Up from a tie for 15th last year, I believe this is our highest ranking since the late 1970s...

http://news.rice.edu/2017/09/12/rice-ris...book+links

Pretty sure we broke the top ten in the late 80s. Regardless, good news, much better than a few years ago when we feared dropping out of the top 20.*


*Yes, it's ridiculous that one publication's ranking system is so influential. But it is.

(09-12-2017 09:01 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Pretty sure we broke the top ten in the late 80s. Regardless, good news, much better than a few years ago when we feared dropping out of the top 20.*


*Yes, it's ridiculous that one publication's ranking system is so influential. But it is.

If we could only get our giving participation rate up to the 38% - 40% range (vs. the low 30s where we've been stuck the past decade), we would likely be in the Top 10. Note-- most of the Ivies, Stanford and Notre Dame all boast participation rates of 40+%.

Recent Trend:
2011: 17th (two way tie; 17-18)
2012: 17th (two way tie; 17-18)
2013: 17th (three way tie; 17-19)
2014: 18th (two way tie; 18-19)
2015: 19th
2016: 18th
2017: 15th (four way tie; 15-18)
2018: 14th (four way tie; 14-17)

Remarkably stable considering that US News tweaks their criteria in order to create change and draw attention.

#3 in Best Undergraduate Teaching.

End of story.

Waiting for Red Dragon Coog to chime in......

Need to boot Vandy out of there and I'll feel real good about this tie

Awesome news. These rankings NEED to be front and center of the charitable solicitations and how important giving is.

It is a start. But only 16th best value? After having been the perennial number 1 best value for so long

(09-12-2017 11:05 AM)Ranger Wrote:  It is a start. But only 16th best value? After having been the perennial number 1 best value for so long

Yeah, I have hated seeing the "keeping up with the Jones'" approach to tuition inflation. I know there are sociology studies showing that the old "you get what you pay for" saying applies to college academics as well. But at least Rice was #1 in something. Being in the teens is still good, but at that point, Rice is kind of lost in the crowd of really good schools who are also really good values. Much better to be elite in one category, IMO. Maybe there would be an argument in favor of the tuition increases if it had bumped Rice into the top 10. But kind of staying in the mid-teens while dramatically increasing tuition & costs hasn't really done anything positive (from my perspective).

I love Rice's size, but in retrospect, I'd rather add another 1,000 students and keep tuition much lower than peer institutions to maintain that #1 Best Value ranking, then what has happened (assuming it was a money thing). Rice could really sell itself if we were consistently ranked #1 Best Quality of Life, #1 Best Value, top-10 Happiest Students, and top-20 Best Academics.

Here's something you wouldn't have bet on back in the 80's and 90's...
Rice ranked #19 for FOOD.

http://southwestfoodservice.com/news/ric...ranked-19/

We would have to build more colleges to increase the undergraduate enrollment.

(09-12-2017 11:16 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:05 AM)Ranger Wrote:  It is a start. But only 16th best value? After having been the perennial number 1 best value for so long

Yeah, I have hated seeing the "keeping up with the Jones'" approach to tuition inflation. I know there are sociology studies showing that the old "you get what you pay for" saying applies to college academics as well. But at least Rice was #1 in something. Being in the teens is still good, but at that point, Rice is kind of lost in the crowd of really good schools who are also really good values. Much better to be elite in one category, IMO. Maybe there would be an argument in favor of the tuition increases if it had bumped Rice into the top 10. But kind of staying in the mid-teens while dramatically increasing tuition & costs hasn't really done anything positive (from my perspective).

I love Rice's size, but in retrospect, I'd rather add another 1,000 students and keep tuition much lower than peer institutions to maintain that #1 Best Value ranking, then what has happened (assuming it was a money thing). Rice could really sell itself if we were consistently ranked #1 Best Quality of Life, #1 Best Value, top-10 Happiest Students, and top-20 Best Academics.

(09-12-2017 02:51 PM)75src Wrote:  We would have to build more colleges to increase the undergraduate enrollment.

(09-12-2017 11:16 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:05 AM)Ranger Wrote:  It is a start. But only 16th best value? After having been the perennial number 1 best value for so long

Yeah, I have hated seeing the "keeping up with the Jones'" approach to tuition inflation. I know there are sociology studies showing that the old "you get what you pay for" saying applies to college academics as well. But at least Rice was #1 in something. Being in the teens is still good, but at that point, Rice is kind of lost in the crowd of really good schools who are also really good values. Much better to be elite in one category, IMO. Maybe there would be an argument in favor of the tuition increases if it had bumped Rice into the top 10. But kind of staying in the mid-teens while dramatically increasing tuition & costs hasn't really done anything positive (from my perspective).

I love Rice's size, but in retrospect, I'd rather add another 1,000 students and keep tuition much lower than peer institutions to maintain that #1 Best Value ranking, then what has happened (assuming it was a money thing). Rice could really sell itself if we were consistently ranked #1 Best Quality of Life, #1 Best Value, top-10 Happiest Students, and top-20 Best Academics.

We could've probably added one instead of a Leadership institute for $50 million.

(09-12-2017 02:51 PM)75src Wrote:  We would have to build more colleges to increase the undergraduate enrollment.

