<p>The University of Richmond is ranked US News #40 among Liberal Arts Colleges, tied with Franklin and Marshall College (PA), Union College (NY), Sewanee—University of the South (TN). My understanding is that Richmond dropped 6 places between 2007 & 2008.</p>
<p>Does the University of Richmond Administration believe that the #40 ranking is an accurate measure of the School among its peers? </p>
<p>In not, what if anything is the University of Richmond doing to increase its US News ranking?</p>
<p>Otis, I saw this question earlier, but I don't have time right now to write a big long explication of this very complex issue. I will do so when I can find time. Bringing in our first-year class is the highest priority and we're not finished making decisions yet. If this is a deciding factor for you (is it?) I can assure you I'll comment before too many weeks get past me. </p>
<p>UR Admissions</p>
<p>Otis,</p>
<p>I went to a student meeting with President Ayers about a month ago, and this question was asked. I believe his response was to the effect of...Richmond isn't doing anything for the purpose of bettering our USNWR ranking. I think he's focusing on the more important, non-statistical things.</p>
<p>Hello all--</p>
<p>I'm neither a student of ranking methodology, nor do I believe the rankings are a particularly good tool for choosing a college, so forgive me if I appear not to offer an entirely cohesive reply to this question. Most college rankings true purpose is to sell magazines. USNWR's best selling issue each year is the college ranking issue. So that is what drives this process. Nonetheless we know that people are hungry for info about them. A couple of comments:</p>
<p>Richmond's drop from #34 to #40 was due to several factors. One is that two institutions that had not previously been included in the National LAC category joined the club. One was West Point and the other was another service academy but I don't remember which one. That was a large factor. Another factor was our decrease in applications which was an anticipated result of our tuition increase. We expected to take a two year hit on application numbers at the time the decision was made and this year (year 3) we had a lovely rebound up to almost 8000 first year applicants, so that should help our selectivity rating considerably. Another factor was a decrease in alumni giving rate. If you read this thread consistently you've seen Spiders05 comment on Richmond's previous president who alienated quite a lot of alumni, leading to a decreased giving rate. Our new president seems incredibly popular with our alumni and while I have not had a chance to call the annual fund office to confer with them about alumni participation rate to date for this year, I will be very surprised if we don't see a nice rebound on this statistic as well. </p>
<p>All these things considered, our ranking this fall will be based on stats NOT from this year but from last year, so they won't yet reflect all this year's positive happenings. So I would review the rankings carefully with this in mind. It may take another year for us to "recover". I would also say that we're not the only institution that has statistical changes from year to year, so rankings are not determined in a vacuum. We can do all kinds of things at UR to improve the way we look to the powers that be in the magazine industry, but we don't have any idea until the magazines come out where we'll stand in relationship to others. </p>
<p>Dr. Ayers made very clear when he first arrived that he was not going to be obsessed with rankings (a fact that made many people cheer!). Instead, we're going to focus on being student centered and doing things that will enhance the quality of the experience and programs. When those things happen to overlap with datapoints on the spreadsheets of rankings, that's great. But if they don't overlap, that won't be a reason not to pursue important institutional priorities. I for one will be so pleased to work in that environment. </p>
<p>Rankings are a fine way to begin your college search armed with data, but when it comes down to a final decision about where to enroll, the differences between schools within a small margin of each other on a particular ranking list really become meaningless for the type and quality of the experience you will have. You are much better off considering the fit of the individual environment for you and your learning style and other personal preferences then you are by who sits slightly higher on the page. </p>
<p>I hope this is the sort of information you were hoping to learn. I know you'll let me know if you have other questions. </p>
<p>UR Admissions</p>
<p>Hello all--</p>
<p>I'm neither a student of ranking methodology, nor do I believe the rankings are a particularly good tool for choosing a college, so forgive me if I appear not to offer an entirely cohesive reply to this question. Most college rankings true purpose is to sell magazines. USNWR's best selling issue each year is the college ranking issue. So that is what drives this process. Nonetheless we know that people are hungry for info about them. A couple of comments:</p>
<p>Richmond's drop from #34 to #40 was due to several factors. One is that two institutions that had not previously been included in the National LAC category joined the club. One was West Point and the other was another service academy but I don't remember which one. That was a large factor. Another factor was our decrease in applications which was an anticipated result of our tuition increase. We expected to take a two year hit on application numbers at the time the decision was made and this year (year 3) we had a lovely rebound up to almost 8000 first year applicants, so that should help our selectivity rating considerably. Another factor was a decrease in alumni giving rate. If you read this thread consistently you've seen Spiders05 comment on Richmond's previous president who alienated quite a lot of alumni, leading to a decreased giving rate. Our new president seems incredibly popular with our alumni and while I have not had a chance to call the annual fund office to confer with them about alumni participation rate to date for this year, I will be very surprised if we don't see a nice rebound on this statistic as well. </p>
