DCUM school bias

[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:I don't know if DCUM has a lot of W&M grads, but you guys know it's okay for a decent but not great school to just be decent? W&M is a decent school, nothing spectacular to write off about it but decent. How you think about W&M is how Alabaman's think of UA btw.

Well, that certainly speaks to their ignorance. And yours.

Np. Can you name anything exceptional about w&m? Name one standout program by the college.

Exceptional? I'd say history/historical significance and quality of undergraduate education. It is the second oldest college in the U.S. and educated 3 U.S. Presidents (4 if Washington is included for his surveyor's license), which is more than any other public college, and it has produced many more significant alumni. For undergraduate education, among top 100 USNWR public national universities, it ranks highest for undergraduate teaching, student-to-faculty ratio, percentage of undergraduates going on to earn PhDs and Fulbright scholarships, and the percentage of students living on campus.

So basically it’s old. It doesn’t mean much that presidents at the damn near founding attended, because there were like 5-6 colleges around. It’s about sustained significant alum like the oldest university in the US has done. A few arbitrary undergraduate rankings and it doesn’t rank very high for per capita PhD nor Fulbright- that goes to several other liberal arts colleges and the ivies. And the students live on campus? Seems like a pretty generic college.

Well, name another public college that could claim the same points. If you can't, it is exceptional for those points.

For the actual metrics that matter, Berkeley, University of Michigan, New College before it was butchered, it's not even unique for the student faculty ratio, I'm pretty sure St Mary's has a lower ratio.

You are wrong on the facts for all the points listed above for Michigan and Berkeley.

New College and St Mary's College are not national universities in USNWR.

Not whoever you're arguing with, but you really want W&M to be a better school than it is.

That could be said for any school. I just think arguments should be based on facts.

There'd be more arguments for William and Mary if it was any good. Instead, it's outside of the top 50, it has none of the best programs in any subject, it does not rank highest for undergraduate teaching as you reported, it is also one of those colleges that relies heavily on tuition dollars and is concerned about its future standing with the impending enrollment cliff, It doesn't have great financial aid. Really the only thing you said that is true is it has a good student:faculty ratio, but you know who shares that title and is a much more impressive, financially stable, and academically superior institution? The University of Michigan.

That only happened when USNWR decided to focus on Pell grant attendees and graduate programs. If that's how you want to evaluate the undergrad experience, you go right ahead.

The pell grant attendees should be helping a public institution. Yikes to W&M if it is failing in that regard.

[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:I don't know if DCUM has a lot of W&M grads, but you guys know it's okay for a decent but not great school to just be decent? W&M is a decent school, nothing spectacular to write off about it but decent. How you think about W&M is how Alabaman's think of UA btw.

Well, that certainly speaks to their ignorance. And yours.

Np. Can you name anything exceptional about w&m? Name one standout program by the college.

Exceptional? I'd say history/historical significance and quality of undergraduate education. It is the second oldest college in the U.S. and educated 3 U.S. Presidents (4 if Washington is included for his surveyor's license), which is more than any other public college, and it has produced many more significant alumni. For undergraduate education, among top 100 USNWR public national universities, it ranks highest for undergraduate teaching, student-to-faculty ratio, percentage of undergraduates going on to earn PhDs and Fulbright scholarships, and the percentage of students living on campus.

So basically it’s old. It doesn’t mean much that presidents at the damn near founding attended, because there were like 5-6 colleges around. It’s about sustained significant alum like the oldest university in the US has done. A few arbitrary undergraduate rankings and it doesn’t rank very high for per capita PhD nor Fulbright- that goes to several other liberal arts colleges and the ivies. And the students live on campus? Seems like a pretty generic college.

Well, name another public college that could claim the same points. If you can't, it is exceptional for those points.

For the actual metrics that matter, Berkeley, University of Michigan, New College before it was butchered, it's not even unique for the student faculty ratio, I'm pretty sure St Mary's has a lower ratio.

You are wrong on the facts for all the points listed above for Michigan and Berkeley.

New College and St Mary's College are not national universities in USNWR.

Not whoever you're arguing with, but you really want W&M to be a better school than it is.

