Come on people. USNews's change in ranking metrics is terrible need for middle class and upper middle class families who are already getting shafted by the current financial aid evaluation process at these colleges. With the outsized influence this ranking has in driving college behavior, colleges will now move towards filling more seats with Pell Grant recipients and compensate for that budget impact by recruiting more full pay students at the other end. That is really bad news for Average unhooked middle class families. Also now the one thing that have middle class families some edge in merit aid, namely scores and ranks is also being de-emphasized. This will move more dollars from merit to need based aid which is again terrible news for donut hole families

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These rankings are a joke. Illinois ranked above Wisconsin? All the smart Chicago kids would rather go to Madison than Urbana Champaign.

but that is a measure of popularity, not the quality of the school.

Wisconsin is a much higher quality school. Everyone but UWNWR thinks so.

U of I's SAT scores are higher than Wisconsin's. Madison is a more lively town as state capital and it's closer to the northwest suburbs of Chicago than Urbana-Champaign which is a college town in the middle of nowhere. (Plus a lot of those suburban Chicago kids who say they want to go to UW didn't get into UofI and won't admit it and have parents who can afford the out of state tuition--they'd rather go to a flagship school of another state than one of the "directional" state schools -- this happens with University of Iowa too which is also just a couple hour train ride away from Chicago.

Good points, but let’s not pretend that Illinois is an Ivy League school and that Wisconsin is a safety. Illinois is ranked only 3 spots above Wisconsin (which, despite the rankings, has a better national brand and reputation). I highly doubt that there are a critical mass of Chicago kids who couldn’t get into their state university, but who could get into Wisconsin from out of state. There may be some, but don’t assume that Illinois is so superior that the kids who end up at Wisconsin are mostly those who were rejected from Illinois. Wisconsin is attractive in its own right to many Chicago students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I generally think USNWR rankings are BS.

That said, I do give them props for taking out acceptance rate. They finally realized what a BS measure of quality that is.

+1

Didn't Stanford say recently that they will not report acceptance rate data any more?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Georgetown and Cal tied? That's absurd.

30% of Cal students are low income (Pell Grant), just 12% of Georgetown students are low income. When USNWS changed the methodology to account for outcomes for low-income students, it was inevitable that schools like UCLA (36%) and Cal (30%) would benefit and schools like Georgetown (12%) and Wash U. (10%) would suffer.

The real eye opener is that Georgetown, a Jesuit University, ranks so poorly in supporting low-income students.


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

It is difficult to compare taxpayer-supported institutions with private ones. Is it any surprise that there are more poor students at public universities?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually like the changes to the methodology. I'm rich personally, but I recognize that the "best colleges" list should be for all people, not just rich people.

I agree - this will get some attention among the schools. The low percentage of low-income students at top raked schools is appalling.

.

I agree, but I also think they need to have a more nuanced view than just Pell grant recipients--many elite colleges don't do terribly well at attracting/supporting middle class families either.

Anonymous wrote:So I generally think USNWR rankings are BS.

That said, I do give them props for taking out acceptance rate. They finally realized what a BS measure of quality that is.

+1

Anonymous wrote:I actually like the changes to the methodology. I'm rich personally, but I recognize that the "best colleges" list should be for all people, not just rich people.

I agree - this will get some attention among the schools. The low percentage of low-income students at top raked schools is appalling.

Anonymous wrote:Georgetown and Cal tied? That's absurd.

30% of Cal students are low income (Pell Grant), just 12% of Georgetown students are low income. When USNWS changed the methodology to account for outcomes for low-income students, it was inevitable that schools like UCLA (36%) and Cal (30%) would benefit and schools like Georgetown (12%) and Wash U. (10%) would suffer.

The real eye opener is that Georgetown, a Jesuit University, ranks so poorly in supporting low-income students.


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

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.

Why? There are lots of evaluations in which things of comparable quality get the same score/rating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These rankings are a joke. Illinois ranked above Wisconsin? All the smart Chicago kids would rather go to Madison than Urbana Champaign.

but that is a measure of popularity, not the quality of the school.

Wisconsin is a much higher quality school. Everyone but UWNWR thinks so.

U of I's SAT scores are higher than Wisconsin's. Madison is a more lively town as state capital and it's closer to the northwest suburbs of Chicago than Urbana-Champaign which is a college town in the middle of nowhere. (Plus a lot of those suburban Chicago kids who say they want to go to UW didn't get into UofI and won't admit it and have parents who can afford the out of state tuition--they'd rather go to a flagship school of another state than one of the "directional" state schools -- this happens with University of Iowa too which is also just a couple hour train ride away from Chicago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

It favors schools that admit low-income students AND where those students do well.

This shouldn't be a surprise. Their high school ratings are looking at the same thing -- how well schools do with ALL kinds of students.

Getting great results from students who have had every advantage since birth is not nearly as impressive as a school that gets great results from everyone it admits.

Agreed. I noticed for example that Grinnell jumped from 18 to 11 -- 7 spots in one year. Grinnell is far more economically diverse than most elite SLACs.

I actually like the changes to the methodology. I'm rich personally, but I recognize that the "best colleges" list should be for all people, not just rich people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

It favors schools that admit low-income students AND where those students do well.

This shouldn't be a surprise. Their high school ratings are looking at the same thing -- how well schools do with ALL kinds of students.

Getting great results from students who have had every advantage since birth is not nearly as impressive as a school that gets great results from everyone it admits.

Which schools admit the most Pell Grant recipients? (From Oct 2017)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/10/23/pell-grant-shares-at-top-ranked-colleges-a-sortable-chart/?utm_term=.b983f4aec04f

Anonymous wrote: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

Though only 2.5% of the total ranking, introducing outcomes for low-income students will have a positive social impact. Though schools deny gaming the rankings they do response to the factors they are held accountable for. Helping those from low-income households brings true diversity to the academic environment.

Anonymous wrote: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

It favors schools that admit low-income students AND where those students do well.

This shouldn't be a surprise. Their high school ratings are looking at the same thing -- how well schools do with ALL kinds of students.

Getting great results from students who have had every advantage since birth is not nearly as impressive as a school that gets great results from everyone it admits.