Anonymous wrote:Magazine rankings are getting less relevant.

We have real ranking/evaluation by the people every year.

It's reflected in the combination of acceptance rate + yield rate + cohort quality + retention rate + graduation rate.

They are real data. If you want to see how schools really ranked, look at those data.

All these “rates” can be manipulated. Colby and Chicago are the biggest offenders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Magazine rankings are getting less relevant.

We have real ranking/evaluation by the people every year.

It's reflected in the combination of acceptance rate + yield rate + cohort quality + retention rate + graduation rate.

They are real data. If you want to see how schools really ranked, look at those data.

Based on acceptance rate, one would think Oxford is on par with U of Miami….

And that’s why this approach is dumb and you should evaluate a school on what it offers and not on things like acceptance rate and yield.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing for sure: the test required schools will be massively promoted, the test blind schools will be massively demoted.

Likely the opposite. Test required reduces your average SAT to prior COVID numbers. Also, there's no evidence to suggest that test optional students are less likely to lead successful careers or attain fellowships.

Test optional is for dummies.

Yes. Selectivity traditionally was by the test score average (based on test score required—100% need scores) and GPA+rigor of courses.

Somewhere along the way the dummies— to move up rankings made it about drumming up a huge Applicant pool by going test optional and reducing essays (or not having any). They use %accepted which is really a false equivalency sine the Applicant pool is mostly crap. It used to be that certain schools were out of range so people didn’t apply. Taking away the test requirement opened up to so many that really didn’t have the academic chops. The generation of “everyone deserves a trophy”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should only allow test REqUIRED schools in the top 15.

You can’t be elite when 40% don’t submit scores (meaning they don’t have the acceptable high scores). That’s lower caliber/selectivity—even though it attracts more students and falsely skews acceptance %

Columbia, Chicago, Northwestern, Duke?

Hopkins and Princeton too- TO. Though they are finally converting test required.

Anonymous wrote:Magazine rankings are getting less relevant.

We have real ranking/evaluation by the people every year.

It's reflected in the combination of acceptance rate + yield rate + cohort quality + retention rate + graduation rate.

They are real data. If you want to see how schools really ranked, look at those data.

Based on acceptance rate, one would think Oxford is on par with U of Miami….

Magazine rankings are getting less relevant.

We have real ranking/evaluation by the people every year.

It's reflected in the combination of acceptance rate + yield rate + cohort quality + retention rate + graduation rate.

They are real data. If you want to see how schools really ranked, look at those data.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The LAC rankings are set to change massively. Of course, Williams is USNews golden child, but every other position is supposed to be moving around.

Why are they set to change massively?

Same question. Anyone?

I just wish they broke them down by Carnegie size, rather than "are they LACs or National Universities or Regional Universities?" Also, have a special unranked section for the service academies. It's never made sense that they've lumped them in with the LACs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be back to 2020 IMO( released fall 2019)

The major difference between 2018/2020 is Columbia. I don’t think it can be #3.

2018 list makes a lot of sense, it’s the one I keep using for closer-to-real ranking.

Their 2018 liberal arts college ranking also makes sense. Each school is more or less at their right place +- 3.

+1

This was the last year of rankings based mostly on meaningful factors.

Someone mentioned Middlebury’s ranking drop above. The drop was driven by the addition socioeconomic factors and then last time around by changes in how FTE were computed which artificially dropped their academic spending number. Someone on CC broke the whole thing down last year when it happened. It hit another school hard as well, maybe W&L?

So why didn't it affect Middlebury's peers the same way? Sounds like a bunch of excuses for Middlebury's smaller financial resources, over enrollment issues, and ballooning deficit. Its budget issues have been outlined by the college itself as an outlier. DEI is not why Middlebury has precipitously dropped.

You're back. I remember a thread a little bit ago where someone dismantled you and your nonsense. Hopefully they will arrive to do it once again but I do remember the gist.

They overenrolled one year and then the poster showed the return to norm.
They don't have a ballooning deficit, they do have an ongoing deficit because of Monterey.
Grinnell suffered the exact same drop and Wesleyan dropped as well.

We know that you have an abnormal hate for Middlebury but really you are just too much.

I have never posted on DCUM about Middlebury, but you do seem heavily invested in this conversation. Everything I’ve shared has been official issues posted by the College.

Look, your lying last time got so out of hand that they locked the thread. I'm not invested in Middlebury but I'm definitely invested in the NESCAC having had two kids attend NESCAC schools.

You point a lot of fingers for someone who’s wrong.

Keep telling yourself that kiddo.

I’m a grown adult, please leave me alone if all you’re going to do is belittle me across the thread. I see why you tend to have threads locked on you. This is ridiculous behavior.

On Tuesday, June 17, U.S. News will release the 2025-2026 Best Global Universities rankings, focusing on academic research and reputation. This ranking allows students to see how universities stack up against the global competition. Students can use these rankings to compare universities – including U.S. colleges – globally, regionally and within their own country, as well as by field of study.

Anonymous wrote:They should only allow test REqUIRED schools in the top 15.

You can’t be elite when 40% don’t submit scores (meaning they don’t have the acceptable high scores). That’s lower caliber/selectivity—even though it attracts more students and falsely skews acceptance %

Columbia, Chicago, Northwestern, Duke?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be back to 2020 IMO( released fall 2019)

The major difference between 2018/2020 is Columbia. I don’t think it can be #3.

