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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:global rankings are stupid and less correct.

Work on your writing skills first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^Anyone who is surprised at Duke being ranked lower than Washington or UC San Diego does not understand that Duke is essentially an unknown school globally. No one wants to attend a parochial town in a red state for 4 years of undergraduate or 6 years of PhD., or for a lifetime as a professor.

Which is why, unfortunately, Duke had to close its doors because it did not have any undergraduate students, graduate students, or professors. They are thinking of turning it into a Hogwarts themed park.

[Anonymous]

They became pointless once they started rewarding metrics like diversity, % of pell grant recipients, and how much professors get paid.

Everyone knows the elite undergraduate are Ivies, Stanford, and MIT (and Notre Dame if you're a Catholic school valedictorian).

They also ruined the high school rankings with the same social engineering non sense.

[Anonymous]

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.

It wasn't a ranking. It was a representative list of schools by selectivity range (based on SAT scores). Most people didn't even read that part.

[Anonymous]

Rankings have shifted the decision making process for choosing a school from one that was more about fit and finances and have made it more about a single number. That is unfortunate, and it has also probably resulted in an increase in Billions in student debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

You're on a DMV forum. How much do you think Berkeley and Michigan cost out of state parents a year? It's essentially a wash:

Lower $67,802.38/yr
Upper $71,464.38/yr
https://finaid.umich.edu/getting-started/estimating-costs

To some teens, an ideal college experience is a massive 40,000 student state school, with huge sororities and frats and painting their face on football Saturdays, and 600 student lecture halls where nobody notices if they show up or not. Others want a smaller private vibe and their parents have the money for it. Many at big publics aren't happy, and would prefer a private experience, especially during junior and senior years if they're gunning for grad school, but their family couldn't afford it. Read any law school and medical school forums for countless complaints from kids at public flagships (they're admit they're jealous of their friends at privates).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brown has really benefitted from being in the Ivy League. It was always thought of as perhaps the poorest of the Ivy League schools. The halo effect of the Ivy League has helped them with admissions and they have made up some ground on building up their endowment.

You are misinformed, and you did not read even this thread, let alone do research, before you saw fit to comment. The post at 06/29/2021 12:13 has an article from the NY Times completely disproving your from-the-backside theory.

That boost in admissions was the product of John F. Kennedy, Jr. It was pre-USNWR. I don't know how he ended up at Brown, but I don't think he was the best student and other schools like Harvard (where his father and sister matriculated) may not have been an option.

https://pagesix.com/2017/10/09/jackie-worked-hard-to-keep-jfk-jr-from-flunking-college-classes/

My comment was not specifically on the number of applicants to Brown in 1983. I was about the schools financial situation and how it was viewed vs. the other Ivy League schools.

Spin, makes excuses and backpedal if you must, but not only do you have no evidence for your claims of either post, that article directly contradicts your original claim and you know it. Just admit you were wrong. It's not hard to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brown has really benefitted from being in the Ivy League. It was always thought of as perhaps the poorest of the Ivy League schools. The halo effect of the Ivy League has helped them with admissions and they have made up some ground on building up their endowment.

You are misinformed, and you did not read even this thread, let alone do research, before you saw fit to comment. The post at 06/29/2021 12:13 has an article from the NY Times completely disproving your from-the-backside theory.

That boost in admissions was the product of John F. Kennedy, Jr. It was pre-USNWR. I don't know how he ended up at Brown, but I don't think he was the best student and other schools like Harvard (where his father and sister matriculated) may not have been an option.

https://pagesix.com/2017/10/09/jackie-worked-hard-to-keep-jfk-jr-from-flunking-college-classes/

My comment was not specifically on the number of applicants to Brown in 1983. I was about the schools financial situation and how it was viewed vs. the other Ivy League schools.

Similar situation with the Obamas at Sidwell Friends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brown has really benefitted from being in the Ivy League. It was always thought of as perhaps the poorest of the Ivy League schools. The halo effect of the Ivy League has helped them with admissions and they have made up some ground on building up their endowment.

You are misinformed, and you did not read even this thread, let alone do research, before you saw fit to comment. The post at 06/29/2021 12:13 has an article from the NY Times completely disproving your from-the-backside theory.

That boost in admissions was the product of John F. Kennedy, Jr. It was pre-USNWR. I don't know how he ended up at Brown, but I don't think he was the best student and other schools like Harvard (where his father and sister matriculated) may not have been an option.

https://pagesix.com/2017/10/09/jackie-worked-hard-to-keep-jfk-jr-from-flunking-college-classes/

My comment was not specifically on the number of applicants to Brown in 1983. I was about the schools financial situation and how it was viewed vs. the other Ivy League schools.

Spin, makes excuses and backpedal if you must, but not only do you have no evidence for your claims of either post, that article directly contradicts your original claim and you know it. Just admit you were wrong. It's not hard to do.

Nitwits who talk s*** about Brown, Cornell and/or Dartmouth on message forums could never get into an Ivy. And they've almost certainly never been to these colleges, which are in fairly obscure towns. It's such a public k-12 / state university thing -- and perhaps a Northwestern / UChicago striver parent thing -- to take potshots at a "low" Ivy. They make it incredibly obvious they don't understand the Ivy League ethos, traditions, or a private college experience in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brown has really benefitted from being in the Ivy League. It was always thought of as perhaps the poorest of the Ivy League schools. The halo effect of the Ivy League has helped them with admissions and they have made up some ground on building up their endowment.

