US News 2020 rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What happened to U Chicago? It is the only one that dropped out of the 3rd place tie of last year.

I don't think it matters -- unless your kid is obsessed with the UChicago 'life of the mind' vibe, nobody really thinks it is or ever was a true peer of HYPS. It's the rung below with the other Ivies and MIT.

Hey, thanks for letting us know.

[Anonymous]

Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

Too far

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

Because it’s 6.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vermont and Miami of Ohio are dismally ranked Public Ivies.

UT-Austin and UW-Madison seem really undervalued. William and Mary is just an odd fit. Never thought I’d see the day Wake Forest overtook UVA. No serious person thinks Wake Forest is a better school than UVA. George Mason is still up and coming very very slowly.

UW-Madison suffered at the hands of GOP Gov. Walker, but now with a dem Gov., things should get back on track.

Things didn’t actually get off track.

Several tenured profs left because of salary, and some programs were cut. It impacted morale. It has all been restored by Gov. Evers. This will likely be reflected in these kinds of ranking starting next year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crickets. Where are the UVA boosters? Congrats to Michigan pushing UVA out.

UVA and W&M really dropped. Big change in just one year.

UVA’s is not what one hopes for, but no big deal. W&M’s, however, is a BIG problem.

W&M is always a "weird" school for rankings because it's grouped with national universities because it is public and has a handful of grad programs, but its aims are more like a SLAC with its focus on undergraduate teaching/research. But as a public institution it doesn't have the flexibility/resources of equivalent private SLACs (e.g., it has to take 2/3 in-state, it can't raise tuition without state approval, it can't make financial changes/adaptations without state approval). Whenever the formulas of rankings change, W&M is a bit more susceptible due to its "weirdness." I think dropping selectivity as a metric, and lessening the relative importance of SAT scores in overall formula is what hurt W&M's ranking here.

The Pell grant stuff too.

Yes--I forgot about that too.

[Anonymous]

Thank you to the person who explained the Pell stuff and how it is affecting the rankings.

How do people qualify for Pell? So they apply? Is it part of the FAFSA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

Because Stanford lags behind the schools ahead for the faculty resources and alumni giving component.

Both of these are east-coast/other region favoring, given alumni traditions for donating funds and the cost of leaving penalty against California schools for faculty salaries.

Add +1 to +3 for most California schools and you'll have a more accurate ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vermont and Miami of Ohio are dismally ranked Public Ivies.

UT-Austin and UW-Madison seem really undervalued. William and Mary is just an odd fit. Never thought I’d see the day Wake Forest overtook UVA. No serious person thinks Wake Forest is a better school than UVA. George Mason is still up and coming very very slowly.

UW-Madison suffered at the hands of GOP Gov. Walker, but now with a dem Gov., things should get back on track.

Things didn’t actually get off track.

Several tenured profs left because of salary, and some programs were cut. It impacted morale. It has all been restored by Gov. Evers. This will likely be reflected in these kinds of ranking starting next year.

Doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Crickets. Where are the UVA boosters? Congrats to Michigan pushing UVA out.

UVA and W&M really dropped. Big change in just one year.

UVA’s is not what one hopes for, but no big deal. W&M’s, however, is a BIG problem.

W&M is always a "weird" school for rankings because it's grouped with national universities because it is public and has a handful of grad programs, but its aims are more like a SLAC with its focus on undergraduate teaching/research. But as a public institution it doesn't have the flexibility/resources of equivalent private SLACs (e.g., it has to take 2/3 in-state, it can't raise tuition without state approval, it can't make financial changes/adaptations without state approval). Whenever the formulas of rankings change, W&M is a bit more susceptible due to its "weirdness." I think dropping selectivity as a metric, and lessening the relative importance of SAT scores in overall formula is what hurt W&M's ranking here.

The Pell grant stuff too.

Yes--I forgot about that too.

That number really hurts William and Mary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lists are so stupid but I root for my school. Can’t help myself.

It is like a car wreck. Deep down I know it is a bad thing and actually has bad outcomes, but I just can't help paying attention to the rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

Because Stanford lags behind the schools ahead for the faculty resources and alumni giving component.

Both of these are east-coast/other region favoring, given alumni traditions for donating funds and the cost of leaving penalty against California schools for faculty salaries.

Add +1 to +3 for most California schools and you'll have a more accurate ranking.

USNWR doesn't really matter to Stanford. Regardless of what USNWR says, Stanford is at top level in prestige with Harvard (and MIT in tech).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:UVA does terribly on the new "social mobility" score -- it's ranked 328 of 380. This doesn't help. Not that Michigan did much better.

Interestingly, dead last at #380 is Wash U. Not surprised; it's the back up school for Big 3 Ivy League rejects.

UVA (and W&M) do a very good job of graduating Pell Grant recipients. They just have relatively few of them compared to the UC and other schools. This new metric really explains the rise of the UC schools in these rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

Because Stanford lags behind the schools ahead for the faculty resources and alumni giving component.

Both of these are east-coast/other region favoring, given alumni traditions for donating funds and the cost of leaving penalty against California schools for faculty salaries.

Add +1 to +3 for most California schools and you'll have a more accurate ranking.

USNWR doesn't really matter to Stanford. Regardless of what USNWR says, Stanford is at top level in prestige with Harvard (and MIT in tech).

Not that it would happen but they’d sure care if they started to really tank. As silly as it all is the perception of excellence matters to a whole lot of people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is Washington University in St. Louis?

The best private school in the midwest other than Northwestern, and has been for generations.

Lol.

UChicago
Northwestern
Notre Dame
Vanderbilt
Wash U

Vanderbilt is Midwest?