US News- MU is #90, top 50 Private

[marqfan22]

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/marquette-university-3863

[Galway Eagle]

I know people keep saying don't get worked up about the ranking but it's a bit of a bummer to see us in the 90s from the most casually referenced ranking when we were in the mid 70s when I was going there.

[WhiteTrash]

I know people keep saying don't get worked up about the ranking but it's a bit of a bummer to see us in the 90s from the most casually referenced ranking when we were in the mid 70s when I was going there.

All I can say is, don't get worked up about the ranking.

They are multiple factors that go into these that do not drive the quality of the undergraduate education. But more importantly, I don't think a lot of students reference them and I know "professional" college advisors do not use them.

There are kind of like NFL power rankings. No impact on making the playoffs.

[JWags85]

I know people keep saying don't get worked up about the ranking but it's a bit of a bummer to see us in the 90s from the most casually referenced ranking when we were in the mid 70s when I was going there.

The thing that I always remember about this list and is increasingly relevant each year is that US News rankings are reflective of a school's entire academic profile and offerings (including post grad programs and research) and that hurts schools with a focus on undergrad education.  You see more and more "big" schools that you never thought of as elite or top level schools rise in these rankings each year.

I went to Miami U for undergrad.  It was in the mid 50s when I graduated in 2008.  Since I graduated, they added a huge new (and mega funded) building for the undergrad business school, demolished 2-3 other academic buildings that were replaced with updated versions with new facilities and resources, and expanded a bunch of other program offerings.  Freshman class metrics have remained constant (or improved) and the student profile hasn't changed much.  Still fantastic grad school placements, job network connections, etc...  One of my good friends worked in admissions/administration until recently and he said they didn't have any issues with recruitment, targeted students, etc... But Miami doesn't have a graduate business school.  It isn't a heavily funded research university, limited grad programs, sits heavily in the shadow of Ohio State for that kind of stuff.  This year Miami is ranked...143.  Which seems terrible and a bummer/pride thing, but the diploma isn't any less valuable or more negatively/pessimistically viewed, so YMMV.

[Galway Eagle]

The thing that I always remember about this list and is increasingly relevant each year is that US News rankings are reflective of a school's entire academic profile and offerings (including post grad programs and research) and that hurts schools with a focus on undergrad education.  You see more and more "big" schools that you never thought of as elite or top level schools rise in these rankings each year.

I went to Miami U for undergrad.  It was in the mid 50s when I graduated in 2008.  Since I graduated, they added a huge new (and mega funded) building for the undergrad business school, demolished 2-3 other academic buildings that were replaced with updated versions with new facilities and resources, and expanded a bunch of other program offerings.  Freshman class metrics have remained constant (or improved) and the student profile hasn't changed much.  Still fantastic grad school placements, job network connections, etc...  One of my good friends worked in admissions/administration until recently and he said they didn't have any issues with recruitment, targeted students, etc... But Miami doesn't have a graduate business school.  It isn't a heavily funded research university, limited grad programs, sits heavily in the shadow of Ohio State for that kind of stuff.  This year Miami is ranked...143.  Which seems terrible and a bummer/pride thing, but the diploma isn't any less valuable or more negatively/pessimistically viewed, so YMMV.

Yeah I don't think of my degree at MU as worth any less. I just enjoyed the pride of "top 75" when I was younger, 80s just seemed like random fluctuations but 90 feels like barely in. For context I was offered almost a full ride to UIC (my old safety school) which is now 95. Yeah as someone who enjoys a bit of pride over his Alma mater there's a bit of disappointment that we're essentially in the same tier as my old safety school (even if the rankings are truly worthless or skewed by graduate degree programs) 

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I know people keep saying don't get worked up about the ranking but it's a bit of a bummer to see us in the 90s from the most casually referenced ranking when we were in the mid 70s when I was going there.

90th is in the top 2.5% of all US colleges and universities.  75th is top 2%.

