Columbia permanently pulls out of US news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for Columbia. USNWR showed they are incompetent with their law school rankings rollout debacle this year. USNWR, or what is left of it outside of ranking anything they can in life, is just sad. The annual rankings are clickbait that people somehow genuinely care about. Movement year to year is essentially meaningless yet alumni and high schoolers are holding their breath on the eve of the release.

You're delusional. 35 million people read US news yearly. 10 years time Columbia will be a teir 3 school.

You do realize Columbia will be ranked higher than they are this year even without directly participating in the data collection, right?
It is the best school in one of the most popular destination cities. The only tier 3 it could ever drop to is an imaginary third tier of the Ivy League (which will all still be top 25 regardless on the ranker).

Anyone remember when Kelly Bensimon of the Real Housewives of NY claimed to be a Columbia grad? Bethenny was like, “She didn’t go to Columbia. Colombia, the country maybe, but not Columbia.” Implying cocaine use. It was pretty funny. People like the real housewives having a General Studies diploma from Columbia really bring the brand down.

Not really. You are the only person who is obsessed with the college of General Studies. I know a few dummies who went to Harvard. It doesn’t affect their brand one bit

there's a real major called "general studies"? What do they learn?

No, it is the school of general studies: https://www.gs.columbia.edu/

"The School of General Studies of Columbia University is the finest liberal arts college in the United States created specifically for returning and nontraditional students seeking a rigorous, traditional, Ivy League undergraduate degree full or part time. GS is also home to innovative dual and joint degree programs open to all students, including those applying directly from high school, in partnership with List College of the Jewish Theological Seminary, Sciences Po, Trinity College Dublin, Tel Aviv University, and City University of Hong Kong."

yea sounds fishy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me Columbia lost its prestige and jumped the shark when they refused to remove Dr. Mehmet Oz from their staff and later from his Professor Emeritus status with the university throughout his quack medicine and medical shams throughout the 2010's decade. He caused so much harm to patients selling get rich quick snake oil and making medically harmful recommendations (like pushing the I-cure for Covid).

Columbia only removed him from their staff listings and web-sites when he ran for Senate due to the political backlash. But they had problems riding his popularity coattails as long as they could. This is despite requests from dozens of fellow medical practitioners and Columbia staff members appealing to the university to distance themselves from him.

Sorry, but they lowered themselves to Trump U status with that debacle.

wow, I had no idea that even happened. yikes.

When Dr. Oz was on Oprah, he was only mildly quackish. But when he kicked off his own show in 2009, he really started to blow off any scientific credibility or basis in current known medicine.

So, in 2015, a list of 10 nationally respected doctors sent a letter to Columbia University asking them to distance themselves from him:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/group-of-doctors-call-for-dr-oz-to-be-ousted-from-columbia-university/

Columbia resisted. From 2015-2022, there were multiple requests for the university to drop Dr. Oz. But rather than drop him, they doubled down. When he stopped seeing patients, they changed his title to "Professor Emeritus".

But finally, when there was political backlash during his run for the Senate, they finally, very quietly dropped him.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/group-of-doctors-call-for-dr-oz-to-be-ousted-from-columbia-university/

As far as I am concerned, Columbia who refuses to remove a quack and scam artist from their medical school staff is no longer a respectable institution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quickly becoming a non-selective school for graduate degrees. Raking in the money on past reputation.

I'm assuming that you aren't talking about medical school, dental school, law school, or business school.

Isn’t Columbia Law School considered one of the top 5?

No, ranked 8th

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pure speculation but they do have a new president. I think she came from the UK so perhaps she is not as beholden to rankings as Americans are. Not sure if she deserves the credit or not but if yes, good for her for shaking up the system

US system is downgraded copy of UK system that has prestige and hierarchy unlike other Euro countries like Germany.

UK at least choose students by academic merits.

So what do they do when they receive more applications that are academically qualified than there are spots available? Because that's what happens here.

They have interviews designed to filter out the best students, academically. This is unlike the US where the goal of the interview is to filter out social undeireables (usually Asians, hence their lower scores in interviews).

Gotta find some subjective criteria to get make sure Eton kids get in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quickly becoming a non-selective school for graduate degrees. Raking in the money on past reputation.

