Anonymous wrote:The popular professors in large classes are creating shows for the students: https://www.browndailyherald.com/article/2024/12/outlandish-skits-bring-flair-to-one-of-browns-largest-cs-courses
Top private universities like Brown are cutting course sections and increasing class sizes. I don't know what average class size means, when the popular majors have mostly large (to very large) lecture courses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US News changed it’s rankings formula in a way that adversely affected these schools.

+1

USNWR no longer considers class sizes. Doesn't make sense at all. Because most educators would consider classes of 25-40 students a much better educational experience than 300+ (as they and parents should)

Ditch the rankings and go by what you know matters.

I am not aware if any college educators believe a college class size of 25-40 makes much of a difference than a class size of say 100...or even more.

Of course a college class size of 25-40 makes for a different experience than a class size of 100 students. In a class of <40, there will be many more opportunities for class discussion with the prof and the opportunity to build a relationship with the prof. No one is saying that all 100+ classes are bad, but nature of the interactions are fundamentally different in a smaller class than they are in a lecture hall. If you're the sort of student who enjoys conversing with professors and asking questions, you will prefer the former. If a student's only ambition in college is to get good grades, then this smaller class setting is probably less important to them.

Different doesn't equal better...not even close.

An average professor in a class of 25 is far worse than a great professor in 100+.

The Yale Happiness class professor is considered one of the best on the planet and the class is huge because so many kids want to take it. That's just one example.

Why do you keep treating it as an either or. Lots of schools have small classes AND great professors.

And they have lots of small classes with average professors...so, maybe they should get rid of the small classes with average professors and have them increase the size with the great professors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UC Merced is equivalent to UMichigan.

The students admitted to UC Merced are of the same caliber as those admitted to UMichigan. I'm sure if you taught a class divided equally between UC Merced students and UMichigan students you would not see a difference.

Likewise the quality of undergraduate instruction is exactly the same.

Institutionally, the same resources available to UMichigan are available to UC Merced.

This isn't to pick on UMichigan (you can substitute any other large research university like UVA, UNC, Purdue, UMass, VA Tech, Texas, Iowa, etc).

No, these schools are not all interchangeable in terms of their student populations. I teach at a suburban high school. The students who are applying to UM, UVA and UT, are very different from the students applying to UIowa. And for the record, I love UIowa.

US News #s before social mobility:
UVA: 25
Michigan: 28
Austin: 56
Purdue: 56
VTech: 69
Merced: 165

The current US News is the reflection of the school TODAY! Who cares what the ranking was from 2 or 5 or 10 years ago. US News says UC Merced is roughly equivalent to those schools, by roughly equivalent, about in the same band. US News is used as a bible by a huge percentage of people. UC Merced is on par with those schools if you believe in US News.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UC Merced is equivalent to UMichigan.

The students admitted to UC Merced are of the same caliber as those admitted to UMichigan. I'm sure if you taught a class divided equally between UC Merced students and UMichigan students you would not see a difference.

Likewise the quality of undergraduate instruction is exactly the same.

Institutionally, the same resources available to UMichigan are available to UC Merced.

This isn't to pick on UMichigan (you can substitute any other large research university like UVA, UNC, Purdue, UMass, VA Tech, Texas, Iowa, etc).

No, these schools are not all interchangeable in terms of their student populations. I teach at a suburban high school. The students who are applying to UM, UVA and UT, are very different from the students applying to UIowa. And for the record, I love UIowa.

US News #s before social mobility:
UVA: 25
Michigan: 28
Austin: 56
Purdue: 56
VTech: 69
Merced: 165

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US News changed it’s rankings formula in a way that adversely affected these schools.

+1

USNWR no longer considers class sizes. Doesn't make sense at all. Because most educators would consider classes of 25-40 students a much better educational experience than 300+ (as they and parents should)

Ditch the rankings and go by what you know matters.

I am not aware if any college educators believe a college class size of 25-40 makes much of a difference than a class size of say 100...or even more.

Of course a college class size of 25-40 makes for a different experience than a class size of 100 students. In a class of <40, there will be many more opportunities for class discussion with the prof and the opportunity to build a relationship with the prof. No one is saying that all 100+ classes are bad, but nature of the interactions are fundamentally different in a smaller class than they are in a lecture hall. If you're the sort of student who enjoys conversing with professors and asking questions, you will prefer the former. If a student's only ambition in college is to get good grades, then this smaller class setting is probably less important to them.

