Anonymous
01/17/2025 16:18
Subject: When you say t50...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are you also talking about schools like Case Western, Tulane that are not technically in US News's t50 anymore?
USNWR is what educators, parents, students look to first for a general sense before true research takes place.
Anyone can quibble with USNWR methodology, etc. ( funny how people complain when the methodology doesn't suit their preferred school), but any ranking in T75 covers any "slippage."
Well the USNWR methodology removed Class size from its process a few years ago. Which is shocking, as many of us (smartly) think that smaller class sizes does lead to better educational opportunities. Much easier to learn in a room with 30-40 students where you can actively ask questions than in a lecture hall with 200+.
So yes, I will complain when the most recent changes basically moved many smaller (under 8K) private schools down 5-10 spots and put large state schools in their place. Because I know the smaller private schools are actually still better schools.
Facts. For example I think BC is a better school than a lot of the massive publics currently ranked above it. And Rutgers is a solid state flagship. But Top 50? Please.
You think BC is better than Cal or UCLA or Michigan? At the end of the day if a school is not currently ranked in the top 50, then it is not a top 50 ranked school. It's pretty simple.
DP. BC's current rank is 37. The PP didn't specify Cal/UCLA/UMich. However, there are a number of other publics ranked above BC: UVA, UNC, UFlorida, UT Austin, UCI, UCD, UIUC.
According to the rankings, these schools are ranked higher than BC, which indicates they are considered better. While someone might prefer BC or wish it were ranked higher than those public schools, the rankings do not reflect that.
What makes a school "better" overall - in this case, publics moving up due to change in Pell weights - does not make a school produce a better graduate and which schools are "better" did not suddenly change just because the ranking changed.
The rankings reflect what US News wants them to reflect.
1000%
So if you believe a large state school is a better education for your UMC+ kid, simply because the rankings include that now, go for it.
I will continue to believe the rankings are flawed and that access to professors, smaller class sizes,a nd all the opportunities that come with a much smaller undergrad population are in reality a better education. I don't need USNWR to tell me that.
Firstly, at most smaller Universities in the T100, your kid can select any major they want. No Hunger Games 2,.0 to attempt to get one of a few slots (if any) if your kid was not Direct Admitted to Business, CS, Engineering, any stem major, etc. I consider it a better education if my kid can freely change majors or add one or add a minor, actually get into what they want and graduate in 4 years. My Flagship state U is T50, ranked (after the changes ) about the same as the top private school my kid is attending. The difference is, my kid did not have to have a 4.0 freshman/soph year to get into the exact engineering major they wanted (they were lucky enough to be admitted at the State University to Engineering, but then you fight for the exact major). My kid was also able to add a CS minor at their 50 private school, at the Flagship U (Top 5 for CS), it is not a possibility, even direct admit is damn near impossible. You simply cannot just take a CS course unless you are in the major already.
So yeah, my kid is getting a much better education. They get ALL THE courses they need the first time---many at State U take 5+ years because they cannot get into classes, they fill up and you are stuck. And if my kid decided to change majors, they can and are not forced into a "non impacted major" like art history or English (almost every STEM/Business/CS/Eng at the State University are impacted and difficult to get into).
So yeah, no way in hell the two schools are similar in quality---my kid is getting a much better education, access to research starting sophomore year (real meaningful research), TAing courses starting in Soph year, etc. No comparison at all
Your child’s elite school doesn’t even have graduate students as TAs? Are you suggesting your child is getting a better education simply because they don’t have to compete for their major? It seems that a university with rigorous entry requirements for engineering majors would produce graduates with stronger credentials. Based on your example, the private school may offer more convenience, but I didn’t see any evidence of stronger academics. In fact, the student who successfully navigates the challenges of the public school system you described is likely to be much better prepared for the real world.
Anonymous
01/17/2025 16:16
Subject: Re:When you say t50...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:None of what you said is consistent. How is Notre Dame and Georgetown different than Emory and WashU? Nortre Dame and Georgetown are the weakest T25 schools actually they have the lowest global ranking of 378 and 310 respectively compared to 67 and 30.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter because if you fall outside of the Ivies and non-Ivy top 10, you're the loser when playing the eliteness game.
