The Absurdity of U.S. News College Rankings - Per Malcolm Gladwell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah what the ill-informed and nasty PP doesn't realize is that the schools that have benefited from rankings the most are the non-Harvard/Yale Ivies. The Ivy League went from being an old-school athletic conference to having the level of prestige they enjoy today. But sure, take it out on these other schools. The confident stupidity and lack of self-awareness truly knows no bounds.

What a ridiculous post. The Ivies have been the Ivies and ergo have been synonymous with prestige and top academics for a long time, whether deserved or undeserved. This is true in the US and it is true internationally.

The smaller Ivies - Brown and Dartmouth - are less recognized by name alone internationally but rather their affiliation to the Ivies. However in the US they have always been prestigious nationally and particularly in the Northeast - the economic and political center of the US.

Cornell in particularly is very popular internationally despite Americans desperately trying to compare it to a state school.

The Ivy League is an athletic conference. USNWR entrenched their status as prestigious schools; they weren't all considered prestigious beforehand.

Uh no, the Ivies were always considered prestigious regardless of USNews. The Ivies are the oldest colleges in the US and targetted wealthy and politically powerful Northeastern families, ergo they were prestigious.

Schools like Dartmouth were definitely a boy's club for wealthy white males, and perhaps cared more about non-academic factors, was never much of a research university, etc., but it was still prestigious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah what the ill-informed and nasty PP doesn't realize is that the schools that have benefited from rankings the most are the non-Harvard/Yale Ivies. The Ivy League went from being an old-school athletic conference to having the level of prestige they enjoy today. But sure, take it out on these other schools. The confident stupidity and lack of self-awareness truly knows no bounds.

What a ridiculous post. The Ivies have been the Ivies and ergo have been synonymous with prestige and top academics for a long time, whether deserved or undeserved. This is true in the US and it is true internationally.

The smaller Ivies - Brown and Dartmouth - are less recognized by name alone internationally but rather their affiliation to the Ivies. However in the US they have always been prestigious nationally and particularly in the Northeast - the economic and political center of the US.

Cornell in particularly is very popular internationally despite Americans desperately trying to compare it to a state school.

The Ivy League is an athletic conference. USNWR entrenched their status as prestigious schools; they weren't all considered prestigious beforehand.

Uh no, the Ivies were always considered prestigious regardless of USNews. The Ivies are the oldest colleges in the US and targetted wealthy and politically powerful Northeastern families, ergo they were prestigious.

Schools like Dartmouth were definitely a boy's club for wealthy white males, and perhaps cared more about non-academic factors, was never much of a research university, etc., but it was still prestigious.

No one outside of America even remotely cared about the Ivy League until US News. And the same drop in acceptance rate that the upthread PP keeps bringing up about schools like UChicago occurred across the board with the Ivies as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange that a bankrupt magzine has so much sway on the higher-education systems.

That US NEWS ranking University of Florida much higher than Univ of Washington should make people think twice. Instead, people just take the ranking as if god-given.

Those are the obvious ones but other than those, the rankings are pretty solid relative to their actual prestige.

Don't act like you would've heard of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Washington University, Northwestern, or even Duke and Hopkins outside of the DC Area had it not been for US News.

The top 10 of USNews is a strong indicator of national and worldwide prestige. The ranking after 10 becomes
useless as a measure of prestige excluding the Ivies which will always hold sway due to being Ivies, not being ranked between 10-20.

The fact that Chicago went from >15 to top 3 (or where ever it is now) within 20 years shows how idiotic the rankings are even for prestige - schools don't rise in prestige so quickly at the top because prestige is entrenched. U. Chicago has always had strong graduate departments but that its often ranked ahead of Yale, Caltech, etc. or ranked alongside Harvard today is simply a result of ranking manipulation.

All the schools you named have <15% acceptance rate and average SATs of above 1450 so Id say there prestige is through the roof among prospective students.

Certainly, and look at their acceptance rates and scores 20 years ago. The ranking provides a self-reinforcing cycle where schools ranked higher receive more applications, higher scores, etc.

That does not mean that the schools ranked higher are necessarily more prestigious nationally though, excluding the top 10 w/o Chicago.

Schools like Duke, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Chicago, Washington University were, in the 1990's and early 2000s, respected regional universities that attracted great students from their respective regions. If they were renowned nationally, they were so in a few specific fields - Hopkins for medicine, Chicago for Economics, Duke for Divinity (no joke), etc.

These schools were not nationally prestigious universities as they are today, and certainly not globally renowned, which they still largely aren't today

So the people acting like Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. were simply destined to be top national universities or already were largely considered prestigious nationally prior to the domination of these rankings is flat out lying. Had it not been for the rankings, they wouldn't have even heard of these universities. The rankings have provided a self-perpetuating cycle that has brought these universities to their current level of national prestige in recent years.

