about why they can’t keep up with the new metrics.

??

No, some people just think that the old rankings were more relevant to the quality of education provided by a school (ex average class size) than the factors emphasized in the new rankings (ex # of Pell Grant recipients enrolled).

This is so tired. The “new rankings” are mostly about academic quality. Many schools didn’t move; if yours did, maybe it should keep up with everyone else who can provide an education for all.

I’m not sure why you are so bothered by the fact the some people find the factors measured in the pre 2020 US News rankings to be more relevant to college quality than the current rankings. There are quite a few different college ranking systems out there (WSJ, Forbes, US News, Niche, etc) and all place weight on different factors. It’s up to parents and students to figure out what each ranking system measures and determine what system most closely matches their idea of a high quality college. Opinions will differ and that’s ok.

I'm not bothered. I just think it is disingenuous bs.I'm not bothered. I just think it is disingenuous bs. Opinions will differ and that's ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&L boosters are like W&M boosters, crying about their old rankings while failing to take any responsibility about why they can’t keep up with the new metrics.

??

No, some people just think that the old rankings were more relevant to the quality of education provided by a school (ex average class size) than the factors emphasized in the new rankings (ex # of Pell Grant recipients enrolled).

This is so tired. The “new rankings” are mostly about academic quality. Many schools didn’t move; if yours did, maybe it should keep up with everyone else who can provide an education for all.

I’m not sure why you are so bothered by the fact the some people find the factors measured in the pre 2020 US News rankings to be more relevant to college quality than the current rankings. There are quite a few different college ranking systems out there (WSJ, Forbes, US News, Niche, etc) and all place weight on different factors. It’s up to parents and students to figure out what each ranking system measures and determine what system most closely matches their idea of a high quality college. Opinions will differ and that’s ok.

I'm not bothered. I just think it is disingenuous bs.I'm not bothered. I just think it is disingenuous bs. Opinions will differ and that's ok.

I think the bot broke.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&L boosters are like W&M boosters, crying about their old rankings while failing to take any responsibility about why they can’t keep up with the new metrics.

??

No, some people just think that the old rankings were more relevant to the quality of education provided by a school (ex average class size) than the factors emphasized in the new rankings (ex # of Pell Grant recipients enrolled).

This is so tired. The “new rankings” are mostly about academic quality. Many schools didn’t move; if yours did, maybe it should keep up with everyone else who can provide an education for all.

I’m not sure why you are so bothered by the fact the some people find the factors measured in the pre 2020 US News rankings to be more relevant to college quality than the current rankings. There are quite a few different college ranking systems out there (WSJ, Forbes, US News, Niche, etc) and all place weight on different factors. It’s up to parents and students to figure out what each ranking system measures and determine what system most closely matches their idea of a high quality college. Opinions will differ and that’s ok.

I'm not bothered. I just think it is disingenuous bs.I'm not bothered. I just think it is disingenuous bs. Opinions will differ and that's ok.

I think the bot broke.

Haha, you’re so funny.
It gets tiring dealing with people like you who absolutely despise poor people. It’s gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In terms of rankings, Richmond places a notable 48th in this national ranking, which includes colleges and universities together:

College & University Rankings in 2025 https://wallethub.com/edu/e/college-rankings/40750

The site also offers a selectivity rank for UR, placing it 62nd nationally.

[Anonymous]

These Arab kings are so extremely stupid. It’s the kid not the schools. You can break schools into huge categories- top 75 LAC, top 100 private schools, state flagships, etc. But once you get in those categories it’s the kid and not the school. Also, grad school matters more than undergrad. Any of the top 75 LACs will get you to an excellent grad school if you get good grades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These Arab kings are so extremely stupid. It’s the kid not the schools. You can break schools into huge categories- top 75 LAC, top 100 private schools, state flagships, etc. But once you get in those categories it’s the kid and not the school. Also, grad school matters more than undergrad. Any of the top 75 LACs will get you to an excellent grad school if you get good grades.

Arab kings is probably the funniest autocorrect for rankings I’ve seen in a while. Mostly because I really did have to think for a moment to figure out if it was some kind of intended insult or what the actual word was supposed to be. That might be due to lack of coffee this morning however. 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&L boosters are like W&M boosters, crying about their old rankings while failing to take any responsibility about why they can’t keep up with the new metrics.

??

No, some people just think that the old rankings were more relevant to the quality of education provided by a school (ex average class size) than the factors emphasized in the new rankings (ex # of Pell Grant recipients enrolled).

This is so tired. The “new rankings” are mostly about academic quality. Many schools didn’t move; if yours did, maybe it should keep up with everyone else who can provide an education for all.

I’m not sure why you are so bothered by the fact the some people find the factors measured in the pre 2020 US News rankings to be more relevant to college quality than the current rankings. There are quite a few different college ranking systems out there (WSJ, Forbes, US News, Niche, etc) and all place weight on different factors. It’s up to parents and students to figure out what each ranking system measures and determine what system most closely matches their idea of a high quality college. Opinions will differ and that’s ok.

I'm not bothered. I just think it is disingenuous bs.I'm not bothered. I just think it is disingenuous bs. Opinions will differ and that's ok.

I think the bot broke.

Haha, you’re so funny.
It gets tiring dealing with people like you who absolutely despise poor people. It’s gross.

+1 devaluing rankings that emphasize helping the less fortunate is so classist. But to them, they might truly believe classist behavior is normal and objective. They can keep living in 2020 lol