You are misinformed, and you did not read even this thread, let alone do research, before you saw fit to comment. The post at 06/29/2021 12:13 has an article from the NY Times completely disproving your from-the-backside theory.

That boost in admissions was the product of John F. Kennedy, Jr. It was pre-USNWR. I don't know how he ended up at Brown, but I don't think he was the best student and other schools like Harvard (where his father and sister matriculated) may not have been an option.

https://pagesix.com/2017/10/09/jackie-worked-hard-to-keep-jfk-jr-from-flunking-college-classes/

My comment was not specifically on the number of applicants to Brown in 1983. I was about the schools financial situation and how it was viewed vs. the other Ivy League schools.

Spin, makes excuses and backpedal if you must, but not only do you have no evidence for your claims of either post, that article directly contradicts your original claim and you know it. Just admit you were wrong. It's not hard to do.

Nitwits who talk s*** about Brown, Cornell and/or Dartmouth on message forums could never get into an Ivy. And they've almost certainly never been to these colleges, which are in fairly obscure towns. It's such a public k-12 / state university thing -- and perhaps a Northwestern / UChicago striver parent thing -- to take potshots at a "low" Ivy. They make it incredibly obvious they don't understand the Ivy League ethos, traditions, or a private college experience in general.

You sound deeply insecure. Quite a striver yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brown has really benefitted from being in the Ivy League. It was always thought of as perhaps the poorest of the Ivy League schools. The halo effect of the Ivy League has helped them with admissions and they have made up some ground on building up their endowment.

You are misinformed, and you did not read even this thread, let alone do research, before you saw fit to comment. The post at 06/29/2021 12:13 has an article from the NY Times completely disproving your from-the-backside theory.

That boost in admissions was the product of John F. Kennedy, Jr. It was pre-USNWR. I don't know how he ended up at Brown, but I don't think he was the best student and other schools like Harvard (where his father and sister matriculated) may not have been an option.

https://pagesix.com/2017/10/09/jackie-worked-hard-to-keep-jfk-jr-from-flunking-college-classes/

My comment was not specifically on the number of applicants to Brown in 1983. I was about the schools financial situation and how it was viewed vs. the other Ivy League schools.

Spin, makes excuses and backpedal if you must, but not only do you have no evidence for your claims of either post, that article directly contradicts your original claim and you know it. Just admit you were wrong. It's not hard to do.

Nitwits who talk s*** about Brown, Cornell and/or Dartmouth on message forums could never get into an Ivy. And they've almost certainly never been to these colleges, which are in fairly obscure towns. It's such a public k-12 / state university thing -- and perhaps a Northwestern / UChicago striver parent thing -- to take potshots at a "low" Ivy. They make it incredibly obvious they don't understand the Ivy League ethos, traditions, or a private college experience in general.

DP but quite ironic that for someone petulantly whining about potshots, why even drag these two schools' names into this? Weird behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Brown has really benefitted from being in the Ivy League. It was always thought of as perhaps the poorest of the Ivy League schools. The halo effect of the Ivy League has helped them with admissions and they have made up some ground on building up their endowment.

You are misinformed, and you did not read even this thread, let alone do research, before you saw fit to comment. The post at 06/29/2021 12:13 has an article from the NY Times completely disproving your from-the-backside theory.

That boost in admissions was the product of John F. Kennedy, Jr. It was pre-USNWR. I don't know how he ended up at Brown, but I don't think he was the best student and other schools like Harvard (where his father and sister matriculated) may not have been an option.

https://pagesix.com/2017/10/09/jackie-worked-hard-to-keep-jfk-jr-from-flunking-college-classes/

My comment was not specifically on the number of applicants to Brown in 1983. I was about the schools financial situation and how it was viewed vs. the other Ivy League schools.

Spin, makes excuses and backpedal if you must, but not only do you have no evidence for your claims of either post, that article directly contradicts your original claim and you know it. Just admit you were wrong. It's not hard to do.

Nitwits who talk s*** about Brown, Cornell and/or Dartmouth on message forums could never get into an Ivy. And they've almost certainly never been to these colleges, which are in fairly obscure towns. It's such a public k-12 / state university thing -- and perhaps a Northwestern / UChicago striver parent thing -- to take potshots at a "low" Ivy. They make it incredibly obvious they don't understand the Ivy League ethos, traditions, or a private college experience in general.

You sound very insecure!
Here's a student who got into Cornell but couldn't get in any where else, including BC and UMich. There's also many more on YouTube.
https://youtu.be/uOejZjMlZYQ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Berkeley grads hold onto the global rankings as if their lives depended on it. Can you imagine the inner turmoil and angst if Berkeley were to fall down the global rankings, too? Never seen a group of more insecure alums in my life. And that insecurity often reveals itself in nasty ways.

You must be UVA grad. It’s called “projecting”.

So true!

[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.

The opposite is true.
People in many foreign countries have no idea what schools are in the Ivy league (maybe except Harvard), but they only know the Ivy league is prestigious. Just like they don't know who are the Oscar Academy winners, but they know that's a prestigious award and honor. So just say to them you are from a Ivy league school you have the prestige. As simple as that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The opposite is true.
People in many foreign countries have no idea what schools are in the Ivy league (maybe except Harvard), but they only know the Ivy league is prestigious. Just like they don't know who are the Oscar Academy winners, but they know that's a prestigious award and honor. So just say to them you are from a Ivy league school you have the prestige. As simple as that.

That may be true today, but not in the 70s and 80s, before college rankings became mainstream.