Columbia permanently pulls out of US news

[Anonymous]

The USNWR college rankings and DCUM were made for each other.

[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.

Holistic admissions is also a buzzword for excluding certain groups.

The UK at least doesn't care much about extra curricular activities. Here in the US, kids are killing themselves in order to have high stats in the most rigorous courses possible AND taking on leadership roles in extra curriculars all while trying to cure cancer or address climate change.

Sure, the elite will always have privileges that others won't, whether in the US or UK, but at least the UK doesn't use holistic admissions as a means to limit certain groups. Using academic merit for an academic institution makes a lot more sense than "likeability" BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you the same hyperbolic poster who keeps trying to make up your deficiency with insults to varioys posters? I guess my and my relative's experiences at Ox and Camb (respectively) touched a nerve. You are welcome to look at my regatta pots if you don't believe I was actually there. Hopefully, chat gpt hasn't learned to row yet.

Your ignorance is amusing, but a little dangerous to those who might not see that you are full of your own bias and trying to discount others' knowledge/experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Columbia prof just pointed out the US News/emperor is butt naked. Instead of re-ranking Columbia to its rightful place somewhere around #5, the emperor had a hiss fit and dropped it down to its 1980s ranking. What a joke.

[Anonymous]

Columbia is by far the weirdest Ivy with the worst social life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Columbia prof just pointed out the US News/emperor is butt naked. Instead of re-ranking Columbia to its rightful place somewhere around #5, the emperor had a hiss fit and dropped it down to its 1980s ranking. What a joke.

Maybe the rightful place is about #20 in rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like a hissy fit.

Everyone should do it. These rankings are silly and rigged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like a hissy fit.

Everyone should do it. These rankings are silly and rigged.

like advertise when they are ranked high, then run away when they get caught cheating?

[Anonymous]

It is time fro the rankings to disappear, especially if SATs and GPAs and every other numeric indicator disappears. What's the point? HYP aren't really better at educating than any of the other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Columbia is by far the weirdest Ivy with the worst social life

Going to school in the greatest city in the world, and then looking for social life on campus, is the weirdest thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Columbia is by far the weirdest Ivy with the worst social life

Says a podunk grad who has never set a foot at a selective school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The Columbia prof just pointed out the US News/emperor is butt naked. Instead of re-ranking Columbia to its rightful place somewhere around #5, the emperor had a hiss fit and dropped it down to its 1980s ranking. What a joke.

Your tantrum doesn't really make sense or hold any water. US News ranked Columbia according to its methodology, in the same way that it ranked all the other schools.

[Anonymous]

NYU maybe better than Columbia these days? I view them as peers, both good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NYU maybe better than Columbia these days? I view them as peers, both good.

Why would anyone care how you view them?

[Anonymous]

It will be interesting to see how many other colleges and universities follow Columbia.
Colorado College and Bard also pulled out of the rankings