Different doesn't equal better...not even close.

An average professor in a class of 25 is far worse than a great professor in 100+.

The Yale Happiness class professor is considered one of the best on the planet and the class is huge because so many kids want to take it. That's just one example.

Omg. DP. There's a reason it was included in USNWR for 50000 years before DEI. Of course a class taught by the Obamas is going to be pretty great no matter the class size. Lectures are lectures m. But discussion based classes require smaller class sizes and people like them. This is something in sooooo many college brochures and mailers. "Avg class size: whatever". Get over it.

Yet, the school was still ranked much lower than a school like Yale or even UCB...that's great if people like them, but stop crying like babies over the rankings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US News changed it’s rankings formula in a way that adversely affected these schools.

+1

USNWR no longer considers class sizes. Doesn't make sense at all. Because most educators would consider classes of 25-40 students a much better educational experience than 300+ (as they and parents should)

Ditch the rankings and go by what you know matters.

I am not aware if any college educators believe a college class size of 25-40 makes much of a difference than a class size of say 100...or even more.

Of course a college class size of 25-40 makes for a different experience than a class size of 100 students. In a class of <40, there will be many more opportunities for class discussion with the prof and the opportunity to build a relationship with the prof. No one is saying that all 100+ classes are bad, but nature of the interactions are fundamentally different in a smaller class than they are in a lecture hall. If you're the sort of student who enjoys conversing with professors and asking questions, you will prefer the former. If a student's only ambition in college is to get good grades, then this smaller class setting is probably less important to them.

Different doesn't equal better...not even close.

An average professor in a class of 25 is far worse than a great professor in 100+.

The Yale Happiness class professor is considered one of the best on the planet and the class is huge because so many kids want to take it. That's just one example.

Omg. DP. There's a reason it was included in USNWR for 50000 years before DEI. Of course a class taught by the Obamas is going to be pretty great no matter the class size. Lectures are lectures m. But discussion based classes require smaller class sizes and people like them. This is something in sooooo many college brochures and mailers. "Avg class size: whatever". Get over it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US News changed it’s rankings formula in a way that adversely affected these schools.

+1

USNWR no longer considers class sizes. Doesn't make sense at all. Because most educators would consider classes of 25-40 students a much better educational experience than 300+ (as they and parents should)

Ditch the rankings and go by what you know matters.

I am not aware if any college educators believe a college class size of 25-40 makes much of a difference than a class size of say 100...or even more.

Of course a college class size of 25-40 makes for a different experience than a class size of 100 students. In a class of <40, there will be many more opportunities for class discussion with the prof and the opportunity to build a relationship with the prof. No one is saying that all 100+ classes are bad, but nature of the interactions are fundamentally different in a smaller class than they are in a lecture hall. If you're the sort of student who enjoys conversing with professors and asking questions, you will prefer the former. If a student's only ambition in college is to get good grades, then this smaller class setting is probably less important to them.

Different doesn't equal better...not even close.

An average professor in a class of 25 is far worse than a great professor in 100+.

The Yale Happiness class professor is considered one of the best on the planet and the class is huge because so many kids want to take it. That's just one example.

Why do you keep treating it as an either or. Lots of schools have small classes AND great professors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US News changed it’s rankings formula in a way that adversely affected these schools.

+1

USNWR no longer considers class sizes. Doesn't make sense at all. Because most educators would consider classes of 25-40 students a much better educational experience than 300+ (as they and parents should)

Ditch the rankings and go by what you know matters.

I am not aware if any college educators believe a college class size of 25-40 makes much of a difference than a class size of say 100...or even more.

Of course a college class size of 25-40 makes for a different experience than a class size of 100 students. In a class of <40, there will be many more opportunities for class discussion with the prof and the opportunity to build a relationship with the prof. No one is saying that all 100+ classes are bad, but nature of the interactions are fundamentally different in a smaller class than they are in a lecture hall. If you're the sort of student who enjoys conversing with professors and asking questions, you will prefer the former. If a student's only ambition in college is to get good grades, then this smaller class setting is probably less important to them.

