Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idiots.

1 Princeton
2 MIT
3 (Tie) Harvard, Stanford
5 Yale
6 UPenn
7 (Tie) CalTech, Duke
9 (Tie) Brown, JHU, Northwestern
12 (Tie) Columbia, Cornell, UChicago
15 (Tie) UCLA, UCB
17 Rice
18 (Tie) Dartmouth, Vanderbilt
20 Notre Dame
21 UMich
22 Georgetown
23 UNC
24 (Tie) CMU, Emory, Virgina, WashU StL
28 UCD, UCSD, UF, USC

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

I don't have a problem with the schools listed 1-24. I quibble about the order. Berkeley and UCLA are obviously good schools. But the only reason they're in the top 15 is because USNWR no longer cares about class size. Both schools have classes with more than a 1000 students, which is ridiculous. That's not happening at Rice, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame and other schools they've displaced. And USNWR seems to think six years is a reasonable time to graduate, which again helps UCLA and Berkeley where a lot of students have a hard time getting into all their required classes within four years. Again, not a problem at Rice, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame.

And then there's the fixation on Pell Grant students. And a reminder, colleges have no idea if a potential student will get a Pell Grant at the time of admittance. Obviously, two schools from the most economically diverse state in the country with a collective 90,000 students are going to clean up with the Pell Grant boost. With the exception of UC Merced, nearly all the UCs are now top 35 schools. Irvine, San Diego, Santa Barbara. And UC Merced is now ranked 60.

60!

UC Merced!

Out of 4000 colleges and universities!

Also think Penn, JHU, and Brown are ranked too high. But whatever.

The real absurdities are everything that happens below 24.

I don't know what this list is supposed to measure, but it's definitely not the Best National Universities in America

Agree with all of this, well said.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan State starts to look fairly interesting in these new rankings. #60 with an 88% acceptance rate.

I noticed that too. A decent amount of separation from Indiana now (#73), which seems to be much more popular here at DCUM.

Minnesota beats both at #53.

Is this the schools with over 70% acceptance rate?

Sounds totally BS ranking

Your focus on acceptance rate is flawed

Graduation rate 81%
Median earning $65K

Nobody would buy this school is tied with Northeastern, W&M, and Case Western.
Ranking is flawed.

Sure they would. IRONICALLY my son applied to all four of these fine schools last year. Not kidding.

Of course you apply to multiple schools.
Some are safeties like UMN

Guess I don't understand how acceptance rate determines the quality of education or outcome. By that rationale, NEU should be a top 10 school with their 7% acceptance rate last year.

Acceptance rate correlates with quality of peer students, which is a very important factor that impacts the quality of education.
Public schools have a similar concept in honors colleges, which are harder to get into (lower acceptance rate) programs with higher quality peers.
If you are not aware of this and think that a 75% acceptance rate school is comparable to a 10% acceptance rate school, do not advise your kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idiots.

1 Princeton
2 MIT
3 (Tie) Harvard, Stanford
5 Yale
6 UPenn
7 (Tie) CalTech, Duke
9 (Tie) Brown, JHU, Northwestern
12 (Tie) Columbia, Cornell, UChicago
15 (Tie) UCLA, UCB
17 Rice
18 (Tie) Dartmouth, Vanderbilt
20 Notre Dame
21 UMich
22 Georgetown
23 UNC
24 (Tie) CMU, Emory, Virgina, WashU StL
28 UCD, UCSD, UF, USC

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

I don't have a problem with the schools listed 1-24. I quibble about the order. Berkeley and UCLA are obviously good schools. But the only reason they're in the top 15 is because USNWR no longer cares about class size. Both schools have classes with more than a 1000 students, which is ridiculous. That's not happening at Rice, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame and other schools they've displaced. And USNWR seems to think six years is a reasonable time to graduate, which again helps UCLA and Berkeley where a lot of students have a hard time getting into all their required classes within four years. Again, not a problem at Rice, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame.

And then there's the fixation on Pell Grant students. And a reminder, colleges have no idea if a potential student will get a Pell Grant at the time of admittance. Obviously, two schools from the most economically diverse state in the country with a collective 90,000 students are going to clean up with the Pell Grant boost. With the exception of UC Merced, nearly all the UCs are now top 35 schools. Irvine, San Diego, Santa Barbara. And UC Merced is now ranked 60.

60!

UC Merced!

Out of 4000 colleges and universities!

Also think Penn, JHU, and Brown are ranked too high. But whatever.

The real absurdities are everything that happens below 24.

I don't know what this list is supposed to measure, but it's definitely not the Best National Universities in America

+1000, to make money, US News has gone bonkers with their methodology. The quality of these institutions do not change so suddenly in one year. To generate profits, US News created a new index based on the number/graduation of Pell Grant and first generation students. How does this matter to the quality of the education? Schools will now game this index by accepting more Pell and FG students and "making sure" these students graduate even if they are failing classes.

"quality" is a subjective term.