2018 list makes a lot of sense, it’s the one I keep using for closer-to-real ranking.

Their 2018 liberal arts college ranking also makes sense. Each school is more or less at their right place +- 3.

+1

This was the last year of rankings based mostly on meaningful factors.

Someone mentioned Middlebury’s ranking drop above. The drop was driven by the addition socioeconomic factors and then last time around by changes in how FTE were computed which artificially dropped their academic spending number. Someone on CC broke the whole thing down last year when it happened. It hit another school hard as well, maybe W&L?

So why didn't it affect Middlebury's peers the same way? Sounds like a bunch of excuses for Middlebury's smaller financial resources, over enrollment issues, and ballooning deficit. Its budget issues have been outlined by the college itself as an outlier. DEI is not why Middlebury has precipitously dropped.

You're back. I remember a thread a little bit ago where someone dismantled you and your nonsense. Hopefully they will arrive to do it once again but I do remember the gist.

They overenrolled one year and then the poster showed the return to norm.
They don't have a ballooning deficit, they do have an ongoing deficit because of Monterey.
Grinnell suffered the exact same drop and Wesleyan dropped as well.

We know that you have an abnormal hate for Middlebury but really you are just too much.

I have never posted on DCUM about Middlebury, but you do seem heavily invested in this conversation. Everything I’ve shared has been official issues posted by the College.

Look, your lying last time got so out of hand that they locked the thread. I'm not invested in Middlebury but I'm definitely invested in the NESCAC having had two kids attend NESCAC schools.

You point a lot of fingers for someone who’s wrong.

Keep telling yourself that kiddo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be back to 2020 IMO( released fall 2019)

The major difference between 2018/2020 is Columbia. I don’t think it can be #3.

2018 list makes a lot of sense, it’s the one I keep using for closer-to-real ranking.

Their 2018 liberal arts college ranking also makes sense. Each school is more or less at their right place +- 3.

+1

This was the last year of rankings based mostly on meaningful factors.

Someone mentioned Middlebury’s ranking drop above. The drop was driven by the addition socioeconomic factors and then last time around by changes in how FTE were computed which artificially dropped their academic spending number. Someone on CC broke the whole thing down last year when it happened. It hit another school hard as well, maybe W&L?

So why didn't it affect Middlebury's peers the same way? Sounds like a bunch of excuses for Middlebury's smaller financial resources, over enrollment issues, and ballooning deficit. Its budget issues have been outlined by the college itself as an outlier. DEI is not why Middlebury has precipitously dropped.

You're back. I remember a thread a little bit ago where someone dismantled you and your nonsense. Hopefully they will arrive to do it once again but I do remember the gist.

They overenrolled one year and then the poster showed the return to norm.
They don't have a ballooning deficit, they do have an ongoing deficit because of Monterey.
Grinnell suffered the exact same drop and Wesleyan dropped as well.

We know that you have an abnormal hate for Middlebury but really you are just too much.

I have never posted on DCUM about Middlebury, but you do seem heavily invested in this conversation. Everything I’ve shared has been official issues posted by the College.

Look, your lying last time got so out of hand that they locked the thread. I'm not invested in Middlebury but I'm definitely invested in the NESCAC having had two kids attend NESCAC schools.

You point a lot of fingers for someone who’s wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will be back to 2020 IMO( released fall 2019)

The major difference between 2018/2020 is Columbia. I don’t think it can be #3.

2018 list makes a lot of sense, it’s the one I keep using for closer-to-real ranking.

Their 2018 liberal arts college ranking also makes sense. Each school is more or less at their right place +- 3.

+1

This was the last year of rankings based mostly on meaningful factors.

Someone mentioned Middlebury’s ranking drop above. The drop was driven by the addition socioeconomic factors and then last time around by changes in how FTE were computed which artificially dropped their academic spending number. Someone on CC broke the whole thing down last year when it happened. It hit another school hard as well, maybe W&L?

So why didn't it affect Middlebury's peers the same way? Sounds like a bunch of excuses for Middlebury's smaller financial resources, over enrollment issues, and ballooning deficit. Its budget issues have been outlined by the college itself as an outlier. DEI is not why Middlebury has precipitously dropped.

You're back. I remember a thread a little bit ago where someone dismantled you and your nonsense. Hopefully they will arrive to do it once again but I do remember the gist.

They overenrolled one year and then the poster showed the return to norm.
They don't have a ballooning deficit, they do have an ongoing deficit because of Monterey.
Grinnell suffered the exact same drop and Wesleyan dropped as well.

We know that you have an abnormal hate for Middlebury but really you are just too much.

I have never posted on DCUM about Middlebury, but you do seem heavily invested in this conversation. Everything I’ve shared has been official issues posted by the College.

Look, your lying last time got so out of hand that they locked the thread. I'm not invested in Middlebury but I'm definitely invested in the NESCAC having had two kids attend NESCAC schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The new ranking will be more aligned with their 2018 ranking.

So practically the same. Usnews ranking has hardly changed over a decade

Because it was a mess in the past few years: test optional, student debt metrics, social mobility.
This year marks the year of returning to the norm.

It’s the turning point. It may or may not change the ranking immediately, but it’s back on track. Each year there will be more and more schools requiring test scores.