What? Nonsense. If you mean that they weren't known to the average middle class family, maybe. But they were nationally and internationally prestigious. They were elite schools, known to elites. All of those schools have been extremely well regarded for more than 50 years. I

They were known to elites in their respective regions, and certainly not upper-middle class families on the other end of the country.

And no, they were not internationally prestigious, and neither are they today. Have you even lived outside of the US?

I snorted at this. Have you ever lived outside of the US? Can you speak another language other than English? And what school did you attend? Awfully dangerous up there with all your high-horsing.

Good way to confirm you have never lived outside of the US.

Taking a few courses of Duolingo does not count as knowing a second language.

It's hilarious how individuals are so personally insulted by others mentioning that their school is objectively not prestigious internationally. It is not an insult of the school itself - although there are reasons these schools are not as prestigious - but primarily how those outside the US view universities.

You seem awfully confident for someone who comes off as an ignorant, sheltered Karen. I'm bilingual and lived abroad for 7 years of my childhood, and 3 years abroad throughout my professional career. But sure, keep embarrassing yourself.

Seriously, what language do you speak?

Yes, I'm sure your 7 years of toddlerhood, likely on a military base, really gave you a strong understanding of which universities were prestigious and which weren't.

I grew up overseas, speak far more languages than you and most importantly, spent the most important part of life regarding colleges - college examinations and applications - abroad.

And as stated, these schools are either unknown or considered non-impressive outside of certain fields - Economics PhD. at Chicago and medicine at Hopkins.

Just because a school is hard to get into does not mean that the school is considered prestigious or impressive.

No one bothers to apply to Vanderbilt because the school is unknown and you may have just attended any other private, unless you are going to carry around a printout of the US News rankings everywhere you go.

Schools that are more renowned or prestigious that these remaining T10-T20 privates abroad:

Georgetown (Politics)
Berkeley (STEM)
Carnegie Mellon (Computer Science)
Cornell
UCLA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah what the ill-informed and nasty PP doesn't realize is that the schools that have benefited from rankings the most are the non-Harvard/Yale Ivies. The Ivy League went from being an old-school athletic conference to having the level of prestige they enjoy today. But sure, take it out on these other schools. The confident stupidity and lack of self-awareness truly knows no bounds.

What a ridiculous post. The Ivies have been the Ivies and ergo have been synonymous with prestige and top academics for a long time, whether deserved or undeserved. This is true in the US and it is true internationally.

The smaller Ivies - Brown and Dartmouth - are less recognized by name alone internationally but rather their affiliation to the Ivies. However in the US they have always been prestigious nationally and particularly in the Northeast - the economic and political center of the US.

Cornell in particularly is very popular internationally despite Americans desperately trying to compare it to a state school.

The Ivy League is an athletic conference. USNWR entrenched their status as prestigious schools; they weren't all considered prestigious beforehand.

+1. The prestige of the Ivy League used to be more about social class and wealth, but USNWR changed that to something more “meritocratic.” In quotations because it’s really not, anyone who thinks USNWR is about merit must be kidding themselves.

Had the more academics-based ranking of the ‘50s and ‘60s stayed, the only ivies that deserved meritocratic prestige would have been Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and Princeton. Cornell would also have been in the same grouping and no one would ridicule it as a state school. Penn, Brown, and Dartmouth would have been in the shadows of schools like Chicago and Johns Hopkins.

But USNWR’s dubious metrics made it seem that not only are ivies the best schools, but also that undergrad is the only part of a university that matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah what the ill-informed and nasty PP doesn't realize is that the schools that have benefited from rankings the most are the non-Harvard/Yale Ivies. The Ivy League went from being an old-school athletic conference to having the level of prestige they enjoy today. But sure, take it out on these other schools. The confident stupidity and lack of self-awareness truly knows no bounds.

What a ridiculous post. The Ivies have been the Ivies and ergo have been synonymous with prestige and top academics for a long time, whether deserved or undeserved. This is true in the US and it is true internationally.

The smaller Ivies - Brown and Dartmouth - are less recognized by name alone internationally but rather their affiliation to the Ivies. However in the US they have always been prestigious nationally and particularly in the Northeast - the economic and political center of the US.

Cornell in particularly is very popular internationally despite Americans desperately trying to compare it to a state school.

The Ivy League is an athletic conference. USNWR entrenched their status as prestigious schools; they weren't all considered prestigious beforehand.

+1. The prestige of the Ivy League used to be more about social class and wealth, but USNWR changed that to something more “meritocratic.” In quotations because it’s really not, anyone who thinks USNWR is about merit must be kidding themselves.

Had the more academics-based ranking of the ‘50s and ‘60s stayed, the only ivies that deserved meritocratic prestige would have been Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and Princeton. Cornell would also have been in the same grouping and no one would ridicule it as a state school. Penn, Brown, and Dartmouth would have been in the shadows of schools like Chicago and Johns Hopkins.

