Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that US News categorized WF as a regional school, and when it first was recategorized as national it was nowhere near the top 30. What goes around comes around.

Honestly, let’s get serious: does anyone really think WF is anywhere near as strong as UVA or UNC? Nope.

Sorry to break it to you but UVA is nowhere near UNC. And yes I would consider WF similar to UVA - they’re both solid in academics but not amazing.

+1

Wake, BC, UVA, Tufts, all peers schools, maybe throw in USC as well. I don’t think the so-called Wake boosters are arguing differently. Not sure why UNC is seen as a tier above. It’s harder than UVA for oos admittance by a good measure, but far easier for in state admission.

Wake has double the admission rate of the other schools you listed.

Wake’s admit rate is 21 percent. BC and UVA are a few points lower. USC doesn’t count spring admits and guaranteed transfers in its rate, neither of which Wake has.

BC’s admission rate is 14%
UVA’s admission rate is 18%

I don’t think you can directly compare admit rates. You need to compare things that are the same prices. For example, if the OOS tuition for UVA is the same as WF tuition then you could compare. But if kids are picking UVA in state because it’s a half or a quarter of the price then that’s not a reflection on perceived quality of the college. The question is where do families choose to go when they are spending a certain amount of money. All things being equal, I’d send my kids to WF any day rather than UVA and I’m sure that the vast majority of the country would do the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that US News categorized WF as a regional school, and when it first was recategorized as national it was nowhere near the top 30. What goes around comes around.

Honestly, let’s get serious: does anyone really think WF is anywhere near as strong as UVA or UNC? Nope.

Sorry to break it to you but UVA is nowhere near UNC. And yes I would consider WF similar to UVA - they’re both solid in academics but not amazing.

+1

Wake, BC, UVA, Tufts, all peers schools, maybe throw in USC as well. I don’t think the so-called Wake boosters are arguing differently. Not sure why UNC is seen as a tier above. It’s harder than UVA for oos admittance by a good measure, but far easier for in state admission.

Wake has double the admission rate of the other schools you listed.

Wake’s admit rate is 21 percent. BC and UVA are a few points lower. USC doesn’t count spring admits and guaranteed transfers in its rate, neither of which Wake has.

BC’s admission rate is 14%
UVA’s admission rate is 18%

Anonymous wrote:This post is ridiculous. If you like all of the attributes of Wake Forest then attend regardless of rank. If you want to go to go to a school that is currently ranked 30 or near then 30 then go to one of those schools. My view is that if you are complaining about where a school is ranked, then you are more concerned with the ranking than anything else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that US News categorized WF as a regional school, and when it first was recategorized as national it was nowhere near the top 30. What goes around comes around.

Honestly, let’s get serious: does anyone really think WF is anywhere near as strong as UVA or UNC? Nope.

Sorry to break it to you but UVA is nowhere near UNC. And yes I would consider WF similar to UVA - they’re both solid in academics but not amazing.

+1

Wake, BC, UVA, Tufts, all peers schools, maybe throw in USC as well. I don’t think the so-called Wake boosters are arguing differently. Not sure why UNC is seen as a tier above. It’s harder than UVA for oos admittance by a good measure, but far easier for in state admission.

Wake has double the admission rate of the other schools you listed.

Wake’s admit rate is 21 percent. BC and UVA are a few points lower. USC doesn’t count spring admits and guaranteed transfers in its rate, neither of which Wake has.

BC’s admission rate is 14%
UVA’s admission rate is 18%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone without a ton of bias explain why wake was t30 in the first place? I feel like all the other t30 schools are very popular, well known, and academically at the top. I have no doubt wake forest is great, but it’s under the radar across the country

Very small class sizes, all classes taught by professors, high level of alumni giving are what kept it on the T30, it was when those factors were removed and first gen/pell grant specific factors were added that it fell out of the T30.

It’s basically a slac in a medium size university package with Power 5 sports in a state with a good climate. That’s a package that’s been attracting strong students for a long time, and not dissimilar from Duke and Vanderbilt, which is why it’s often a top choice for students not admitted to those schools.