That could be said for any school. I just think arguments should be based on facts.

There'd be more arguments for William and Mary if it was any good. Instead, it's outside of the top 50, it has none of the best programs in any subject, it does not rank highest for undergraduate teaching as you reported, it is also one of those colleges that relies heavily on tuition dollars and is concerned about its future standing with the impending enrollment cliff, It doesn't have great financial aid. Really the only thing you said that is true is it has a good student:faculty ratio, but you know who shares that title and is a much more impressive, financially stable, and academically superior institution? The University of Michigan.

Among top 100 USNWR public national universities, it ranks highest for undergraduate teaching, student-to-faculty ratio, percentage of undergraduates going on to earn PhDs and Fulbright scholarships, and the percentage of students living on campus.

Everything I said above is true. There are other arguments for William and Mary, but I won't waste them on you.

There are arguments for schools like Michigan as well. It is not a zero sum game and I'm pretty sure students are looking for different things in a college.

New College of Florida has the highest percent of undergraduates going to earn PhDs as a public institution [source:https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/institutional-effectiveness-research-assessment/Doct%20Rates%20Top%20100%20Tot%20Sci%20Rankings%20-Summary%20to%202022.pdf]

[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:I don't know if DCUM has a lot of W&M grads, but you guys know it's okay for a decent but not great school to just be decent? W&M is a decent school, nothing spectacular to write off about it but decent. How you think about W&M is how Alabaman's think of UA btw.

Well, that certainly speaks to their ignorance. And yours.

Np. Can you name anything exceptional about w&m? Name one standout program by the college.

Exceptional? I'd say history/historical significance and quality of undergraduate education. It is the second oldest college in the U.S. and educated 3 U.S. Presidents (4 if Washington is included for his surveyor's license), which is more than any other public college, and it has produced many more significant alumni. For undergraduate education, among top 100 USNWR public national universities, it ranks highest for undergraduate teaching, student-to-faculty ratio, percentage of undergraduates going on to earn PhDs and Fulbright scholarships, and the percentage of students living on campus.

So basically it’s old. It doesn’t mean much that presidents at the damn near founding attended, because there were like 5-6 colleges around. It’s about sustained significant alum like the oldest university in the US has done. A few arbitrary undergraduate rankings and it doesn’t rank very high for per capita PhD nor Fulbright- that goes to several other liberal arts colleges and the ivies. And the students live on campus? Seems like a pretty generic college.

Well, name another public college that could claim the same points. If you can't, it is exceptional for those points.

For the actual metrics that matter, Berkeley, University of Michigan, New College before it was butchered, it's not even unique for the student faculty ratio, I'm pretty sure St Mary's has a lower ratio.

You are wrong on the facts for all the points listed above for Michigan and Berkeley.

New College and St Mary's College are not national universities in USNWR.

Not whoever you're arguing with, but you really want W&M to be a better school than it is.

That could be said for any school. I just think arguments should be based on facts.

There'd be more arguments for William and Mary if it was any good. Instead, it's outside of the top 50, it has none of the best programs in any subject, it does not rank highest for undergraduate teaching as you reported, it is also one of those colleges that relies heavily on tuition dollars and is concerned about its future standing with the impending enrollment cliff, It doesn't have great financial aid. Really the only thing you said that is true is it has a good student:faculty ratio, but you know who shares that title and is a much more impressive, financially stable, and academically superior institution? The University of Michigan.

Among top 100 USNWR public national universities, it ranks highest for undergraduate teaching, student-to-faculty ratio, percentage of undergraduates going on to earn PhDs and Fulbright scholarships, and the percentage of students living on campus.

Everything I said above is true. There are other arguments for William and Mary, but I won't waste them on you.

There are arguments for schools like Michigan as well. It is not a zero sum game and I'm pretty sure students are looking for different things in a college.

New College of Florida has the highest percent of undergraduates going to earn PhDs as a public institution [source:https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/institutional-effectiveness-research-assessment/Doct%20Rates%20Top%20100%20Tot%20Sci%20Rankings%20-Summary%20to%202022.pdf]

New College of Florida is not a USNWR national public university (UCLA et al), as previously indicated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would say more bash UVA here than post positively about it.

