Reply to What happened to W&M, Brandeis, Tulane, Pepperdine and others..from historically T50 to outside looking in?

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "What happened to W&M, Brandeis, Tulane, Pepperdine and others..from historically T50 to outside looking in?"

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Everyone needs to stop blaming USNews for the rankings slide.

It stands to reason that if it was only a USNews problem, that these schools would rank highly in Forbes or WSJ or other rankings.

However, at least with Wake and Tulane, the USNews Rankings are the highest rankings...BY FAR.

Actually, Forbes ranks W&M 55 and USNews ranks it #54 (WSJ is at 178).  Seems about right.

Pepperdine is #83 USNews and #125 Forbes and #145 WSJ.

Brandeis is #63 USNews, #105 Forbes and #335 WSJ

Wake is #46 USNews, #469 Forbes and #137 WSJ

Tulane is #63 USNews, #147 Forbes and #451 WSJ

[/quote]
US News changed their methodology with the express purpose of becoming more like Forbes and WSJ. Wake, W&M, Tulane, Brandeis were all t40-30+ for many, many years. Only after the movement to value DEI did these schools start to be ranked among schools that had always ranked much lower. It is because of methodology changes and methodology changes alone that the (made up) rankings of these schools have changed. [/quote]

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.[/quote]
None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.[/quote]

Considering at least Tulane and Wake are chasing the new USNews rankings...something tells me if they move back to where they were prior, folks like you will start touting them again.[/quote]

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.[/quote]
+1 Tulane also said this
The rankings were never the sole reason smart kids went to these schools (as is evidenced by either increasing or stable
test stats at all of these schools). It was more like a bonus or nice in that an external source acknowledged what the people at these schools know to be true. If they don't agree this year, so what? Who cares.[/quote]

Great...why are there three pages of posts trying to argue why the rankings are "wrong".   Seems now it's "we never cared about the rankings".  Maybe just stick with that.[/quote]
I cared about US News back when it was primarily focused on the quality of academics at a school. I don't think it's wrong to want a ranking available so the [b]smartest students know where they should go.[/b] [/quote]

There is...it's called USNews.  The top 20 schools have had the deck chairs shuffled...but they didn't go anywhere.

Nobody has ever accused Tulane or Pepperdine of attracting the "smartest students".[/quote]

It doesn't matter if some schools maintained their place, they got rid of SO many factors related to undergraduate education experience, and so it's no longer a valid measure of that. Yada yada broken clock. Maybe Tulane and Pepperdine didn't but WF, W&M, BU, and BC all did and they all dropped a lot the last two years. Hell even WashU and NYU did.[/quote]

lol Tulane, Pepperdine, BU and BC compete for the same students. W&M is a state school behind UVa and Vtech. WF is below all of these. [/quote]
UVA: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
W&M: 1470 (59% submitting scores)
WF: 1450 (48% submitting scores)

VT: 1360 (48% submitting scores)

Try again.[/quote]
W&M is a safety for UVA kids. UVA is a safety for T20 kids. Unless yield protection is a thing.[/quote]
Somehow their enrolling SATs are identical as are their GPAs. I think if UVA were really the next step for t20 applicants their SAT median would be more similar to Harvard, Yale, etc.[/quote]

Absolutely. The ivies plus MIT Stanford Duke Hopkins and a couple others all had 25th%ile SAT of enrolled students at 1470 or higher pre-test optional. UVA and William and Mary both had the 75th%ile at 1470or so. The top quarter of UVA (and WM) is the same as the top 3/4 of ivy/+ schools: they are not the same tier, and they are essentially tied as far as student quality. UVA and WM should both be about 25-30 national ranking. They are peers but neither is on par with ivy.[/quote]
I guess peers in terms of test scores etc. but not overall peers due to UVA's size.[/quote]

Agree UVa size is a negative. [b]William&Mary is closer to an ivy/elite private in terms of feel (seminar classes, overall size)[/b]. UVA is not a good ivy backup because the vibe is all wrong. [/quote]

Are you the same person who always says this?  No. W&M is not close to an ivy or elite private in ANY way.  I mean, seriously?  Do you hear yourself?
DP[/quote]
Not the PP.

W&M stats-wise is identical to UVA. If UVA is close to an "elite private" (i don't even know what the cutoff for that would be) because of its student body's academic chops, W&M has the exact same chops.[/quote]

+1[/quote]

NP.  Who is saying either of those schools are "elite"?   :shock: [/quote]
Name which schools you consider to be elite[/quote]

The Ivies + Stanford, MIT.  Maybe one or two others.  [/quote]
Okay, by this definition, yes, neither would be elite.[/quote]

By any definition.  [/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