Not a big deal.

[GOO]

If i were judging based on these lists,  for undergrad, I'd look the the following ranking first. Marquette is usually ranked high, but I note it fell to 25 for 2027. Still highly ranked and elite.

US News
Best Undergraduate Teaching National Universities
Many universities have a strong commitment to teaching undergraduates. In an annual survey, the schools on these lists received the most votes from top college administrators for putting a particular focus on undergraduate teaching. Read the methodology »

[Galway Eagle]

90th is in the top 2.5% of all US colleges and universities.  75th is top 2%.

Not a big deal.

A home win in basketball is Q1 if it's against NET 1-30 #31 is in the top 8.5% #30 is 8.2%. But it sure feels better to say we have another Q1 win. Again I agree it's not a huge deal, but it's just a bummer. I mean imagine if we swung #15 spots up instead of down. That #60 would be plastered everywhere, like when the WSJ put us #55 and I'd guarantee it'd be used as a highlight for fundraising.

[The Sultan]

90th is in the top 2.5% of all US colleges and universities.  75th is top 2%.

Not a big deal.

Small nitpick. There are schools in the national liberal arts college category that would be ranked well ahead of Marquette if there was only one large pool. Also, I believe you are putting two year schools in the same pot when you are talking about those percentages.

But your overall point is accurate. Marquette is a very good four year school. The only one ranked higher in the BE is Georgetown.

[SoCalEagle]

Apparently we are ranked very highly for job placement within 6 months of graduation.

[The Sultan]

Apparently we are ranked very highly for job placement within 6 months of graduation.

Which makes a ton of sense with business, engineering and nursing.

[WhiteTrash]

Small nitpick. There are schools in the national liberal arts college category that would be ranked well ahead of Marquette if there was only one large pool. Also, I believe you are putting two year schools in the same pot when you are talking about those percentages.

But your overall point is accurate. Marquette is a very good four year school. The only one ranked higher in the BE is Georgetown.

Damn, Villanova went to the ACC?

[The Sultan]

Damn, Villanova went to the ACC?

Dammit. I forgot about them. OK...there are only two ranked higher.

[WhiteTrash]

Dammit. I forgot about them. OK...there are only two ranked higher.

That's a relief. Nova's football might actually upgrade the ACC. 

FWIW, when my daughters and their friends were looking at schools, I don't remember any of them referring to the USNWR rankings.

[The Sultan]

That's a relief. Nova's football might actually upgrade the ACC. 

FWIW, when my daughters and their friends were looking at schools, I don't remember any of them referring to the USNWR rankings.

It's mostly an alumni point of pride thing.

[marqfan22]

MU tied with Baylor, TCU and Gonzaga is pretty good company to keep.

[swoopem]

Is the Princeton review still around? I remember those were the rankings when I was in high school (2006) applying to colleges and MU was low 70s.

I agree with Galway that 70s "sounds" a lot better than 90 but I know it's not a big deal and there's probably 0.0001% chance I ever have to use this info in a conversation

I'd rather be top 10 again in hoops

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I know people keep saying don't get worked up about the ranking but it's a bit of a bummer to see us in the 90s from the most casually referenced ranking when we were in the mid 70s when I was going there.

Yeah I don't think of my degree at MU as worth any less. I just enjoyed the pride of "top 75" when I was younger, 80s just seemed like random fluctuations but 90 feels like barely in. For context I was offered almost a full ride to UIC (my old safety school) which is now 95. Yeah as someone who enjoys a bit of pride over his Alma mater there's a bit of disappointment that we're essentially in the same tier as my old safety school (even if the rankings are truly worthless or skewed by graduate degree programs) 

I only have data going back to 2006, but in those 22 years, we've only been in the top 75 twice, #75 in 2011 and #75 in 2014. We were also #77 in 2009 and #76 in 2015. Other than those four we've always been between #81 and #90. Agreed that it would be nice to be higher, but we've pretty consistently been in this range. This year is tied for the lowest rank in the past 22 years.