Exactly. Although I would say T12-T15, with schools like UChicago, Duke, Vanderbilt, Georgetown, ND, Hopkins added to the Ivies.
I like the tier ideas. Does anyone really see that major of a difference in terms of "prestige" between WashU and Emory? Or BU and NEU? BC and Tufts? GWU and American? Miami and Wake? Tulane and SMU? USC and UCLA, etc.
Global rankings are nonsense in the realmworld
Less nonsense than national rankings? Georgetown and Notre Dame are only respected in the American context. The others have international cashe. They all have the same reputation scores for the undergrad ranking as well.
This is the most important factor by far unless you plan to immigrate to other countries.
+1. I suspect that parents who were immigrants to the US might care more about world rankings. Most people in the US care about US rankings.
You two are missing the point. I asked what was the difference between Emory, WashU, Notre Dame, and Georgetown. How are the latter 2 more prestigious when they are ranked much lower globally?
Anonymous
01/17/2025 16:07
Subject: When you say t50...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are you also talking about schools like Case Western, Tulane that are not technically in US News's t50 anymore?
USNWR is what educators, parents, students look to first for a general sense before true research takes place.
Anyone can quibble with USNWR methodology, etc. ( funny how people complain when the methodology doesn't suit their preferred school), but any ranking in T75 covers any "slippage."
Well the USNWR methodology removed Class size from its process a few years ago. Which is shocking, as many of us (smartly) think that smaller class sizes does lead to better educational opportunities. Much easier to learn in a room with 30-40 students where you can actively ask questions than in a lecture hall with 200+.
So yes, I will complain when the most recent changes basically moved many smaller (under 8K) private schools down 5-10 spots and put large state schools in their place. Because I know the smaller private schools are actually still better schools.
Facts. For example I think BC is a better school than a lot of the massive publics currently ranked above it. And Rutgers is a solid state flagship. But Top 50? Please.
Exactly! Rochester dropped from 29 to 41? Nothing changed, except nobody values smaller environments for some reason. Same for Case.
I'd take either of those anyday over Rutgers!! For undergrad both are leaps and bounds better.
How do we now both Rochester and Case are leaps and bound better than Rutgers? How can you prove such an assertion?
Anonymous
01/17/2025 16:01
Subject: When you say t50...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are you also talking about schools like Case Western, Tulane that are not technically in US News's t50 anymore?
USNWR is what educators, parents, students look to first for a general sense before true research takes place.
Anyone can quibble with USNWR methodology, etc. ( funny how people complain when the methodology doesn't suit their preferred school), but any ranking in T75 covers any "slippage."
Well the USNWR methodology removed Class size from its process a few years ago. Which is shocking, as many of us (smartly) think that smaller class sizes does lead to better educational opportunities. Much easier to learn in a room with 30-40 students where you can actively ask questions than in a lecture hall with 200+.
So yes, I will complain when the most recent changes basically moved many smaller (under 8K) private schools down 5-10 spots and put large state schools in their place. Because I know the smaller private schools are actually still better schools.
Facts. For example I think BC is a better school than a lot of the massive publics currently ranked above it. And Rutgers is a solid state flagship. But Top 50? Please.
You think BC is better than Cal or UCLA or Michigan? At the end of the day if a school is not currently ranked in the top 50, then it is not a top 50 ranked school. It's pretty simple.
DP. BC's current rank is 37. The PP didn't specify Cal/UCLA/UMich. However, there are a number of other publics ranked above BC: UVA, UNC, UFlorida, UT Austin, UCI, UCD, UIUC.
According to the rankings, these schools are ranked higher than BC, which indicates they are considered better. While someone might prefer BC or wish it were ranked higher than those public schools, the rankings do not reflect that.
What makes a school "better" overall - in this case, publics moving up due to change in Pell weights - does not make a school produce a better graduate and which schools are "better" did not suddenly change just because the ranking changed.
