When you say t50...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you also talking about schools like Case Western, Tulane that are not technically in US News's t50 anymore?

USNWR is what educators, parents, students look to first for a general sense before true research takes place.

Anyone can quibble with USNWR methodology, etc. ( funny how people complain when the methodology doesn't suit their preferred school), but any ranking in T75 covers any "slippage."

Well the USNWR methodology removed Class size from its process a few years ago. Which is shocking, as many of us (smartly) think that smaller class sizes does lead to better educational opportunities. Much easier to learn in a room with 30-40 students where you can actively ask questions than in a lecture hall with 200+.
So yes, I will complain when the most recent changes basically moved many smaller (under 8K) private schools down 5-10 spots and put large state schools in their place. Because I know the smaller private schools are actually still better schools.

Facts. For example I think BC is a better school than a lot of the massive publics currently ranked above it. And Rutgers is a solid state flagship. But Top 50? Please.

You think BC is better than Cal or UCLA or Michigan? At the end of the day if a school is not currently ranked in the top 50, then it is not a top 50 ranked school. It's pretty simple.

DP. BC's current rank is 37. The PP didn't specify Cal/UCLA/UMich. However, there are a number of other publics ranked above BC: UVA, UNC, UFlorida, UT Austin, UCI, UCD, UIUC.

According to the rankings, these schools are ranked higher than BC, which indicates they are considered better. While someone might prefer BC or wish it were ranked higher than those public schools, the rankings do not reflect that.

What makes a school "better" overall - in this case, publics moving up due to change in Pell weights - does not make a school produce a better graduate and which schools are "better" did not suddenly change just because the ranking changed.

The rankings reflect what US News wants them to reflect.

1000%

So if you believe a large state school is a better education for your UMC+ kid, simply because the rankings include that now, go for it.

I will continue to believe the rankings are flawed and that access to professors, smaller class sizes,a nd all the opportunities that come with a much smaller undergrad population are in reality a better education. I don't need USNWR to tell me that.

Firstly, at most smaller Universities in the T100, your kid can select any major they want. No Hunger Games 2,.0 to attempt to get one of a few slots (if any) if your kid was not Direct Admitted to Business, CS, Engineering, any stem major, etc. I consider it a better education if my kid can freely change majors or add one or add a minor, actually get into what they want and graduate in 4 years. My Flagship state U is T50, ranked (after the changes ) about the same as the top private school my kid is attending. The difference is, my kid did not have to have a 4.0 freshman/soph year to get into the exact engineering major they wanted (they were lucky enough to be admitted at the State University to Engineering, but then you fight for the exact major). My kid was also able to add a CS minor at their 50 private school, at the Flagship U (Top 5 for CS), it is not a possibility, even direct admit is damn near impossible. You simply cannot just take a CS course unless you are in the major already.
So yeah, my kid is getting a much better education. They get ALL THE courses they need the first time---many at State U take 5+ years because they cannot get into classes, they fill up and you are stuck. And if my kid decided to change majors, they can and are not forced into a "non impacted major" like art history or English (almost every STEM/Business/CS/Eng at the State University are impacted and difficult to get into).

So yeah, no way in hell the two schools are similar in quality---my kid is getting a much better education, access to research starting sophomore year (real meaningful research), TAing courses starting in Soph year, etc. No comparison at all

You prefer smaller schools. Got it.

USNWR will respond to your gripe immediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you also talking about schools like Case Western, Tulane that are not technically in US News's t50 anymore?

USNWR is what educators, parents, students look to first for a general sense before true research takes place.

Anyone can quibble with USNWR methodology, etc. ( funny how people complain when the methodology doesn't suit their preferred school), but any ranking in T75 covers any "slippage."

Well the USNWR methodology removed Class size from its process a few years ago. Which is shocking, as many of us (smartly) think that smaller class sizes does lead to better educational opportunities. Much easier to learn in a room with 30-40 students where you can actively ask questions than in a lecture hall with 200+.
So yes, I will complain when the most recent changes basically moved many smaller (under 8K) private schools down 5-10 spots and put large state schools in their place. Because I know the smaller private schools are actually still better schools.

