Anonymous wrote:For an OOS kid, do you think Richmond or W&M (OOS) is the better value?

W&M, there is no comparison.

I agree, getting into U of R is easy and it is also expensive which means mediocre rich kids and not kids that are smart, there is a difference.

No, it does not. US News removed that criterion years ago. The selectivity it references now is chiefly just average scores rather than admit rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Selectivity can be a bit of a scam, depending on how well a given school markets and achieves high number of applications, and manages yield protection.

Selectivity has virtually nothing to do with the US News rankings

Actually, it does. I honestly wish it didn't but that's exactly how many colleges game their rankings.

For an OOS kid, do you think Richmond or W&M (OOS) is the better value?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are certain schools that signify that the person who got the degree is really smart - schools like MIT, CalTech, Rice. If you see that degree, you don't have to dig into details - you can be pretty sure that student is really, really, bright. If you want to hang around those types of people, just look for that signifier.

There are certain schools that signify wealth. If you see that the person in front of you has a degree from that school, you can be nearly certain they are wealthy. Schools like Richmond, WashU, and Colorado College come to mind. If you want to hang around with rich people, look for that signifier.

I'm not sure if this is true these days or not. But for anyone 40+, it definitely wasn't true, at least not for everyone. When I enrolled in 1990, UR was routinely listed as among the best bargains in higher education. I think total cost of attendance that year was $13.5k. Some time in the early 2000s, the Board made a decision to change that, and it's now one of the more expensive schools in the country. But the low cost of attendance is one of the reasons I chose to go there over Lafayette, Lehigh, and other small but much more expensive schools. That said, there were a fair amount of BMWs in the student parking lot, next to my 7 year old Ford Escort.

Times have changed. In the early 80's Richmond had a fantastic track program and for a private school was affordable. We completed there often because they had four or five Olympic athletes and could not obtain that level of competition without trekking to Eugene Oregon. The school is beautiful and it took some energy not to be distracted before competition. Afterwards, I thought it akin to a country club in appearance. I recall getting beat by inches in a competitive race by a Richmond athlete from Kenya and was unhappy about it. Two years later my wife and I were watching the LA Olympics and this guy got fourth, missing a medal by inches. My wife laughed as she remembered I did not like getting beat by a guy from a non power conference, but just as with college selection itself, success can be obtained from many places and in that respect rankings are largely irrelevant. Schools are what you make of them, and that applies to athletics too. Cost matters today - college is all about value. One can do as well from Richmond - just an expensive place.

I just watched the Goucher episode of The College Tour. They did talk about the scientific breakthroughs that came from there. That was impressive.

The price tag sucks, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The University of Richmond has an excellent reputation and is especially well regarded among people native to Virginia and North Carolina. What it lacks is the same level of national awareness enjoyed by some of the other schools listed above. I suspect most of the previous one-liners come from DMV transplants who don't know any better.

This might be unfair, but it really has a weaker academic brand outside of Virginia than Washington & Lee, Davidson or Goucher. At least Goucher has a disease named after it.

Just hearing the name, I picture a bunch of students with so so SATs who are premeds, or majoring in business or computer science, because golf club dues don’t pay themselves.

If the University of Richmond really is a Colby equivalent, it needs to figure out how to convey the idea that it’s safe for wonks. Or, if it’s not safe for wonks, how to sell people on the idea that it’s the Colby alternative for people who don’t take that school stuff all that seriously.

GOUCHER?????

People from outside the DMV who’ve had prenatal testing think “Creepy disease named after it; must be like Johns Hopkins,” not “Ho hum little college.”

Fat conservative buffoon Jonah Goldberg went to Goucher, so it must be good, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The University of Richmond has an excellent reputation and is especially well regarded among people native to Virginia and North Carolina. What it lacks is the same level of national awareness enjoyed by some of the other schools listed above. I suspect most of the previous one-liners come from DMV transplants who don't know any better.

This might be unfair, but it really has a weaker academic brand outside of Virginia than Washington & Lee, Davidson or Goucher. At least Goucher has a disease named after it.

Just hearing the name, I picture a bunch of students with so so SATs who are premeds, or majoring in business or computer science, because golf club dues don’t pay themselves.

If the University of Richmond really is a Colby equivalent, it needs to figure out how to convey the idea that it’s safe for wonks. Or, if it’s not safe for wonks, how to sell people on the idea that it’s the Colby alternative for people who don’t take that school stuff all that seriously.

GOUCHER?????

People from outside the DMV who’ve had prenatal testing think “Creepy disease named after it; must be like Johns Hopkins,” not “Ho hum little college.”