<p>All these things considered, our ranking this fall will be based on stats NOT from this year but from last year, so they won't yet reflect all this year's positive happenings. So I would review the rankings carefully with this in mind. It may take another year for us to "recover". I would also say that we're not the only institution that has statistical changes from year to year, so rankings are not determined in a vacuum. We can do all kinds of things at UR to improve the way we look to the powers that be in the magazine industry, but we don't have any idea until the magazines come out where we'll stand in relationship to others. </p>
<p>Dr. Ayers made very clear when he first arrived that he was not going to be obsessed with rankings (a fact that made many people cheer!). Instead, we're going to focus on being student centered and doing things that will enhance the quality of the experience and programs. When those things happen to overlap with datapoints on the spreadsheets of rankings, that's great. But if they don't overlap, that won't be a reason not to pursue important institutional priorities. I for one will be so pleased to work in that environment. </p>
<p>Rankings are a fine way to begin your college search armed with data, but when it comes down to a final decision about where to enroll, the differences between schools within a small margin of each other on a particular ranking list really become meaningless for the type and quality of the experience you will have. You are much better off considering the fit of the individual environment for you and your learning style and other personal preferences then you are by who sits slightly higher on the page. </p>
<p>I hope this is the sort of information you were hoping to learn. I know you'll let me know if you have other questions. </p>
<p>UR Admissions</p>
<p>He'd not be saying that if UR was #1, or #10, or #20, or ...</p>
<p>That's the standard line of every prexy who isn't where he wants to be. "Oh, those silly ol' thangs. Don't pay no 'tention to them. We don't."</p>
<p>Right. We understand your need to represent your institution and support your leader. And these rankings are not nearly the holy grail so many see them as. But why does every institution then list them on their website about what Newsweek or U.S. News or Barrons or The Princeton Review's Top 366 or ... you get it.</p>
<p>You cannot have it both ways. You choose to live by them, then you must play and potentially wither by them, it seems. This is more than West Point and Navy being identified as superior LACs to UR.</p>
<p>Whistle,</p>
<p>If UR was #1, there would be little else to do but to sit pretty. Of course no one would say anything. I'm not one for school politics, but I think Ayers is pretty genuine in this regard. I think that Richmond makes the rankings known because there are some people who do care about them, who do ask. And I think that Ayers is going to hold fast to his mantra now, and do what needs to be done for the school community, not for a bunch of people over as US News...</p>
<p>Whistle, I think the point is that Ayers is going to do the things that matter to those at the school. By focusing on what the school needs to improve, the rankings should come with it. I too think Ayers is pretty genuine in saying that he's not concerned with the rankings, but I also know that if UR is not higher in 2-3 years, there will be a number of concerned individuals, including some on the BOT. </p>
<p>As an alum, I would prefer that Ayers focus on items that need to be addressed rather than a number. Take care of those things and everything else will take care of itself.</p>
<p>I would think you're on the $$. It's like trying to find "happiness." It's an outcome, not a goal or objective. </p>
<p>Re: Ayers focus, he has no luxury of focusing on substance vs. perception. His job is 2 fold ... engendering substance while concurrently nurturing how others see UR. The rankings are both/and, not either/or. Substance requires resources and resources are dictated by perception ... so he must be very concerned about both location and direction of the rankings, because that's the game UR is determined to play in. In a nutshell, his worries are 2: BE good, and be PERCEIVED as good. A great many places have one or th'other, but not both. UR's major challenges would in fact seem to me to be PERCEPTUAL, not substantive, i.e. it's better than it's seen.</p>
<p>Ayers response, while perhaps simply being PC for his faculty (what's he gonna say ... "Our faculty is good enuff, they have enuff salary and bennies, and our students are fine." ??? He'd get fried.</p>
<p>But I believe that UR does itself a sorry disservice in promoting their FA programs the way they do. That's what I call the "bait and switch" and it's clearly a strategy devoted toward boosting the applicant pool numbers and quality, even to make it look more selective than it really is. UR is the absolute worst at this I've observed. Lots of promises, little delivery.</p>
<p>2010 ... you're quite naive to think that Stanford and harvard and princeton are "sitting pretty" or standing on their laurels. They're out there killing the competition, getting the best $$, students, faculty, research grants and on and on and on. It's much tougher staying on top than getting there.</p>
<p>Whistle, regarding the FA, I'm curious why you think it doesn't deliver on its promises. Now, I'm not familiar with specific ways they're marketing the FA, so I am somewhat ignorant and would appreciate your enlightenment, but I was under the impression that they advertise that 15% of the students are on full rides (50 per class). Additionally, to the best of my knowledge, that is what they give. If they tell you that 50 per class get a full ride and 50 per class do, then I'm unsure of what the problem is. As for non-merit aid, I'm not too familiar with it at UR as I didn't apply and it wasn't a topic I really brought up with friends, so I'm unsure how high the EC is for a family, but I do know that they've capped the total loans at $4,000 per year, so the most debt you'll owe to the school is $16,000, which I think is pretty awesome. I also know what we're one of 40 some odd (42?) that meet 100% of demonstrated need and are need blind in admissions. </p>
