Reply to When you say t50...

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "When you say t50..."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote]

2018?

Nope.[/quote]

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

[/quote]

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  I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point.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? [/quote]

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
[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

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.  [/quote]

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". [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

The only pissed people are either alumn morons who just follow the rankings. Anyone with an IQ over 80 realizes that new ranking methodologies are idiotic and it has negatively impacted these schools.

Only a blind IDIOT with no knowledge of history would NOT consider these schools T50.

A PP mentioned a historical ranking. Yes. Over the last 50 years these schools have been ranking in the top50. So YES, for purposes of discussing a t50, these schools are often mentioned….[/quote]

Looking at the rankings of the four schools listed, W&M and Tulane are not currently Top 50 schools. I don’t keep track of yearly changes to ranking methodologies and don’t have a deep understanding of historical college rankings. When I want to know where a school is ranked, I typically go to the US News website, as it seems to be the most widely used source for college rankings. For that reason, I feel comfortable using it as a reference.

Younger people, who may lack your knowledge of college ranking history and are just beginning their research, will likely not see Tulane ranked in the T50 and therefore may not consider it a T50 school. At some point, if a school is not ranked in the T50, then it simply is not a T50 school.

Maybe I believe that the old ranking methodology was flawed and placed too much emphasis on factors like class size and percentage of graduates completing their degrees in four years. Perhaps a more diverse student body actually strengthens the educational experience by fostering soft skills, which are critical in both educational and professional settings.

On that note, it seems you could benefit from developing soft skills yourself—particularly in learning that effective communication doesn’t involve name-calling or ad hominem attacks simply because someone disagrees with you. Lastly, I find your use of the word "blind" problematic. Would a sighted individual make a better analysis of T50 schools simply by virtue of being sighted?[/quote]

The USNews ranking is for students and parents researching colleges TODAY.  Not 20 years ago , or even 3 years ago. The alumni who don't like the current ranking because their private college slipped can STFU.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics