Anonymous wrote:You can't sell online ads or magazines if the rankings don't have some movement. It is helpful to look at the rankings data over time to get a sense of school tiers: https://andyreiter.com/datasets/

Colby hasn't historically been regularly ranked in the top 15. They've often been in the high teens and 20s so that drop isn't huge.

Shocker: Columbia's real stats don't equate to being regularly ranked with Stanford, Harvard, and Yale!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faculty members get tenure at prestigious R1 research universities primarily because of their research and publications. Many of them do not focus a lot of time and effort into teaching undergrads and some avoid it completely if they can. You may get well-known professors but that doesn't equate to "better" in terms of teaching and classroom experience (particularly for undergrads).

So why does everyone want to get into an ivy when it isn’t about the teaching?

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:

Anonymous wrote:Notre Dame at 18, tied with Columbia and only one behind Cornell.

Notre Dame is Ivy level.

Almost, but not quite!

Notre Dame would never want to join the Ivy League anyway! It is happy to be ranked right there and fully independent to print football $$!

The Ivy League isn't all it is cracked up to be. Georgetown wouldn't even give up its basketball TV $$ to join.

Remember that the ancient 8 really is just an old but now low-level athletic conference!

This! A top school that has so much more to offer than the stuffy ivies. Love it.

Georgetown has crumbling buildings and mold to offer students. I don't get why anyone would pay private school tuition to go there.

You post this on every single thread. I'm sorry you were denied. It's probably time to move on.

It is impressive to me that Georgetown continues to attract such impressive students and rank as highly as they do with their financial limitations. If they can continue to invest well and generate high-end donations, they have a lot of upside.

Gtown is tied with Emory this year but has an endowment smaller than many of the elite liberal arts colleges (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Wellesley, and Bowdoin).

Peers like Emory, WashU, Vandy, Rice, USC, Notre Dame, and NYU all have endowments of over $5.5 billion compared under $2.6 billion for GTown. $$ is a real issue for Georgetown.

Idk if Georgetown is an academic peer of Rice and Vandy. Their admission statistics must be very different.

Georgetown does not use the common application, so the applicant pool is self selecting. As such, many hypothesize that their actual rate of admission would be much lower if they did.

You have posted this in numerous forums over the last two weeks, yet never provide a cite. It's simply not a true statement, although you want it to be

Dp, but I agree. My kid wasn’t willing to jump through the Georgetown admission hoops, but would have applied if they accepted the common app. It’s pretty stupid decision on Georgetown’s part than turns off a number of qualified applicants.

If you can't be bothered with the 'admission hoops', then Georgetown doesn't want you.

A lot of top students are fine with that, but it isn’t in the university’s interests to have an increasing smaller applicant pool.

They don't need USNWR to validate them.

A former Georgetown dean asserted, as to why they won't join the rat race and move to the common app to boost ratings: “we don’t succumb to the false gods.”

No. The real reason Georgetown doesn’t join the Common App is because they don’t want to encourage those with financial need. Relative to other well-ranked schools, Georgetown’s endowment is dinky, which impacts their ability to provide needs-blind admission. If they admit few with need, they can still tout their aid. Georgetown is not on any “best value” list.

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:

Anonymous wrote:Notre Dame at 18, tied with Columbia and only one behind Cornell.

Notre Dame is Ivy level.

Almost, but not quite!

Notre Dame would never want to join the Ivy League anyway! It is happy to be ranked right there and fully independent to print football $$!

The Ivy League isn't all it is cracked up to be. Georgetown wouldn't even give up its basketball TV $$ to join.

Remember that the ancient 8 really is just an old but now low-level athletic conference!

This! A top school that has so much more to offer than the stuffy ivies. Love it.

Most schools do not have much of their endowment devoted to undergraduate need based aid. A lot of the endowment may not even have anything to do with the entire undergraduate program (i.e., it belongs to the medical school, law school, graduate business school, etc.). Most private schools (and some public schools) build their aid budget by charging well-to-do students more than the cost of attendance and use part of the surplus to fund aid for lower income students. It is a redistribution.

