|
|
Post by purplehaze on Sept 22, 2020 11:14:39 GMT -5
... and we got beat up a bit on this one - at no. 117 among LA colleges - criteria must have changed somehow because any objective reader would disagree with the company they have us with.
|
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Oct 2, 2020 19:33:40 GMT -5
Taking a closer look, were actually 117 overall. The site let's you filter by college type i.e. liberal arts, but the rankings run straight through. The top-ranked liberal arts college, Williams, is ranked #29 overall.
But we still got beat up a little bit. Behind Gettysburg, Richmond, Connecticut College & Reed College?
Naval Academy gets beat up too -- 83 overall. Surprised a service academy wouldn't be ranked closer to the bottom of the Ivys.
|
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Oct 2, 2020 21:04:11 GMT -5
Like Avis, we're number 117 so we try harder.  |
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 3, 2020 4:32:35 GMT -5
Taking a closer look, were actually 117 overall. The site let's you filter by college type i.e. liberal arts, but the rankings run straight through. The top-ranked liberal arts college, Williams, is ranked #29 overall. But we still got beat up a little bit. Behind Gettysburg, Richmond, Connecticut College & Reed College? Naval Academy gets beat up too -- 83 overall. Surprised a service academy wouldn't be ranked closer to the bottom of the Ivys. Mostly agree. Richmond does have a stronger reputation than HC (in my experience) nowadays so I am not surprised they are ranked well above us (they are #59 we are #117 in the overall WSJ rankings) FWIW Colgate (#50) is also ranked well above us in this particular ranking and that is also not surprising to me. Of course neither of those two are significant applicant overlap schools with us so it may be neither here nor there. As far as our significant overlap schools are concerned, we seem to be maintaining our relative position. |
|
|
|
Post by nycrusader2010 on Oct 3, 2020 7:05:22 GMT -5
Taking a closer look, were actually 117 overall. The site let's you filter by college type i.e. liberal arts, but the rankings run straight through. The top-ranked liberal arts college, Williams, is ranked #29 overall. But we still got beat up a little bit. Behind Gettysburg, Richmond, Connecticut College & Reed College? Naval Academy gets beat up too -- 83 overall. Surprised a service academy wouldn't be ranked closer to the bottom of the Ivys. Mostly agree. Richmond does have a stronger reputation than HC (in my experience) nowadays so I am not surprised they are ranked well above us (they are #59 we are #117 in the overall WSJ rankings) FWIW Colgate (#50) is also ranked well above us in this particular ranking and that is also not surprising to me. Of course neither of those two are significant applicant overlap schools with us so it may be neither here nor there. As far as our significant overlap schools are concerned, we seem to be maintaining our relative position. That's sad. Not surprised or upset about Colgate being ranked higher. Expected that to be the case. |
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 3, 2020 8:46:42 GMT -5
Admittedly, as a septuagenarian, my good years are probably behind me. But when USN&WR first came out, my recollection was Holy Cross was the most highly rated of what is now the Patriot League schools, our peers. That's be the days when we aspired to Ivy League standards. We looked up, now down, so to speak. If that be the case, and I'm sure our PL brethren will correct me if wrong, the question is has Holy Cross declined or our peers gotten better over the years?
Perhaps we are comparing apples and oranges as we know West Point and Annapolis, for example, did not use to be in the same category. We were also not SAT-optional. We were always dinged on "peer evaluations" and appeared to be an anti-Catholic bias. Our standards for admission changed as we became more visibly "mission-oriented" and, to some, may have been misinterpreted as less academically oriented.
We used to have what was consistently among the top pre-med programs in the country. That had to help. Now, my understanding is there is technically not even "pre-med" specifically.
Speaking for myself, I am disappointed when I see this perceived decline.
|
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Oct 3, 2020 11:20:59 GMT -5
Admittedly, as a septuagenarian, my good years are probably behind me. But when USN&WR first came out, my recollection was Holy Cross was the most highly rated of what is now the Patriot League schools, our peers. That's be the days when we aspired to Ivy League standards. We looked up, now down, so to speak. If that be the case, and I'm sure our PL brethren will correct me if wrong, the question is has Holy Cross declined or our peers gotten better over the years? Perhaps we are comparing apples and oranges as we know West Point and Annapolis, for example, did not use to be in the same category. We were also not SAT-optional. We were always dinged on "peer evaluations" and appeared to be an anti-Catholic bias. Our standards for admission changed as we became more visibly "mission-oriented" and, to some, may have been misinterpreted as less academically oriented. We used to have what was consistently among the top pre-med programs in the country. That had to help. Now, my understanding is there is technically not even "pre-med" specifically. Speaking for myself, I am disappointed when I see this perceived decline. Keep in mind that if the narrow four year liberal arts, undergraduate only HC mission gets reevaluated as less relevant in a faster paced digital world, it makes it harder for HC to compete. |
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Oct 3, 2020 18:25:48 GMT -5
Piggy-backing on mm67's points, I believe USN&WR rankings, at one point and maybe still does, included faculty salaries as one of their factors (theory presumably being really great professors get paid more). Way back when, when we had more Jesuits who essentially don't get paid didn't help. IIRC, a number of years back, low HC faculty salaries was identified and an effort (successful?) made to substantially increase those salaries.
My biased opinion is that our faculty is made up of men and women who really have a desire to teach and research being a lesser priority which is not the case in many other, more highly rated universities.
|
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Oct 3, 2020 20:44:39 GMT -5
I was watching CNN the other night with Erin Burnett as the anchor. One of her expert guests was a Professor at Amherst College. Erin said "Amherst?" with slight derision, pointed to herself and said "Williams." I hadn't realized She went to Williams and it turns out she played two sports, Field Hockey and Lacrosse for the Ephs and chose Williams over Princeton so she could play more than one sport in college.
My point however is about the Professor, not Erin. Obviously that Prof would not be able to be a guest on a worldwide news network and raise the profile of Amherst College if all he did was teach. No one would know he is an expert. So, I think a balance between teaching, research and writing serves a college well and they don't have to create conflicts if you have a strong Academic Dean and Department Heads to get the most out of the faculty.
|
|
|
|
Post by A Clock Tower Purple on Oct 3, 2020 21:04:54 GMT -5
^ what?
|
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Oct 4, 2020 8:13:12 GMT -5
Keep in mind that if the narrow four year liberal arts, undergraduate only HC mission gets reevaluated as less relevant in a faster paced digital world, it makes it harder for HC to compete. True, but there is a bit of concern that some other four year liberal arts schools (LACs) moved up or held their own in the rankings over time. IMHO we do not compete with the secular LACs for students in any case (we compete with non-LAC Catholic schools). |
|
