Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone without a ton of bias explain why wake was t30 in the first place? I feel like all the other t30 schools are very popular, well known, and academically at the top. I have no doubt wake forest is great, but it’s under the radar across the country

Very small class sizes, all classes taught by professors, high level of alumni giving are what kept it on the T30, it was when those factors were removed and first gen/pell grant specific factors were added that it fell out of the T30.

It’s basically a slac in a medium size university package with Power 5 sports in a state with a good climate. That’s a package that’s been attracting strong students for a long time, and not dissimilar from Duke and Vanderbilt, which is why it’s often a top choice for students not admitted to those schools.

So why is it ranked in the absolute toilet (as high as 400 and as low as 700) by international rankings that supposedly give a ton of weight to these metrics?

Honestly, it’s USNews ranking is its highest ranking BY FAR of any rankings…so something doesn’t make sense.

DP.
What makes you think international rankings weight alumni giving, class size, etc. highly?

They claim to focus on almost entirely academic metrics, class size, classes taught by professors, etc….more so than the US rankings which assign more weight to outcomes.

Though you miss the forest through the trees…somehow schools like Princeton are ranked top 10 by everyone…USNews, Forbes, WSJ, QS, THE…yet Wake only hits top 50ish by USNews and gets hammered by everyone else.

My guess is that they look at things like size of endowment, total research funding, etc . . that favor the Ivies and big R1 research facilities. Wake is a relatively small school of 5400.

Forbes and WSJ look primarily at income after graduation and cost of attendance, which favors public universities that send kids to high cost cities and produce lots of computer science and engineering students, neither of which is huge at Wake.

I get it…but after USNews, the next highest ranking is Forbes at 88 then WSJ at 137…then THE at 400 then QS at 741.

Only point is nobody is higher than USNews at 53…so maybe start giving USNews a little love.

Also, WSJ and Forbes rank plenty of SLACs with little to no CS and engineering very high…Forbes has Williams, CMC, Amherst all around 20 (they rank all schools together…they don’t have a separate SLAC ranking).

Forbes is 20 percent alumni salary (so favors schools that send lots of kids to NY or CA), 15 percent debt load (favors large endowments that offer loan free aid or low cost publics), 15 percent graduation rate, 15 percent America’s leaders (how many alum made a Forbes list, win major awards including sports awards or serve at high levels in government, favors the Ivies and large sports schools), 15 percent ROI, 10 percent retention (favors the same schools as first factor), and academic success (measured by Fulbright, Rhodes and phds earned over past 3 years, again favors Ivies and large research universities).

The WSJ rankings are a complete joke, with Babson ranked No. 2 overall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone without a ton of bias explain why wake was t30 in the first place? I feel like all the other t30 schools are very popular, well known, and academically at the top. I have no doubt wake forest is great, but it’s under the radar across the country

Very small class sizes, all classes taught by professors, high level of alumni giving are what kept it on the T30, it was when those factors were removed and first gen/pell grant specific factors were added that it fell out of the T30.

It’s basically a slac in a medium size university package with Power 5 sports in a state with a good climate. That’s a package that’s been attracting strong students for a long time, and not dissimilar from Duke and Vanderbilt, which is why it’s often a top choice for students not admitted to those schools.

So why is it ranked in the absolute toilet (as high as 400 and as low as 700) by international rankings that supposedly give a ton of weight to these metrics?

Honestly, it’s USNews ranking is its highest ranking BY FAR of any rankings…so something doesn’t make sense.

DP.
What makes you think international rankings weight alumni giving, class size, etc. highly?

They claim to focus on almost entirely academic metrics, class size, classes taught by professors, etc….more so than the US rankings which assign more weight to outcomes.

Though you miss the forest through the trees…somehow schools like Princeton are ranked top 10 by everyone…USNews, Forbes, WSJ, QS, THE…yet Wake only hits top 50ish by USNews and gets hammered by everyone else.

My guess is that they look at things like size of endowment, total research funding, etc . . that favor the Ivies and big R1 research facilities. Wake is a relatively small school of 5400.

Forbes and WSJ look primarily at income after graduation and cost of attendance, which favors public universities that send kids to high cost cities and produce lots of computer science and engineering students, neither of which is huge at Wake.

I get it…but after USNews, the next highest ranking is Forbes at 88 then WSJ at 137…then THE at 400 then QS at 741.

Only point is nobody is higher than USNews at 53…so maybe start giving USNews a little love.

Also, WSJ and Forbes rank plenty of SLACs with little to no CS and engineering very high…Forbes has Williams, CMC, Amherst all around 20 (they rank all schools together…they don’t have a separate SLAC ranking).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that US News categorized WF as a regional school, and when it first was recategorized as national it was nowhere near the top 30. What goes around comes around.