I don’t think it would be bashed if it were not for the boosters.

[Anonymous]

Duke is extremely sought after. Not negative at all.

Tufts gets no love. For anyone who applied to college a few decades ago, it is hard to consider northeastern as a top school. DH went to tufts. He and all his friends all did very well professionally. They went on to excellent grad schools and all seem to have done well.

[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:I don't know if DCUM has a lot of W&M grads, but you guys know it's okay for a decent but not great school to just be decent? W&M is a decent school, nothing spectacular to write off about it but decent. How you think about W&M is how Alabaman's think of UA btw.

Well, that certainly speaks to their ignorance. And yours.

Np. Can you name anything exceptional about w&m? Name one standout program by the college.

Exceptional? I'd say history/historical significance and quality of undergraduate education. It is the second oldest college in the U.S. and educated 3 U.S. Presidents (4 if Washington is included for his surveyor's license), which is more than any other public college, and it has produced many more significant alumni. For undergraduate education, among top 100 USNWR public national universities, it ranks highest for undergraduate teaching, student-to-faculty ratio, percentage of undergraduates going on to earn PhDs and Fulbright scholarships, and the percentage of students living on campus.

So basically it’s old. It doesn’t mean much that presidents at the damn near founding attended, because there were like 5-6 colleges around. It’s about sustained significant alum like the oldest university in the US has done. A few arbitrary undergraduate rankings and it doesn’t rank very high for per capita PhD nor Fulbright- that goes to several other liberal arts colleges and the ivies. And the students live on campus? Seems like a pretty generic college.

Well, name another public college that could claim the same points. If you can't, it is exceptional for those points.

For the actual metrics that matter, Berkeley, University of Michigan, New College before it was butchered, it's not even unique for the student faculty ratio, I'm pretty sure St Mary's has a lower ratio.

You are wrong on the facts for all the points listed above for Michigan and Berkeley.

New College and St Mary's College are not national universities in USNWR.

Not whoever you're arguing with, but you really want W&M to be a better school than it is.

That could be said for any school. I just think arguments should be based on facts.

There'd be more arguments for William and Mary if it was any good. Instead, it's outside of the top 50, it has none of the best programs in any subject, it does not rank highest for undergraduate teaching as you reported, it is also one of those colleges that relies heavily on tuition dollars and is concerned about its future standing with the impending enrollment cliff, It doesn't have great financial aid. Really the only thing you said that is true is it has a good student:faculty ratio, but you know who shares that title and is a much more impressive, financially stable, and academically superior institution? The University of Michigan.

Among top 100 USNWR public national universities, it ranks highest for undergraduate teaching, student-to-faculty ratio, percentage of undergraduates going on to earn PhDs and Fulbright scholarships, and the percentage of students living on campus.

Everything I said above is true. There are other arguments for William and Mary, but I won't waste them on you.

There are arguments for schools like Michigan as well. It is not a zero sum game and I'm pretty sure students are looking for different things in a college.

New College of Florida has the highest percent of undergraduates going to earn PhDs as a public institution [source:https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/institutional-effectiveness-research-assessment/Doct%20Rates%20Top%20100%20Tot%20Sci%20Rankings%20-Summary%20to%202022.pdf]

That’s the old New College, not since the political intervention.

[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:I don't know if DCUM has a lot of W&M grads, but you guys know it's okay for a decent but not great school to just be decent? W&M is a decent school, nothing spectacular to write off about it but decent. How you think about W&M is how Alabaman's think of UA btw.

Well, that certainly speaks to their ignorance. And yours.

Np. Can you name anything exceptional about w&m? Name one standout program by the college.

Exceptional? I'd say history/historical significance and quality of undergraduate education. It is the second oldest college in the U.S. and educated 3 U.S. Presidents (4 if Washington is included for his surveyor's license), which is more than any other public college, and it has produced many more significant alumni. For undergraduate education, among top 100 USNWR public national universities, it ranks highest for undergraduate teaching, student-to-faculty ratio, percentage of undergraduates going on to earn PhDs and Fulbright scholarships, and the percentage of students living on campus.