Facts. For example I think BC is a better school than a lot of the massive publics currently ranked above it. And Rutgers is a solid state flagship. But Top 50? Please.

You think BC is better than Cal or UCLA or Michigan? At the end of the day if a school is not currently ranked in the top 50, then it is not a top 50 ranked school. It's pretty simple.

Exactly.

Schools like Boston College and Boston University have been perennial T50 schools before AND after the social mobility changes some people gripe about. Some privates can't adapt and got dinged ( see Tulane and Wake Forest). The privates that can adapt / have adapted to the new USNWR ranking landscape will remain T50.

I look at schools like Case Western or RPI, which have dropped in the U.S. News rankings and performed poorly in other rankings like WSJ, and I wonder what they might be doing wrong and why their administrations seem unable to adapt. I see it this way: if a school was once ranked in the top 50 and cannot maintain that standing, it suggests that the administration is underperforming and may be failing in other, less visible areas as well. You think with all of the brain power at Tulane and Wake Forest they would be able to figure it out.

The more likely explanation is simply that USNWR changed the criteria in ways that did not favor those schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Niche is the only ranking that matters.

None of them matter.

They matter, but they shouldn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

The US News rankings are deeply flawed. Two years ago, US News dropped things like class size, the qualifications of instructors, and the number of years it takes students to graduate. Instead, they prioritized the number of Pell Grant students at each school. These changes in the algorithm caused a number of private schools to drop, including some high endowment private schools that give excellent financial aid so that students don't need Pell Grants. Plus, they penalized schools for having smaller classes, professors with PhDs, and allowing the vast majority of students to graduate in four years. US News was clearly on a mission to boost public universities in their rankings.

Which, fine. It's their "magazine." But the effect was to make the US News rankings fairly useless for those who care about the quality of education. Most informed people don't think UC Merced with its 90 percent acceptance rate is a top 60 school. Only 30 percent of UC Merced students even graduate in 4 years. And yet US News ranks UC Merced much higher than hundreds of other schools that most regard as better academically. The whole ranking is filled with nonsense like that. People should look at US News if social mobility is their priority. But otherwise, look elsewhere if academics are important to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

The US News rankings are deeply flawed. Two years ago, US News dropped things like class size, the qualifications of instructors, and the number of years it takes students to graduate. Instead, they prioritized the number of Pell Grant students at each school. These changes in the algorithm caused a number of private schools to drop, including some high endowment private schools that give excellent financial aid so that students don't need Pell Grants. Plus, they penalized schools for having smaller classes, professors with PhDs, and allowing the vast majority of students to graduate in four years. US News was clearly on a mission to boost public universities in their rankings.

Which, fine. It's their "magazine." But the effect was to make the US News rankings fairly useless for those who care about the quality of education. Most informed people don't think UC Merced with its 90 percent acceptance rate is a top 60 school. Only 30 percent of UC Merced students even graduate in 4 years. And yet US News ranks UC Merced much higher than hundreds of other schools that most regard as better academically. The whole ranking is filled with nonsense like that. People should look at US News if social mobility is their priority. But otherwise, look elsewhere if academics are important to you.

WSJ ratings are even more flawed than USNWR when it comes to rankings given their stew of ROI adjusted for "starting point" and graduation rates again adjusted for "similar socioeconomic profiles".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

The US News rankings are deeply flawed. Two years ago, US News dropped things like class size, the qualifications of instructors, and the number of years it takes students to graduate. Instead, they prioritized the number of Pell Grant students at each school. These changes in the algorithm caused a number of private schools to drop, including some high endowment private schools that give excellent financial aid so that students don't need Pell Grants. Plus, they penalized schools for having smaller classes, professors with PhDs, and allowing the vast majority of students to graduate in four years. US News was clearly on a mission to boost public universities in their rankings.