So why is it ranked in the absolute toilet (as high as 400 and as low as 700) by international rankings that supposedly give a ton of weight to these metrics?

Honestly, it’s USNews ranking is its highest ranking BY FAR of any rankings…so something doesn’t make sense.

DP.
What makes you think international rankings weight alumni giving, class size, etc. highly?

They claim to focus on almost entirely academic metrics, class size, classes taught by professors, etc….more so than the US rankings which assign more weight to outcomes.

Though you miss the forest through the trees…somehow schools like Princeton are ranked top 10 by everyone…USNews, Forbes, WSJ, QS, THE…yet Wake only hits top 50ish by USNews and gets hammered by everyone else.

My guess is that they look at things like size of endowment, total research funding, etc . . that favor the Ivies and big R1 research facilities. Wake is a relatively small school of 5400.

Forbes and WSJ look primarily at income after graduation and cost of attendance, which favors public universities that send kids to high cost cities and produce lots of computer science and engineering students, neither of which is huge at Wake.

I get it…but after USNews, the next highest ranking is Forbes at 88 then WSJ at 137…then THE at 400 then QS at 741.

Only point is nobody is higher than USNews at 53…so maybe start giving USNews a little love.

Also, WSJ and Forbes rank plenty of SLACs with little to no CS and engineering very high…Forbes has Williams, CMC, Amherst all around 20 (they rank all schools together…they don’t have a separate SLAC ranking).

Forbes is 20 percent alumni salary (so favors schools that send lots of kids to NY or CA), 15 percent debt load (favors large endowments that offer loan free aid or low cost publics), 15 percent graduation rate, 15 percent America’s leaders (how many alum made a Forbes list, win major awards including sports awards or serve at high levels in government, favors the Ivies and large sports schools), 15 percent ROI, 10 percent retention (favors the same schools as first factor), and academic success (measured by Fulbright, Rhodes and phds earned over past 3 years, again favors Ivies and large research universities).

The WSJ rankings are a complete joke, with Babson ranked No. 2 overall.

Same broken record…once more learn to love USNews because that’s as good as it gets.

That is like saying you should love the common cold because it is less deadly than flu.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone without a ton of bias explain why wake was t30 in the first place? I feel like all the other t30 schools are very popular, well known, and academically at the top. I have no doubt wake forest is great, but it’s under the radar across the country

Very small class sizes, all classes taught by professors, high level of alumni giving are what kept it on the T30, it was when those factors were removed and first gen/pell grant specific factors were added that it fell out of the T30.

It’s basically a slac in a medium size university package with Power 5 sports in a state with a good climate. That’s a package that’s been attracting strong students for a long time, and not dissimilar from Duke and Vanderbilt, which is why it’s often a top choice for students not admitted to those schools.

So why is it ranked in the absolute toilet (as high as 400 and as low as 700) by international rankings that supposedly give a ton of weight to these metrics?

Honestly, it’s USNews ranking is its highest ranking BY FAR of any rankings…so something doesn’t make sense.

DP.
What makes you think international rankings weight alumni giving, class size, etc. highly?

They claim to focus on almost entirely academic metrics, class size, classes taught by professors, etc….more so than the US rankings which assign more weight to outcomes.

Though you miss the forest through the trees…somehow schools like Princeton are ranked top 10 by everyone…USNews, Forbes, WSJ, QS, THE…yet Wake only hits top 50ish by USNews and gets hammered by everyone else.

My guess is that they look at things like size of endowment, total research funding, etc . . that favor the Ivies and big R1 research facilities. Wake is a relatively small school of 5400.

Forbes and WSJ look primarily at income after graduation and cost of attendance, which favors public universities that send kids to high cost cities and produce lots of computer science and engineering students, neither of which is huge at Wake.

I get it…but after USNews, the next highest ranking is Forbes at 88 then WSJ at 137…then THE at 400 then QS at 741.

Only point is nobody is higher than USNews at 53…so maybe start giving USNews a little love.

Also, WSJ and Forbes rank plenty of SLACs with little to no CS and engineering very high…Forbes has Williams, CMC, Amherst all around 20 (they rank all schools together…they don’t have a separate SLAC ranking).