Georgetown has crumbling buildings and mold to offer students. I don't get why anyone would pay private school tuition to go there.

You post this on every single thread. I'm sorry you were denied. It's probably time to move on.

It is impressive to me that Georgetown continues to attract such impressive students and rank as highly as they do with their financial limitations. If they can continue to invest well and generate high-end donations, they have a lot of upside.

Gtown is tied with Emory this year but has an endowment smaller than many of the elite liberal arts colleges (Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona, Wellesley, and Bowdoin).

Peers like Emory, WashU, Vandy, Rice, USC, Notre Dame, and NYU all have endowments of over $5.5 billion compared under $2.6 billion for GTown. $$ is a real issue for Georgetown.

Idk if Georgetown is an academic peer of Rice and Vandy. Their admission statistics must be very different.

Georgetown does not use the common application, so the applicant pool is self selecting. As such, many hypothesize that their actual rate of admission would be much lower if they did.

You have posted this in numerous forums over the last two weeks, yet never provide a cite. It's simply not a true statement, although you want it to be

Dp, but I agree. My kid wasn’t willing to jump through the Georgetown admission hoops, but would have applied if they accepted the common app. It’s pretty stupid decision on Georgetown’s part than turns off a number of qualified applicants.

If you can't be bothered with the 'admission hoops', then Georgetown doesn't want you.

A lot of top students are fine with that, but it isn’t in the university’s interests to have an increasing smaller applicant pool.

They don't need USNWR to validate them.

A former Georgetown dean asserted, as to why they won't join the rat race and move to the common app to boost ratings: “we don’t succumb to the false gods.”

No. The real reason Georgetown doesn’t join the Common App is because they don’t want to encourage those with financial need. Relative to other well-ranked schools, Georgetown’s endowment is dinky, which impacts their ability to provide needs-blind admission. If they admit few with need, they can still tout their aid. Georgetown is not on any “best value” list.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faculty members get tenure at prestigious R1 research universities primarily because of their research and publications. Many of them do not focus a lot of time and effort into teaching undergrads and some avoid it completely if they can. You may get well-known professors but that doesn't equate to "better" in terms of teaching and classroom experience (particularly for undergrads).

So why does everyone want to get into an ivy when it isn’t about the teaching?

Everyone doesn't want to get into an ivy.

Status-conscious people are driven for that external validation.

It is not about teaching quality. It is about impressing other people

Anonymous wrote:I get that William and Mary, as a small public university, is an odd duck, but it really seems to be sliding down the drain, national rankings-wise. What’s going on at that school?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you people only knew how the sausage is made.

If you only knew.

It’s hilarious to see DCUM suckling at this teat, year after year. US News rankings are worthless. I know from 20 years of insider experience.

Princeton? MIT? Harvard? Stanford? Yale? Seems like a pretty solid list for starters.

OK, but what do you actually know about the education at these schools compared to others? Or are you expecting to see them there because of the reputation they have for being there?

I wonder this too. Are the professors better? A shame that you can get the same education but companies still look at brand vs. smarts and other qualities when hiring.

there are faculty factors such as faculty compensation
Higher the compensation tends to be better faculty

Not reliable at all.

a) Salary is way too dependent on the strength of the local economy.

b) Almost no one makes their decision where to teach based primarily on salary. Probably the number one factor is the perceived seriousness of the students' interest in learning, along with geographic location, who else is on the faculty, research facilities, etc. Salary does play some role for some professors, but not a big one.

USNWR uses a cost of living adjustment for faculty salaries, fwiw.

