No one has cared about this ranking for decades! (Except Ashburn moms)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.luminafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Give-the-kids-some-credit.pdf

Apparently only 10% of students look at a specific rank while searching for colleges and the influence of US News & rankings in general is waning. Is college admissions culture shifting to prioritizing fit above rank because of admissions difficulty, shifting methodologies, etc.?

"...What did we find? Most students report considering some sources of rankings (around 6 in 10)...."

6 in 10 is 60%. Not 10%

And...they like Niche more. Great rankings there.

Nice try.

+1. And over 80% of high scorers (ACT 30+ and SAT 1400+). The 10% is only for using the rankings to identify a specific rank, and even then the number is higher for those using it to find a general range (eg, T20).

Note the percent consulting rankings is higher for those attending private high school and looking at private colleges, which probably helps to explain the rankings rage here.

Another person who didn’t read the article.

No, I actually did read it and this is exactly what it says.

Sorry you fixated on one data point because it confirms your priors and ignored the rest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.luminafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Give-the-kids-some-credit.pdf

Apparently only 10% of students look at a specific rank while searching for colleges and the influence of US News & rankings in general is waning. Is college admissions culture shifting to prioritizing fit above rank because of admissions difficulty, shifting methodologies, etc.?

"...What did we find? Most students report considering some sources of rankings (around 6 in 10)...."

6 in 10 is 60%. Not 10%

And...they like Niche more. Great rankings there.

Nice try.

+1. And over 80% of high scorers (ACT 30+ and SAT 1400+). The 10% is only for using the rankings to identify a specific rank, and even then the number is higher for those using it to find a general range (eg, T20).

Note the percent consulting rankings is higher for those attending private high school and looking at private colleges, which probably helps to explain the rankings rage here.

Another person who didn’t read the article.

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.

The rankings are useless because once you’re out of the T20, who cares? No one has really heard of all these other schools. Wake Forest, Tulane, BC, and Rutgers could all be tied with the same ranking for all that most people know about these schools. Everyone has heard of a school in the T20– you don’t need a ranking for that.

Anonymous wrote:Only something like 11% of the US News rank is based on social mobility. But it’s a good thing if students prioritize fit above rank!

The single biggest factor is “peer review” which is completely a subjective measure. The methodology is also incredibly suspect as it relies on voluntary responses. And even of those that respond, how much do you honestly think the provost of Arizona state knows about SUNY Binghampton? It’s almost entirely based based on prior years rankings. If you rely materially on rankings in choosing where to apply and attend, I pity you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.luminafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Give-the-kids-some-credit.pdf

Apparently only 10% of students look at a specific rank while searching for colleges and the influence of US News & rankings in general is waning. Is college admissions culture shifting to prioritizing fit above rank because of admissions difficulty, shifting methodologies, etc.?

"...What did we find? Most students report considering some sources of rankings (around 6 in 10)...."

6 in 10 is 60%. Not 10%

And...they like Niche more. Great rankings there.

Nice try.

+1. And over 80% of high scorers (ACT 30+ and SAT 1400+). The 10% is only for using the rankings to identify a specific rank, and even then the number is higher for those using it to find a general range (eg, T20).

Note the percent consulting rankings is higher for those attending private high school and looking at private colleges, which probably helps to explain the rankings rage here.

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.

The NESCAC colleges do not comment on or use the USNWR rankings in any advertising or publications.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only something like 11% of the US News rank is based on social mobility. But it’s a good thing if students prioritize fit above rank!

Social Mobility is 16% of the score (Pell Performance, Pell Grad rate, and Borrower debt). When the rankings are likely determined by small differences at the top of the list 16% can be quite significant.

+1
And it isn't the presence of that alone, it's that in addition to the removal and weighting less of "income" factors like test scores, yield, etc.

+1

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.

Vanderbilt Admin cared. It pitched an embarrassing fit when it moved out of the top 15 last year. Google the piece written by one of its students for the school newspaper. Not a good look, Vandy.

And yet its stats are the same if not higher than before. If smart kids don't care, neither do I.

You missed the point.

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.

Vanderbilt Admin cared. It pitched an embarrassing fit when it moved out of the top 15 last year. Google the piece written by one of its students for the school newspaper. Not a good look, Vandy.

And yet its stats are the same if not higher than before. If smart kids don't care, neither do I.

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.

Vanderbilt Admin cared. It pitched an embarrassing fit when it moved out of the top 15 last year. Google the piece written by one of its students for the school newspaper. Not a good look, Vandy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

BC and Tufts are still T50. Schools like Tulane and UMiami are not.

If you don't like the rankings, don't refer to them. Simple.

Um that’s the whole point. Juniors and seniors are not referring to them as much.

Not really. For Juniors and Seniors, Niche rules. It ranks colleges.

The trend is kids moving away from specific ranks and towards info about places but sure, Brenda.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

BC and Tufts are still T50. Schools like Tulane and UMiami are not.

If you don't like the rankings, don't refer to them. Simple.

Um that’s the whole point. Juniors and seniors are not referring to them as much.

Not really. For Juniors and Seniors, Niche rules. It ranks colleges.

Villanova is always left out of discussions of ranking drops...

Anonymous wrote:

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?

BC and Tufts are still T50. Schools like Tulane and UMiami are not.

If you don't like the rankings, don't refer to them. Simple.

Um that’s the whole point. Juniors and seniors are not referring to them as much.