Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone brought up peer reputation on USNews and I thought I would repost this.

4.9 Harvard MIT Stanford
4.8 Princeton Yale
4.7 Columbia JHU Berkeley
4.6 UChicago Penn Caltech Cornell
4.5 Duke Michigan
4.4 Northwestern Brown Dartmouth UCLA
4.3 Vanderbilt Carnegie Mellon UVA(!)
4.2 Wash U Emory Notre Dame Georgetown
4.1 Rice

This list is incomplete or selective. Georgia Tech is 4.3, UNC is 4.2, UT Austin is 4.1, etc.

Those aren't top 25 schools but yes you're right.

Then isn't it even more important to include that a school ranked #38 is considered as good or better than universities ranked 14-25 by academics?

No, it's not that important.

It's not important for an idiot perhaps.

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.

Seen so many "W&M is going downhill posts", no, it just dosen't fit into the two boxes that do well in rankings these days - large publics with lots of research and prestigious expensive privates. Applications are self selecting and W&M as a public does need to expand their social life and STEM to compete. Making it like Hopkins or Swarthmore like a PP suggested is unrealistic. W&M will stay around where it is and not drop further. Also, anyone with a brain knows its a much more rigorous undergrad education then say, U of F, which is "ranked higher".

And turning it into a large public university makes sense, where it would be clearly second-fiddle to UVA & VT?

W&M has not been investing in improving STEM or academics in general. They have been focusing on cosmetic changes. That's the problem that I'm highlighting.

W&M couldn't turn into Hopkins, but why could it not be a rigorous undergraduate-focused school like Swarthmore or Tufts, as it used to be?

W&M dropped from 32 to 40 in a few years, now it is at 38 tied with Georgia Tech, UC Davis and UT Austin, all schools rising in popularity and student quality. It's followed by Boston University, Case Western and Tulane, again all schools rising in popularity and student quality.

All these schools other than UC Davis are in major US cities, and there's a clear trend towards universities located in cities.

Why exactly would you think these schools wouldn't surpass W&M in the ranking, which clearly means W&M would fall further?

It still absolutely is--it's a rigorous undergraduate focused school. It's just put in the rankings as a "research university" because it is technically a doctoral granting institution even though its grad programs are very limited. But W&M is still attracting top-notch students, ranked among the very top in undergraduate education, has excellent career and grad school outcomes, and has a very high ROI. It's just a weird school in its structure--it's public not private, LAC like but a little larger than most, undergraduate focused with a handful of grad programs. So it falls between the cracks in the rankings--and still does great. I think it has zero issues with academic caliber--it's very strong. I think it's a little less popular than UVA because a) it's more expensive and b) it's in a sedate tourist town.

Syracuse

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.

Seen so many "W&M is going downhill posts", no, it just dosen't fit into the two boxes that do well in rankings these days - large publics with lots of research and prestigious expensive privates. Applications are self selecting and W&M as a public does need to expand their social life and STEM to compete. Making it like Hopkins or Swarthmore like a PP suggested is unrealistic. W&M will stay around where it is and not drop further. Also, anyone with a brain knows its a much more rigorous undergrad education then say, U of F, which is "ranked higher".

And turning it into a large public university makes sense, where it would be clearly second-fiddle to UVA & VT?

W&M has not been investing in improving STEM or academics in general. They have been focusing on cosmetic changes. That's the problem that I'm highlighting.

W&M couldn't turn into Hopkins, but why could it not be a rigorous undergraduate-focused school like Swarthmore or Tufts, as it used to be?

W&M dropped from 32 to 40 in a few years, now it is at 38 tied with Georgia Tech, UC Davis and UT Austin, all schools rising in popularity and student quality. It's followed by Boston University, Case Western and Tulane, again all schools rising in popularity and student quality.

All these schools other than UC Davis are in major US cities, and there's a clear trend towards universities located in cities.

Why exactly would you think these schools wouldn't surpass W&M in the ranking, which clearly means W&M would fall further?

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.

For the UCs, applying in state you can just check a box to apply to one. It leads to very high numbers applying in state because there is no effort or cost.

UC Berkeley's out-of-state admissions rate is sub-10%.

The UC's also require a separate application rather than the Common App, unlike W&M which allows students to mass-apply.

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.

Those SAT scores and GPA are either wrong or outdated. As I stated, W&M had higher SAT/ACT scores and GPA than UVA, but that is no longer the case.

This is not regarding W&M being niche or not or its acceptance rate at any given time compared to UVA. W&M has had a higher acceptance rate than UVA for more than a decade now.

It's about the trend.

A decade ago, UVA had an acceptance rate of 29-30% while W&M's was 32-33%. In Fall 2020, UVA's acceptance rate had dropped to 23% and W&M's had increased to 42%. Meanwhile acceptance rates across the country have decreased due to increased applications.

At the same time, W&M's yield has decreased to mid-20's. Yield at all schools has decreased but not to the same extent, and schools with decreasing yields have also seen decreasing acceptance rates, not the opposite.