Which, fine. It's their "magazine." But the effect was to make the US News rankings fairly useless for those who care about the quality of education. Most informed people don't think UC Merced with its 90 percent acceptance rate is a top 60 school. Only 30 percent of UC Merced students even graduate in 4 years. And yet US News ranks UC Merced much higher than hundreds of other schools that most regard as better academically. The whole ranking is filled with nonsense like that. People should look at US News if social mobility is their priority. But otherwise, look elsewhere if academics are important to you.

WSJ ratings are even more flawed than USNWR when it comes to rankings given their stew of ROI adjusted for "starting point" and graduation rates again adjusted for "similar socioeconomic profiles".

Which is why people are looking at Niche. WSJ dropped the ball - Babson at number 2? - with their very peculiar rankings. There's definitely a big space for a credible ranking after US News squandered their legitimacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

The US News rankings are deeply flawed. Two years ago, US News dropped things like class size, the qualifications of instructors, and the number of years it takes students to graduate. Instead, they prioritized the number of Pell Grant students at each school. These changes in the algorithm caused a number of private schools to drop, including some high endowment private schools that give excellent financial aid so that students don't need Pell Grants. Plus, they penalized schools for having smaller classes, professors with PhDs, and allowing the vast majority of students to graduate in four years. US News was clearly on a mission to boost public universities in their rankings.

Which, fine. It's their "magazine." But the effect was to make the US News rankings fairly useless for those who care about the quality of education. Most informed people don't think UC Merced with its 90 percent acceptance rate is a top 60 school. Only 30 percent of UC Merced students even graduate in 4 years. And yet US News ranks UC Merced much higher than hundreds of other schools that most regard as better academically. The whole ranking is filled with nonsense like that. People should look at US News if social mobility is their priority. But otherwise, look elsewhere if academics are important to you.

WSJ ratings are even more flawed than USNWR when it comes to rankings given their stew of ROI adjusted for "starting point" and graduation rates again adjusted for "similar socioeconomic profiles".

Which is why people are looking at Niche. WSJ dropped the ball - Babson at number 2? - with their very peculiar rankings. There's definitely a big space for a credible ranking after US News squandered their legitimacy.

You may think USNWR isn’t legit, but it’s more influential with the colleges themselves than all the other rankings put together. Think about it: if you work in academia and might move from institution to the other, you care about how the schools perceive each other. Only USNWR has the peer survey. Are you going to care more about what 40-50% of your peers think about each other (the response rates for USNWR) or what less 0.1% of current students think on Niche? You will care about the former and couldn’t be bothered with the latter. Why should a prospective family care about that? Because the schools actually are actively trying to improve or maintain their rank on the one they care about; they consider the USNWR methodology and metrics as they consider their own plans. Hence its influence. It doesn’t really matter if you don’t care what USNWR thinks. It matters that the colleges do.

[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:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

The US News rankings are deeply flawed. Two years ago, US News dropped things like class size, the qualifications of instructors, and the number of years it takes students to graduate. Instead, they prioritized the number of Pell Grant students at each school. These changes in the algorithm caused a number of private schools to drop, including some high endowment private schools that give excellent financial aid so that students don't need Pell Grants. Plus, they penalized schools for having smaller classes, professors with PhDs, and allowing the vast majority of students to graduate in four years. US News was clearly on a mission to boost public universities in their rankings.

Which, fine. It's their "magazine." But the effect was to make the US News rankings fairly useless for those who care about the quality of education. Most informed people don't think UC Merced with its 90 percent acceptance rate is a top 60 school. Only 30 percent of UC Merced students even graduate in 4 years. And yet US News ranks UC Merced much higher than hundreds of other schools that most regard as better academically. The whole ranking is filled with nonsense like that. People should look at US News if social mobility is their priority. But otherwise, look elsewhere if academics are important to you.

WSJ ratings are even more flawed than USNWR when it comes to rankings given their stew of ROI adjusted for "starting point" and graduation rates again adjusted for "similar socioeconomic profiles".

Which is why people are looking at Niche. WSJ dropped the ball - Babson at number 2? - with their very peculiar rankings. There's definitely a big space for a credible ranking after US News squandered their legitimacy.

