My oh my...the bickering here is comical. Was it this bad last year?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Midwestern LACs are interesting. Carleton and Grinnell far ahead of the pack, as they should be.

So sayeth the Grinnell grad...

It's been this way for 40 years, with the exception of Oberlin falling from grace.

But there is NO comparison between Carleton and Grinnell

Eh. They’re both excellent, top LACs that send a very large number of students to PhD programs. For all intents and purposes, they are very much peer institutions.

(I say this as a Carleton grad.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Miami of Ohio took a big drop from 78 to 96.

I have visited with my DD and looked it very much. I thought Miami was rising in the rankings. That is a huge drop, usually tied to a major event. Any ideas on why such a big drop?

The majority of significant changes in the USNews rankings are very likely due to the changes in the ranking methodology. (There are a few articles on the changes. See e.g. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/10/us-news-college-rankings-formula-813559)

Anonymous wrote:Miami of Ohio took a big drop from 78 to 96.

I have visited with my DD and looked it very much. I thought Miami was rising in the rankings. That is a huge drop, usually tied to a major event. Any ideas on why such a big drop?

As a Carleton grad from long ago, I think that its name recognition (and that of other SLACs) has varied little over the years. Most people haven't heard of it, but it is known by those who matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Midwestern LACs are interesting. Carleton and Grinnell far ahead of the pack, as they should be.

So sayeth the Grinnell grad...

It's been this way for 40 years, with the exception of Oberlin falling from grace.

But there is NO comparison between Carleton and Grinnell

Oh come on. I am a Carleton grad and you are a little over the top with the boosterism. You are starting to sound like the UMD booster with his crazy talk, which does not reflect well on the school. I graduated from Carleton when no one had heard of it and am just happy its getting some recognition. Whether it's better than Grinnell, or Middlebury, or Davidson or any LAC in the top 20 really isn't important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on people. USNews's change in ranking metrics is terrible need for middle class and upper middle class families who are already getting shafted by the current financial aid evaluation process at these colleges. With the outsized influence this ranking has in driving college behavior, colleges will now move towards filling more seats with Pell Grant recipients and compensate for that budget impact by recruiting more full pay students at the other end. That is really bad news for Average unhooked middle class families. Also now the one thing that have middle class families some edge in merit aid, namely scores and ranks is also being de-emphasized. This will move more dollars from merit to need based aid which is again terrible news for donut hole families

This seems likely.

I agree. With the potential caveat that US News might have taken things a bridge too far with this latest reconfiguring of its formulae. I feel like some of the top schools have been getting less and less focused on the rankings - finally realizing that it's crazy to base institutional practices on the arbitrary whims of a defunct magazine, in areas that have no demonstrable impact on student success or satisfaction - and that this big change will strengthen that trend.

Top schools have always acted “above it all” when it comes to rankings. They resent the fact that USNWR dares to puts non-elite, striver schools like Florida State or Virginia Tech in the same list as Princeton and Dartmouth, even if the Ivies are always ranked much higher. That has never deterred USNWR. It’s the really the middling schools that take USNWR the most seriously because USNWR tries to base their rankings on some degree of objective metrics beyond historical prestige, which gives the little guys a chance to improve.

Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound? Calling solid universities like FSU and VT "strivers" says more about you than it does about those institutions. I can't decide if you actually graduated from a decent school but ended up a miserable and bitter failure or you always wanted to attend a decent school but couldn't because of qualifications and/or money. Either way. your posts always read as those of a loser who is far too invested into the college rankings farce.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is obviously the crown jewel in the DMV

Except you know - mofo Hopkins

And Georgetown is higher as well. If you look at LACs (I am aware it is a different category), W&L is #11.

The top 20 percent at state U do as well in life as the "elite" graduates. Doing really well at a no name small college is probably better as you'll get to know profs who will get you into a good graduate program.
My former employer, a major national newspaper, no longer hires interns from elite programs. They were entitled and not very creative.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UVA is obviously the crown jewel in the DMV

Except you know - mofo Hopkins

Georgetown?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
William and Mary dropped a few spots to 38. UVA, prestigious, stayed at 25. Maryland is somewhere in the 60s. Chuckle.


William and Mary tumbled to 38. It is now a worse ranked school than Florida. It (William and Mary) is in desperate shape—stagnant number of applications, poor resources, and very few male applicants.



I disagree that this shift is all that meaningful. It is ranked #10 of national public colleges. As USNWR tweaks its methodology, a school like W&M which is a public school with a small handful of grad programs, but primarily operates like a private liberal arts college, can fall slightly fall in cracks due to its idiosyncrasy. It's been a top-notch school for its long history and nothing is really changing on that. (I say this with no special bias--not an alum, no kids there).


I tend to agree with this (parent of former student there and another one who went to UVA). But this is the first time I can remember where W&M was not ranked as the sixth best public university. So it’s not time to hit the panic button yet, but too many years of ranking problems will have adverse affects on yield and out of state applications.

This is just ridiculous. Why do you continue to grind this axe? W&M is in better shape now than it ever has been. Incredible students, faculty, facilities. Moving toward an endowment of over $1b, which for a public school of its size its incredible. Just admitted one of its most competitive classes ever. It's true that apps have not grown in the last couple of years, but to be fair UVA apps were up a minuscule one percent this year. And UVA's incoming class is weighted 58/42 female/male --exactly the same as W&M. Yes it's a unique institution being compared to huge state schools; even so it holds its own. The only reason it fell this year is because the already idiotic USNWR changed it's methodology.