On a side note… if you’ve ever wondered why grads from schools in certain regions tend to show different salary averages than from other regions, it’s partly due to there not usually being a similar adjustment for alumni salaries. That would of course be far harder than for faculty, all of whom are local. Grads tend to spread out. But there’s usually some regional overweight in where they originate from and end up. So colleges pulling disproportionately from the Midwest will have that much lower average salary compared to grads with similar majors from similarly ranked schools based in and pulling disproportionately from the NE or California. This is probably one reason why USNWR has resisted using alumni salary measures thus far.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faculty members get tenure at prestigious R1 research universities primarily because of their research and publications. Many of them do not focus a lot of time and effort into teaching undergrads and some avoid it completely if they can. You may get well-known professors but that doesn't equate to "better" in terms of teaching and classroom experience (particularly for undergrads).

So why does everyone want to get into an ivy when it isn’t about the teaching?

Everyone doesn't want to get into an ivy.

Status-conscious people are driven for that external validation.

It is not about teaching quality. It is about impressing other people

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faculty members get tenure at prestigious R1 research universities primarily because of their research and publications. Many of them do not focus a lot of time and effort into teaching undergrads and some avoid it completely if they can. You may get well-known professors but that doesn't equate to "better" in terms of teaching and classroom experience (particularly for undergrads).

So why does everyone want to get into an ivy when it isn’t about the teaching?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faculty members get tenure at prestigious R1 research universities primarily because of their research and publications. Many of them do not focus a lot of time and effort into teaching undergrads and some avoid it completely if they can. You may get well-known professors but that doesn't equate to "better" in terms of teaching and classroom experience (particularly for undergrads).

So why does everyone want to get into an ivy when it isn’t about the teaching?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you people only knew how the sausage is made.

If you only knew.

It’s hilarious to see DCUM suckling at this teat, year after year. US News rankings are worthless. I know from 20 years of insider experience.

Princeton? MIT? Harvard? Stanford? Yale? Seems like a pretty solid list for starters.

OK, but what do you actually know about the education at these schools compared to others? Or are you expecting to see them there because of the reputation they have for being there?

I wonder this too. Are the professors better? A shame that you can get the same education but companies still look at brand vs. smarts and other qualities when hiring.

there are faculty factors such as faculty compensation
Higher the compensation tends to be better faculty

Not reliable at all.

a) Salary is way too dependent on the strength of the local economy.

b) Almost no one makes their decision where to teach based primarily on salary. Probably the number one factor is the perceived seriousness of the students' interest in learning, along with geographic location, who else is on the faculty, research facilities, etc. Salary does play some role for some professors, but not a big one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Faculty members get tenure at prestigious R1 research universities primarily because of their research and publications. Many of them do not focus a lot of time and effort into teaching undergrads and some avoid it completely if they can. You may get well-known professors but that doesn't equate to "better" in terms of teaching and classroom experience (particularly for undergrads).

So why does everyone want to get into an ivy when it isn’t about the teaching?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Completely obvious HYPSM are the top 5. I assume cheating, if others crack into that top 5.

Ranked too high:
Chicago at 6 (should be 9 to 11)
Hopkins at 7 tie (should be 10 to 12)
Northwestern at 10 tie (should be 12 to 14)
Vanderbilt at 13 tie (should be 15 to 17)
Wash U at 15 tie (should be 17 to 19)

Ranked too low:
Columbia at 18 (should be 10 to 12)
Cornell at 17 (should be 14 to 16)

My take:
Princeton
MIT
Harvard, Stanford, Yale
UPenn
Caltech
Duke
Chicago
Hopkins
Columbia
Dartmouth
Brown
Northwestern
Cornell
Rice, Vanderbilt
WashU, Notre Dame
Berkley

Actually pretty close to perfect list...throw in some SLACs and you have the top colleges in the country.

Anonymous wrote:Faculty members get tenure at prestigious R1 research universities primarily because of their research and publications. Many of them do not focus a lot of time and effort into teaching undergrads and some avoid it completely if they can. You may get well-known professors but that doesn't equate to "better" in terms of teaching and classroom experience (particularly for undergrads).