So basically it’s old. It doesn’t mean much that presidents at the damn near founding attended, because there were like 5-6 colleges around. It’s about sustained significant alum like the oldest university in the US has done. A few arbitrary undergraduate rankings and it doesn’t rank very high for per capita PhD nor Fulbright- that goes to several other liberal arts colleges and the ivies. And the students live on campus? Seems like a pretty generic college.

Well, name another public college that could claim the same points. If you can't, it is exceptional for those points.

For the actual metrics that matter, Berkeley, University of Michigan, New College before it was butchered, it's not even unique for the student faculty ratio, I'm pretty sure St Mary's has a lower ratio.

You are wrong on the facts for all the points listed above for Michigan and Berkeley.

New College and St Mary's College are not national universities in USNWR.

Not whoever you're arguing with, but you really want W&M to be a better school than it is.

That could be said for any school. I just think arguments should be based on facts.

There'd be more arguments for William and Mary if it was any good. Instead, it's outside of the top 50, it has none of the best programs in any subject, it does not rank highest for undergraduate teaching as you reported, it is also one of those colleges that relies heavily on tuition dollars and is concerned about its future standing with the impending enrollment cliff, It doesn't have great financial aid. Really the only thing you said that is true is it has a good student:faculty ratio, but you know who shares that title and is a much more impressive, financially stable, and academically superior institution? The University of Michigan.

Among top 100 USNWR public national universities, it ranks highest for undergraduate teaching, student-to-faculty ratio, percentage of undergraduates going on to earn PhDs and Fulbright scholarships, and the percentage of students living on campus.

Everything I said above is true. There are other arguments for William and Mary, but I won't waste them on you.

There are arguments for schools like Michigan as well. It is not a zero sum game and I'm pretty sure students are looking for different things in a college.

New College of Florida has the highest percent of undergraduates going to earn PhDs as a public institution [source:https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/institutional-effectiveness-research-assessment/Doct%20Rates%20Top%20100%20Tot%20Sci%20Rankings%20-Summary%20to%202022.pdf]

New College of Florida is not a USNWR national public university (UCLA et al), as previously indicated.

Why would this designation matter to an undergraduate student? It's still the best public institution to get students into PhD programs. Not their fault that W&M wants to accept grad students.

[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:I don't know if DCUM has a lot of W&M grads, but you guys know it's okay for a decent but not great school to just be decent? W&M is a decent school, nothing spectacular to write off about it but decent. How you think about W&M is how Alabaman's think of UA btw.

Well, that certainly speaks to their ignorance. And yours.

Np. Can you name anything exceptional about w&m? Name one standout program by the college.

Exceptional? I'd say history/historical significance and quality of undergraduate education. It is the second oldest college in the U.S. and educated 3 U.S. Presidents (4 if Washington is included for his surveyor's license), which is more than any other public college, and it has produced many more significant alumni. For undergraduate education, among top 100 USNWR public national universities, it ranks highest for undergraduate teaching, student-to-faculty ratio, percentage of undergraduates going on to earn PhDs and Fulbright scholarships, and the percentage of students living on campus.

So basically it’s old. It doesn’t mean much that presidents at the damn near founding attended, because there were like 5-6 colleges around. It’s about sustained significant alum like the oldest university in the US has done. A few arbitrary undergraduate rankings and it doesn’t rank very high for per capita PhD nor Fulbright- that goes to several other liberal arts colleges and the ivies. And the students live on campus? Seems like a pretty generic college.

Well, name another public college that could claim the same points. If you can't, it is exceptional for those points.

For the actual metrics that matter, Berkeley, University of Michigan, New College before it was butchered, it's not even unique for the student faculty ratio, I'm pretty sure St Mary's has a lower ratio.

You are wrong on the facts for all the points listed above for Michigan and Berkeley.

New College and St Mary's College are not national universities in USNWR.

Not whoever you're arguing with, but you really want W&M to be a better school than it is.

That could be said for any school. I just think arguments should be based on facts.