But USNWR’s dubious metrics made it seem that not only are ivies the best schools, but also that undergrad is the only part of a university that matters.

+1. The schools that have benefited most greatly from US News are Penn, Brown, and Dartmouth. This whole erasure and re-writing of history is very, very weird, especially since it's well within living memory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange that a bankrupt magzine has so much sway on the higher-education systems.

That US NEWS ranking University of Florida much higher than Univ of Washington should make people think twice. Instead, people just take the ranking as if god-given.

Those are the obvious ones but other than those, the rankings are pretty solid relative to their actual prestige.

Don't act like you would've heard of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Washington University, Northwestern, or even Duke and Hopkins outside of the DC Area had it not been for US News.

The top 10 of USNews is a strong indicator of national and worldwide prestige. The ranking after 10 becomes
useless as a measure of prestige excluding the Ivies which will always hold sway due to being Ivies, not being ranked between 10-20.

The fact that Chicago went from >15 to top 3 (or where ever it is now) within 20 years shows how idiotic the rankings are even for prestige - schools don't rise in prestige so quickly at the top because prestige is entrenched. U. Chicago has always had strong graduate departments but that its often ranked ahead of Yale, Caltech, etc. or ranked alongside Harvard today is simply a result of ranking manipulation.

All the schools you named have <15% acceptance rate and average SATs of above 1450 so Id say there prestige is through the roof among prospective students.

Certainly, and look at their acceptance rates and scores 20 years ago. The ranking provides a self-reinforcing cycle where schools ranked higher receive more applications, higher scores, etc.

That does not mean that the schools ranked higher are necessarily more prestigious nationally though, excluding the top 10 w/o Chicago.

Schools like Duke, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Chicago, Washington University were, in the 1990's and early 2000s, respected regional universities that attracted great students from their respective regions. If they were renowned nationally, they were so in a few specific fields - Hopkins for medicine, Chicago for Economics, Duke for Divinity (no joke), etc.

These schools were not nationally prestigious universities as they are today, and certainly not globally renowned, which they still largely aren't today

So the people acting like Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. were simply destined to be top national universities or already were largely considered prestigious nationally prior to the domination of these rankings is flat out lying. Had it not been for the rankings, they wouldn't have even heard of these universities. The rankings have provided a self-perpetuating cycle that has brought these universities to their current level of national prestige in recent years.

What? Nonsense. If you mean that they weren't known to the average middle class family, maybe. But they were nationally and internationally prestigious. They were elite schools, known to elites. All of those schools have been extremely well regarded for more than 50 years. I

They were known to elites in their respective regions, and certainly not upper-middle class families on the other end of the country.

And no, they were not internationally prestigious, and neither are they today. Have you even lived outside of the US?

I snorted at this. Have you ever lived outside of the US? Can you speak another language other than English? And what school did you attend? Awfully dangerous up there with all your high-horsing.

Good way to confirm you have never lived outside of the US.

Taking a few courses of Duolingo does not count as knowing a second language.

It's hilarious how individuals are so personally insulted by others mentioning that their school is objectively not prestigious internationally. It is not an insult of the school itself - although there are reasons these schools are not as prestigious - but primarily how those outside the US view universities.

You seem awfully confident for someone who comes off as an ignorant, sheltered Karen. I'm bilingual and lived abroad for 7 years of my childhood, and 3 years abroad throughout my professional career. But sure, keep embarrassing yourself.

Seriously, what language do you speak?

Yes, I'm sure your 7 years of toddlerhood, likely on a military base, really gave you a strong understanding of which universities were prestigious and which weren't.

I grew up overseas, speak far more languages than you and most importantly, spent the most important part of life regarding colleges - college examinations and applications - abroad.

And as stated, these schools are either unknown or considered non-impressive outside of certain fields - Economics PhD. at Chicago and medicine at Hopkins.

Just because a school is hard to get into does not mean that the school is considered prestigious or impressive.

No one bothers to apply to Vanderbilt because the school is unknown and you may have just attended any other private, unless you are going to carry around a printout of the US News rankings everywhere you go.

Schools that are more renowned or prestigious that these remaining T10-T20 privates abroad:

Georgetown (Politics)
Berkeley (STEM)
Carnegie Mellon (Computer Science)
Cornell
UCLA

Oh my God, you really are completely insufferable. No wonder you don't have any friends and your husband despises you.

.... is about how ridiculous you sound. The fact that you keep making completely uneducated potshots anonymously at people you don't even know is ridiculous. And funnily enough, at least my claim is based off of just how obnoxious and imbecilic you come off via the written word. Your claims as to other peoples' language abilities and overseas experience is based on zilch, just a very odd, roundabout way to stroke your own ego. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange that a bankrupt magzine has so much sway on the higher-education systems.

That US NEWS ranking University of Florida much higher than Univ of Washington should make people think twice. Instead, people just take the ranking as if god-given.