Honestly, let’s get serious: does anyone really think WF is anywhere near as strong as UVA or UNC? Nope.

Sorry to break it to you but UVA is nowhere near UNC. And yes I would consider WF similar to UVA - they’re both solid in academics but not amazing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone without a ton of bias explain why wake was t30 in the first place? I feel like all the other t30 schools are very popular, well known, and academically at the top. I have no doubt wake forest is great, but it’s under the radar across the country

Very small class sizes, all classes taught by professors, high level of alumni giving are what kept it on the T30, it was when those factors were removed and first gen/pell grant specific factors were added that it fell out of the T30.

It’s basically a slac in a medium size university package with Power 5 sports in a state with a good climate. That’s a package that’s been attracting strong students for a long time, and not dissimilar from Duke and Vanderbilt, which is why it’s often a top choice for students not admitted to those schools.

So why is it ranked in the absolute toilet (as high as 400 and as low as 700) by international rankings that supposedly give a ton of weight to these metrics?

Honestly, it’s USNews ranking is its highest ranking BY FAR of any rankings…so something doesn’t make sense.

DP.
What makes you think international rankings weight alumni giving, class size, etc. highly?

They claim to focus on almost entirely academic metrics, class size, classes taught by professors, etc….more so than the US rankings which assign more weight to outcomes.

Though you miss the forest through the trees…somehow schools like Princeton are ranked top 10 by everyone…USNews, Forbes, WSJ, QS, THE…yet Wake only hits top 50ish by USNews and gets hammered by everyone else.

My guess is that they look at things like size of endowment, total research funding, etc . . that favor the Ivies and big R1 research facilities. Wake is a relatively small school of 5400.

Forbes and WSJ look primarily at income after graduation and cost of attendance, which favors public universities that send kids to high cost cities and produce lots of computer science and engineering students, neither of which is huge at Wake.

I get it…but after USNews, the next highest ranking is Forbes at 88 then WSJ at 137…then THE at 400 then QS at 741.

Only point is nobody is higher than USNews at 53…so maybe start giving USNews a little love.

Also, WSJ and Forbes rank plenty of SLACs with little to no CS and engineering very high…Forbes has Williams, CMC, Amherst all around 20 (they rank all schools together…they don’t have a separate SLAC ranking).

WF is ranked 46 or so by USNWR.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone without a ton of bias explain why wake was t30 in the first place? I feel like all the other t30 schools are very popular, well known, and academically at the top. I have no doubt wake forest is great, but it’s under the radar across the country

Very small class sizes, all classes taught by professors, high level of alumni giving are what kept it on the T30, it was when those factors were removed and first gen/pell grant specific factors were added that it fell out of the T30.

It’s basically a slac in a medium size university package with Power 5 sports in a state with a good climate. That’s a package that’s been attracting strong students for a long time, and not dissimilar from Duke and Vanderbilt, which is why it’s often a top choice for students not admitted to those schools.

So why is it ranked in the absolute toilet (as high as 400 and as low as 700) by international rankings that supposedly give a ton of weight to these metrics?

Honestly, it’s USNews ranking is its highest ranking BY FAR of any rankings…so something doesn’t make sense.

DP.
What makes you think international rankings weight alumni giving, class size, etc. highly?

They claim to focus on almost entirely academic metrics, class size, classes taught by professors, etc….more so than the US rankings which assign more weight to outcomes.

Though you miss the forest through the trees…somehow schools like Princeton are ranked top 10 by everyone…USNews, Forbes, WSJ, QS, THE…yet Wake only hits top 50ish by USNews and gets hammered by everyone else.

My guess is that they look at things like size of endowment, total research funding, etc . . that favor the Ivies and big R1 research facilities. Wake is a relatively small school of 5400.

Forbes and WSJ look primarily at income after graduation and cost of attendance, which favors public universities that send kids to high cost cities and produce lots of computer science and engineering students, neither of which is huge at Wake.

I get it…but after USNews, the next highest ranking is Forbes at 88 then WSJ at 137…then THE at 400 then QS at 741.

Only point is nobody is higher than USNews at 53…so maybe start giving USNews a little love.

Also, WSJ and Forbes rank plenty of SLACs with little to no CS and engineering very high…Forbes has Williams, CMC, Amherst all around 20 (they rank all schools together…they don’t have a separate SLAC ranking).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone without a ton of bias explain why wake was t30 in the first place? I feel like all the other t30 schools are very popular, well known, and academically at the top. I have no doubt wake forest is great, but it’s under the radar across the country

Very small class sizes, all classes taught by professors, high level of alumni giving are what kept it on the T30, it was when those factors were removed and first gen/pell grant specific factors were added that it fell out of the T30.

