Anonymous wrote:US News ranking methodology jumped the shark when it pumped up publics by increasing the weight of Pell.

When such a factor isn't relevant to a particular family looking at colleges, the ranking stops reflecting factors that matter to them.

Anonymous wrote:I am a liberal Democrat.

That being said, the main people who focus on these rankings are FOTB tiger moms who know nothing so this is their only source of info for their child. You can spot them from a mile away at college fairs, tours, etc. When looking at high schools they are the ones who ask cringey questions in front of everyone about college exmissions, and they ask similar questions on college tours.

Bless their souls for caring so much about creating a better life for their kids - I wish more people cared this much as it is much better than the opposite extreme, which is way too common. But they don't know what they don't know. And they walk around with a well-worn copy of these rankings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone could compile a list of school heavy on social mobility, that would be a good list of school to avoid.

Why? This is such a bizarre perspective. All public schools should be measured on social mobility. That is what the taxpayers are looking for. A way to educate the kids in their state. The public wants to educate their kids because in general, college educated kids have higher lifetime earnings and are more likely to be a net benefit to the state. Why the heck would you be opposed to this?

Because despite all of the complaints, they aren’t really opposed to changes measuring social mobility. They’re opposed to the changes because a bunch of middling rich kid schools got downgraded (Wake, Tulane, Pepperdine, Miami). Notice how the T20 privates did just fine despite the changes.

+1

T50s like Boston College and Boston University did just fine as well.

BC dropped with Tufts. What are you talking about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no one at Wake Forest, Tulane, BC, etc. needs a magazine to tell them that they're better than open admit schools like Rutgers. Do you really think the schools couldn't lobby to get the methodology changed back? Pull what Northeastern did in the naughts? Of course they could. But no school cares that much because smart, wealthy kids don't care that much, probably because they're smart.

No, they couldn’t do that. That’s why they all issue press releases and give interviews complaining about the rankings when they do poorly.

Yes, they sure could. Don't delude yourself.

Not deluded at all. That’s why the administrators of these schools throw fits when their rankings drop.

Delusion is telling yourself they don’t care and are above it all.

Anonymous wrote:I am a liberal Democrat.

That being said, the main people who focus on these rankings are FOTB tiger moms who know nothing so this is their only source of info for their child. You can spot them from a mile away at college fairs, tours, etc. When looking at high schools they are the ones who ask cringey questions in front of everyone about college exmissions, and they ask similar questions on college tours.

Bless their souls for caring so much about creating a better life for their kids - I wish more people cared this much as it is much better than the opposite extreme, which is way too common. But they don't know what they don't know. And they walk around with a well-worn copy of these rankings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no one at Wake Forest, Tulane, BC, etc. needs a magazine to tell them that they're better than open admit schools like Rutgers. Do you really think the schools couldn't lobby to get the methodology changed back? Pull what Northeastern did in the naughts? Of course they could. But no school cares that much because smart, wealthy kids don't care that much, probably because they're smart.

No, they couldn’t do that. That’s why they all issue press releases and give interviews complaining about the rankings when they do poorly.

Yes, they sure could. Don't delude yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone could compile a list of school heavy on social mobility, that would be a good list of school to avoid.

Why? This is such a bizarre perspective. All public schools should be measured on social mobility. That is what the taxpayers are looking for. A way to educate the kids in their state. The public wants to educate their kids because in general, college educated kids have higher lifetime earnings and are more likely to be a net benefit to the state. Why the heck would you be opposed to this?

Because despite all of the complaints, they aren’t really opposed to changes measuring social mobility. They’re opposed to the changes because a bunch of middling rich kid schools got downgraded (Wake, Tulane, Pepperdine, Miami). Notice how the T20 privates did just fine despite the changes.

This is such BS. We are talking about what rising college freshmen are using to make their determinations. If the ratings aren’t relevant to what they are looking for then students will look to other sources for making their decision. As the article said maybe that’s niche instead of USNews. This isn’t about alumna being annoyed by changes, it’s about applicants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And no one at Wake Forest, Tulane, BC, etc. needs a magazine to tell them that they're better than open admit schools like Rutgers. Do you really think the schools couldn't lobby to get the methodology changed back? Pull what Northeastern did in the naughts? Of course they could. But no school cares that much because smart, wealthy kids don't care that much, probably because they're smart.

No, they couldn’t do that. That’s why they all issue press releases and give interviews complaining about the rankings when they do poorly.

Anonymous wrote:And no one at Wake Forest, Tulane, BC, etc. needs a magazine to tell them that they're better than open admit schools like Rutgers. Do you really think the schools couldn't lobby to get the methodology changed back? Pull what Northeastern did in the naughts? Of course they could. But no school cares that much because smart, wealthy kids don't care that much, probably because they're smart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone could compile a list of school heavy on social mobility, that would be a good list of school to avoid.

Why? This is such a bizarre perspective. All public schools should be measured on social mobility. That is what the taxpayers are looking for. A way to educate the kids in their state. The public wants to educate their kids because in general, college educated kids have higher lifetime earnings and are more likely to be a net benefit to the state. Why the heck would you be opposed to this?

Because despite all of the complaints, they aren’t really opposed to changes measuring social mobility. They’re opposed to the changes because a bunch of middling rich kid schools got downgraded (Wake, Tulane, Pepperdine, Miami). Notice how the T20 privates did just fine despite the changes.

+1

T50s like Boston College and Boston University did just fine as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone could compile a list of school heavy on social mobility, that would be a good list of school to avoid.

Why? This is such a bizarre perspective. All public schools should be measured on social mobility. That is what the taxpayers are looking for. A way to educate the kids in their state. The public wants to educate their kids because in general, college educated kids have higher lifetime earnings and are more likely to be a net benefit to the state. Why the heck would you be opposed to this?

Because despite all of the complaints, they aren’t really opposed to changes measuring social mobility. They’re opposed to the changes because a bunch of middling rich kid schools got downgraded (Wake, Tulane, Pepperdine, Miami). Notice how the T20 privates did just fine despite the changes.