@WiliyamMSL I would guess, based upon the common data set, that UNCG’s ranking will likely not change that much. Its 25th and 75th percentile SAT scores remained the same from 2014 to 2015. Some factors point toward a lower ranking, too; US News awards colleges with a high amount of sub 20 people classes and a low amount of 50+ people classes. The percent of UNCG’s classes with 20 or fewer people cut almost in half, and the percent of those with 50+ increased from 2014 to 2015. That’s just my two cents, though
@guitar321 what about UNC Wilmington? Will we move up past #16 in the South?
@guitar321 As I said, we’re just fortunate to be ranked lol. At least it’s a bit higher than UNCC and ECU.
@LBad96 I think it will move up, but won’t pass Appalachian.
@WiliyamMSL why are Appalachian above us to begin with?
@LBad96 People seem to worship App for some reason. It’s really about as average as any other school. All I saw there was mountains and hippies.
The thing about US News rankings is that its methodology hasn’t changed in YEARS, so most rankings are likely to remain the same anyway. Most rankings that change will move within a range of 2 spots, up or down. I hope they, soon, change in correspondence with society’s image of what makes a college good: prestige, yes, but also equal access to low and high income students—need blind admissions, guaranteed financial aid, etc.
I disagree. None of those things directly make a college better, although may do so as a side effect. For example, providing access to low income students may make for a more capable student body (but could also make it worse if not handled properly).
What you have listed are desirable social outcomes.
US News defines a “good” college largely by its average SAT score and retention rate; while I can’t deny the importance of such factors, you also have to admit that US News fails to recognize student diversity and equal access to students across all socioeconomic areas in its methodology—a crucial determinant to a college’s success.
Many well respected authorities on education—and a lot of research—conclude that a diverse and well represented student body allows students to think more broadly and better contribute to society: the real purpose of higher education. Not SAT scores. Not retention rates.
Your point isn’t invalid, but I push you to think more openly and in terms of not US News’s rankings but in terms of what a college is established to provide: an education that helps students contribute to society—and without diversity and socioeconomic equality, it’s hard to contribute. Lacking such factors, US News undeniably misses a huge focus of higher education.
Let’s take one example: Carnegie Mellon, which is currently #23. It is not generous with financial aid, its campus is rather run down, and URMs are under-represented. My D hated the place.
Despite all of these problems, it is still one of the best schools in several fields, and IMO number one in computer science (and I say this as an MIT guy). It is a quality school because the graduates make major contributions to their field, whether in art, music, or STEM.
Social engineering and school quality are independent concepts.
I still disagree. Diversity—or, in your terms, “social engineering”— is extremely important to maintaining “school quality.” Decades of research have conclusively shown that diversity is vital to higher education.
On to Carnegie Mellon—the school has a very diverse student body; over 20% of its students are URMs. Less than 50% of the student body is white. Carnegie Mellon also practices a non-discriminatory need-blind admissions process; no one’s income is considered in his or her admissions decision.
Surely, the school takes measures to ensure socioeconomic diversity. Many of the world’s most elite institutions, like CMU, work to maintain a diverse student body because, without diversity, a school cannot as effectively serve society.
Not taking needed into account different mean much when they gap most everyone, imo.
I think accepting a student and providing them the greatest amount possible is better than blatantly excluding them from the institution.
Same thing if they can’t afford to attend.
Yeah, all the need blind colleges I applied to accepted and then gapped me. It was arguably better to be rejected at a need aware school, because I would have had the option to attend a need blind school with massive debt, whereas the schools which rejected me were off the table completely.
Why is that arguably better? You have the choice to attend either a prestigious school with some debt or your local college—but it’s still your choice.
University of Michigan, for example, is a need blind school that doesn’t meet all need for OOS students. If you had to decide between University of TN, let’s say, and Michigan—but with 40k of debt—maybe it would be an option to consider. Michigan could hook you up with better internships and careers.
It’s not fair for a college to make that decision for you. It was your own choice not to attend your unaffordable schools; don’t generalize, though. Many would choose debt, so it’s not the same at all.
No, actually, the choices were:
- attend an OOS state school debt free
- attend the school I will be attending with some debt
- attend one of the need blind schools with a lot of debt
I think it is perfectly fair for a college to say “no, we have budget limits and it is wrong to enable students to take out excessive debt.” A lot of people chose the predatory NJ loans, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong for the state to allow that.
I think it’s discriminatory against socioeconomically disadvantaged families. We can agree to disagree, though.
Look at it from the other perspective. There are families that consciously scrimp and save over many years in order to provide better educational opportunities for their children. Are you saying there should be no reward for their sacrifice, relative to families that do not?
Regarding diversity, a few posts back, I’d say the top schools (really nearly all colleges) ARE diverse. So different than 50 years ago when so many great schools were still all-male, nearly all-white, etc. Economically too, as I have been surprised that nearly all colleges have 10 to 20% of students with Pell grants. I recall some official at Washington and Lee almost apologizing their Pell grantees were below 10%. Higher education is under a microscope and nobody wants to looks as elitist as they really are.
This is not to say that every elite college is an exact match along racial, economic, educational distributions. But colleges want to admit students who are prepared, so that there will always be an over-representation of the wealthier. Not saying that is right, but it’s the way it is. And it is not the fault of college adcoms that so many US secondary schools are just terrible and so many grads are unprepared for college level work. Nor should colleges be responsible for giving free educations to every economically disadvantaged student. Only a few colleges have that much endowment funds available. Making sure our best student can afford college should be the role of government, because it is a shame when high-achieving HS students either undermatched at less selective colleges or unable to go at all, due to lack of funds. Because a student cannot really borrow much at all. This is not a plug for free college, which would only cheapen college degrees and is not going to happen anyway. Rather I am speaking of ways to get top lower income students to good colleges.
And i agree with hebegebe: families who save and prepare their kids for college should be rewarded, and are.