Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I have not dog in this fight, but thing that gives me pause about Columbia is their massive PR machine. The amount of time they spent making up fake data and then trying to discredit their own professor when they were caught is incredible. We see that same kind of spin on this thread.
That’s one of the reasons Columbia’s reputation has declined.
Good point
Declined so much that it accepted 3.8% of applicants this year--more selective than any Ivy other than Harvard. Your kid rather go to Rice or Amherst? Great--that's more room for kids who really want to be there--and there are plenty of them.
That’s not such a big deal. All 3 have sub 10% admit rate so it comes down to fit.
Nice spin of stats - Rice's admit rate is more than 2X Columbia's. This is assuming enrolled cohorts are equal, too.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
I believe you were the one using statistics in the first place.
No, I am a DP, although I admit I did not note that. I was responding to your use of statistics.
Once you get below 10% admit rate there is no significant difference.
This is a claim you are making without any evidence to support it, and one that appears to be subjectively created by you for the convenience of advancing your narrative in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Other factors then weigh in. That is what I was referring to. So go back to your tent at Columbia and keep reading Mark Twain.
That is not the insult to me that you intend. I would never have been admitted to Columbia in my wildest dreams. But coincidentally I do happen to have
The Innocents Abroad right here on my desk to start this weekend. Really not sure why reading Mark Twain is an insult.