I'm assuming that you aren't talking about medical school, dental school, law school, or business school.

Isn’t Columbia Law School considered one of the top 5?

No, ranked 8th

Are you only quoting US News? They make a mockery of rankings each year, don't live and die by them lol. Everyone in industry knows Columbia is top 5.

[Anonymous]

Columbia GS undergrad enrollment (around 2000) is 33% of College+SEAS (around 6000). Columbia publishes 2 separate CDS: one combined College+SEAS and one for GS.

Harvard Extension School is 10% (around 700) of Harvard College (around 7000). Harvard appears only to publish one CDS for Harvard College.

[Anonymous]

Columbia earlier announced it is permanently test optional. Now, it is permanently boycotting US News. Somehow, these two events are tied to the anticipated SCOTUS decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me Columbia lost its prestige and jumped the shark when they refused to remove Dr. Mehmet Oz from their staff and later from his Professor Emeritus status with the university throughout his quack medicine and medical shams throughout the 2010's decade. He caused so much harm to patients selling get rich quick snake oil and making medically harmful recommendations (like pushing the I-cure for Covid).

Columbia only removed him from their staff listings and web-sites when he ran for Senate due to the political backlash. But they had problems riding his popularity coattails as long as they could. This is despite requests from dozens of fellow medical practitioners and Columbia staff members appealing to the university to distance themselves from him.

Sorry, but they lowered themselves to Trump U status with that debacle.

wow, I had no idea that even happened. yikes.

When Dr. Oz was on Oprah, he was only mildly quackish. But when he kicked off his own show in 2009, he really started to blow off any scientific credibility or basis in current known medicine.

So, in 2015, a list of 10 nationally respected doctors sent a letter to Columbia University asking them to distance themselves from him:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/group-of-doctors-call-for-dr-oz-to-be-ousted-from-columbia-university/

Columbia resisted. From 2015-2022, there were multiple requests for the university to drop Dr. Oz. But rather than drop him, they doubled down. When he stopped seeing patients, they changed his title to "Professor Emeritus".

But finally, when there was political backlash during his run for the Senate, they finally, very quietly dropped him.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/group-of-doctors-call-for-dr-oz-to-be-ousted-from-columbia-university/

As far as I am concerned, Columbia who refuses to remove a quack and scam artist from their medical school staff is no longer a respectable institution.

Actually it's you who is a quack and scam artist.

Columbia's actual fraud and core controversy has nothing to do with Dr. Oz.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me Columbia lost its prestige and jumped the shark when they refused to remove Dr. Mehmet Oz from their staff and later from his Professor Emeritus status with the university throughout his quack medicine and medical shams throughout the 2010's decade. He caused so much harm to patients selling get rich quick snake oil and making medically harmful recommendations (like pushing the I-cure for Covid).

Columbia only removed him from their staff listings and web-sites when he ran for Senate due to the political backlash. But they had problems riding his popularity coattails as long as they could. This is despite requests from dozens of fellow medical practitioners and Columbia staff members appealing to the university to distance themselves from him.

Sorry, but they lowered themselves to Trump U status with that debacle.

wow, I had no idea that even happened. yikes.

When Dr. Oz was on Oprah, he was only mildly quackish. But when he kicked off his own show in 2009, he really started to blow off any scientific credibility or basis in current known medicine.

So, in 2015, a list of 10 nationally respected doctors sent a letter to Columbia University asking them to distance themselves from him:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/group-of-doctors-call-for-dr-oz-to-be-ousted-from-columbia-university/

Columbia resisted. From 2015-2022, there were multiple requests for the university to drop Dr. Oz. But rather than drop him, they doubled down. When he stopped seeing patients, they changed his title to "Professor Emeritus".

But finally, when there was political backlash during his run for the Senate, they finally, very quietly dropped him.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/group-of-doctors-call-for-dr-oz-to-be-ousted-from-columbia-university/

As far as I am concerned, Columbia who refuses to remove a quack and scam artist from their medical school staff is no longer a respectable institution.

Actually it's you who is a quack and scam artist.

Columbia's actual fraud and core controversy has nothing to do with Dr. Oz.

