Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&M is an obvious answer.

Ranking drop from 32 -> 38.
Acceptance rate went from 33% to 42%, higher than large publics like UT Austin and UMD. While large publics like Berkeley are reaching single-digit acceptance rates, W&M's is increasing.

Student enrollment has increased.

Their law school has gone completely downhill.

W&M used to be more difficult to get into than UVA, due to a smaller number seats. It had higher SAT scores than UVA, the highest among publics comparable to Berkley. It was compared to the smaller Ivies like Dartmouth/Brown and SLACs like Swarthmore. It attracted out-of-staters and wealthy internationals that would never consider a large public for OOS tuition, but would consider W&M due to the size and feel.

Nowadays, UVA is far more tougher to get in, has far higher SAT scores and far great national and international reach.

Per most recent CDS:

UVA 25th/75th percentile SAT - 1330-1490
W&M 25th/75th percentile SAT - 1360-1520

both have average GPAs of 4.3.

Perhaps W&M’s higher acceptance rate is a function of some other factor other than the caliber of students they attract. Maybe since UVA and has more prominent sports and a better college town and is bigger it appeals to more kids who apply that are more borderline. W&M is bit more niche in that it a very small public, so more like a SLAC. Williamsburg is pretty sleepy too.

Maybe, just maybe, acceptance rate is not a good indication of how good a school is at any rate.

NNo they don't., the GPA of the actual class that enrolled at UVA last fall had a 4.52 at the 75th percentile, a 4.39 at the median and a 4.23 for the bottom 25th percentile. W&M's student profile runs lower: 4.50 at the 75th, 4.30 at the 50th and a 4.08 at the bottom 25th.


UVA also beats W&M wiht ACT scores, the 74th/50th/30th percentiles are 35/34/32 for UVA and for W&M the ACTSare 34/33/31

At the 75th percentile, SAT score/GPA is 1520/4.50 at W&M and 1510/4.52 at UVA. Virtually the same. The difference in the last couple of years has been at the lower half, with UVA higher. It used to be the opposite if you look at SCHEV historical data. When W&M had higher average SAT scores than UVA, I did not think UVA is in decline. I just think there are trends that play out over some period of time and then new trends emerge. W&M needs to get more applicants to better fill out the bottom half stats.

In USNEWS rankings, both UVA and W&M have been hurt by the inclusion of the social mobility metrics based on Pell Grant recipients. Both schools are relatively low in percentage of students receiving Pell Grants particularly compared to schools in other states like the UC universities. Outside of that, the big movers in USNWR in my recollection have been private universities (Chicago, Vanderbilt, Northeastern, etc.) They seem to have more levers to pull in rankings than public schools.

They are not virtually the same. UVA is higher in 8 categories than W&M. Also you conveniently didn't address the ACT issue. ACT scores get exponentially more difficult to get closer to the top of the pyramid. A 36 is achieved by only 3,655 - 4,4,044 (changes every year) of the 1.6M taking the test, or .313% of the students taking it. A 35 is only 11,983 students .925% of test applicants nationwide. The fact that the 75th percentile of enrolled student at UVA has a 35 or better is astounding. W&M can boast only a 34 taps into a different level below. Here's the chart


ACT Score # of Students Percentage of All Test Takers
36 4,055 0.313%
35 11,983 0.925%
34 15,875 1.226%
33 18,424 1.422%

ACT is not very fine grained, so W&M could have 35 ACT at the 76th percentile, but 34 at the 75th percentile. UVA just went from 34 to 35 at this past year, so they were probably at 35 at close to 75th last year. SAT is more fine grained in score.

But it doesn't. I think you lost this argument, but by all means, contiue to argue!

While I agree with most of your premise, the bolded above is incorrect. Williams snd Rice are both 9% acceptance rates and USC is 12%. Williams is still
superior to both as reflected in their higher average GPAs and test scores of accepted students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&M is an obvious answer.

Ranking drop from 32 -> 38.
Acceptance rate went from 33% to 42%, higher than large publics like UT Austin and UMD. While large publics like Berkeley are reaching single-digit acceptance rates, W&M's is increasing.

Student enrollment has increased.

Their law school has gone completely downhill.