The rankings reflect what US News wants them to reflect.
1000%
So if you believe a large state school is a better education for your UMC+ kid, simply because the rankings include that now, go for it.
I will continue to believe the rankings are flawed and that access to professors, smaller class sizes,a nd all the opportunities that come with a much smaller undergrad population are in reality a better education. I don't need USNWR to tell me that.
Firstly, at most smaller Universities in the T100, your kid can select any major they want. No Hunger Games 2,.0 to attempt to get one of a few slots (if any) if your kid was not Direct Admitted to Business, CS, Engineering, any stem major, etc. I consider it a better education if my kid can freely change majors or add one or add a minor, actually get into what they want and graduate in 4 years. My Flagship state U is T50, ranked (after the changes ) about the same as the top private school my kid is attending. The difference is, my kid did not have to have a 4.0 freshman/soph year to get into the exact engineering major they wanted (they were lucky enough to be admitted at the State University to Engineering, but then you fight for the exact major). My kid was also able to add a CS minor at their 50 private school, at the Flagship U (Top 5 for CS), it is not a possibility, even direct admit is damn near impossible. You simply cannot just take a CS course unless you are in the major already.
So yeah, my kid is getting a much better education. They get ALL THE courses they need the first time---many at State U take 5+ years because they cannot get into classes, they fill up and you are stuck. And if my kid decided to change majors, they can and are not forced into a "non impacted major" like art history or English (almost every STEM/Business/CS/Eng at the State University are impacted and difficult to get into).
So yeah, no way in hell the two schools are similar in quality---my kid is getting a much better education, access to research starting sophomore year (real meaningful research), TAing courses starting in Soph year, etc. No comparison at all
Anonymous
01/17/2025 15:53
Subject: When you say t50...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are you also talking about schools like Case Western, Tulane that are not technically in US News's t50 anymore?
USNWR is what educators, parents, students look to first for a general sense before true research takes place.
Anyone can quibble with USNWR methodology, etc. ( funny how people complain when the methodology doesn't suit their preferred school), but any ranking in T75 covers any "slippage."
Well the USNWR methodology removed Class size from its process a few years ago. Which is shocking, as many of us (smartly) think that smaller class sizes does lead to better educational opportunities. Much easier to learn in a room with 30-40 students where you can actively ask questions than in a lecture hall with 200+.
So yes, I will complain when the most recent changes basically moved many smaller (under 8K) private schools down 5-10 spots and put large state schools in their place. Because I know the smaller private schools are actually still better schools.
Facts. For example I think BC is a better school than a lot of the massive publics currently ranked above it. And Rutgers is a solid state flagship. But Top 50? Please.
You think BC is better than Cal or UCLA or Michigan? At the end of the day if a school is not currently ranked in the top 50, then it is not a top 50 ranked school. It's pretty simple.
DP. BC's current rank is 37. The PP didn't specify Cal/UCLA/UMich. However, there are a number of other publics ranked above BC: UVA, UNC, UFlorida, UT Austin, UCI, UCD, UIUC.
According to the rankings, these schools are ranked higher than BC, which indicates they are considered better. While someone might prefer BC or wish it were ranked higher than those public schools, the rankings do not reflect that.
But the "rankings" do not consider class size and the academic benefits of that. The more opportunities to interact with profs at undergrad level. So the rankings are Flawed in a major way---when they eliminated Class size as a factor. So rank however you want, but if the system is flawed, the rankings mean much less.
Same for undergrad engineering---the USNWR rankings are 100% "how other universities rank everyone". Of course everyone has heard of MIT/CalTech/Stanford/etc. Name brand U will naturally ranked higher, versus a smaller excellent engineering school that not everyone has heard about. Also, I'm certain there is a lot of "negotiating going on behind the scenes" You rank us X and we will rank you Y.
So the rankings are useless really.
Anonymous
01/17/2025 15:49
Subject: When you say t50...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Are you also talking about schools like Case Western, Tulane that are not technically in US News's t50 anymore?
USNWR is what educators, parents, students look to first for a general sense before true research takes place.