Those are the obvious ones but other than those, the rankings are pretty solid relative to their actual prestige.

Don't act like you would've heard of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Washington University, Northwestern, or even Duke and Hopkins outside of the DC Area had it not been for US News.

The top 10 of USNews is a strong indicator of national and worldwide prestige. The ranking after 10 becomes
useless as a measure of prestige excluding the Ivies which will always hold sway due to being Ivies, not being ranked between 10-20.

The fact that Chicago went from >15 to top 3 (or where ever it is now) within 20 years shows how idiotic the rankings are even for prestige - schools don't rise in prestige so quickly at the top because prestige is entrenched. U. Chicago has always had strong graduate departments but that its often ranked ahead of Yale, Caltech, etc. or ranked alongside Harvard today is simply a result of ranking manipulation.

All the schools you named have <15% acceptance rate and average SATs of above 1450 so Id say there prestige is through the roof among prospective students.

Certainly, and look at their acceptance rates and scores 20 years ago. The ranking provides a self-reinforcing cycle where schools ranked higher receive more applications, higher scores, etc.

That does not mean that the schools ranked higher are necessarily more prestigious nationally though, excluding the top 10 w/o Chicago.

Schools like Duke, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Chicago, Washington University were, in the 1990's and early 2000s, respected regional universities that attracted great students from their respective regions. If they were renowned nationally, they were so in a few specific fields - Hopkins for medicine, Chicago for Economics, Duke for Divinity (no joke), etc.

These schools were not nationally prestigious universities as they are today, and certainly not globally renowned, which they still largely aren't today

So the people acting like Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. were simply destined to be top national universities or already were largely considered prestigious nationally prior to the domination of these rankings is flat out lying. Had it not been for the rankings, they wouldn't have even heard of these universities. The rankings have provided a self-perpetuating cycle that has brought these universities to their current level of national prestige in recent years.

What? Nonsense. If you mean that they weren't known to the average middle class family, maybe. But they were nationally and internationally prestigious. They were elite schools, known to elites. All of those schools have been extremely well regarded for more than 50 years. I

They were known to elites in their respective regions, and certainly not upper-middle class families on the other end of the country.

And no, they were not internationally prestigious, and neither are they today. Have you even lived outside of the US?

I snorted at this. Have you ever lived outside of the US? Can you speak another language other than English? And what school did you attend? Awfully dangerous up there with all your high-horsing.

Good way to confirm you have never lived outside of the US.

Taking a few courses of Duolingo does not count as knowing a second language.

It's hilarious how individuals are so personally insulted by others mentioning that their school is objectively not prestigious internationally. It is not an insult of the school itself - although there are reasons these schools are not as prestigious - but primarily how those outside the US view universities.

You seem awfully confident for someone who comes off as an ignorant, sheltered Karen. I'm bilingual and lived abroad for 7 years of my childhood, and 3 years abroad throughout my professional career. But sure, keep embarrassing yourself.

Seriously, what language do you speak?

Yes, I'm sure your 7 years of toddlerhood, likely on a military base, really gave you a strong understanding of which universities were prestigious and which weren't.

I grew up overseas, speak far more languages than you and most importantly, spent the most important part of life regarding colleges - college examinations and applications - abroad.

And as stated, these schools are either unknown or considered non-impressive outside of certain fields - Economics PhD. at Chicago and medicine at Hopkins.

Just because a school is hard to get into does not mean that the school is considered prestigious or impressive.

No one bothers to apply to Vanderbilt because the school is unknown and you may have just attended any other private, unless you are going to carry around a printout of the US News rankings everywhere you go.

Schools that are more renowned or prestigious that these remaining T10-T20 privates abroad:

Georgetown (Politics)
Berkeley (STEM)
Carnegie Mellon (Computer Science)
Cornell
UCLA

Agree with PP, schools like Vanderbilt and Dartmouth might be nationally prestigious, but not globally prestigious. Global prestige comes from being the best research institutions, not about being more selective at the undergrad level or having strong ties with an affluent group of society.

Don’t assume that global prestige is a straight extension of national prestige. They’re different beasts and even UC Berkeley is more well known than Princeton overseas. I know that sounds unacceptable to people on this thread, but anyone who lived overseas would agree (especially in Asian and middle eastern countries).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah what the ill-informed and nasty PP doesn't realize is that the schools that have benefited from rankings the most are the non-Harvard/Yale Ivies. The Ivy League went from being an old-school athletic conference to having the level of prestige they enjoy today. But sure, take it out on these other schools. The confident stupidity and lack of self-awareness truly knows no bounds.

What a ridiculous post. The Ivies have been the Ivies and ergo have been synonymous with prestige and top academics for a long time, whether deserved or undeserved. This is true in the US and it is true internationally.