[Uncle Rico]

69 in the heart

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Is the Princeton review still around? I remember those were the rankings when I was in high school (2006) applying to colleges and MU was low 70s.

I agree with Galway that 70s "sounds" a lot better than 90 but I know it's not a big deal and there's probably 0.0001% chance I ever have to use this info in a conversation

I'd rather be top 10 again in hoops

Princeton Review is still a thing. From what I can tell, they don't do true rankings anymore, but instead list the best 329 universities and provide information on each. So we are ranked somewhere between 1 and 329!

[Galway Eagle]

I only have data going back to 2006, but in those 22 years, we've only been in the top 75 twice, #75 in 2011 and #75 in 2014. We were also #77 in 2009 and #76 in 2015. Other than those four we've always been between #81 and #90. Agreed that it would be nice to be higher, but we've pretty consistently been in this range. This year is tied for the lowest rank in the past 22 years.

We were #85 in 2006. I don't have data before that, maybe we were lower in 2005.

Caveat I used AI for pulling the rankings but if I take a look at the rankings history in that timeframe (2005 edition for 2006 school year to present) we fall 10 spots from 76 in 2015 to 86 in 2016 we've been 83-90 this past decade 75-84 the prior decade. I feel like it's fair to at least acknowledge a legitimate drop not a similar range.

2005-2015 editions (2006-2016 rankings):
78
82
82
77
84
75
82
83
75
76

Avg: 79

2016-2026 editions (2017-2027 rankings):
86
90
89
84
88
83
86
86
88
90

Avg: 87

Ultimately does it matter? Not really, we aren't in that tier with truly elite universities (sans a couple programs) and we're still a well regarded quality institution but again it's just something that's a bummer to see.

[WhiteTrash]

It's mostly an alumni point of pride get donations thing.

[NCMUFan]

Just keep winning.

[MuggsyB]

90?  Perhaps I should make some friendly calls. 

[tower912]

5 x 18 =

[ATL MU Warrior]

More gap

[Uncle Rico]

90?  Perhaps I should make some friendly calls. 

Can you reach the phone

[forgetful]

The thing that I always remember about this list and is increasingly relevant each year is that US News rankings are reflective of a school's entire academic profile and offerings (including post grad programs and research) and that hurts schools with a focus on undergrad education. You see more and more "big" schools that you never thought of as elite or top level schools rise in these rankings each year.

I went to Miami U for undergrad.  It was in the mid 50s when I graduated in 2008.  Since I graduated, they added a huge new (and mega funded) building for the undergrad business school, demolished 2-3 other academic buildings that were replaced with updated versions with new facilities and resources, and expanded a bunch of other program offerings.  Freshman class metrics have remained constant (or improved) and the student profile hasn't changed much.  Still fantastic grad school placements, job network connections, etc...  One of my good friends worked in admissions/administration until recently and he said they didn't have any issues with recruitment, targeted students, etc... But Miami doesn't have a graduate business school.  It isn't a heavily funded research university, limited grad programs, sits heavily in the shadow of Ohio State for that kind of stuff.  This year Miami is ranked...143.  Which seems terrible and a bummer/pride thing, but the diploma isn't any less valuable or more negatively/pessimistically viewed, so YMMV.

Small nitpick, but the bolded isn't really true (even AI gets this wrong). If it was schools like Villanova (42), Santa Clara (55), and Pepperdine (80) wouldn't be very highly rated. Similarly, even Lehigh (44) and William and Mary (52) aren't really research power houses.

Scholarly/Research rankings only contributes 4% to the overall score metric the rest is all focused on undergraduate education.

The reason large state schools have improved in the rankings so much was a change in the metrics that puts large percentages on things like Pell Grant graduation rates, performance, and financial resources per student. Some private schools also suffer from low peer assessment scores that favor large state flagship institutions (20% of score).

