Wake Forest ranking drop?

[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.

It spends a metric shit ton on research and overall spending. What are you trying to say?

[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?

...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.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

[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:

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.

It spends a metric shit ton on research and overall spending. What are you trying to say?

PP was trying to make some strange point about Wake Forest also having been ranked between 20-30 but no more...just pointing out that UNC has consistently been chugging along through any and all ranking methodology changes between 25-30 for 30 years.

[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:

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.

It spends a metric shit ton on research and overall spending. What are you trying to say?

PP was trying to make some strange point about Wake Forest also having been ranked between 20-30 but no more...just pointing out that UNC has consistently been chugging along through any and all ranking methodology changes between 25-30 for 30 years.

It seems to have suffered early on from methodological changes? But yes, recently it's survived. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for t20 schools like Emory and WashU.

[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?

...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.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

[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?

...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.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

[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:

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.

It spends a metric shit ton on research and overall spending. What are you trying to say?

PP was trying to make some strange point about Wake Forest also having been ranked between 20-30 but no more...just pointing out that UNC has consistently been chugging along through any and all ranking methodology changes between 25-30 for 30 years.

It seems to have suffered early on from methodological changes? But yes, recently it's survived. Unfortunately, that has not been the case for t20 schools like Emory and WashU.

Emory started the USNews rankings in 1985 at 25 and it's now ranked 24. It's average is around 21.

WashU started in 1985 at 23 and it's now ranked 21. It's average is around 18.

These really are not particularly material changes.

[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?

...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.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

[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?

...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.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

They changed the methodology in 2023. Have you seriously not heard about this?

[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?

...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.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

Why do you think?

[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?

...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.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

Honestly, because US. News will never change the T15. Factors are picked based on their ability to maintain that group.

[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:

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.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

Why do you think?

Because great schools will always be great schools...regardless of how the ranking methodology gets tweaked.

[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:

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.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

Honestly, because US. News will never change the T15. Factors are picked based on their ability to maintain that group.

+1
After the original t15 including UNCCH was done away with, this has been the case.

[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:

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.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

Why do you think?

Because great schools will always be great schools...regardless of how the ranking methodology gets tweaked.

Then why is Dartmouth ranked #300+ on many lists?

[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:

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.

You can’t argue with this person. They are always on here grabbing the best ranking a school ever had in one year (or not, with the false claim that UVA was 9) and then claiming that the school has fallen because it is “no longer a tX school”. It’s like a tic.

BTW...Princeton's average ranking across the entire 40 year time period is 1.5.

Talk about consistency.

And Wake's is 29. Talk about consistency.

So, why is Princeton still #1 and Wake now #46?

Why do you think?

Because great schools will always be great schools...regardless of how the ranking methodology gets tweaked.

Why is Boston College ranked 60th by Forbes?