The smaller Ivies - Brown and Dartmouth - are less recognized by name alone internationally but rather their affiliation to the Ivies. However in the US they have always been prestigious nationally and particularly in the Northeast - the economic and political center of the US.

Cornell in particularly is very popular internationally despite Americans desperately trying to compare it to a state school.

The Ivy League is an athletic conference. USNWR entrenched their status as prestigious schools; they weren't all considered prestigious beforehand.

+1. The prestige of the Ivy League used to be more about social class and wealth, but USNWR changed that to something more “meritocratic.” In quotations because it’s really not, anyone who thinks USNWR is about merit must be kidding themselves.

Had the more academics-based ranking of the ‘50s and ‘60s stayed, the only ivies that deserved meritocratic prestige would have been Harvard, Columbia, Yale, and Princeton. Cornell would also have been in the same grouping and no one would ridicule it as a state school. Penn, Brown, and Dartmouth would have been in the shadows of schools like Chicago and Johns Hopkins.

But USNWR’s dubious metrics made it seem that not only are ivies the best schools, but also that undergrad is the only part of a university that matters.

+1. The schools that have benefited most greatly from US News are Penn, Brown, and Dartmouth. This whole erasure and re-writing of history is very, very weird, especially since it's well within living memory.

+1. USNWR “rewrote” history where most people now think that Ivies are ivies because they were the best institutions from the very beginning, not because they had the best football teams like HYP and were favored by elite social groups like the knickerbockers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there an old magazine clipping or something that was shared on DCUM a while ago from like, the '60s that showed the rankings being almost virtually the same as today's US News rankings, except with the notable "decline" of some of the LAC's? That pretty much refutes the PP's point that the schools were never prestigious and have only US News to thank.

American Council on Education University Rankings, included in “Our Wonderful World (1962),” a guide for ambitious college applicants:
Harvard
Chicago
Columbia
California (Berkeley)
Wisconsin
Yale
Cornell
Michigan




Princeton
Johns Hopkins

You can certainly argue Berkeley, Wisconsin, Cornell, and Michigan aren't in the same group as the others anymore.

Ranking methodologies back then were mostly based on research output and departmental peer-assessments by professors. Unlike today’s absurd criteria that makes no sense, rankings in the past actually tried to measure academic prowess.

With the exception of Wisconsin, the schools you listed are still premier research institutions. Even though such rankings are not good reflections of the undergrad experience at those colleges, neither is USNWR, so I’d rather take these rankings over it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one outside of America even remotely cared about the Ivy League until US News. And the same drop in acceptance rate that the upthread PP keeps bringing up about schools like UChicago occurred across the board with the Ivies as well.

Wrong. NYTIMES 1983:

BROWN OUTPACING RIVALS IN IVY LEAGUE POPULARITY
For Brown this year has received the most applications of any school in the Ivy League, 13,250 for a class of 1,375, up 13 percent over last year.

That is higher, the authorities at Brown proudly point out, than Harvard, Yale or Princeton, all of which had a drop in applicants this year. The drop reflected the nationwide decline in the number of college-age students and cuts in financial aid.

https://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/20/us/brown-outpacing-rivals-in-ivy-league-popularity.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange that a bankrupt magzine has so much sway on the higher-education systems.

That US NEWS ranking University of Florida much higher than Univ of Washington should make people think twice. Instead, people just take the ranking as if god-given.

Those are the obvious ones but other than those, the rankings are pretty solid relative to their actual prestige.

Don't act like you would've heard of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Washington University, Northwestern, or even Duke and Hopkins outside of the DC Area had it not been for US News.

The top 10 of USNews is a strong indicator of national and worldwide prestige. The ranking after 10 becomes
useless as a measure of prestige excluding the Ivies which will always hold sway due to being Ivies, not being ranked between 10-20.

The fact that Chicago went from >15 to top 3 (or where ever it is now) within 20 years shows how idiotic the rankings are even for prestige - schools don't rise in prestige so quickly at the top because prestige is entrenched. U. Chicago has always had strong graduate departments but that its often ranked ahead of Yale, Caltech, etc. or ranked alongside Harvard today is simply a result of ranking manipulation.

All the schools you named have <15% acceptance rate and average SATs of above 1450 so Id say there prestige is through the roof among prospective students.

Certainly, and look at their acceptance rates and scores 20 years ago. The ranking provides a self-reinforcing cycle where schools ranked higher receive more applications, higher scores, etc.

That does not mean that the schools ranked higher are necessarily more prestigious nationally though, excluding the top 10 w/o Chicago.

Schools like Duke, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Chicago, Washington University were, in the 1990's and early 2000s, respected regional universities that attracted great students from their respective regions. If they were renowned nationally, they were so in a few specific fields - Hopkins for medicine, Chicago for Economics, Duke for Divinity (no joke), etc.