Columbia is just shaking things up, just as they have always done. They aren't sheeps. Thry produce world-shattering people, like their math prof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me Columbia lost its prestige and jumped the shark when they refused to remove Dr. Mehmet Oz from their staff and later from his Professor Emeritus status with the university throughout his quack medicine and medical shams throughout the 2010's decade. He caused so much harm to patients selling get rich quick snake oil and making medically harmful recommendations (like pushing the I-cure for Covid).

Columbia only removed him from their staff listings and web-sites when he ran for Senate due to the political backlash. But they had problems riding his popularity coattails as long as they could. This is despite requests from dozens of fellow medical practitioners and Columbia staff members appealing to the university to distance themselves from him.

Sorry, but they lowered themselves to Trump U status with that debacle.

wow, I had no idea that even happened. yikes.

When Dr. Oz was on Oprah, he was only mildly quackish. But when he kicked off his own show in 2009, he really started to blow off any scientific credibility or basis in current known medicine.

So, in 2015, a list of 10 nationally respected doctors sent a letter to Columbia University asking them to distance themselves from him:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/group-of-doctors-call-for-dr-oz-to-be-ousted-from-columbia-university/

Columbia resisted. From 2015-2022, there were multiple requests for the university to drop Dr. Oz. But rather than drop him, they doubled down. When he stopped seeing patients, they changed his title to "Professor Emeritus".

But finally, when there was political backlash during his run for the Senate, they finally, very quietly dropped him.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/group-of-doctors-call-for-dr-oz-to-be-ousted-from-columbia-university/

As far as I am concerned, Columbia who refuses to remove a quack and scam artist from their medical school staff is no longer a respectable institution.

Actually it's you who is a quack and scam artist.

Columbia's actual fraud and core controversy has nothing to do with Dr. Oz.

Columbia is just shaking things up, just as they have always done. They aren't sheeps. Thry produce world-shattering people, like their math prof.

Nonsense. They advertised their USNWR ranking when it was good and now they are ranked much lower and withdraw. They are the worst ranked ivy and should just accept it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pure speculation but they do have a new president. I think she came from the UK so perhaps she is not as beholden to rankings as Americans are. Not sure if she deserves the credit or not but if yes, good for her for shaking up the system

US system is downgraded copy of UK system that has prestige and hierarchy unlike other Euro countries like Germany.

UK at least choose students by academic merits.

So what do they do when they receive more applications that are academically qualified than there are spots available? Because that's what happens here.

They have interviews designed to filter out the best students, academically. This is unlike the US where the goal of the interview is to filter out social undeireables (usually Asians, hence their lower scores in interviews).

NP. This made me chuckle knowing someone who bluffed their way through their Cambridge college interview mentioning a book they hadn't read. You are viewing the UK with rose colored glasses. Do you really think Oxbridge doesn't have institutional priorities and more qualified students than they can take?

I went to Oxford and have been shaking my head at all your UK meritocracy comments. For one, when people whine about wanting a "meritocracy, " the idea of meritocracy is defined by the individual--what merits to you (or rather benefits your kid)? Meritocracy can be a buzzword for exclusion. You claim US schools try to downgrade certain applicants' merits when they are looking for diversity, but you want to downgrade other applicants' merits because they are not what you prepped/planned for. Secondly, look at the students at Oxbridge. Sure there are some great state school kids, but a large percentage are networked, privileged, legacy kids. Still meeting the A levels, but they have a distinct advantage. Many more students apply to the top US schools. I agree with the PP who said there are just too many qualified applicants, and I think it is fine for colleges to want diversity. It's not like white/Asian kids are underrepresented at top US universities.

But, whatever your opinions on US schools, stop thinking UK has some utopian system or that somehow those students got their spot through "merits" and somehow US students didn't. That is just propaganda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For me Columbia lost its prestige and jumped the shark when they refused to remove Dr. Mehmet Oz from their staff and later from his Professor Emeritus status with the university throughout his quack medicine and medical shams throughout the 2010's decade. He caused so much harm to patients selling get rich quick snake oil and making medically harmful recommendations (like pushing the I-cure for Covid).

Columbia only removed him from their staff listings and web-sites when he ran for Senate due to the political backlash. But they had problems riding his popularity coattails as long as they could. This is despite requests from dozens of fellow medical practitioners and Columbia staff members appealing to the university to distance themselves from him.