W&M has not become any more of a niche school than it was before. The number of students preferring a niche academic-focused school over a large sports-focused school has not decreased in proportion, and if anything has increased in proportion when looking at the popularity of schools like U. Chicago, Rice, Tufts, Swarthmore, etc.

Rather, W&M has become less of a niche, academic-focused school. They tried to become a more Greek, sports-focused school instead to attract the type of students that prefer UVA-type school. In the process it lost the students that preferred the Tufts-type school while clearly not gaining any of the former.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ironically I feel as though Emory has similar identity issues but somehow figures it out and is highly ranked.

The huge endowment helps, as well as Emory being in a vibrant and growing diverse city with other great academic institutions like Georgia Tech.

The trend is clearly towards universities in large cosmopolitan urban environments.

Indeed, I actually think it's a bit underrated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ironically I feel as though Emory has similar identity issues but somehow figures it out and is highly ranked.

I think that Emory, Tufts, Rochester, Case Western, Brandeis and Boston University all need to step up their PR game. USC, NYU and Northeastern are outcompeting them.

NYU is in NYC and USC is in LA, the largest and most internationally recognized cities in the US. They are both rather large universities. They are attracting a very different type of student than the ones that you listed.

Atlanta is growing city but not even the 10th most recognized city in the US.

Rochester and Cleveland are both Rust Belt cities. They may undergo a revival but they are both rather drab cities to spend one's college years.

Tufts is near Boston and I agree that they could probably up their ranking game. I don't see why Rice and Tufts would be separate by 10 spots considering they are very similar schools.

Boston University has already made great strides in academic reputation and popularity and still continuing on its upward trajectory. It was largely considered a mediocre commuter school for a very long time, similar to NYU in the 1970s. Today it is globally considered a great academic research institution. That fact has been reflected in the rankings and applications to the school as well, with an acceptance rate of 20%.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone brought up peer reputation on USNews and I thought I would repost this.

4.9 Harvard MIT Stanford
4.8 Princeton Yale
4.7 Columbia JHU Berkeley
4.6 UChicago Penn Caltech Cornell
4.5 Duke Michigan
4.4 Northwestern Brown Dartmouth UCLA
4.3 Vanderbilt Carnegie Mellon UVA(!)
4.2 Wash U Emory Notre Dame Georgetown
4.1 Rice

This list is incomplete or selective. Georgia Tech is 4.3, UNC is 4.2, UT Austin is 4.1, etc.

Those aren't top 25 schools but yes you're right.

Then isn't it even more important to include that a school ranked #38 is considered as good or better than universities ranked 14-25 by academics?

No, it's not that important.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ironically I feel as though Emory has similar identity issues but somehow figures it out and is highly ranked.

The huge endowment helps, as well as Emory being in a vibrant and growing diverse city with other great academic institutions like Georgia Tech.

The trend is clearly towards universities in large cosmopolitan urban environments.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You do know that liberal arts colleges are very rigorous, right?

That's a meaningless statement. There are rigorous LACs and non-rigorous LACs filled with academically mediocre wealthy kids.

LAC is a type of college, not a level of rigor.

Anonymous wrote:Univ of Va.

Hah! Quite the opposite but I assume you were having fun

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone brought up peer reputation on USNews and I thought I would repost this.

4.9 Harvard MIT Stanford
4.8 Princeton Yale
4.7 Columbia JHU Berkeley
4.6 UChicago Penn Caltech Cornell
4.5 Duke Michigan
4.4 Northwestern Brown Dartmouth UCLA
4.3 Vanderbilt Carnegie Mellon UVA(!)
4.2 Wash U Emory Notre Dame Georgetown
4.1 Rice

This list is incomplete or selective. Georgia Tech is 4.3, UNC is 4.2, UT Austin is 4.1, etc.

Those aren't top 25 schools but yes you're right.

Then isn't it even more important to include that a school ranked #38 is considered as good or better than universities ranked 14-25 by academics?

Univ of Va.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is that Dartmouth absolutely is “middling” when it comes to research in comparison to its peer institutions. That’s not a controversial or unpopular or inaccurate statement whatsoever.

But it crushes institutions that do a lot more research for the quality of undergraduate education and the outcomes of its graduates. Why is this so difficult to understand?

OK, and?

Well, those are the top priorities for an undergraduate education.

OK, and we were talking about research.

DP here.

Yes, and first Dartmouth was "middling" and then suddenly that was changed to "middling compared to its peers".

So what defines its peers? Probably PP's reason for pointing out undergraduate education quality, no?

You really should give this up, you've been beaten down at every turn. Just say you hate Dartmouth for whatever reason you do, at least that can't be disputed.

Have you considered that there is more than one person on this thread who agrees that Dartmouth is not a strong research university? In fact, it's a near-universal opinion among those who know anything about academia!

So, tell me, are you an academic? Or just a misguided parent/alum?