Different doesn't equal better...not even close.

An average professor in a class of 25 is far worse than a great professor in 100+.

The Yale Happiness class professor is considered one of the best on the planet and the class is huge because so many kids want to take it. That's just one example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US News changed it’s rankings formula in a way that adversely affected these schools.

+1

USNWR no longer considers class sizes. Doesn't make sense at all. Because most educators would consider classes of 25-40 students a much better educational experience than 300+ (as they and parents should)

Ditch the rankings and go by what you know matters.

I am not aware if any college educators believe a college class size of 25-40 makes much of a difference than a class size of say 100...or even more.

Of course a college class size of 25-40 makes for a different experience than a class size of 100 students. In a class of <40, there will be many more opportunities for class discussion with the prof and the opportunity to build a relationship with the prof. No one is saying that all 100+ classes are bad, but nature of the interactions are fundamentally different in a smaller class than they are in a lecture hall. If you're the sort of student who enjoys conversing with professors and asking questions, you will prefer the former. If a student's only ambition in college is to get good grades, then this smaller class setting is probably less important to them.

Different doesn't equal better...not even close.

An average professor in a class of 25 is far worse than a great professor in 100+.

The Yale Happiness class professor is considered one of the best on the planet and the class is huge because so many kids want to take it. That's just one example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US News changed it’s rankings formula in a way that adversely affected these schools.

+1

USNWR no longer considers class sizes. Doesn't make sense at all. Because most educators would consider classes of 25-40 students a much better educational experience than 300+ (as they and parents should)

Ditch the rankings and go by what you know matters.

I am not aware if any college educators believe a college class size of 25-40 makes much of a difference than a class size of say 100...or even more.

Of course a college class size of 25-40 makes for a different experience than a class size of 100 students. In a class of <40, there will be many more opportunities for class discussion with the prof and the opportunity to build a relationship with the prof. No one is saying that all 100+ classes are bad, but nature of the interactions are fundamentally different in a smaller class than they are in a lecture hall. If you're the sort of student who enjoys conversing with professors and asking questions, you will prefer the former. If a student's only ambition in college is to get good grades, then this smaller class setting is probably less important to them.

Different doesn't equal better...not even close.

An average professor in a class of 25 is far worse than a great professor in 100+.

The Yale Happiness class professor is considered one of the best on the planet and the class is huge because so many kids want to take it. That's just one example.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:US News changed it’s rankings formula in a way that adversely affected these schools.

+1

USNWR no longer considers class sizes. Doesn't make sense at all. Because most educators would consider classes of 25-40 students a much better educational experience than 300+ (as they and parents should)

Ditch the rankings and go by what you know matters.

I am not aware if any college educators believe a college class size of 25-40 makes much of a difference than a class size of say 100...or even more.

Of course a college class size of 25-40 makes for a different experience than a class size of 100 students. In a class of <40, there will be many more opportunities for class discussion with the prof and the opportunity to build a relationship with the prof. No one is saying that all 100+ classes are bad, but nature of the interactions are fundamentally different in a smaller class than they are in a lecture hall. If you're the sort of student who enjoys conversing with professors and asking questions, you will prefer the former. If a student's only ambition in college is to get good grades, then this smaller class setting is probably less important to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

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.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+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.

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.

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 smartest students know where they should go.

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".

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.

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.

Nobody in Virginia with a kid applying to college thinks VT is better than W&M.

WM is the angry elf from the movie Elf.

This is the worst trolling i've seen all week

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

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.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+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.

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.

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 smartest students know where they should go.

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".

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.

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.

Nobody in Virginia with a kid applying to college thinks VT is better than W&M.

WM is the angry elf from the movie Elf.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

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.

Produce any reputable 3rd party ranking then...if you think all rankings suck, then stop taking issue with USNews' new methodology.

None of them are because they've all switched to social mobility. Nobody wants to be the one that says that isn't important.

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.

No I still think they're bad rankings. Also Wake said that they have no plans to chase it multiple times.

+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.

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.

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 smartest students know where they should go.

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".

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.

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.

Nobody in Virginia with a kid applying to college thinks VT is better than W&M.