US News 2020 rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:USNWR rankings are like saying: rank the cities of the world in terms of their overall awesomeness. Rank all foods from best to worst. It’s inherently insane.

Is Harvard “better” than the University of Phoenix? Yes. Is Williams better than Liberty? Yes. But is Harvard “better” than Stanford, is Williams “better” than Amherst? It’s ridiculous.

Every school in the top hundred is a terrific school. Every school has strengths and weaknesses, and pros and cons for particular kids (urban/rural, small/large, great STEM/great humanities, more/less student diversity, etc). USNWR rankings exist to keep an otherwise failed company alive and to make all the rest of us crazy.

I don’t disagree but I also think number 1 is better than number 30. But at some granularity is does get absurd. Just like college football polls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USNWR rankings are like saying: rank the cities of the world in terms of their overall awesomeness. Rank all foods from best to worst. It’s inherently insane.

Is Harvard “better” than the University of Phoenix? Yes. Is Williams better than Liberty? Yes. But is Harvard “better” than Stanford, is Williams “better” than Amherst? It’s ridiculous.

Every school in the top hundred is a terrific school. Every school has strengths and weaknesses, and pros and cons for particular kids (urban/rural, small/large, great STEM/great humanities, more/less student diversity, etc). USNWR rankings exist to keep an otherwise failed company alive and to make all the rest of us crazy.

I don’t disagree but I also think number 1 is better than number 30. But at some granularity is does get absurd. Just like college football polls.

I think there are a couple of clearer tiers, then it gets murkier. Top tier in my mind is Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Caltech. Second tier is Columbia, Penn, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Chicago (I know that will cause some resentment here for not being in top tier). Below that, not as clear, and the differences between schools 10 or more spots away are not as significant as it is at the top (like Princeton vs. Johns Hopkins).

[Anonymous]

Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

[Anonymous]

^^ individual schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Is this some sort of inane hobby for you? Utterly idiotic to parse top 30 schools....get a life loser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Stanford not ranked top 5?

Because it’s 6.

What makes you think Stanford should be in the top tier with Princeton, Harvard, or Yale? Look at their endowment.
School. Enrollment. Endowment
Princeton. 8,000. 25 billion
Harvard. 20,000. 39 billion
Yale. 13,000. 29 billion
Stanford. 17,000. 26 billion

Less money means less resources. By that, Stanford belongs in where it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Except, Tier Person, Wake Forest now outranks UVA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In what academic area would the University of Florida be better than Wisconsin or Texas? Any?

No.

They're all the same. Splitting hairs to be honest.

Wrong. Wisconsin’s graduate school rankings are amazing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Never mind USNWR...when do rankings come out for "Colleges That Change Lives"?

Is George Mason one of those?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Except, Tier Person, Wake Forest now outranks UVA.

I'll grant that all the tier 3 have stronger graduate programs than schools like Wake and William & Mary, but this is supposed to be for undergraduate quality and experience. Does a person with same stats going in to Wake do any worse than if they went to UCLA (with the same entering stats)? I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In what academic area would the University of Florida be better than Wisconsin or Texas? Any?

None. It’s because deans vote for their circle of friends

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In what academic area would the University of Florida be better than Wisconsin or Texas? Any?

No.

They're all the same. Splitting hairs to be honest.

Wrong. Wisconsin’s graduate school rankings are amazing.

Could say the same for Texas. But you can't for Florida.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Except, Tier Person, Wake Forest now outranks UVA.

UVA people are always trying to put other schools in lesser tiers. . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Except, Tier Person, Wake Forest now outranks UVA.

UVA people are always trying to put other schools in lesser tiers. . .

This is all so stupid.

Example of why: Georgetown is the best international relations school in the country for preparing kids for careers in that field. In other areas it’s weaker. Saying it’s below, say, Harvard or Penn in every area is inaccurate.

Just one example of why overall college rankings are pointless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:USNWR rankings are like saying: rank the cities of the world in terms of their overall awesomeness. Rank all foods from best to worst. It’s inherently insane.

Is Harvard “better” than the University of Phoenix? Yes. Is Williams better than Liberty? Yes. But is Harvard “better” than Stanford, is Williams “better” than Amherst? It’s ridiculous.

Every school in the top hundred is a terrific school. Every school has strengths and weaknesses, and pros and cons for particular kids (urban/rural, small/large, great STEM/great humanities, more/less student diversity, etc). USNWR rankings exist to keep an otherwise failed company alive and to make all the rest of us crazy.

I don’t disagree but I also think number 1 is better than number 30. But at some granularity is does get absurd. Just like college football polls.

I think there are a couple of clearer tiers, then it gets murkier. Top tier in my mind is Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Caltech. Second tier is Columbia, Penn, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Chicago (I know that will cause some resentment here for not being in top tier). Below that, not as clear, and the differences between schools 10 or more spots away are not as significant as it is at the top (like Princeton vs. Johns Hopkins).

I would say this matches my perception, too. Those schools go by that order in my mind for their prestige, fair or not.