W&M used to be more difficult to get into than UVA, due to a smaller number seats. It had higher SAT scores than UVA, the highest among publics comparable to Berkley. It was compared to the smaller Ivies like Dartmouth/Brown and SLACs like Swarthmore. It attracted out-of-staters and wealthy internationals that would never consider a large public for OOS tuition, but would consider W&M due to the size and feel.

Nowadays, UVA is far more tougher to get in, has far higher SAT scores and far great national and international reach.

Per most recent CDS:

UVA 25th/75th percentile SAT - 1330-1490
W&M 25th/75th percentile SAT - 1360-1520

both have average GPAs of 4.3.

Perhaps W&M’s higher acceptance rate is a function of some other factor other than the caliber of students they attract. Maybe since UVA and has more prominent sports and a better college town and is bigger it appeals to more kids who apply that are more borderline. W&M is bit more niche in that it a very small public, so more like a SLAC. Williamsburg is pretty sleepy too.

Maybe, just maybe, acceptance rate is not a good indication of how good a school is at any rate.

NNo they don't., the GPA of the actual class that enrolled at UVA last fall had a 4.52 at the 75th percentile, a 4.39 at the median and a 4.23 for the bottom 25th percentile. W&M's student profile runs lower: 4.50 at the 75th, 4.30 at the 50th and a 4.08 at the bottom 25th.


UVA also beats W&M wiht ACT scores, the 74th/50th/30th percentiles are 35/34/32 for UVA and for W&M the ACTSare 34/33/31

At the 75th percentile, SAT score/GPA is 1520/4.50 at W&M and 1510/4.52 at UVA. Virtually the same. The difference in the last couple of years has been at the lower half, with UVA higher. It used to be the opposite if you look at SCHEV historical data. When W&M had higher average SAT scores than UVA, I did not think UVA is in decline. I just think there are trends that play out over some period of time and then new trends emerge. W&M needs to get more applicants to better fill out the bottom half stats.

In USNEWS rankings, both UVA and W&M have been hurt by the inclusion of the social mobility metrics based on Pell Grant recipients. Both schools are relatively low in percentage of students receiving Pell Grants particularly compared to schools in other states like the UC universities. Outside of that, the big movers in USNWR in my recollection have been private universities (Chicago, Vanderbilt, Northeastern, etc.) They seem to have more levers to pull in rankings than public schools.

They are not virtually the same. UVA is higher in 8 categories than W&M. Also you conveniently didn't address the ACT issue. ACT scores get exponentially more difficult to get closer to the top of the pyramid. A 36 is achieved by only 3,655 - 4,4,044 (changes every year) of the 1.6M taking the test, or .313% of the students taking it. A 35 is only 11,983 students .925% of test applicants nationwide. The fact that the 75th percentile of enrolled student at UVA has a 35 or better is astounding. W&M can boast only a 34 taps into a different level below. Here's the chart


ACT Score # of Students Percentage of All Test Takers
36 4,055 0.313%
35 11,983 0.925%
34 15,875 1.226%
33 18,424 1.422%

ACT is not very fine grained, so W&M could have 35 ACT at the 76th percentile, but 34 at the 75th percentile. UVA just went from 34 to 35 at this past year, so they were probably at 35 at close to 75th last year. SAT is more fine grained in score.

Anonymous wrote:It's important to recognize that the concept of "stature" as it's thrown around on this site often has little to do with educational quality.

Small liberal arts colleges have been hurt (generally) in "stature" - not quality - by the bias of the stupid USNWR rankings towards large research universities. Which has led to the ghettoization of SLACs like Williams and Amherst on a separate list and the under-ranking of low-research "universities" like Dartmouth and Brown -- notwithstanding that the best of these are generally assessed as offering a better undergraduate educational experience. Those undergraduate-focused schools aren't hurting - they're growing their programs and endowment, they continue to turn away 8.5 or 9 applicants for every one they accept, more than half the students who are admitted chose to attend them, and their alums continue to out-earn those from bigger undergraduate diploma mills. But all that said, in terms of "stature" or "prestige" or the other dumb non-educational 'popularity/buzz' measures that DCUM airheads and uninformed chatter about endlessly, the smaller schools have come to be perceived as being somehow less prestigious (admittedly to a population of idiots), and less likely to attract common apps from families (because let's be honest, parents are a big part of the problem here) that are more focused on prestige/stature and rankings than on education quality.