Anyone can quibble with USNWR methodology, etc. ( funny how people complain when the methodology doesn't suit their preferred school), but any ranking in T75 covers any "slippage."
Well the USNWR methodology removed Class size from its process a few years ago. Which is shocking, as many of us (smartly) think that smaller class sizes does lead to better educational opportunities. Much easier to learn in a room with 30-40 students where you can actively ask questions than in a lecture hall with 200+.
So yes, I will complain when the most recent changes basically moved many smaller (under 8K) private schools down 5-10 spots and put large state schools in their place. Because I know the smaller private schools are actually still better schools.
Facts. For example I think BC is a better school than a lot of the massive publics currently ranked above it. And Rutgers is a solid state flagship. But Top 50? Please.
Exactly! Rochester dropped from 29 to 41? Nothing changed, except nobody values smaller environments for some reason. Same for Case.
I'd take either of those anyday over Rutgers!! For undergrad both are leaps and bounds better.
Anonymous
01/17/2025 15:47
Subject: When you say t50...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.
2018?
Nope.
NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education
We're in 2024. Any ranking in the T50 is a known/solid school.
If you don't like it that's on you.
No, it's just some of us recognize that class size is an important indicator of "quality education"--removing that allowed many large state schools to jump ahead for no actual reason. The quality of education is better at most of those 4-8K undergrad schools than a large state school, no matter how much Pell grants/FGLI they have.
Anonymous
01/17/2025 15:43
Subject: When you say t50...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.
2018?
Nope.
NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education
2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?
I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.
You can feel free to value other things
I value the most up to date information when making a decision. How do you plug in the current information into the old criteria? I think you just really like the actual rankings of a certain vintage because you like where the schools are ranked. Do you use old maps even though they might not be accurate?
Anonymous
01/17/2025 14:38
Subject: When you say t50...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:T50 using USNWR 2018 - pre TO, pre pandemic, and not the current methodology that places mobility over academics. To be clear I do not disagree with the institutional policies that promote social mobility, I just disagree that it should be part of ranking methodology.
2018?
Nope.
NP. Why? I agree that 2018/2019 was right around the time that common sense ended. Anything from that time or prior is a useful instrument for ascertaining actual quality of the education
2018/2019 is the proper vintage? Wouldn't that be an actual snapshot from 2018/2019? I understand that you like the criteria from that era but it's out of date at this point. Meaning 2018 criteria has 2018 or older data?
I prefer the criteria applied from 1960 to 2022. I do not value an increase in poor students. I am much more interested in things like instruction, outcomes, caliber of peers, class sizes and number of classes taught by professors versus other students.
You can feel free to value other things
Anonymous
01/17/2025 14:35
Subject: Re:When you say t50...
Anonymous wrote:Niche is the only ranking that matters.
None of them matter.
Anonymous
01/17/2025 14:35
Subject: When you say t50...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What about Syracuse and RPI? Both have been in the Top 50 from time to time.
I think of them as Top100. Because I know students recent grads. They aren’t in the same league as say BC
That's just silly. You know a few grads. I know a few from each too, and to the reverse of your experience, the RPI ones I know blow the BC ones out of the water. Pointless right? Trying to make colleges a linear thing or to think any school is one size fits all is the most useless exercise.
Anonymous
01/17/2025 14:26
Subject: When you say t50...
I personally tend to think in terms of top 30, top 60 top 90
Anonymous
01/17/2025 14:25
Subject: Re:When you say t50...
Anonymous wrote:Niche is the only ranking that matters.
If you live on TikTok
Anonymous
01/17/2025 14:20
Subject: When you say t50...
Anonymous wrote:It's definitely flexible, since we're talking about US News here, which is crap to begin with. It would be nicer if DCUM could all use QS, THE or ARWU.
Those type of rankings are not that useful for undergrad. QS ranks Cornell at 16, Brown at 79, and Dartmouth at 243. But for undergrad those schools are not that different.
Anonymous
01/17/2025 14:14
Subject: Re:When you say t50...
Niche is the only ranking that matters.