You may think USNWR isn’t legit, but it’s more influential with the colleges themselves than all the other rankings put together. Think about it: if you work in academia and might move from institution to the other, you care about how the schools perceive each other. Only USNWR has the peer survey. Are you going to care more about what 40-50% of your peers think about each other (the response rates for USNWR) or what less 0.1% of current students think on Niche? You will care about the former and couldn’t be bothered with the latter. Why should a prospective family care about that? Because the schools actually are actively trying to improve or maintain their rank on the one they care about; they consider the USNWR methodology and metrics as they consider their own plans. Hence its influence. It doesn’t really matter if you don’t care what USNWR thinks. It matters that the colleges do.

I should’ve said, “40-50% of your peers institutions think.” It would be fair to say not all faculty and administrators agree with the peer scores submitted by their own school, but they are submitted by senior officials authorized to do so, and it’s the only widely used peer survey available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you also talking about schools like Case Western, Tulane that are not technically in US News's t50 anymore?

USNWR is what educators, parents, students look to first for a general sense before true research takes place.

Anyone can quibble with USNWR methodology, etc. ( funny how people complain when the methodology doesn't suit their preferred school), but any ranking in T75 covers any "slippage."

Well the USNWR methodology removed Class size from its process a few years ago. Which is shocking, as many of us (smartly) think that smaller class sizes does lead to better educational opportunities. Much easier to learn in a room with 30-40 students where you can actively ask questions than in a lecture hall with 200+.
So yes, I will complain when the most recent changes basically moved many smaller (under 8K) private schools down 5-10 spots and put large state schools in their place. Because I know the smaller private schools are actually still better schools.

Facts. For example I think BC is a better school than a lot of the massive publics currently ranked above it. And Rutgers is a solid state flagship. But Top 50? Please.

You think BC is better than Cal or UCLA or Michigan? At the end of the day if a school is not currently ranked in the top 50, then it is not a top 50 ranked school. It's pretty simple.

DP. BC's current rank is 37. The PP didn't specify Cal/UCLA/UMich. However, there are a number of other publics ranked above BC: UVA, UNC, UFlorida, UT Austin, UCI, UCD, UIUC.

According to the rankings, these schools are ranked higher than BC, which indicates they are considered better. While someone might prefer BC or wish it were ranked higher than those public schools, the rankings do not reflect that.

What makes a school "better" overall - in this case, publics moving up due to change in Pell weights - does not make a school produce a better graduate and which schools are "better" did not suddenly change just because the ranking changed.

The rankings reflect what US News wants them to reflect.

1000%

So if you believe a large state school is a better education for your UMC+ kid, simply because the rankings include that now, go for it.

I will continue to believe the rankings are flawed and that access to professors, smaller class sizes,a nd all the opportunities that come with a much smaller undergrad population are in reality a better education. I don't need USNWR to tell me that.

Firstly, at most smaller Universities in the T100, your kid can select any major they want. No Hunger Games 2,.0 to attempt to get one of a few slots (if any) if your kid was not Direct Admitted to Business, CS, Engineering, any stem major, etc. I consider it a better education if my kid can freely change majors or add one or add a minor, actually get into what they want and graduate in 4 years. My Flagship state U is T50, ranked (after the changes ) about the same as the top private school my kid is attending. The difference is, my kid did not have to have a 4.0 freshman/soph year to get into the exact engineering major they wanted (they were lucky enough to be admitted at the State University to Engineering, but then you fight for the exact major). My kid was also able to add a CS minor at their 50 private school, at the Flagship U (Top 5 for CS), it is not a possibility, even direct admit is damn near impossible. You simply cannot just take a CS course unless you are in the major already.
So yeah, my kid is getting a much better education. They get ALL THE courses they need the first time---many at State U take 5+ years because they cannot get into classes, they fill up and you are stuck. And if my kid decided to change majors, they can and are not forced into a "non impacted major" like art history or English (almost every STEM/Business/CS/Eng at the State University are impacted and difficult to get into).