[forgetful]

Also, the difference between a school ranked 70 and 110 in terms of the calculated score is surprisingly small.

[MuggsyB]

Also, the difference between a school ranked 70 and 110 in terms of the calculated score is surprisingly small.

Yes.  But there's a Gargantuan difference between the top schools vs the 8th best state school. 

[mu_hilltopper]

I know people keep saying don't get worked up about the ranking but it's a bit of a bummer to see us in the 90s from the most casually referenced ranking when we were in the mid 70s when I was going there.

Totally agree. 

I couldn't get my son to apply to MU, flatly due to its rankings, like it was simply not good enough for him.  (Which was insulting to Mrs. mu_hilltopper and myself, but yeah, he's a better student than we were.)

But ok, let's all keep saying rankings don't matter.

[The Sultan]

Totally agree. 

I couldn't get my son to apply to MU, flatly due to its rankings, like it was simply not good enough for him.  (Which was insulting to Mrs. mu_hilltopper and myself, but yeah, he's a better student than we were.)

But ok, let's all keep saying rankings don't matter.

They really don't as some sort of quality measure. If your family thinks that Marquette is "worse" than when you went to school there because of some media outlet's ranking system, y'all need to get your heads examined.

Marquette may not be the right fit for your kid for a number of reasons no doubt. But the idea that it's "not good enough for him" is hilariously obtuse.

[Hards Alumni]

"Sorry, son, you went to the 90th ranked school in the USA according to US News.  We don't hire people like you".

No one has ever said this.

[tower912]

Kids do kid things.  Hilltopper's kid can use whatever criteria he wants.

[21Jumpstreet]

Totally agree. 

I couldn't get my son to apply to MU, flatly due to its rankings, like it was simply not good enough for him.  (Which was insulting to Mrs. mu_hilltopper and myself, but yeah, he's a better student than we were.)

But ok, let's all keep saying rankings don't matter.

I remember when my first son said he really didn't want to go to Marquette and that he thought his mom and I were smart (we were both salutatorians and went to MU). He ended up at UPenn, so probably a solid decision on his part.

OTOH, super proud of my number two son who, while starting in Colorado to play soccer, transferred to MU and is currently a junior. We Are Marquette!

[Uncle Rico]

More gap

Let's face it.  Gap and the likelihood of being shot is a good enough reason not to go to Marquette.  Now, if relocates to Mequon, the sky is the limit.

[The Sultan]

Kids do kid things.  Hilltopper's kid can use whatever criteria he wants.

Of course he can! But the notion that Marquette "isn't good enough for him" based on USN&WR rankings is simply not accurate. Kids go to all sorts of schools for all sorts of reasons. They get great educations and go on to do great things. None of these things changed for Marquette when they moved from the 70s to where they are now.

So if there is this hypothetical kid who really likes Marquette, feels comfortable there, has their preferred major, and great outcomes...but chooses to go to a place where they are less comfortable simply based on rankings...well that's not a very smart idea.

If this is topper's kid who was waitlisted at MIT, I get that. No one would dispute that it is an elite school with elite programs. But Marquette will never, ever be MIT. But if this is his kid who is also looking at UW, Purdue, etc. the outcomes aren't going to be all that different because UW is ranked 14 and Purdue 55. It's just a matter if they want the large public experience.

[tower912]

When you are 18, if it matters in your head, it doesn't matter what a bunch of superannuated message board posters think.  The difference between 50-90 is miniscule and doesn't matter to us.  It did for him.  End of story.

[The Sultan]

When you are 18, if it matters in your head, it doesn't matter what a bunch of superannuated message board posters think.  The difference between 50-90 is miniscule and doesn't matter to us.  It did for him.  End of story.

It's a discussion board. You aren't required to participate.

[tower912]

Thank you, Barney Fife of the scoop thought police.

[WhiteTrash]

Absolutely no shame in this, but these are truly first world problems. A lot of families are still waiting for the first family member to attend any college.