There'd be more arguments for William and Mary if it was any good. Instead, it's outside of the top 50, it has none of the best programs in any subject, it does not rank highest for undergraduate teaching as you reported, it is also one of those colleges that relies heavily on tuition dollars and is concerned about its future standing with the impending enrollment cliff, It doesn't have great financial aid. Really the only thing you said that is true is it has a good student:faculty ratio, but you know who shares that title and is a much more impressive, financially stable, and academically superior institution? The University of Michigan.

Among top 100 USNWR public national universities, it ranks highest for undergraduate teaching, student-to-faculty ratio, percentage of undergraduates going on to earn PhDs and Fulbright scholarships, and the percentage of students living on campus.

Everything I said above is true. There are other arguments for William and Mary, but I won't waste them on you.

There are arguments for schools like Michigan as well. It is not a zero sum game and I'm pretty sure students are looking for different things in a college.

New College of Florida has the highest percent of undergraduates going to earn PhDs as a public institution [source:https://www.swarthmore.edu/sites/default/files/assets/documents/institutional-effectiveness-research-assessment/Doct%20Rates%20Top%20100%20Tot%20Sci%20Rankings%20-Summary%20to%202022.pdf]

New College of Florida is not a USNWR national public university (UCLA et al), as previously indicated.

Why would this designation matter to an undergraduate student? It's still the best public institution to get students into PhD programs. Not their fault that W&M wants to accept grad students.

If the prospective student may want to get a PhD and is OK with a school with 650 students, then New College of Florida is worth considering. They should be aware that New College has been going through a tumultuous period due to state politics and lost 40% of its faculty in a short period of time. New College could not offer classes like Neurobiology this past year.

[Anonymous]

Massive LAC bias when most are overpriced trash dumps of institutions.

[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:I don't know if DCUM has a lot of W&M grads, but you guys know it's okay for a decent but not great school to just be decent? W&M is a decent school, nothing spectacular to write off about it but decent. How you think about W&M is how Alabaman's think of UA btw.

Well, that certainly speaks to their ignorance. And yours.

Np. Can you name anything exceptional about w&m? Name one standout program by the college.

Exceptional? I'd say history/historical significance and quality of undergraduate education. It is the second oldest college in the U.S. and educated 3 U.S. Presidents (4 if Washington is included for his surveyor's license), which is more than any other public college, and it has produced many more significant alumni. For undergraduate education, among top 100 USNWR public national universities, it ranks highest for undergraduate teaching, student-to-faculty ratio, percentage of undergraduates going on to earn PhDs and Fulbright scholarships, and the percentage of students living on campus.

So basically it’s old. It doesn’t mean much that presidents at the damn near founding attended, because there were like 5-6 colleges around. It’s about sustained significant alum like the oldest university in the US has done. A few arbitrary undergraduate rankings and it doesn’t rank very high for per capita PhD nor Fulbright- that goes to several other liberal arts colleges and the ivies. And the students live on campus? Seems like a pretty generic college.

Well, name another public college that could claim the same points. If you can't, it is exceptional for those points.

For the actual metrics that matter, Berkeley, University of Michigan, New College before it was butchered, it's not even unique for the student faculty ratio, I'm pretty sure St Mary's has a lower ratio.

You are wrong on the facts for all the points listed above for Michigan and Berkeley.

New College and St Mary's College are not national universities in USNWR.

Not whoever you're arguing with, but you really want W&M to be a better school than it is.

That could be said for any school. I just think arguments should be based on facts.

There'd be more arguments for William and Mary if it was any good. Instead, it's outside of the top 50, it has none of the best programs in any subject, it does not rank highest for undergraduate teaching as you reported, it is also one of those colleges that relies heavily on tuition dollars and is concerned about its future standing with the impending enrollment cliff, It doesn't have great financial aid. Really the only thing you said that is true is it has a good student:faculty ratio, but you know who shares that title and is a much more impressive, financially stable, and academically superior institution? The University of Michigan.

That only happened when USNWR decided to focus on Pell grant attendees and graduate programs. If that's how you want to evaluate the undergrad experience, you go right ahead.

The pell grant attendees should be helping a public institution. Yikes to W&M if it is failing in that regard.

W&M covers 100% of tuition and fees for Pell eligible students from Virginia.