(09-12-2017 11:16 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:05 AM)Ranger Wrote:  It is a start. But only 16th best value? After having been the perennial number 1 best value for so long

Yeah, I have hated seeing the "keeping up with the Jones'" approach to tuition inflation. I know there are sociology studies showing that the old "you get what you pay for" saying applies to college academics as well. But at least Rice was #1 in something. Being in the teens is still good, but at that point, Rice is kind of lost in the crowd of really good schools who are also really good values. Much better to be elite in one category, IMO. Maybe there would be an argument in favor of the tuition increases if it had bumped Rice into the top 10. But kind of staying in the mid-teens while dramatically increasing tuition & costs hasn't really done anything positive (from my perspective).

I love Rice's size, but in retrospect, I'd rather add another 1,000 students and keep tuition much lower than peer institutions to maintain that #1 Best Value ranking, then what has happened (assuming it was a money thing). Rice could really sell itself if we were consistently ranked #1 Best Quality of Life, #1 Best Value, top-10 Happiest Students, and top-20 Best Academics.

If I had won the half billion dollar lottery Wayne Graham College would be in the planning stages.

Problem is that gift was restricted to the Leadership Institute.

My fear about the Leadership Institute is that the money could mostly be wasted on consultants like Zuckenberg's gift to the Newark Public Schools was.

(09-12-2017 03:31 PM)cr11owl Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 02:51 PM)75src Wrote:  We would have to build more colleges to increase the undergraduate enrollment.

(09-12-2017 11:16 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:05 AM)Ranger Wrote:  It is a start. But only 16th best value? After having been the perennial number 1 best value for so long

Yeah, I have hated seeing the "keeping up with the Jones'" approach to tuition inflation. I know there are sociology studies showing that the old "you get what you pay for" saying applies to college academics as well. But at least Rice was #1 in something. Being in the teens is still good, but at that point, Rice is kind of lost in the crowd of really good schools who are also really good values. Much better to be elite in one category, IMO. Maybe there would be an argument in favor of the tuition increases if it had bumped Rice into the top 10. But kind of staying in the mid-teens while dramatically increasing tuition & costs hasn't really done anything positive (from my perspective).

I love Rice's size, but in retrospect, I'd rather add another 1,000 students and keep tuition much lower than peer institutions to maintain that #1 Best Value ranking, then what has happened (assuming it was a money thing). Rice could really sell itself if we were consistently ranked #1 Best Quality of Life, #1 Best Value, top-10 Happiest Students, and top-20 Best Academics.

We could've probably added one instead of a Leadership institute for $50 million.

My issue with the Doerr Institute is that the most interactions that an undergrad would have with it are through a "peer coach."

These peer coaches are more interesting in having it on their resume for whatever consulting job they're angling for post-grad than helping people. The real leaders on campus are too busy to participate in the silly program.

(09-12-2017 03:41 PM)loki_the_bubba Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 02:51 PM)75src Wrote:  We would have to build more colleges to increase the undergraduate enrollment.

(09-12-2017 11:16 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(09-12-2017 11:05 AM)Ranger Wrote:  It is a start. But only 16th best value? After having been the perennial number 1 best value for so long

Yeah, I have hated seeing the "keeping up with the Jones'" approach to tuition inflation. I know there are sociology studies showing that the old "you get what you pay for" saying applies to college academics as well. But at least Rice was #1 in something. Being in the teens is still good, but at that point, Rice is kind of lost in the crowd of really good schools who are also really good values. Much better to be elite in one category, IMO. Maybe there would be an argument in favor of the tuition increases if it had bumped Rice into the top 10. But kind of staying in the mid-teens while dramatically increasing tuition & costs hasn't really done anything positive (from my perspective).

I love Rice's size, but in retrospect, I'd rather add another 1,000 students and keep tuition much lower than peer institutions to maintain that #1 Best Value ranking, then what has happened (assuming it was a money thing). Rice could really sell itself if we were consistently ranked #1 Best Quality of Life, #1 Best Value, top-10 Happiest Students, and top-20 Best Academics.

If I had won the half billion dollar lottery Wayne Graham College would be in the planning stages.

Me too Loki. One of the all time greats. I don't think anyone else could have accomplished at Rice what he did.

(09-12-2017 05:03 PM)ExcitedOwl18 Wrote:  My issue with the Doerr Institute is that the most interactions that an undergrad would have with it are through a "peer coach."

These peer coaches are more interesting in having it on their resume for whatever consulting job they're angling for post-grad than helping people. The real leaders on campus are too busy to participate in the silly program.

if not undergrads, does it provide value to grad students/postdocs/faculty?

(09-12-2017 09:31 AM)JSA Wrote:  #3 in Best Undergraduate Teaching.

End of story.

That's something to be damn proud of. Nice job, Owls.

(09-12-2017 10:24 AM)ChicagoOwl (BS 07) Wrote:  Need to boot Vandy out of there and I'll feel real good about this tie

Agreed.
Meanwhile, my VU alumni feed is touting their highest USNews ranking to date.. And having been there for graduate school, their undergrads as a whole do not impress me to the same level as my fellow Rice alumni did. The only reason VU does as well in the rankings as Rice is the wider array of highly-ranked graduate and professional degree programs that Rice does not have.. and those degree programs attract the best candidates within a 1-2 state radius because of the lack of notable competition within that radius.