It’s basically a slac in a medium size university package with Power 5 sports in a state with a good climate. That’s a package that’s been attracting strong students for a long time, and not dissimilar from Duke and Vanderbilt, which is why it’s often a top choice for students not admitted to those schools.

So why is it ranked in the absolute toilet (as high as 400 and as low as 700) by international rankings that supposedly give a ton of weight to these metrics?

Honestly, it’s USNews ranking is its highest ranking BY FAR of any rankings…so something doesn’t make sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone without a ton of bias explain why wake was t30 in the first place? I feel like all the other t30 schools are very popular, well known, and academically at the top. I have no doubt wake forest is great, but it’s under the radar across the country

Very small class sizes, all classes taught by professors, high level of alumni giving are what kept it on the T30, it was when those factors were removed and first gen/pell grant specific factors were added that it fell out of the T30.

It’s basically a slac in a medium size university package with Power 5 sports in a state with a good climate. That’s a package that’s been attracting strong students for a long time, and not dissimilar from Duke and Vanderbilt, which is why it’s often a top choice for students not admitted to those schools.

So why is it ranked in the absolute toilet (as high as 400 and as low as 700) by international rankings that supposedly give a ton of weight to these metrics?

Honestly, it’s USNews ranking is its highest ranking BY FAR of any rankings…so something doesn’t make sense.

DP.
What makes you think international rankings weight alumni giving, class size, etc. highly?

They claim to focus on almost entirely academic metrics, class size, classes taught by professors, etc….more so than the US rankings which assign more weight to outcomes.

Though you miss the forest through the trees…somehow schools like Princeton are ranked top 10 by everyone…USNews, Forbes, WSJ, QS, THE…yet Wake only hits top 50ish by USNews and gets hammered by everyone else.

My guess is that they look at things like size of endowment, total research funding, etc . . that favor the Ivies and big R1 research facilities. Wake is a relatively small school of 5400.

Forbes and WSJ look primarily at income after graduation and cost of attendance, which favors public universities that send kids to high cost cities and produce lots of computer science and engineering students, neither of which is huge at Wake.

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t all that long ago that US News categorized WF as a regional school, and when it first was recategorized as national it was nowhere near the top 30. What goes around comes around.

Honestly, let’s get serious: does anyone really think WF is anywhere near as strong as UVA or UNC? Nope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone without a ton of bias explain why wake was t30 in the first place? I feel like all the other t30 schools are very popular, well known, and academically at the top. I have no doubt wake forest is great, but it’s under the radar across the country

Very small class sizes, all classes taught by professors, high level of alumni giving are what kept it on the T30, it was when those factors were removed and first gen/pell grant specific factors were added that it fell out of the T30.

It’s basically a slac in a medium size university package with Power 5 sports in a state with a good climate. That’s a package that’s been attracting strong students for a long time, and not dissimilar from Duke and Vanderbilt, which is why it’s often a top choice for students not admitted to those schools.

So why is it ranked in the absolute toilet (as high as 400 and as low as 700) by international rankings that supposedly give a ton of weight to these metrics?

Honestly, it’s USNews ranking is its highest ranking BY FAR of any rankings…so something doesn’t make sense.

DP.
What makes you think international rankings weight alumni giving, class size, etc. highly?

They claim to focus on almost entirely academic metrics, class size, classes taught by professors, etc….more so than the US rankings which assign more weight to outcomes.

Though you miss the forest through the trees…somehow schools like Princeton are ranked top 10 by everyone…USNews, Forbes, WSJ, QS, THE…yet Wake only hits top 50ish by USNews and gets hammered by everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone without a ton of bias explain why wake was t30 in the first place? I feel like all the other t30 schools are very popular, well known, and academically at the top. I have no doubt wake forest is great, but it’s under the radar across the country

Very small class sizes, all classes taught by professors, high level of alumni giving are what kept it on the T30, it was when those factors were removed and first gen/pell grant specific factors were added that it fell out of the T30.

It’s basically a slac in a medium size university package with Power 5 sports in a state with a good climate. That’s a package that’s been attracting strong students for a long time, and not dissimilar from Duke and Vanderbilt, which is why it’s often a top choice for students not admitted to those schools.

So why is it ranked in the absolute toilet (as high as 400 and as low as 700) by international rankings that supposedly give a ton of weight to these metrics?

Honestly, it’s USNews ranking is its highest ranking BY FAR of any rankings…so something doesn’t make sense.