A generation ago, it was harder (and reasonably so) to get into Amherst and Williams than into most Ivies; now it's easier to get into Williams than it is to get into Rice or USC (or fraudulent Columbia), which is simply bizarre and indefensible if we're talking about the quality of an undergraduate education. And another example of how the inventors/perpetrators of the USNWR ranking scheme have done great harm to US higher education and its users and should, if there's any justice, forever rot in hell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's important to recognize that the concept of "stature" as it's thrown around on this site often has little to do with educational quality.

Small liberal arts colleges have been hurt (generally) in "stature" - not quality - by the bias of the stupid USNWR rankings towards large research universities. Which has led to the ghettoization of SLACs like Williams and Amherst on a separate list and the under-ranking of low-research "universities" like Dartmouth and Brown -- notwithstanding that the best of these are generally assessed as offering a better undergraduate educational experience. Those undergraduate-focused schools aren't hurting - they're growing their programs and endowment, they continue to turn away 8.5 or 9 applicants for every one they accept, more than half the students who are admitted chose to attend them, and their alums continue to out-earn those from bigger undergraduate diploma mills. But all that said, in terms of "stature" or "prestige" or the other dumb non-educational 'popularity/buzz' measures that DCUM airheads and uninformed chatter about endlessly, the smaller schools have come to be perceived as being somehow less prestigious (admittedly to a population of idiots), and less likely to attract common apps from families (because let's be honest, parents are a big part of the problem here) that are more focused on prestige/stature and rankings than on education quality.

A generation ago, it was harder (and reasonably so) to get into Amherst and Williams than into most Ivies; now it's easier to get into Williams than it is to get into Rice or USC (or fraudulent Columbia), which is simply bizarre and indefensible if we're talking about the quality of an undergraduate education. And another example of how the inventors/perpetrators of the USNWR ranking scheme have done great harm to US higher education and its users and should, if there's any justice, forever rot in hell.

While I agree with most of your premise, the bolded above is incorrect. Williams snd Rice are both 9% acceptance rates and USC is 12%. Williams is still
superior to both as reflected in their higher average GPAs and test scores of accepted students.

Rice has higher academic standards than Williams

Anonymous wrote:Bryn Mawr, Brandeis, Wellesley, Mt. Holy Oak, Bennington, Vassar, Sweet Briar, Lafayette, Muhlenberg, Dickinson

Anonymous wrote:^Also, a lot of people blame W&M's decreasing stature on it's reputation as an all work-no play school for grinds. That was an actually positive thing, because it attracted the studious kids, made sure the dumb ones avoided the place, and increased the degree's value among employers.

Schools like U. Chicago, Hopkins and Swarthmore are known to be far more demanding, filled with grinds and places where fun goes to die. All three of those schools have increased in stature greatly over the past 20 years. Because their reputation brought additional academic prestige, better students, better professors, and better employers to the school.

Meanwhile W&M tried to become more like UVA, putting money into Greek Life and sports stadiums. The result was UVA-lite, at a higher cost than UVA, with a lower ranking, worse job prospects, worse professors, fewer resources, etc. etc. Plain mismanagement by the administration.

Compare the reputation of the school among the older generations now in their 60s to those in their 20s today. The older generation thinks it's one of the best schools in the country for undergraduate rigor. The younger generation thinks it's an oversized middling liberal arts college similar to so many other oversized middling liberal arts colleges in the country today.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's important to recognize that the concept of "stature" as it's thrown around on this site often has little to do with educational quality.

Small liberal arts colleges have been hurt (generally) in "stature" - not quality - by the bias of the stupid USNWR rankings towards large research universities. Which has led to the ghettoization of SLACs like Williams and Amherst on a separate list and the under-ranking of low-research "universities" like Dartmouth and Brown -- notwithstanding that the best of these are generally assessed as offering a better undergraduate educational experience. Those undergraduate-focused schools aren't hurting - they're growing their programs and endowment, they continue to turn away 8.5 or 9 applicants for every one they accept, more than half the students who are admitted chose to attend them, and their alums continue to out-earn those from bigger undergraduate diploma mills. But all that said, in terms of "stature" or "prestige" or the other dumb non-educational 'popularity/buzz' measures that DCUM airheads and uninformed chatter about endlessly, the smaller schools have come to be perceived as being somehow less prestigious (admittedly to a population of idiots), and less likely to attract common apps from families (because let's be honest, parents are a big part of the problem here) that are more focused on prestige/stature and rankings than on education quality.