These schools were not nationally prestigious universities as they are today, and certainly not globally renowned, which they still largely aren't today

So the people acting like Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. were simply destined to be top national universities or already were largely considered prestigious nationally prior to the domination of these rankings is flat out lying. Had it not been for the rankings, they wouldn't have even heard of these universities. The rankings have provided a self-perpetuating cycle that has brought these universities to their current level of national prestige in recent years.

What? Nonsense. If you mean that they weren't known to the average middle class family, maybe. But they were nationally and internationally prestigious. They were elite schools, known to elites. All of those schools have been extremely well regarded for more than 50 years. I

They were known to elites in their respective regions, and certainly not upper-middle class families on the other end of the country.

And no, they were not internationally prestigious, and neither are they today. Have you even lived outside of the US?

I snorted at this. Have you ever lived outside of the US? Can you speak another language other than English? And what school did you attend? Awfully dangerous up there with all your high-horsing.

Good way to confirm you have never lived outside of the US.

Taking a few courses of Duolingo does not count as knowing a second language.

It's hilarious how individuals are so personally insulted by others mentioning that their school is objectively not prestigious internationally. It is not an insult of the school itself - although there are reasons these schools are not as prestigious - but primarily how those outside the US view universities.

You seem awfully confident for someone who comes off as an ignorant, sheltered Karen. I'm bilingual and lived abroad for 7 years of my childhood, and 3 years abroad throughout my professional career. But sure, keep embarrassing yourself.

Seriously, what language do you speak?

Yes, I'm sure your 7 years of toddlerhood, likely on a military base, really gave you a strong understanding of which universities were prestigious and which weren't.

I grew up overseas, speak far more languages than you and most importantly, spent the most important part of life regarding colleges - college examinations and applications - abroad.

And as stated, these schools are either unknown or considered non-impressive outside of certain fields - Economics PhD. at Chicago and medicine at Hopkins.

Just because a school is hard to get into does not mean that the school is considered prestigious or impressive.

No one bothers to apply to Vanderbilt because the school is unknown and you may have just attended any other private, unless you are going to carry around a printout of the US News rankings everywhere you go.

Schools that are more renowned or prestigious that these remaining T10-T20 privates abroad:

Georgetown (Politics)
Berkeley (STEM)
Carnegie Mellon (Computer Science)
Cornell
UCLA

+1.

In Asia, Berkeley and UCLA are better known than many of the Ivyes, Duke, Norte Dame. Especially Berkeley.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange that a bankrupt magzine has so much sway on the higher-education systems.

That US NEWS ranking University of Florida much higher than Univ of Washington should make people think twice. Instead, people just take the ranking as if god-given.

Those are the obvious ones but other than those, the rankings are pretty solid relative to their actual prestige.

Don't act like you would've heard of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Washington University, Northwestern, or even Duke and Hopkins outside of the DC Area had it not been for US News.

The top 10 of USNews is a strong indicator of national and worldwide prestige. The ranking after 10 becomes
useless as a measure of prestige excluding the Ivies which will always hold sway due to being Ivies, not being ranked between 10-20.

The fact that Chicago went from >15 to top 3 (or where ever it is now) within 20 years shows how idiotic the rankings are even for prestige - schools don't rise in prestige so quickly at the top because prestige is entrenched. U. Chicago has always had strong graduate departments but that its often ranked ahead of Yale, Caltech, etc. or ranked alongside Harvard today is simply a result of ranking manipulation.

All the schools you named have <15% acceptance rate and average SATs of above 1450 so Id say there prestige is through the roof among prospective students.

Certainly, and look at their acceptance rates and scores 20 years ago. The ranking provides a self-reinforcing cycle where schools ranked higher receive more applications, higher scores, etc.

That does not mean that the schools ranked higher are necessarily more prestigious nationally though, excluding the top 10 w/o Chicago.

Schools like Duke, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Chicago, Washington University were, in the 1990's and early 2000s, respected regional universities that attracted great students from their respective regions. If they were renowned nationally, they were so in a few specific fields - Hopkins for medicine, Chicago for Economics, Duke for Divinity (no joke), etc.

These schools were not nationally prestigious universities as they are today, and certainly not globally renowned, which they still largely aren't today

So the people acting like Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. were simply destined to be top national universities or already were largely considered prestigious nationally prior to the domination of these rankings is flat out lying. Had it not been for the rankings, they wouldn't have even heard of these universities. The rankings have provided a self-perpetuating cycle that has brought these universities to their current level of national prestige in recent years.

What? Nonsense. If you mean that they weren't known to the average middle class family, maybe. But they were nationally and internationally prestigious. They were elite schools, known to elites. All of those schools have been extremely well regarded for more than 50 years. I

They were known to elites in their respective regions, and certainly not upper-middle class families on the other end of the country.

And no, they were not internationally prestigious, and neither are they today. Have you even lived outside of the US?

I snorted at this. Have you ever lived outside of the US? Can you speak another language other than English? And what school did you attend? Awfully dangerous up there with all your high-horsing.