DP.
What makes you think international rankings weight alumni giving, class size, etc. highly?

They claim to focus on almost entirely academic metrics, class size, classes taught by professors, etc….more so than the US rankings which assign more weight to outcomes.

Though you miss the forest through the trees…somehow schools like Princeton are ranked top 10 by everyone…USNews, Forbes, WSJ, QS, THE…yet Wake only hits top 50ish by USNews and gets hammered by everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The switch in methodology really benefits large schools that are accessible to unhooked high-stats kids and affordable to donut-hole families. Like most smallish test-optional schools the actual number of high-scoring students at Wake is pretty small, similar to schools like Syracuse, Iowa, or KU. What Wake offers that those bigger schools don’t is the ability to exclude more students, and the sense of superiority that a low admissions rate seems to engender. Some people care about that. Others prefer a less expensive, less exclusive school with a much larger cohort of high-scoring students.

Wow, I hadn't liked the new methodology but this offers much food for thought. Thanks for sharing

They also offer a substantially larger share of low scoring students. There surely isn’t two people on this board who don’t understand percentages? This has to be sock puppeting.

Not everyone cares as much as you do about test scores and percentages. It probably has to do with subject of study. If you’re studying something that requires calculus, low-scoring students are not going to be in your upper-level electives, no matter how many of them are on campus. And the higher number of high-scoring students means the school can offer more of those electives. Meanwhile low-scoring students on campus may enrich your life in other ways. Test scores don’t capture everything, which is why Wake itself admits a substantial fraction of its class test optional.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone without a ton of bias explain why wake was t30 in the first place? I feel like all the other t30 schools are very popular, well known, and academically at the top. I have no doubt wake forest is great, but it’s under the radar across the country

Very small class sizes, all classes taught by professors, high level of alumni giving are what kept it on the T30, it was when those factors were removed and first gen/pell grant specific factors were added that it fell out of the T30.

It’s basically a slac in a medium size university package with Power 5 sports in a state with a good climate. That’s a package that’s been attracting strong students for a long time, and not dissimilar from Duke and Vanderbilt, which is why it’s often a top choice for students not admitted to those schools.

So why is it ranked in the absolute toilet (as high as 400 and as low as 700) by international rankings that supposedly give a ton of weight to these metrics?

Honestly, it’s USNews ranking is its highest ranking BY FAR of any rankings…so something doesn’t make sense.

DP.
What makes you think international rankings weight alumni giving, class size, etc. highly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The switch in methodology really benefits large schools that are accessible to unhooked high-stats kids and affordable to donut-hole families. Like most smallish test-optional schools the actual number of high-scoring students at Wake is pretty small, similar to schools like Syracuse, Iowa, or KU. What Wake offers that those bigger schools don’t is the ability to exclude more students, and the sense of superiority that a low admissions rate seems to engender. Some people care about that. Others prefer a less expensive, less exclusive school with a much larger cohort of high-scoring students.

Wow, I hadn't liked the new methodology but this offers much food for thought. Thanks for sharing

They also offer a substantially larger share of low scoring students. There surely isn’t two people on this board who don’t understand percentages? This has to be sock puppeting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone without a ton of bias explain why wake was t30 in the first place? I feel like all the other t30 schools are very popular, well known, and academically at the top. I have no doubt wake forest is great, but it’s under the radar across the country

Very small class sizes, all classes taught by professors, high level of alumni giving are what kept it on the T30, it was when those factors were removed and first gen/pell grant specific factors were added that it fell out of the T30.

It’s basically a slac in a medium size university package with Power 5 sports in a state with a good climate. That’s a package that’s been attracting strong students for a long time, and not dissimilar from Duke and Vanderbilt, which is why it’s often a top choice for students not admitted to those schools.

So why is it ranked in the absolute toilet (as high as 400 and as low as 700) by international rankings that supposedly give a ton of weight to these metrics?

Honestly, it’s USNews ranking is its highest ranking BY FAR of any rankings…so something doesn’t make sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone without a ton of bias explain why wake was t30 in the first place? I feel like all the other t30 schools are very popular, well known, and academically at the top. I have no doubt wake forest is great, but it’s under the radar across the country

Very small class sizes, all classes taught by professors, high level of alumni giving are what kept it on the T30, it was when those factors were removed and first gen/pell grant specific factors were added that it fell out of the T30.

It’s basically a slac in a medium size university package with Power 5 sports in a state with a good climate. That’s a package that’s been attracting strong students for a long time, and not dissimilar from Duke and Vanderbilt, which is why it’s often a top choice for students not admitted to those schools.