Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about Pell grants. How important are Pell grants to you in terms of ranking a college or university?

Next year all these type of things are going away. So I guess the ranking will radically change again.

Except for a few schools, the bigger impact was the stuff that got dropped, some of which made sense (alumni giving) and some of which didn’t (faculty with terminal degrees).

If the College has less faculty with terminal degrees than my kids’ high school, he is not going there….How in the world this is not a part of the rankings is absurd….
And Class size….another ridiculous one….100 vs 12 in a class….give me a break

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when Rutgers is now ranked higher than Tulane, CWRU, Miami, Wake, etc. after being perennially ranked in the 70s?

I say this as a second generation Indian-American, the college rankings obsession is almost solely a first-generation Indian and Asian striver thing.

+2 Go spend an hour on A2C. The obsession with rankings is crazy and most of the high school posters on A2C fall into the first-gen Asian and Indian striver demographic. Some say their parents will only let them apply to certain schools based only on USNWR rankings.

+3. They are prestige whores especially for Public and National Universities, and big US cities. Thankfully they have least interest in SLACs.

Do you realize how awful, ignorant and hurtful your comments are? Signed 2nd gen Indian-American SLAC grad who encouraged SLAC’s for their kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when Rutgers is now ranked higher than Tulane, CWRU, Miami, Wake, etc. after being perennially ranked in the 70s?

I say this as a second generation Indian-American, the college rankings obsession is almost solely a first-generation Indian and Asian striver thing.

+2 Go spend an hour on A2C. The obsession with rankings is crazy and most of the high school posters on A2C fall into the first-gen Asian and Indian striver demographic. Some say their parents will only let them apply to certain schools based only on USNWR rankings.

+3. They are prestige whores especially for Public and National Universities, and big US cities. Thankfully they have least interest in SLACs.

Do you realize how awful, ignorant and hurtful your comments are? Signed 2nd gen Indian-American SLAC grad who encouraged SLAC’s for their kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when Rutgers is now ranked higher than Tulane, CWRU, Miami, Wake, etc. after being perennially ranked in the 70s?

I say this as a second generation Indian-American, the college rankings obsession is almost solely a first-generation Indian and Asian striver thing.

+2 Go spend an hour on A2C. The obsession with rankings is crazy and most of the high school posters on A2C fall into the first-gen Asian and Indian striver demographic. Some say their parents will only let them apply to certain schools based only on USNWR rankings.

+3. They are prestige whores especially for Public and National Universities, and big US cities. Thankfully they have least interest in SLACs.

So, are you suggesting that US News ranking for SLACs can be taken seriously?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when Rutgers is now ranked higher than Tulane, CWRU, Miami, Wake, etc. after being perennially ranked in the 70s?

I say this as a second generation Indian-American, the college rankings obsession is almost solely a first-generation Indian and Asian striver thing.

+2 Go spend an hour on A2C. The obsession with rankings is crazy and most of the high school posters on A2C fall into the first-gen Asian and Indian striver demographic. Some say their parents will only let them apply to certain schools based only on USNWR rankings.

+3. They are prestige whores especially for Public and National Universities, and big US cities. Thankfully they have least interest in SLACs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about Pell grants. How important are Pell grants to you in terms of ranking a college or university?

Next year all these type of things are going away. So I guess the ranking will radically change again.

It’s only 11% of the methodology and it is more focused on Pell grant recipient performance than just the number of recipients. This has always been overstated on DCUM.

Except for a few schools, the bigger impact was the stuff that got dropped, some of which made sense (alumni giving) and some of which didn’t (faculty with terminal degrees).

It's the insecure white guys on DCUM trying to blame the USNWR rankings on "DEI."

Can't have too many schools with low income or brown people high in the rankings. But vapid party schools like Tulane? Great!

I'm not MAGA (about as far as you can get away from it---have never voted R for President and I first voted for Dukakis so that should tell you something). yet I don't care about how a school "performs for pell grant students" in terms of ranking it's "quALITY" Yes it is important and I want everyone to get a good education. But the quality of a school does not depend upon how well the poor kids turn out, because just like in public K-12, I smartly realize that a poor student will have more external struggles that cannot simply be overcome because someone at school does something, unless that is pay Tuition, R&B, and all expenses (flights to/from school, spending money, etc) so that the student literally can live like the rich kids and not stress over anything, oh and toss in a few K per month to the family at home so the student doesn't have to worry if Mom/Dad/Grandma have food or electricity.

This is exactly why including these criteria makes sense, as they are a measure of undergrad academic support and resources. Kids from high socioeconomic backgrounds will manage to graduate even if the school sucks and provides little support, because they have outside support and guidance. Kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have less of that and so what the school does or does not provide matters. The irony being that the people who hate it because they think it has nothing to do with the quality of the undergrad experience are missing that it is a way to measure undergrad quality (course instruction, academic counseling, course availability, support services, etc).