The previous rankings looked at alumni donation. That makes a ranking skew wealthy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the dumbest US News rankings yet. Should just be called US Pell Grant rankings.

I thought the suburban milk toast DC area moms were the classic PC crowd who would eat this DEI/PC bs up. Maybe do as I say not as I do going on again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idiots.

1 Princeton
2 MIT
3 (Tie) Harvard, Stanford
5 Yale
6 UPenn
7 (Tie) CalTech, Duke
9 (Tie) Brown, JHU, Northwestern
12 (Tie) Columbia, Cornell, UChicago
15 (Tie) UCLA, UCB
17 Rice
18 (Tie) Dartmouth, Vanderbilt
20 Notre Dame
21 UMich
22 Georgetown
23 UNC
24 (Tie) CMU, Emory, Virgina, WashU StL
28 UCD, UCSD, UF, USC

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

I don't have a problem with the schools listed 1-24. I quibble about the order. Berkeley and UCLA are obviously good schools. But the only reason they're in the top 15 is because USNWR no longer cares about class size. Both schools have classes with more than a 1000 students, which is ridiculous. That's not happening at Rice, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame and other schools they've displaced. And USNWR seems to think six years is a reasonable time to graduate, which again helps UCLA and Berkeley where a lot of students have a hard time getting into all their required classes within four years. Again, not a problem at Rice, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame.

And then there's the fixation on Pell Grant students. And a reminder, colleges have no idea if a potential student will get a Pell Grant at the time of admittance. Obviously, two schools from the most economically diverse state in the country with a collective 90,000 students are going to clean up with the Pell Grant boost. With the exception of UC Merced, nearly all the UCs are now top 35 schools. Irvine, San Diego, Santa Barbara. And UC Merced is now ranked 60.

60!

UC Merced!

Out of 4000 colleges and universities!

Also think Penn, JHU, and Brown are ranked too high. But whatever.

The real absurdities are everything that happens below 24.

I don't know what this list is supposed to measure, but it's definitely not the Best National Universities in America

+1000, to make money, US News has gone bonkers with their methodology. The quality of these institutions do not change so suddenly in one year. To generate profits, US News created a new index based on the number/graduation of Pell Grant and first generation students. How does this matter to the quality of the education? Schools will now game this index by accepting more Pell and FG students and "making sure" these students graduate even if they are failing classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan State starts to look fairly interesting in these new rankings. #60 with an 88% acceptance rate.

I noticed that too. A decent amount of separation from Indiana now (#73), which seems to be much more popular here at DCUM.

Minnesota beats both at #53.

Is this the schools with over 70% acceptance rate?

Sounds totally BS ranking

Your focus on acceptance rate is flawed

Graduation rate 81%
Median earning $65K

Nobody would buy this school is tied with Northeastern, W&M, and Case Western.
Ranking is flawed.

Sure they would. IRONICALLY my son applied to all four of these fine schools last year. Not kidding.

Of course you apply to multiple schools.
Some are safeties like UMN

Guess I don't understand how acceptance rate determines the quality of education or outcome. By that rationale, NEU should be a top 10 school with their 7% acceptance rate last year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idiots.

1 Princeton
2 MIT
3 (Tie) Harvard, Stanford
5 Yale
6 UPenn
7 (Tie) CalTech, Duke
9 (Tie) Brown, JHU, Northwestern
12 (Tie) Columbia, Cornell, UChicago
15 (Tie) UCLA, UCB
17 Rice
18 (Tie) Dartmouth, Vanderbilt
20 Notre Dame
21 UMich
22 Georgetown
23 UNC
24 (Tie) CMU, Emory, Virgina, WashU StL
28 UCD, UCSD, UF, USC

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

I don't have a problem with the schools listed 1-24. I quibble about the order. Berkeley and UCLA are obviously good schools. But the only reason they're in the top 15 is because USNWR no longer cares about class size. Both schools have classes with more than a 1000 students, which is ridiculous. That's not happening at Rice, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame and other schools they've displaced. And USNWR seems to think six years is a reasonable time to graduate, which again helps UCLA and Berkeley where a lot of students have a hard time getting into all their required classes within four years. Again, not a problem at Rice, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame.

And then there's the fixation on Pell Grant students. And a reminder, colleges have no idea if a potential student will get a Pell Grant at the time of admittance. Obviously, two schools from the most economically diverse state in the country with a collective 90,000 students are going to clean up with the Pell Grant boost. With the exception of UC Merced, nearly all the UCs are now top 35 schools. Irvine, San Diego, Santa Barbara. And UC Merced is now ranked 60.

60!

UC Merced!

Out of 4000 colleges and universities!

Also think Penn, JHU, and Brown are ranked too high. But whatever.

The real absurdities are everything that happens below 24.