Forbes is 20 percent alumni salary (so favors schools that send lots of kids to NY or CA), 15 percent debt load (favors large endowments that offer loan free aid or low cost publics), 15 percent graduation rate, 15 percent America’s leaders (how many alum made a Forbes list, win major awards including sports awards or serve at high levels in government, favors the Ivies and large sports schools), 15 percent ROI, 10 percent retention (favors the same schools as first factor), and academic success (measured by Fulbright, Rhodes and phds earned over past 3 years, again favors Ivies and large research universities).

The WSJ rankings are a complete joke, with Babson ranked No. 2 overall.

Same broken record…once more learn to love USNews because that’s as good as it gets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that US News categorized WF as a regional school, and when it first was recategorized as national it was nowhere near the top 30. What goes around comes around.

Honestly, let’s get serious: does anyone really think WF is anywhere near as strong as UVA or UNC? Nope.

Sorry to break it to you but UVA is nowhere near UNC. And yes I would consider WF similar to UVA - they’re both solid in academics but not amazing.

+1

Wake, BC, UVA, Tufts, all peers schools, maybe throw in USC as well. I don’t think the so-called Wake boosters are arguing differently. Not sure why UNC is seen as a tier above. It’s harder than UVA for oos admittance by a good measure, but far easier for in state admission.

Wake has double the admission rate of the other schools you listed.

Wake’s admit rate is 21 percent. BC and UVA are a few points lower. USC doesn’t count spring admits and guaranteed transfers in its rate, neither of which Wake has.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that US News categorized WF as a regional school, and when it first was recategorized as national it was nowhere near the top 30. What goes around comes around.

Honestly, let’s get serious: does anyone really think WF is anywhere near as strong as UVA or UNC? Nope.

Sorry to break it to you but UVA is nowhere near UNC. And yes I would consider WF similar to UVA - they’re both solid in academics but not amazing.

+1

Wake, BC, UVA, Tufts, all peers schools, maybe throw in USC as well. I don’t think the so-called Wake boosters are arguing differently. Not sure why UNC is seen as a tier above. It’s harder than UVA for oos admittance by a good measure, but far easier for in state admission.

Wake has double the admission rate of the other schools you listed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that US News categorized WF as a regional school, and when it first was recategorized as national it was nowhere near the top 30. What goes around comes around.

Honestly, let’s get serious: does anyone really think WF is anywhere near as strong as UVA or UNC? Nope.

Sorry to break it to you but UVA is nowhere near UNC. And yes I would consider WF similar to UVA - they’re both solid in academics but not amazing.

+1

Wake, BC, UVA, Tufts, all peers schools, maybe throw in USC as well. I don’t think the so-called Wake boosters are arguing differently. Not sure why UNC is seen as a tier above. It’s harder than UVA for oos admittance by a good measure, but far easier for in state admission.

Wake has double the admission rate of the other schools you listed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that US News categorized WF as a regional school, and when it first was recategorized as national it was nowhere near the top 30. What goes around comes around.

Honestly, let’s get serious: does anyone really think WF is anywhere near as strong as UVA or UNC? Nope.

Sorry to break it to you but UVA is nowhere near UNC. And yes I would consider WF similar to UVA - they’re both solid in academics but not amazing.

+1

Wake, BC, UVA, Tufts, all peers schools, maybe throw in USC as well. I don’t think the so-called Wake boosters are arguing differently. Not sure why UNC is seen as a tier above. It’s harder than UVA for oos admittance by a good measure, but far easier for in state admission.

Anonymous wrote:At our oos school, we send top 25 % to wake but almost no one gets in UNC. (And usually 1-2 UVA)
Wake and unc not same oos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that US News categorized WF as a regional school, and when it first was recategorized as national it was nowhere near the top 30. What goes around comes around.

Honestly, let’s get serious: does anyone really think WF is anywhere near as strong as UVA or UNC? Nope.

Sorry to break it to you but UVA is nowhere near UNC. And yes I would consider WF similar to UVA - they’re both solid in academics but not amazing.

UNC engineering is amazing.