Anyone who thinks you will get a better undergraduate education in the liberal arts and sciences at Florida, UCSB, UC Irvine, Michigan, UCB or heaven forfend UVA is delusional. Now there was a crisis at W&M in 1768 when both Harvard and Yale surpassed it in His Majesty's Colonial College Rankings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Midwestern LACs are interesting. Carleton and Grinnell far ahead of the pack, as they should be.

So sayeth the Grinnell grad...

It's been this way for 40 years, with the exception of Oberlin falling from grace.

But there is NO comparison between Carleton and Grinnell

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on people. USNews's change in ranking metrics is terrible need for middle class and upper middle class families who are already getting shafted by the current financial aid evaluation process at these colleges. With the outsized influence this ranking has in driving college behavior, colleges will now move towards filling more seats with Pell Grant recipients and compensate for that budget impact by recruiting more full pay students at the other end. That is really bad news for Average unhooked middle class families. Also now the one thing that have middle class families some edge in merit aid, namely scores and ranks is also being de-emphasized. This will move more dollars from merit to need based aid which is again terrible news for donut hole families

This seems likely.

I agree. With the potential caveat that US News might have taken things a bridge too far with this latest reconfiguring of its formulae. I feel like some of the top schools have been getting less and less focused on the rankings - finally realizing that it's crazy to base institutional practices on the arbitrary whims of a defunct magazine, in areas that have no demonstrable impact on student success or satisfaction - and that this big change will strengthen that trend.

Hope you are right--though we feed the beast by using them/debating about them/relying on them. I do think the latest changes shift the focus and thus the definition of "best." As a consumer, I want a rating that tells me primarily about the quality of the institution and the experience a student will have there. By shifting the focus to social concerns, such as grad rates for Pell Grant students, it seems to me they serve a different audience, perhaps trying to define what is "best" for the community at large. As the parent of a kid who won't get a Pell grant, the rankings begin to lose utility as a measure of "best" (for me as a consumer, that is.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These rankings are a joke. Illinois ranked above Wisconsin? All the smart Chicago kids would rather go to Madison than Urbana Champaign.

No.
Michigan over U of I, sure. But there aren't a bunch of kids paying out of state tuition at Wisconsin if they get into Urbana Champaign.

Yeah, whatever. Who wouldn’t spend four years in a cow town over Madison?

If you're out of state, UW Madison's total cost of attendance is around 50k whereas in-state U of I is around 31k.

Well maybe based on cost alone, Illinois would be preferable.

That's kind of the point. Sure, plenty of smart Chicago kids might prefer UW-Madison's location and wish it had in-state tuition, but it's not a superior school in any meaningful way to justify paying 20k a year more if you get into U of I. And so most smart Chicago kids who are going for a public university will go to U of I, upping its SAT scores. Wisconsin doesn't have a similar giant metro area with similar elite suburban schools so its overall SAT scores are slightly lower.

I'm from Illinois and have a pretty good grasp of the college choice dynamics for students from UMC suburban high schools in the Chicago metro area.

There are a few issues with U of I that cause kids to go to nearby state flagships, even if the COA is slightly higher and/or the school is lower ranked.
- the location, as many people described earlier.
- Greek life dominates the social scene at U of I. At schools like Wisconsin and Michigan, Greek life exists, but it's not so in-your-face as it is at Illinois. Many students don't want that atmosphere. Additionally, rush is uber-competitive and inter-chapter relations can be a bit iffy. (As in, "Oh, you're a Kappa? You must be super easy." Your letters can really define you.)
- Lots and lots and lots and lots of engineers. Business is big too. These two divisions often seem to dominate the academic culture of the school, which can be off-putting for liberal arts-type students.
- and the biggest one, which is the most important, IMO, is that the state of Illinois is essentially in financial ruin and year in and year out, funding for higher education is an issue. For obvious reasons, that is a huge a concern for parents and students. I won't get into the minutiae of it, but this article does a great job of explaining why it causes many talented students to not consider Illinois state schools: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-college-budget-crunch-met-20160331-story.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on people. USNews's change in ranking metrics is terrible need for middle class and upper middle class families who are already getting shafted by the current financial aid evaluation process at these colleges. With the outsized influence this ranking has in driving college behavior, colleges will now move towards filling more seats with Pell Grant recipients and compensate for that budget impact by recruiting more full pay students at the other end. That is really bad news for Average unhooked middle class families. Also now the one thing that have middle class families some edge in merit aid, namely scores and ranks is also being de-emphasized. This will move more dollars from merit to need based aid which is again terrible news for donut hole families

This seems likely.

I agree. With the potential caveat that US News might have taken things a bridge too far with this latest reconfiguring of its formulae. I feel like some of the top schools have been getting less and less focused on the rankings - finally realizing that it's crazy to base institutional practices on the arbitrary whims of a defunct magazine, in areas that have no demonstrable impact on student success or satisfaction - and that this big change will strengthen that trend.

Top schools have always acted “above it all” when it comes to rankings. They resent the fact that USNWR dares to puts non-elite, striver schools like Florida State or Virginia Tech in the same list as Princeton and Dartmouth, even if the Ivies are always ranked much higher. That has never deterred USNWR. It’s the really the middling schools that take USNWR the most seriously because USNWR tries to base their rankings on some degree of objective metrics beyond historical prestige, which gives the little guys a chance to improve.