Good way to confirm you have never lived outside of the US.

Taking a few courses of Duolingo does not count as knowing a second language.

It's hilarious how individuals are so personally insulted by others mentioning that their school is objectively not prestigious internationally. It is not an insult of the school itself - although there are reasons these schools are not as prestigious - but primarily how those outside the US view universities.

You seem awfully confident for someone who comes off as an ignorant, sheltered Karen. I'm bilingual and lived abroad for 7 years of my childhood, and 3 years abroad throughout my professional career. But sure, keep embarrassing yourself.

Seriously, what language do you speak?

Yes, I'm sure your 7 years of toddlerhood, likely on a military base, really gave you a strong understanding of which universities were prestigious and which weren't.

I grew up overseas, speak far more languages than you and most importantly, spent the most important part of life regarding colleges - college examinations and applications - abroad.

And as stated, these schools are either unknown or considered non-impressive outside of certain fields - Economics PhD. at Chicago and medicine at Hopkins.

Just because a school is hard to get into does not mean that the school is considered prestigious or impressive.

No one bothers to apply to Vanderbilt because the school is unknown and you may have just attended any other private, unless you are going to carry around a printout of the US News rankings everywhere you go.

Schools that are more renowned or prestigious that these remaining T10-T20 privates abroad:

Georgetown (Politics)
Berkeley (STEM)
Carnegie Mellon (Computer Science)
Cornell
UCLA

Oh my God, you really are completely insufferable. No wonder you don't have any friends and your husband despises you.

.... is about how ridiculous you sound. The fact that you keep making completely uneducated potshots anonymously at people you don't even know is ridiculous. And funnily enough, at least my claim is based off of just how obnoxious and imbecilic you come off via the written word. Your claims as to other peoples' language abilities and overseas experience is based on zilch, just a very odd, roundabout way to stroke your own ego. Get over yourself.

You may have multiple mental disorders considering the ridiculous levels of projection you are engaging in. I understand all the attractive, cool girls made fun of your ugliness and zits in middle school, but please keep that off of these boards, which is meant for adults.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange that a bankrupt magzine has so much sway on the higher-education systems.

That US NEWS ranking University of Florida much higher than Univ of Washington should make people think twice. Instead, people just take the ranking as if god-given.

Those are the obvious ones but other than those, the rankings are pretty solid relative to their actual prestige.

Don't act like you would've heard of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Washington University, Northwestern, or even Duke and Hopkins outside of the DC Area had it not been for US News.

The top 10 of USNews is a strong indicator of national and worldwide prestige. The ranking after 10 becomes
useless as a measure of prestige excluding the Ivies which will always hold sway due to being Ivies, not being ranked between 10-20.

The fact that Chicago went from >15 to top 3 (or where ever it is now) within 20 years shows how idiotic the rankings are even for prestige - schools don't rise in prestige so quickly at the top because prestige is entrenched. U. Chicago has always had strong graduate departments but that its often ranked ahead of Yale, Caltech, etc. or ranked alongside Harvard today is simply a result of ranking manipulation.

All the schools you named have <15% acceptance rate and average SATs of above 1450 so Id say there prestige is through the roof among prospective students.

Certainly, and look at their acceptance rates and scores 20 years ago. The ranking provides a self-reinforcing cycle where schools ranked higher receive more applications, higher scores, etc.

That does not mean that the schools ranked higher are necessarily more prestigious nationally though, excluding the top 10 w/o Chicago.

Schools like Duke, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Chicago, Washington University were, in the 1990's and early 2000s, respected regional universities that attracted great students from their respective regions. If they were renowned nationally, they were so in a few specific fields - Hopkins for medicine, Chicago for Economics, Duke for Divinity (no joke), etc.

These schools were not nationally prestigious universities as they are today, and certainly not globally renowned, which they still largely aren't today

So the people acting like Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. were simply destined to be top national universities or already were largely considered prestigious nationally prior to the domination of these rankings is flat out lying. Had it not been for the rankings, they wouldn't have even heard of these universities. The rankings have provided a self-perpetuating cycle that has brought these universities to their current level of national prestige in recent years.

What? Nonsense. If you mean that they weren't known to the average middle class family, maybe. But they were nationally and internationally prestigious. They were elite schools, known to elites. All of those schools have been extremely well regarded for more than 50 years. I

They were known to elites in their respective regions, and certainly not upper-middle class families on the other end of the country.

And no, they were not internationally prestigious, and neither are they today. Have you even lived outside of the US?

I snorted at this. Have you ever lived outside of the US? Can you speak another language other than English? And what school did you attend? Awfully dangerous up there with all your high-horsing.

Good way to confirm you have never lived outside of the US.

Taking a few courses of Duolingo does not count as knowing a second language.

