US News- MU is #90, top 50 Private

[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.