Also interesting, of the handful of $100M+ net worth people I know, none attended any top 50 school, and some never went to college.

[Hards Alumni]

Absolutely no shame in this, but these are truly first world problems. A lot of families are still waiting for the first family member to attend any college.

Also interesting, of the handful of $100M+ net worth people I know, none attended any top 50 school, and some never went to college.

Education isn't a requirement for wealth, but it is a shortcut.

[The Sultan]

Thank you, Barney Fife of the scoop thought police.

You may want to use a little logic and look back on who is trying to stop something from being discussed.

Hint: it's you.

[The Sultan]

Absolutely no shame in this, but these are truly first world problems. A lot of families are still waiting for the first family member to attend any college.

Also interesting, of the handful of $100M+ net worth people I know, none attended any top 50 school, and some never went to college.

Many schools generate nine-figure net worth alumni. But I am not sure if measuring the top is how we want to define this however.

[Galway Eagle]

I'm sorry I started this but let me again just say I didn't mean it as anything other than a bummer. Maybe it's me, I like to take pride in things I've done and have made me who I am. A big piece of that is MU, it is a bummer to see it lower in the ranking than previously and certainly 2/5yrs I was there it was at a point where you'd say "top 75" not "top 100" which felt better even if the difference is minuscule.

To toppers kid. It's a one off anecdotal situation and based on other comments where he was waitlisted at MIT then unless he was after the PT program at MU it was probably beneath him, however let's say that that same scenario plays out over and over as we get ranked farther from that next tier of Holy Cross, or Nova, or even the elite Catholic schools like ND, BC, & Georgetown then yes we'd end up with a bit of a brain drain and MU while doing nothing else differently, could actually be worse. It's slippery slope fallacy sure and I doubt it plays out but I also don't think it's fair to just call Toppers concerns stupid either.

[Hards Alumni]

They're objectively stupid because where you go to college outside of the top 10 is basically irrelevant until you get to like 150+.  Even then the fall off is tiny.

The success or lack there of is on the individual more than their choice of university.

Plenty of people who graduate from Harvard and Yale are not successful.  And conversely there are plenty who go to 'lesser' schools who are wildly successful.

School ranking is for solely for marketing and pride.

[tower912]

Many schools generate nine-figure net worth alumni. But I am not sure if measuring the top is how we want to define this however.

Nope.  Just having the audacity to express an opinion that differs from your narrow, rigid, angry little view.   I do appreciate your Natalie Harp levels of devotion to my posts, however.

[WhiteTrash]

Many schools generate nine-figure net worth alumni. But I am not sure if measuring the top is how we want to define this however.

Agreed. Hence the preface of "interesting". I am a poorer man because I invested in my own children's higher education because I believe in its monetary value and a richer life in general.

[The Sultan]

They're objectively stupid because where you go to college outside of the top 10 is basically irrelevant until you get to like 150+.  Even then the fall off is tiny.

The success or lack there of is on the individual more than their choice of university.

Plenty of people who graduate from Harvard and Yale are not successful.  And conversely there are plenty who go to 'lesser' schools who are wildly successful.

School ranking is for solely for marketing and pride.

High achieving high school students generally become high achieving college students. And high achieving college students graduate and generally make their way to high achieving careers.

The amount that your particular school matters to that is based on a ton of factors not measured in these rankings one bit.

[The Sultan]

Nope.  Just having the audacity to express an opinion that differs from your narrow, rigid, angry little view.   I do appreciate your Natalie Harp levels of devotion to my posts, however.

At least I can quote the correct ones.

[mu_hilltopper]

They really don't as some sort of quality measure. If your family thinks that Marquette is "worse" than when you went to school there because of some media outlet's ranking system, y'all need to get your heads examined.

Marquette may not be the right fit for your kid for a number of reasons no doubt. But the idea that it's "not good enough for him" is hilariously obtuse.