A generation ago, it was harder (and reasonably so) to get into Amherst and Williams than into most Ivies; now it's easier to get into Williams than it is to get into Rice or USC (or fraudulent Columbia), which is simply bizarre and indefensible if we're talking about the quality of an undergraduate education. And another example of how the inventors/perpetrators of the USNWR ranking scheme have done great harm to US higher education and its users and should, if there's any justice, forever rot in hell.

While I agree with most of your premise, the bolded above is incorrect. Williams snd Rice are both 9% acceptance rates and USC is 12%. Williams is still
superior to both as reflected in their higher average GPAs and test scores of accepted students.

Anonymous wrote:It's important to recognize that the concept of "stature" as it's thrown around on this site often has little to do with educational quality.

Small liberal arts colleges have been hurt (generally) in "stature" - not quality - by the bias of the stupid USNWR rankings towards large research universities. Which has led to the ghettoization of SLACs like Williams and Amherst on a separate list and the under-ranking of low-research "universities" like Dartmouth and Brown -- notwithstanding that the best of these are generally assessed as offering a better undergraduate educational experience. Those undergraduate-focused schools aren't hurting - they're growing their programs and endowment, they continue to turn away 8.5 or 9 applicants for every one they accept, more than half the students who are admitted chose to attend them, and their alums continue to out-earn those from bigger undergraduate diploma mills. But all that said, in terms of "stature" or "prestige" or the other dumb non-educational 'popularity/buzz' measures that DCUM airheads and uninformed chatter about endlessly, the smaller schools have come to be perceived as being somehow less prestigious (admittedly to a population of idiots), and less likely to attract common apps from families (because let's be honest, parents are a big part of the problem here) that are more focused on prestige/stature and rankings than on education quality.

A generation ago, it was harder (and reasonably so) to get into Amherst and Williams than into most Ivies; now it's easier to get into Williams than it is to get into Rice or USC (or fraudulent Columbia), which is simply bizarre and indefensible if we're talking about the quality of an undergraduate education. And another example of how the inventors/perpetrators of the USNWR ranking scheme have done great harm to US higher education and its users and should, if there's any justice, forever rot in hell.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:W&M is an obvious answer.

Ranking drop from 32 -> 38.
Acceptance rate went from 33% to 42%, higher than large publics like UT Austin and UMD. While large publics like Berkeley are reaching single-digit acceptance rates, W&M's is increasing.

Student enrollment has increased.

Their law school has gone completely downhill.

W&M used to be more difficult to get into than UVA, due to a smaller number seats. It had higher SAT scores than UVA, the highest among publics comparable to Berkley. It was compared to the smaller Ivies like Dartmouth/Brown and SLACs like Swarthmore. It attracted out-of-staters and wealthy internationals that would never consider a large public for OOS tuition, but would consider W&M due to the size and feel.

Nowadays, UVA is far more tougher to get in, has far higher SAT scores and far great national and international reach.

Per most recent CDS:

UVA 25th/75th percentile SAT - 1330-1490
W&M 25th/75th percentile SAT - 1360-1520

both have average GPAs of 4.3.

Perhaps W&M’s higher acceptance rate is a function of some other factor other than the caliber of students they attract. Maybe since UVA and has more prominent sports and a better college town and is bigger it appeals to more kids who apply that are more borderline. W&M is bit more niche in that it a very small public, so more like a SLAC. Williamsburg is pretty sleepy too.

Maybe, just maybe, acceptance rate is not a good indication of how good a school is at any rate.

NNo they don't., the GPA of the actual class that enrolled at UVA last fall had a 4.52 at the 75th percentile, a 4.39 at the median and a 4.23 for the bottom 25th percentile. W&M's student profile runs lower: 4.50 at the 75th, 4.30 at the 50th and a 4.08 at the bottom 25th.


UVA also beats W&M wiht ACT scores, the 74th/50th/30th percentiles are 35/34/32 for UVA and for W&M the ACTSare 34/33/31

At the 75th percentile, SAT score/GPA is 1520/4.50 at W&M and 1510/4.52 at UVA. Virtually the same. The difference in the last couple of years has been at the lower half, with UVA higher. It used to be the opposite if you look at SCHEV historical data. When W&M had higher average SAT scores than UVA, I did not think UVA is in decline. I just think there are trends that play out over some period of time and then new trends emerge. W&M needs to get more applicants to better fill out the bottom half stats.