So yeah, no way in hell the two schools are similar in quality---my kid is getting a much better education, access to research starting sophomore year (real meaningful research), TAing courses starting in Soph year, etc. No comparison at all

Small schools have a limited number of majors. My kid wants aerospace engineering. Is that available at Tulane? How about something more basic like mechanical engineering or electrical engineering? No? But you can major in art history, dance or gender studies and have small class sizes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.

2018?

Nope.

NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education

2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?

I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.

You can feel free to value other things

I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?

Ffs. The classroom ratios numbers of tenured professors, research output, and so forth, hasn’t changed in five years, and you know it. The only thing that has changed is the methodology criteria, and the fact that there were three years of glut of people who test poorly and we’re nevertheless admitted.

I’m not sure what has or hasn’t changed with each school ranked by U.S. News. What I do know is that rankings shift from year to year, and some people get really upset about it. They often claim the methodology is flawed—usually because they don’t like the results. Does that sound about right?

The US News rankings are deeply flawed. Two years ago, US News dropped things like class size, the qualifications of instructors, and the number of years it takes students to graduate. Instead, they prioritized the number of Pell Grant students at each school. These changes in the algorithm caused a number of private schools to drop, including some high endowment private schools that give excellent financial aid so that students don't need Pell Grants. Plus, they penalized schools for having smaller classes, professors with PhDs, and allowing the vast majority of students to graduate in four years. US News was clearly on a mission to boost public universities in their rankings.

Which, fine. It's their "magazine." But the effect was to make the US News rankings fairly useless for those who care about the quality of education. Most informed people don't think UC Merced with its 90 percent acceptance rate is a top 60 school. Only 30 percent of UC Merced students even graduate in 4 years. And yet US News ranks UC Merced much higher than hundreds of other schools that most regard as better academically. The whole ranking is filled with nonsense like that. People should look at US News if social mobility is their priority. But otherwise, look elsewhere if academics are important to you.

WSJ ratings are even more flawed than USNWR when it comes to rankings given their stew of ROI adjusted for "starting point" and graduation rates again adjusted for "similar socioeconomic profiles".

Which is why people are looking at Niche. WSJ dropped the ball - Babson at number 2? - with their very peculiar rankings. There's definitely a big space for a credible ranking after US News squandered their legitimacy.

Let’s face it…people are pissed about how Wake, Tulane, Tufts, William and Mary and a couple of others dropped in USNews.

So, fine, let’s use Niche:

- Wake is 48 vs 46 USnews
- Tulane is 69 vs 63 USNews
- Tufts is 47 vs 37 USNews
- W&M is 74 vs 54 USNews


Once more…these schools’ best rating are USNews. Niche, Forbes, WSJ, world rankings…they are all worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely flexible, since we're talking about US News here, which is crap to begin with. It would be nicer if DCUM could all use QS, THE or ARWU.

Why would that be used for U.S. UNDERGRADUATE education? They are largely research rankings.

If I am trying to determine the top colleges and universities, why would I only look at undergraduate education to determine top schools? Last I checked, cutting edge research was a key component of academia.

The argument is, sure the University of Washington advanced using AI to predict protein folding that will speed the development of new medicines, but they have larger Biology 101 classes than Wake Forest. U of W is a much more impactful university than Wake, by far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's definitely flexible, since we're talking about US News here, which is crap to begin with. It would be nicer if DCUM could all use QS, THE or ARWU.

Those type of rankings are not that useful for undergrad. QS ranks Cornell at 16, Brown at 79, and Dartmouth at 243. But for undergrad those schools are not that different.

Top universities are more than undergrad education.

[Anonymous]

I had to google QS university ranking. My oldest child is 12 so l haven’t started thinking about college seriously yet. Why would anyone think the US has all the top universities in the world? And these ranking seems to rate research highly, so no wonder some “prestigious” smaller schools like SLACs are so low. You can’t use these rankings blindly.

That being said I’m delighted to see my undergrad school is number 38 in the world. UBC in Canada