It's quite clear that you super duper want people to believe that rankings don't matter.  Maybe some day, you'll realize you're the outlier and stop personally attacking the vast majority who disagree.

[The Sultan]

It's quite clear that you super duper want people to believe that rankings don't matter.  Maybe some day, you'll realize you're the outlier and stop personally attacking the vast majority who disagree.

They don't matter. The "vast majority" (which isn't the case by the way) are wrong.

Just because you live in a bubble doesn't mean I do.

[Badgerhater]

The only rankings that matter are basketball polls.

[1990Warrior]

A few random thoughts:

Did they report the score that these "rankings" are based on?  I don't see it anywhere. 

I was interested to see that Brandeis has fallen over the years- what did they do wrong?

[The Sultan]

A few random thoughts:

Did they report the score that these "rankings" are based on?  I don't see it anywhere.

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings

[Scoop Snoop]

I was interested to see that Brandeis has fallen over the years- what did they do wrong?

Their Marketing department wasn't given enough money to promote the school, so now the brand is on ice.

[marqfan22]

I have multiple kids in high school and the acceptance rate is probably the stat they talk about the most.

I've always wondered how Marquette can be generally a strong academic school, but then have a very high acceptance rate as well. It is a glaring stat that students can't look past and thus rule out MU before they even see it

[The Sultan]

I have multiple kids in high school and the acceptance rate is probably the stat they talk about the most.

I've always wondered how Marquette can be generally a strong academic school, but then have a very high acceptance rate as well. It is a glaring stat that students can't look past and thus rule out MU before they even see it

Because acceptance rate has little to do with being "generally a strong academic school."  It means they are good at generating applications and are selective in their acceptances. But again, that has nothing to do with outcomes.

[1990Warrior]

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/how-us-news-calculated-the-rankings

That's the formula - I wanted our (and those around us) score.

[mu_hilltopper]

They don't matter. The "vast majority" (which isn't the case by the way) are wrong.

Just because you live in a bubble doesn't mean I do.

Enjoy your much, much smaller bubble.

[Galway Eagle]

I have multiple kids in high school and the acceptance rate is probably the stat they talk about the most.

I've always wondered how Marquette can be generally a strong academic school, but then have a very high acceptance rate as well. It is a glaring stat that students can't look past and thus rule out MU before they even see it

Propensity scores. When MU was casting a larger net they realized they were losing money they had projected to have when students were transferring/failing out. MU now uses a targeted system to basically only get students to spppy if they're likely to be admitted, accept, and remain.

I heard this first hand from a guy who was on the board of trustees when it was implemented. Admittedly it was after national MU day so I'd had a few and could be explaining it wrong.

[forgetful]

High achieving high school students generally become high achieving college students. And high achieving college students graduate and generally make their way to high achieving careers.

The amount that your particular school matters to that is based on a ton of factors not measured in these rankings one bit.

This is technically not true. The top predictors of future wealth and upward mobility is your parents net worth, and your social network.

Top performing doesn't matter that much, provide you have a certain degree of baseline ability.

So if you attend a school with more "connected" people, you are more likely to be more wealthy by association. While these rankings aren't perfect, several aspects of the score do capture these elements.

[The Sultan]

Nm

[dgies9156]

U.S. News is a failing newsmagazine that hangs on, barely, to relevance, by ranking medical care and universities. It was a weak sister even in the days when Time, Newsweek and it had an audience that made them an important part of the American news cycle.

Picking a school because U.S. News ranks it highly is akin to picking a school largely because its football or basketball team happens to be nationally ranked. Yes, I don't disagree that a ranking can garner attention but, really folks, other than to grab attention and keep a small number of has-been journalists employed, what's the point of the rankings?

 

[The Sultan]

U.S. News is a failing newsmagazine that hangs on, barely, to relevance, by ranking medical care and universities. It was a weak sister even in the days when Time, Newsweek and it had an audience that made them an important part of the American news cycle.

