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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The world rankings are more logical and respected globally.

This is simply not true. The global rankings are even more nonsensical, and one of them, QS, is notorious for its British bias.

The global rankings do a good job of what they are for: ranking reputations of universities globally.

No one thinks that Vanderbilt or Duke are more reputed institutions than UC Berkeley, but the undergraduate rankings incorrectly ranks it as such.

The National Universities ranking is a misnomer. It should obviously be renamed to indicate it ranks based on undergraduate studies specifically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The world rankings are more logical and respected globally.

This is simply not true. The global rankings are even more nonsensical, and one of them, QS, is notorious for its British bias.

The global rankings do a good job of what they are for: ranking reputations of universities globally.

No one thinks that Vanderbilt or Duke are more reputed institutions than UC Berkeley, but the undergraduate rankings incorrectly ranks it as such.

The National Universities ranking is a misnomer. It should obviously be renamed to indicate it ranks based on undergraduate studies specifically.

+1. While rankings like QS are survey-heavy and biased in favor of UK universities, US News Global, ARWU, and CWUR are research-based and is a very accurate measure of 1. how much a school is contributing towards academic progress and 2. the overall global reputation within academia (of course not laymen prestige).

Most of the other countries construct school prestige out of these factors, and it’s really only the US that ignorantly thinks that laymen undergrad prestige is the only thing out there. No idea why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The world rankings are more logical and respected globally.

This is simply not true. The global rankings are even more nonsensical, and one of them, QS, is notorious for its British bias.

The global rankings do a good job of what they are for: ranking reputations of universities globally.

No one thinks that Vanderbilt or Duke are more reputed institutions than UC Berkeley, but the undergraduate rankings incorrectly ranks it as such.

The National Universities ranking is a misnomer. It should obviously be renamed to indicate it ranks based on undergraduate studies specifically.

Uh, yeah, no.

And no one thinks University of Washington and UC San Diego are better universities than Duke and UPenn.

[Anonymous]

He realized many years ago that being an annoying contrarian was his meal ticket. He did write a few interesting books decades ago but his 15 minutes of fame are up.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

The whole ranking thing is ridiculous. There are bright students a d brilliant professors/great teachers at all colleges. Some have a lot more than others. Some have more money than others and spend it on financial aid, infrastructure, dorms, or sports. Some schools have names that everyone knows; most do not. You can get an excellent education at most non-profit four+ year institutions if you seek it out and work hard. Only peoe who don’t have a lot of motivation or talent *need* to have a big name schools on their resume to do well and get ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He went to Trinity College so he just sounds bitter to me.

University of Toronto. That’s an excellent school.

[Anonymous]

I feel like at some point in the past — 15 years or so ago — normie types would drop Malcolm Gladwell references into conversations. Books widely available, including at Target.

[Anonymous]

global rankings are stupid and less correct.

[Anonymous]

People have to stop thing about the ranking as a specific number --- we are 18!!!!!. The number is more of less where the schools are and it tells people who the peer collection of schools is. It is a range presented as a single number. Is Columbia better than UCLA based on certain criteria? Of course. Might UCLA be better for you? Of course. But there is a sense that you are talking about one that is towards the top and one just a little lower.

[Anonymous]

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.

Is that why they're called Bezerkeley? Or were called? Might be dating myself.

[Anonymous]

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.

This statement needs to be restricted to a certain group of Berkeley grads, namely the undergraduates. We all know that global rankings put emphasis on graduate school research, and in that sphere, there are very few schools that are better than Berkeley.

Of course, Berkeley Ph.D. students have every reason to mention the global rankings, because that is an accurate representation of their achievement. A Berkeley Ph.D. student is more elite than a Duke or Vanderbilt Ph.D. student, and there's no way to argue against this.

Where I agree with you, are those insecure undergrads who mention the global rankings as if it's a representation of their eliteness. They take credit for something they don't deserve, i.e. the elite nature of the grad programs at Berkeley. They are nasty indeed.

[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.

This statement needs to be restricted to a certain group of Berkeley grads, namely the undergraduates. We all know that global rankings put emphasis on graduate school research, and in that sphere, there are very few schools that are better than Berkeley.

Of course, Berkeley Ph.D. students have every reason to mention the global rankings, because that is an accurate representation of their achievement. A Berkeley Ph.D. student is more elite than a Duke or Vanderbilt Ph.D. student, and there's no way to argue against this.

Where I agree with you, are those insecure undergrads who mention the global rankings as if it's a representation of their eliteness. They take credit for something they don't deserve, i.e. the elite nature of the grad programs at Berkeley. They are nasty indeed.

I can agree with this. Berkeley undergrad has never been elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He went to Trinity College so he just sounds bitter to me.

University of Toronto. That’s an excellent school.

Dumbass thinks he when to Trinity in Hartford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He went to Trinity College so he just sounds bitter to me.

University of Toronto. That’s an excellent school.

Dumbass thinks he when to Trinity in Hartford.

So funny. He certains knows much, much more than the average posters here.