Reply to UMD or W&M

Forum Index » College and University Discussion

Reply to "UMD or W&M"

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]OP here. Money matters but not the most important consideration. I was under the impression that UMD is on upward trajectory whilst W&M is moving opposite direction. I have been wondering about that. [/quote]

W&M alum here. I was shocked at the lower ranking it has now so went down the rabbit hole on looking at why it was dropping. Big reasons are parts that to me don’t feel like defects impacting my kids: ratings no longer value smaller class sizes but I think my kid would do well in smaller classes; ratings value higher Pell Grant attendee numbers but my kid isn’t eligible for that so it’s irrelevant for me and I don’t see a “barbell” student body make up as desirable. In short, it doesn’t sound like W&M has changed the fundamentals of its education. Rather it sounds like USNWR changed what it prioritized in ways that seem to advantage top end private schools and very large public flagships. [/quote]

[b]Stop blaming the rankings[/b] when your school drops and others don’t or even go up.  The true top schools didn’t go anywhere in the rankings, however, schools that for years gamed the rankings to try to go up saw a large drop.

[/quote]

DP: W&M never gamed any rankings. PP is correct--the features that make W&M a great school--small class sizes and a focus on undergraduate teaching despite being classed as a research university--are just not prioritized in the new USNWR--but many people find them more valuable than what the rankings currently prioritize.  The Pell grant focus is misguided IMO--it is leading top institutions to prioritize giving aid to poor kids and then relying on full-pay UMC+ students to make up the difference--leading to a "barbell" economic distribution where MC/lower end of UMC families are not attending top schools due to finances but poor and wealthier UMC/rich people are.  It also privileges schools in LCOLA where there are more Pell grant recipients since it's a federal standard. The data clearly shows this.

W&M --despite being expensive for a public school--does offer the most comprehensive need-based financial aid among VA publics which makes it affordable for high stats students who are not low-income enough to receive Pell grants, but middle class.

I think USNWR should either stay out of the social engineering aspects of college in their rankings OR do a more continuous measure of parental income to see who the schools are really serving rather than a Pell grant cut-off point.   A well-educated middle class is essential to a functioning society and is generally the group that values higher education the most and the ranking system is driving admissions and college-level financial aid policies that leave the middle class less likely to attend top schools.[/quote]

Of course you think it is correct, because you are crying over the ranking the methodology.  Personally, I think any school in the Top 100 is a good school, so not sure why somebody decided to start crying over W&M's 53 ranking.

However, you are now in a long line of Tulane, Wash U, Vanderbilt, Wake Forest, etc. who are crying over their particular school dropping when their peer schools did not, and maybe even went up in the rankings.  It would be one thing if every school dropped uniformly, but the fact is they did not.

BTW, W&M is ranked 212 by the WSJ rankings...so you should be thankful it is 53 by USNews.[/quote]

But they did drop uniformly.  All the schools that moved up significantly were large publics and the decliners were all privates , particularly small privates (William and Mary treated like a small private because it shares characteristics with them here).  The schools that fell the most had scored particularly high on the small classes and classes taught by professors categories.  [/quote]

No they didn't...why didn't Princeton drop...why did Brown move up...why didn't JHU drop...why did Emory remain basically the same.  Do you claim to know so much about other schools to be able to parse the differences?

This is the classic...blame the rankings.
[/quote]

Because of the size of their endowments.  But that’s affects different ranking factors.

Again, nearly all the schools moving up shared the same phenotype and all the schools moving down shared another.  You seem to have trouble with logic.[/quote]

Ooops...now it is the endowment size.  You claiming Vanderbilt, Tulane, Wake have tiny endowments?  What's the next excuse?

I actually thought at 53 W&M was ranked pretty high compared to what I would expect.

Now I think maybe the WSJ has it right at 212.[/quote]

So you just admit you don't like the school and that's why you're being such a loser about this. Sorry things at home aren't working out![/quote]

Sounds like a concession...I actually don't give a rats a** about W&M.  I just find it comical that anyone decided to reference the drop in rankings with the old "it's not the school...blame the rankings".  Everyone, do yourselves a favor and be proud of a 53 ranking...that is a great ranking.

To PP, on every argument you make, it doesn't hold.  Emory has much smaller classes on average than W&M yet its ranking didn't move (I think it may have moved up a slot).  All the private schools that dropped have what are considered very healthy endowments (Vanderbilt particularly), yet they dropped.[/quote]

No you're just exhausting because you have a vendetta and are also clearly not willing to think earnestly about this.[/quote]

+1
Earlier PP sounds bizarrely obsessed with USNWR being an oracle of quality. The main OP question was which school and whether W&M was getting worse as it was ranked lower. It is objectively factual to point out that the shift in what was measured by USNWR is a major factor that led to climbs in huge public universities and drops by those schools that are not super rich (ie not the Ivys) and have a focus on issues USNWR now gives no “credit” for such as class size. Lots of families think small class size and professors teaching classes are worth more than high Pell Grant ratios. If you disagree well then yes USNWR is a great guide for what you are looking for. [/quote]

I think a school ranked 53 is a great school.  Why the W&M folks are so ashamed at that ranking is beyond me, and they felt the need to bring it up in the context of this thread is bizarre.  Nobody asked about it.[/quote]

? 
OP literally asked about the shift in rankings of the two schools. That is what prompted the commentary on the shift in USNWR criteria driving the drop.

“ OP here. Money matters but not the most important consideration. I was under the impression that UMD is on upward trajectory whilst W&M is moving opposite direction. I have been wondering about that.”[/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