It’s the same for K-12 but your takeaway is the wrong one. When comparing K-12s, you can look at others of your similar socioeconomic background to determine how well your kid will do, but if you want to see how well the school does, look at how the kids with the least outside support do relative to those at other schools.

Anonymous wrote:I generally agree with the OP's overall sentiment, but TBF there's also been something of a market correction for some schools.

Look at UMCP, which had been languishing in the low-mid 50s the last decade plus before rising to 44 (which is still absurdly low, but at least it's trending upward). They'll be even higher this year, maybe much more so.

And there are other ones, notably privates, that have enjoyed a little too rarefied an air in relation to their academic quality, and have now settled into their more appropriate level (although still a bit too high, at least in a couple cases).

Whether that's due to USNWR's adjusted criteria or something else, at least it's a bit more accurate now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when Rutgers is now ranked higher than Tulane, CWRU, Miami, Wake, etc. after being perennially ranked in the 70s?

I say this as a second generation Indian-American, the college rankings obsession is almost solely a first-generation Indian and Asian striver thing.

+2 Go spend an hour on A2C. The obsession with rankings is crazy and most of the high school posters on A2C fall into the first-gen Asian and Indian striver demographic. Some say their parents will only let them apply to certain schools based only on USNWR rankings.

+3. They are prestige whores especially for Public and National Universities, and big US cities. Thankfully they have least interest in SLACs.

So, are you suggesting that US News ranking for SLACs can be taken seriously?

Not PP. To answer, it doesn't matter for LACs in Top 25, they are unique in their realm and bring similar value proposition for respective set of kids. In my opinion, specific US News ranking for SLACs doesn't matter, what matters whether they are in Top 25 or not.. Next 26 to 50 block has some stellar LACs that can be considered. Rest after 50 you have mostly safety LACs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine going to Amazon and the products had no reviews. I think it’s silly to “make your own ranking” but I love the idea of setting your own variables across a common data set.

But if I read those "amazon reviews" and the reason someone doesn't like product X (and scores it a 1 out of 10) is because it was 2 days late being delivered due to a local snow storm, then that really isn't relevant to me. I care about the ACTUAL product itself, not a snag with the delivery system that was an anomaly. Same for people who write bad TripAdvisor reviews because "20% tip is included with a group larger than 5", that has nothing to do with the quality of the restaurant, it's just a pissed off consumer who is cheap. But tells me nothing about the quality of the meal or the service provided.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s about Pell grants. How important are Pell grants to you in terms of ranking a college or university?

Next year all these type of things are going away. So I guess the ranking will radically change again.

It’s only 11% of the methodology and it is more focused on Pell grant recipient performance than just the number of recipients. This has always been overstated on DCUM.

Except for a few schools, the bigger impact was the stuff that got dropped, some of which made sense (alumni giving) and some of which didn’t (faculty with terminal degrees).

It's the insecure white guys on DCUM trying to blame the USNWR rankings on "DEI."

Can't have too many schools with low income or brown people high in the rankings. But vapid party schools like Tulane? Great!

I'm not MAGA (about as far as you can get away from it---have never voted R for President and I first voted for Dukakis so that should tell you something). yet I don't care about how a school "performs for pell grant students" in terms of ranking it's "quALITY" Yes it is important and I want everyone to get a good education. But the quality of a school does not depend upon how well the poor kids turn out, because just like in public K-12, I smartly realize that a poor student will have more external struggles that cannot simply be overcome because someone at school does something, unless that is pay Tuition, R&B, and all expenses (flights to/from school, spending money, etc) so that the student literally can live like the rich kids and not stress over anything, oh and toss in a few K per month to the family at home so the student doesn't have to worry if Mom/Dad/Grandma have food or electricity.

This is exactly why including these criteria makes sense, as they are a measure of undergrad academic support and resources. Kids from high socioeconomic backgrounds will manage to graduate even if the school sucks and provides little support, because they have outside support and guidance. Kids from lower socioeconomic backgrounds have less of that and so what the school does or does not provide matters. The irony being that the people who hate it because they think it has nothing to do with the quality of the undergrad experience are missing that it is a way to measure undergrad quality (course instruction, academic counseling, course availability, support services, etc).

It’s the same for K-12 but your takeaway is the wrong one. When comparing K-12s, you can look at others of your similar socioeconomic background to determine how well your kid will do, but if you want to see how well the school does, look at how the kids with the least outside support do relative to those at other schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when Rutgers is now ranked higher than Tulane, CWRU, Miami, Wake, etc. after being perennially ranked in the 70s?

I say this as a second generation Indian-American, the college rankings obsession is almost solely a first-generation Indian and Asian striver thing.

+2 Go spend an hour on A2C. The obsession with rankings is crazy and most of the high school posters on A2C fall into the first-gen Asian and Indian striver demographic. Some say their parents will only let them apply to certain schools based only on USNWR rankings.

+3. They are prestige whores especially for Public and National Universities, and big US cities. Thankfully they have least interest in SLACs.

So, are you suggesting that US News ranking for SLACs can be taken seriously?