It's hilarious how individuals are so personally insulted by others mentioning that their school is objectively not prestigious internationally. It is not an insult of the school itself - although there are reasons these schools are not as prestigious - but primarily how those outside the US view universities.

You seem awfully confident for someone who comes off as an ignorant, sheltered Karen. I'm bilingual and lived abroad for 7 years of my childhood, and 3 years abroad throughout my professional career. But sure, keep embarrassing yourself.

Seriously, what language do you speak?

Yes, I'm sure your 7 years of toddlerhood, likely on a military base, really gave you a strong understanding of which universities were prestigious and which weren't.

I grew up overseas, speak far more languages than you and most importantly, spent the most important part of life regarding colleges - college examinations and applications - abroad.

And as stated, these schools are either unknown or considered non-impressive outside of certain fields - Economics PhD. at Chicago and medicine at Hopkins.

Just because a school is hard to get into does not mean that the school is considered prestigious or impressive.

No one bothers to apply to Vanderbilt because the school is unknown and you may have just attended any other private, unless you are going to carry around a printout of the US News rankings everywhere you go.

Schools that are more renowned or prestigious that these remaining T10-T20 privates abroad:

Georgetown (Politics)
Berkeley (STEM)
Carnegie Mellon (Computer Science)
Cornell
UCLA

Oh my God, you really are completely insufferable. No wonder you don't have any friends and your husband despises you.

.... is about how ridiculous you sound. The fact that you keep making completely uneducated potshots anonymously at people you don't even know is ridiculous. And funnily enough, at least my claim is based off of just how obnoxious and imbecilic you come off via the written word. Your claims as to other peoples' language abilities and overseas experience is based on zilch, just a very odd, roundabout way to stroke your own ego. Get over yourself.

This post basically makes a ad hominem attacks with no reference to the subject at hand.

PP, your eggs might be dying and I understand your English degree does not allow you the compensation to afford egg freezing, but take your cats and leave this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah what the ill-informed and nasty PP doesn't realize is that the schools that have benefited from rankings the most are the non-Harvard/Yale Ivies. The Ivy League went from being an old-school athletic conference to having the level of prestige they enjoy today. But sure, take it out on these other schools. The confident stupidity and lack of self-awareness truly knows no bounds.

What a ridiculous post. The Ivies have been the Ivies and ergo have been synonymous with prestige and top academics for a long time, whether deserved or undeserved. This is true in the US and it is true internationally.

The smaller Ivies - Brown and Dartmouth - are less recognized by name alone internationally but rather their affiliation to the Ivies. However in the US they have always been prestigious nationally and particularly in the Northeast - the economic and political center of the US.

Cornell in particularly is very popular internationally despite Americans desperately trying to compare it to a state school.

The Ivy League is an athletic conference. USNWR entrenched their status as prestigious schools; they weren't all considered prestigious beforehand.

Uh no, the Ivies were always considered prestigious regardless of USNews. The Ivies are the oldest colleges in the US and targetted wealthy and politically powerful Northeastern families, ergo they were prestigious.

Schools like Dartmouth were definitely a boy's club for wealthy white males, and perhaps cared more about non-academic factors, was never much of a research university, etc., but it was still prestigious.

No one outside of America even remotely cared about the Ivy League until US News. And the same drop in acceptance rate that the upthread PP keeps bringing up about schools like UChicago occurred across the board with the Ivies as well.

That's really not true. Abroad, people mistakenly consider the Ivies to be the top 10 universities in the US, along with MIT, Stanford. No one knows of Brown or Dartmouth, but if you tell them these are Ivies, they will automatically think its a top 10 university.

The acceptance rate drop at Chicago is far more drastic than at the Ivies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there an old magazine clipping or something that was shared on DCUM a while ago from like, the '60s that showed the rankings being almost virtually the same as today's US News rankings, except with the notable "decline" of some of the LAC's? That pretty much refutes the PP's point that the schools were never prestigious and have only US News to thank.

American Council on Education University Rankings, included in “Our Wonderful World (1962),” a guide for ambitious college applicants:
Harvard
Chicago
Columbia
California (Berkeley)
Wisconsin
Yale
Cornell
Michigan
Princeton
Johns Hopkins

You can certainly argue Berkeley, Wisconsin, Cornell, and Michigan aren't in the same group as the others anymore.

Ranking methodologies back then were mostly based on research output and departmental peer-assessments by professors. Unlike today’s absurd criteria that makes no sense, rankings in the past actually tried to measure academic prowess.

With the exception of Wisconsin, the schools you listed are still premier research institutions. Even though such rankings are not good reflections of the undergrad experience at those colleges, neither is USNWR, so I’d rather take these rankings over it.

Berkeley grad couldn't be more obvious.

Parents at Washington U., Vanderbilt, et. al are so cute when they try to justify $70k+/year when publics like Berkeley and Michigan outshine these privates in the vast majority of field by an embarrassing degree and are more prestigious globally.