<p>If you could enlighten me on your position, I'd appreciate it, as this is one aspect of the university that I am ignorant of.</p>
<p>Does UR have a trading room?</p>
<p>We will soon have a trading room as it is in the plans for the new addition to our Business School building which is scheduled to begin soon. The addition will be finished by 2010 so these new facilities will be in place by your junior year, which is when you'd be taking most of your business classes anyway. Most business majors take both intro accounting and micro/macro econ during the sophomore year and go more fully into business coursework for the junior and senior years. Here's a link to info about the expansion of the facility: New</a> Building Expansion - Queally Hall. </p>
<p>Have a good day everyone.</p>
<p>Whistle--I understand your cynicism about rankings and I am cynical too. I will say about Dr. Ayers, though, that I've worked for a President who called lots of people into rooms for many hours to discuss ranking methodology, where we stand on every factor and how much money it would take to impact that factor in order to determine institutional allocation of resources. Early in Ayers' tenure here, the Director of IR took in her folder with all these things and launched into an evaluation of the rankings and where we stand and he was witnessed to shut down the conversation entirely and say we weren't going to worry about it. Instead, we were going to make Richmond the best Richmond it could be. If it were up to me, we wouldn't put the ranking stuff all over the web site either, but I'm not the director of marketing. Sadly, as evidenced by all the questions I've gotten on this site from students, lots of people DO believe in the rankings and use them to influence their decisions. If those are the questions people are asking, then I'm obligated to answer them.</p>
<p>The rankings truly do a disservice to most institutions, and I really find it appauling when certain schools take actions that are explicitly targeted at rankings rather than substantive improvements.</p>
<p>Dr. Ayers is a fantastic addition to UR. Doesn't take much to see why he was so well respected and highly at UVA. My D used to talk about him often when she was there.</p>
<p>Agree fully on Pres Ayers. If he stays for a decade or so, he should have some real impact on an already fine place. Not to quibble, still I believe his major challenges are in fact addressing those symptoms/indicators that for better or worse, impact perception of various publics. </p>
<p>And I believe his major concern will need to be figuring out how to spin UR's failure to invest in her student bodies accessability to the U. i.e. how and why should a #40 ranked institution have a monumental (and growing) endowment like it does while concurrently having one of the highest tuition costs in the nation while at the same time providing only meaningful scholarships to a select 50 or so. For more on this, one should read the article in yesterday's NY Times about misuse or failure to reveal any use of endowments ... and UR is the ultimate case, it appears.</p>
<p>I honestly believe that Ayers legacy will be closely tied to this critical issue. For it's outcome will be that the very wealthy and a few very poor will be able to attend UR, but very few of the middle class including even those who are strong students.</p>
<p>"I honestly believe that Ayers legacy will be closely tied to this critical issue. For it's outcome will be that the very wealthy and a few very poor will be able to attend UR, but very few of the middle class including even those who are strong students."</p>
<p>Whistle, I agree. However, I see this condition at top schools across the country right now. In fact, it's making for a very difficult application season for us even at this very moment. Do we suck it up to the extreme and try to afford an education at a place like UR or better, or just swallow our pride and take the full ride at some place like Bama? Lol. We have a top student who has neither cured cancer nor lives in poverty. That, plus our middle class income means D may have to attend a lower tier school, while the rich and very poor who are no more intelligent or accomplished, will enjoy an education some of the best schools in the country.</p>
<p>I've seen rankings for how "hot" a school is. To me as a parent, I see a "hot" rating as a negative. It means nothing positive in my view, yet colleges tout this label like it's a positive thing.</p>
<p>Where is the "hot" ranking, lady_slipper? Richmond, to me, is many things. Not certain I would ever label it as hot, though.</p>
<p>momray:</p>
<p>Newsweek in its September 2007 College edition recognized the University of Richmond to be one of the "25 Hottest Schools" in the nation.</p>
<p>Your schools VaTECK and William & Mary were not included among Newsweek's "25 Hottest Schools" in the nation.</p>
<p>LINK:
25</a> Hottest Universities | Newsweek Kaplan College Guide | Newsweek.com</p>
<p>How could you possibly view this as a negative?</p>
<p>"Hottest for International Studies
University of Richmond, Richmond, VA.</p>
<p>Seventy percent of the class of 2007 studied abroad, attending universities in Oxford, Edinburgh, Prague, Milan, Buenos Aires, Hong Kong, Bangkok and other cosmopolitan spots. The 3,000-student university has exchange agreements with more than 50 schools around the world and ensures that time spent abroad costs no more than time on campus. The faculty is strong in many areas, particularly business, science and leadership studies, but all students are urged to see the world."</p>