Sorry, but they lowered themselves to Trump U status with that debacle.

wow, I had no idea that even happened. yikes.

When Dr. Oz was on Oprah, he was only mildly quackish. But when he kicked off his own show in 2009, he really started to blow off any scientific credibility or basis in current known medicine.

So, in 2015, a list of 10 nationally respected doctors sent a letter to Columbia University asking them to distance themselves from him:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/group-of-doctors-call-for-dr-oz-to-be-ousted-from-columbia-university/

Columbia resisted. From 2015-2022, there were multiple requests for the university to drop Dr. Oz. But rather than drop him, they doubled down. When he stopped seeing patients, they changed his title to "Professor Emeritus".

But finally, when there was political backlash during his run for the Senate, they finally, very quietly dropped him.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/group-of-doctors-call-for-dr-oz-to-be-ousted-from-columbia-university/

As far as I am concerned, Columbia who refuses to remove a quack and scam artist from their medical school staff is no longer a respectable institution.

Actually it's you who is a quack and scam artist.

Columbia's actual fraud and core controversy has nothing to do with Dr. Oz.

DP. Why the hyperbolic accusations? ("Scam artist" and "quack" wouldn't apply to the poster anyway as PP is neither selling anything nor dispensing medical advice). PP was talking about additional issues to the fraud issue, not mistaking this for it. I found it interesting and informative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pure speculation but they do have a new president. I think she came from the UK so perhaps she is not as beholden to rankings as Americans are. Not sure if she deserves the credit or not but if yes, good for her for shaking up the system

US system is downgraded copy of UK system that has prestige and hierarchy unlike other Euro countries like Germany.

UK at least choose students by academic merits.

So what do they do when they receive more applications that are academically qualified than there are spots available? Because that's what happens here.

They have interviews designed to filter out the best students, academically. This is unlike the US where the goal of the interview is to filter out social undeireables (usually Asians, hence their lower scores in interviews).

NP. This made me chuckle knowing someone who bluffed their way through their Cambridge college interview mentioning a book they hadn't read. You are viewing the UK with rose colored glasses. Do you really think Oxbridge doesn't have institutional priorities and more qualified students than they can take?

I went to Oxford and have been shaking my head at all your UK meritocracy comments. For one, when people whine about wanting a "meritocracy, " the idea of meritocracy is defined by the individual--what merits to you (or rather benefits your kid)? Meritocracy can be a buzzword for exclusion. You claim US schools try to downgrade certain applicants' merits when they are looking for diversity, but you want to downgrade other applicants' merits because they are not what you prepped/planned for. Secondly, look at the students at Oxbridge. Sure there are some great state school kids, but a large percentage are networked, privileged, legacy kids. Still meeting the A levels, but they have a distinct advantage. Many more students apply to the top US schools. I agree with the PP who said there are just too many qualified applicants, and I think it is fine for colleges to want diversity. It's not like white/Asian kids are underrepresented at top US universities.

But, whatever your opinions on US schools, stop thinking UK has some utopian system or that somehow those students got their spot through "merits" and somehow US students didn't. That is just propaganda.

You went to Oxford as a tourist, at best. All typical US stereotypes about Oxford are there -- chatGPT could actually have done a better job.

Sure sure, utopia doesn't exist. Yet the UK system as a whole recognizes merit much better than the US, where family money and connections and skin color take a disproportionate role at too many of our "elite" institutions.

What you're doing is to spread misinformation and propaganda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pure speculation but they do have a new president. I think she came from the UK so perhaps she is not as beholden to rankings as Americans are. Not sure if she deserves the credit or not but if yes, good for her for shaking up the system

US system is downgraded copy of UK system that has prestige and hierarchy unlike other Euro countries like Germany.

UK at least choose students by academic merits.

So what do they do when they receive more applications that are academically qualified than there are spots available? Because that's what happens here.

They have interviews designed to filter out the best students, academically. This is unlike the US where the goal of the interview is to filter out social undeireables (usually Asians, hence their lower scores in interviews).

Actually, the Harvard lawsuit showed that the interviewers gave the applicants high likeability marks. It was the AOs who marked them down, after never having met the applicants. Hence, the "holistic" approach is BS argument.

[Anonymous]

Here in the US we laugh at almost everything about the UK. With good reason.