Picking a school because U.S. News ranks it highly is akin to picking a school largely because its football or basketball team happens to be nationally ranked. Yes, I don't disagree that a ranking can garner attention but, really folks, other than to grab attention and keep a small number of has-been journalists employed, what's the point og the rankings?

 

To make Topper and his kid feel better about where he goes to school.

[mu_hilltopper]

To make Topper and his kid feel better about where he goes to school.

This still going?  Looks like this lives rent free in your head.

I don't know what's more perverse, that you believe rankings don't matter, or that you feel the need to disparage a teenager and the other millions who do.

[The Sultan]

This still going?  Looks like this lives rent free in your head.

Guy responds to a post made almost a week ago...complains that it's "still going."  😂😂😂

I don't know what's more perverse, that you believe rankings don't matter, or that you feel the need to disparage a teenager and the other millions who do.

People believe in Bigfoot too. Is it "perverse" to claim they're wrong?

[swoopem]

5th consecutive year of enrollment growth. They must be doing something right

https://x.com/marquetteu/status/2107812935934320804?s=46&t=j_mwa5PfT9SagCnMRES1jg

[cheebs09]

5th consecutive year of enrollment growth. They must be doing something right

https://x.com/marquetteu/status/2107812935934320804?s=46&t=j_mwa5PfT9SagCnMRES1jg

Well, when you accept everyone it should.

In seriousness, it looks like the recruiting strategy is working. Although, I believe Sultan has said in the past, it sort of depends on how much you had to discount to get those numbers.

[The Sultan]

Well, when you accept everyone it should.

In seriousness, it looks like the recruiting strategy is working. Although, I believe Sultan has said in the past, it sort of depends on how much you had to discount to get those numbers.

Yes, that is true. And we aren't really going to know that because its not disclosed publically. But my understanding is they are doing well.

[MU82]

Well, when you accept everyone it should.

In seriousness, it looks like the recruiting strategy is working. Although, I believe Sultan has said in the past, it sort of depends on how much you had to discount to get those numbers.

The only thing that really matters is that our alma mater can afford to buy better basketball players.

[Porky's Butthole]

Propensity scores. When MU was casting a larger net they realized they were losing money they had projected to have when students were transferring/failing out. MU now uses a targeted system to basically only get students to spppy if they're likely to be admitted, accept, and remain.

I heard this first hand from a guy who was on the board of trustees when it was implemented. Admittedly it was after national MU day so I'd had a few and could be explaining it wrong.

You heard it right.  Porky heard more or less the same thing from several internal sources years back.  What Porky thinks the admin fails to recognize is the degree to which this admittedly meaningless stat as it relates to outcomes.....still negatively influences students that would automatically be in the top 15% of MU's academic profile if they applied and ended up enrolling....from applying in the first place.  That's the issue.  Sure they shouldn't think that way but they do and it's not going to change.  Porky likens it to nightclub admission in major cities.  The more you keep people out, the more they want in so Porky is of the opinion that acceptance rates do matter for internal institutional factors but as far as student outcomes are concerned, acceptance rate is irrelevant.

At the end of the Day MU's ranking hasn't really changed all that much.  What has changed is that there are a lot more schools in the "National University" category than there were 10 years ago, many of which were #1 or 2 in the regional category when they were there.  Villanova is exhibit A.  Their academic profile / acceptance rate is much stronger than MU's so when they moved to the big leagues 8 or 9 years ago they debuted in the top 50 and knocked down schools like MU, Fordham, Tulane, etc.  MU's trajectory is very positive with 5 years of consecutive enrollment growth and increasing geographic diversity....something that Porky believes strongly is extremely important to an institution's national brand strength.  As long as MU remains more or less where they are in rankings they'll be just fine.  Comparing where they were 15 years ago is not apples to apples and fluctuating from 83-95 or whatever isn't all that significant. Rankings in general are pretty useless anyway.