Anonymous wrote:LOL no. The Democrats haven't gotten over 50 percent in any presidential election in nearly 50 years. Missouri is red. Not Oklahoma or Wyoming red, but red nonetheless.

St. Louis and Kansas City are solid blue.

Claire McCaskill, D, was a Missouri senator until 2019.

William Danforth, the longtime Wash. U. chancellor and benefactor, was the brother of John Danforth, the former senator who gave us Justice Clarence Thomas, but he brought Thomas Eagleton, a former Democratic senator from Missouri, in as a poli sci professor.

So, if anything, maybe the true politics of Wash. U. are Deep State Lavender, or a very kind, very patient, never-Trumper Red.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Too many people mad tbe kids had tempered of beds in the dorms. They have to be like UM with no AC.

Are you having a stroke? Type your address, and I will send an ambulance.

kind of an overreaction! lWashU is famous (or notorious) for having Tempurpedic beds in the dorms. PP was having a spell correct problems, not a stroke, LOL

Anonymous wrote:Meh. Nothing about the schools changed. Nor should their reputations.

This. Ranking is really foolish.

LOL no. The Democrats haven't gotten over 50 percent in any presidential election in nearly 50 years. Missouri is red. Not Oklahoma or Wyoming red, but red nonetheless.

Anonymous wrote:Wash U is now one of the most woke and progressive schools. Since they hired a new chancellor their entire goal is to bring in more URM, poor students. The chancellor is very open about that and they have actually changed their admissions philosophy. Wash U is very accepting of the SJP movement and protecting speech for this group. It is a fabulous school and on the cutting edge of progressiveness since Chancellor Martin took over.

Whatever the chancellor says, Wash. U. is a fundamentally moderate, limousine liberal/country club Republican school in a red-and-blue-striped state.

Anonymous wrote:I really would not put too much into the the rankings. You have to be cognizant of the general reputation of a school over at least two generations.

One should also be smart enough to know that some schools like Northeastern and Chicago have played the ratings game (massive marketing, playing with USNWR data, admission strategy).

Northeastern is on par with many of the T20ish schools on most of the major metrics that can't be gamed. It's actually very under-ranked, currently 53 and in the 40s last several years. Most of the high stat kids could easily get into higher ranked schools but ranking wasn't major factor for them.

I really would not put too much into the the rankings. You have to be cognizant of the general reputation of a school over at least two generations.

One should also be smart enough to know that some schools like Northeastern and Chicago have played the ratings game (massive marketing, playing with USNWR data, admission strategy).

Anonymous wrote:Rice needs to drop.

Huh?