The changed methodology favors schools that admit low-income students (Pell Grant recipients).

UCLA and Berkeley admit a far greater percentage of Pell Grant students than most Top 25 schools


https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/nati...rsity-among-top-ranked-schools

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington University has been falling in the rankings - what’s up?

Wash U went from 18 to 19. They were 19 2 years ago. Are you kidding?

weren't they one of the schools that admitted to fudging data to gain in the rankings?

Nope.

sorry, I must have misremembered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The metrics used by USNews is junk now. Social Mobility as measured by graduation rate of Pell Grant recipients?!!! Total BS!!
They have also removed admit rate completely and lowered the weight for scores and class rank. They just randomly adjust these percentages or weights and tweak them till they get the answer they want. Pathetic.

Even rankings are being socially engineered nowadays.

These rankings are made for the general public, not just for UMC families who post to DCUM. It matters a lot to many high schools that when they send a Pell Grant student to a school, the student will be supported by the school. Graduation rate is a good measure of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington University has been falling in the rankings - what’s up?

Wash U went from 18 to 19. They were 19 2 years ago. Are you kidding?

weren't they one of the schools that admitted to fudging data to gain in the rankings?

Nope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington University has been falling in the rankings - what’s up?

Wash U went from 18 to 19. They were 19 2 years ago. Are you kidding?

weren't they one of the schools that admitted to fudging data to gain in the rankings?

That was Emory and George Washington.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington University has been falling in the rankings - what’s up?

Wash U went from 18 to 19. They were 19 2 years ago. Are you kidding?

weren't they one of the schools that admitted to fudging data to gain in the rankings?

Anonymous wrote:Washington University has been falling in the rankings - what’s up?

Wash U went from 18 to 19. They were 19 2 years ago. Are you kidding?

Georgetown and Cal tied? That's absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you have four ties at number three, two ties at number eight, followed by two more ties at number ten, number twelve, number fourteen and number sixteen ending in four ties at number Twenty two and the total score difference between number one and number ten is just ten points, you know that this ranking like all other reasons is just nonsensical.

no, but they do need some tie-breaker to sort these out a little better.

No, they should switch to a tier system. Did you read the methodology? They have a lot of factors, have a lot of percentile weights, and in the end, they scale the top score to 100, and interpolate the rest of the scores. They are squishing 1803 colleges into a 100 point scale. If they are getting ties, they are probably rounding to one decimal. There is really no difference between an aggregate 99.8 and 99.7 on that type of scale. There probably are meaningful differences in some of the factors, but then the final results depend on how much you decide each factor weighs.

I'd be more interested in seeing a distribution of the scores. There are probably some distinct clumps rather than an even distribution. But of course, USNWR makes $$ off a firm ranking so ...

Washington University has been falling in the rankings - what’s up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Midwestern LACs are interesting. Carleton and Grinnell far ahead of the pack, as they should be.

Grinnell jumped. Davidson stayed where it is. I always feel like it is a school that is under appreciated on this forum.

But being #10 LAC is still very good, no?

I think it’s great. And it’s a great school. Which is why it’s surprising that people looking a top east coast LACs often aren’t considering it.

I think maybe you and I have a kid there. Doesn't bother me at all that it's not more popular. 18.7% acceptance rate this year is selective enough.

Davidson is meh. Too Southern and conservative.

Well, like that's just your opinion man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:William and Mary dropped a few spots to 38. UVA, prestigious, stayed at 25. Maryland is somewhere in the 60s. Chuckle.

William and Mary tumbled to 38. It is now a worse ranked school than Florida. It (William and Mary) is in desperate shape—stagnant number of applications, poor resources, and very few male applicants.

I disagree that this shift is all that meaningful. It is ranked #10 of national public colleges. As USNWR tweaks its methodology, a school like W&M which is a public school with a small handful of grad programs, but primarily operates like a private liberal arts college, can fall slightly fall in cracks due to its idiosyncrasy. It's been a top-notch school for its long history and nothing is really changing on that. (I say this with no special bias--not an alum, no kids there).

I tend to agree with this (parent of former student there and another one who went to UVA). But this is the first time I can remember where W&M was not ranked as the sixth best public university. So it’s not time to hit the panic button yet, but too many years of ranking problems will have adverse affects on yield and out of state applications.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Midwestern LACs are interesting. Carleton and Grinnell far ahead of the pack, as they should be.

Grinnell jumped. Davidson stayed where it is. I always feel like it is a school that is under appreciated on this forum.

But being #10 LAC is still very good, no?

I think it’s great. And it’s a great school. Which is why it’s surprising that people looking a top east coast LACs often aren’t considering it.

I think maybe you and I have a kid there. Doesn't bother me at all that it's not more popular. 18.7% acceptance rate this year is selective enough.

Davidson is meh. Too Southern and conservative.

Anonymous wrote:When you have four ties at number three, two ties at number eight, followed by two more ties at number ten, number twelve, number fourteen and number sixteen ending in four ties at number Twenty two and the total score difference between number one and number ten is just ten points, you know that this ranking like all other reasons is just nonsensical.

no, but they do need some tie-breaker to sort these out a little better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Midwestern LACs are interesting. Carleton and Grinnell far ahead of the pack, as they should be.

Grinnell jumped. Davidson stayed where it is. I always feel like it is a school that is under appreciated on this forum.

But being #10 LAC is still very good, no?

I think it’s great. And it’s a great school. Which is why it’s surprising that people looking a top east coast LACs often aren’t considering it.

I think maybe you and I have a kid there. Doesn't bother me at all that it's not more popular. 18.7% acceptance rate this year is selective enough.