I don't know what this list is supposed to measure, but it's definitely not the Best National Universities in America

+1000, to make money, US News has gone bonkers with their methodology. The quality of these institutions do not change so suddenly in one year. To generate profits, US News created a new index based on the number/graduation of Pell Grant and first generation students. How does this matter to the quality of the education? Schools will now game this index by accepting more Pell and FG students and "making sure" these students graduate even if they are failing classes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The publics get a big boost. Not fair imo, as they are expensive for low income students as fin aid is poor.

how is it fair when expensive privates are considered "higher ranked" when MC/UMC kids can't afford it?

And the "poor" at these expensive colleges are a small percentage of the overall student population. Those expensive elite private colleges cater to the rich. How is that fair?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the new methodology removing class rank raises a legit issue about the ranking removing too many academic-focused factors, but by the same token, the class size and alumni engagement factors were too easily gamed by a lot of private schools and artificially propped them up.

Ultimately, I think the new rankings overall are better in clarifying, “Which schools are actually worth paying $90,000 per year over our in-state flagship?” The rankings still indicate that there’s a clear difference by going to an Ivy or its other peers in the top 20-ish, but maybe people will be dissuaded from thinking that paying a lot extra for, say, Tufts or Wake Forest is going to result in materially different outcomes compared to many of the major public flagships.

I disagree, if you want small class sizes, more professors with phds, and more money spent per student, you are going to get that at Wake or Tufts over Rutgers.

If you care more about social mobility, pick Rutgers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Idiots.

1 Princeton
2 MIT
3 (Tie) Harvard, Stanford
5 Yale
6 UPenn
7 (Tie) CalTech, Duke
9 (Tie) Brown, JHU, Northwestern
12 (Tie) Columbia, Cornell, UChicago
15 (Tie) UCLA, UCB
17 Rice
18 (Tie) Dartmouth, Vanderbilt
20 Notre Dame
21 UMich
22 Georgetown
23 UNC
24 (Tie) CMU, Emory, Virgina, WashU StL
28 UCD, UCSD, UF, USC

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities

I don't have a problem with the schools listed 1-24. I quibble about the order. Berkeley and UCLA are obviously good schools. But the only reason they're in the top 15 is because USNWR no longer cares about class size. Both schools have classes with more than a 1000 students, which is ridiculous. That's not happening at Rice, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame and other schools they've displaced. And USNWR seems to think six years is a reasonable time to graduate, which again helps UCLA and Berkeley where a lot of students have a hard time getting into all their required classes within four years. Again, not a problem at Rice, Dartmouth, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame.

And then there's the fixation on Pell Grant students. And a reminder, colleges have no idea if a potential student will get a Pell Grant at the time of admittance. Obviously, two schools from the most economically diverse state in the country with a collective 90,000 students are going to clean up with the Pell Grant boost. With the exception of UC Merced, nearly all the UCs are now top 35 schools. Irvine, San Diego, Santa Barbara. And UC Merced is now ranked 60.

60!

UC Merced!

Out of 4000 colleges and universities!

Also think Penn, JHU, and Brown are ranked too high. But whatever.

The real absurdities are everything that happens below 24.

I don't know what this list is supposed to measure, but it's definitely not the Best National Universities in America

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan State starts to look fairly interesting in these new rankings. #60 with an 88% acceptance rate.

I noticed that too. A decent amount of separation from Indiana now (#73), which seems to be much more popular here at DCUM.

Minnesota beats both at #53.

Is this the schools with over 70% acceptance rate?

Sounds totally BS ranking

Your focus on acceptance rate is flawed

Graduation rate 81%
Median earning $65K

Nobody would buy this school is tied with Northeastern, W&M, and Case Western.
Ranking is flawed.

Sure they would. IRONICALLY my son applied to all four of these fine schools last year. Not kidding.

Of course you apply to multiple schools.
Some are safeties like UMN

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of this is based on hard academic merit. It's social factors and diversity and first gen and holistic measures.

Only a school that requires all test scores (not test optional), gpa, course rigor and known for quality education should be in the top 10.

It's no longer a purely 'academic' list.

It's not obvious that a school should be ranked higher because those attending had higher SAT scores and grades in High School. Say you split Princeton (#1 in the current ranking) in half (facilities and professors teaching 50/50) and then put 1000 students in half A and 1000 in half B. If those in Half A has SATs of 1500+ and those in half B 1400-1500 - is Half A a better school and should be ranked 50 spots higher?

Quality of peer students should be a major factor.

Why?

Because peer interactions in the class room is part of the education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michigan State starts to look fairly interesting in these new rankings. #60 with an 88% acceptance rate.

I noticed that too. A decent amount of separation from Indiana now (#73), which seems to be much more popular here at DCUM.

Minnesota beats both at #53.

Is this the schools with over 70% acceptance rate?

Sounds totally BS ranking

Your focus on acceptance rate is flawed

Graduation rate 81%
Median earning $65K

Nobody would buy this school is tied with Northeastern, W&M, and Case Western.
Ranking is flawed.

Sure they would. IRONICALLY my son applied to all four of these fine schools last year. Not kidding.