In USNEWS rankings, both UVA and W&M have been hurt by the inclusion of the social mobility metrics based on Pell Grant recipients. Both schools are relatively low in percentage of students receiving Pell Grants particularly compared to schools in other states like the UC universities. Outside of that, the big movers in USNWR in my recollection have been private universities (Chicago, Vanderbilt, Northeastern, etc.) They seem to have more levers to pull in rankings than public schools.

They are not virtually the same. UVA is higher in 8 categories than W&M. Also you conveniently didn't address the ACT issue. ACT scores get exponentially more difficult to get closer to the top of the pyramid. A 36 is achieved by only 3,655 - 4,4,044 (changes every year) of the 1.6M taking the test, or .313% of the students taking it. A 35 is only 11,983 students .925% of test applicants nationwide. The fact that the 75th percentile of enrolled student at UVA has a 35 or better is astounding. W&M can boast only a 34 taps into a different level below. Here's the chart


ACT Score # of Students Percentage of All Test Takers
36 4,055 0.313%
35 11,983 0.925%
34 15,875 1.226%
33 18,424 1.422%

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's important to recognize that the concept of "stature" as it's thrown around on this site often has little to do with educational quality.

Small liberal arts colleges have been hurt (generally) in "stature" - not quality - by the bias of the stupid USNWR rankings towards large research universities. Which has led to the ghettoization of SLACs like Williams and Amherst on a separate list and the under-ranking of low-research "universities" like Dartmouth and Brown -- notwithstanding that the best of these are generally assessed as offering a better undergraduate educational experience. Those undergraduate-focused schools aren't hurting - they're growing their programs and endowment, they continue to turn away 8.5 or 9 applicants for every one they accept, more than half the students who are admitted chose to attend them, and their alums continue to out-earn those from bigger undergraduate diploma mills. But all that said, in terms of "stature" or "prestige" or the other dumb non-educational 'popularity/buzz' measures that DCUM airheads and uninformed chatter about endlessly, the smaller schools have come to be perceived as being somehow less prestigious (admittedly to a population of idiots), and less likely to attract common apps from families (because let's be honest, parents are a big part of the problem here) that are more focused on prestige/stature and rankings than on education quality.

A generation ago, it was harder (and reasonably so) to get into Amherst and Williams than into most Ivies; now it's easier to get into Williams than it is to get into Rice or USC (or fraudulent Columbia), which is simply bizarre and indefensible if we're talking about the quality of an undergraduate education. And another example of how the inventors/perpetrators of the USNWR ranking scheme have done great harm to US higher education and its users and should, if there's any justice, forever rot in hell.

Jesus Christ.

Anonymous wrote:It's important to recognize that the concept of "stature" as it's thrown around on this site often has little to do with educational quality.

Small liberal arts colleges have been hurt (generally) in "stature" - not quality - by the bias of the stupid USNWR rankings towards large research universities. Which has led to the ghettoization of SLACs like Williams and Amherst on a separate list and the under-ranking of low-research "universities" like Dartmouth and Brown -- notwithstanding that the best of these are generally assessed as offering a better undergraduate educational experience. Those undergraduate-focused schools aren't hurting - they're growing their programs and endowment, they continue to turn away 8.5 or 9 applicants for every one they accept, more than half the students who are admitted chose to attend them, and their alums continue to out-earn those from bigger undergraduate diploma mills. But all that said, in terms of "stature" or "prestige" or the other dumb non-educational 'popularity/buzz' measures that DCUM airheads and uninformed chatter about endlessly, the smaller schools have come to be perceived as being somehow less prestigious (admittedly to a population of idiots), and less likely to attract common apps from families (because let's be honest, parents are a big part of the problem here) that are more focused on prestige/stature and rankings than on education quality.

A generation ago, it was harder (and reasonably so) to get into Amherst and Williams than into most Ivies; now it's easier to get into Williams than it is to get into Rice or USC (or fraudulent Columbia), which is simply bizarre and indefensible if we're talking about the quality of an undergraduate education. And another example of how the inventors/perpetrators of the USNWR ranking scheme have done great harm to US higher education and its users and should, if there's any justice, forever rot in hell.