With US News Being Challenged by Top Schools, Does it Make More Sense to Combine Rankings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just publish admissions stats and let people decide for themselves.

A few colleges lie about stats, as we saw with Columbia. The ranking data gives us a sanity check. If a college suddenly rockets to a suspiciously high ranking, people smell a rat.

+1. Honestly the next rat is looking like UChicago. Look at their comparison of rankings, US News looks like an outlier

Not publishing a CDS invites suspicion. Does Chicago publish one?

Columbia and UChicago were the only top schools that didn’t publish CDS before the scandal. Definitely suspicious.

+1, the lack of transparency over time wasn't a great look for Chicago after the Columbia debacle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It doesn’t make sense because each ranking system prioritizes different things. If you care most about earning potential, look at Forbes; if you qualify for aid and care most about “best value,” look at Money, etc. US News puts a lot
of weight on entering student stats and peer reputation, WSJ lets you tinker with the weighting so you can customize the list to whatever you care about (diversity, outcomes, etc.)

I don't want to tinker the ratngs I see. I want to thinker the ratings everyone else sees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just publish admissions stats and let people decide for themselves.

A few colleges lie about stats, as we saw with Columbia. The ranking data gives us a sanity check. If a college suddenly rockets to a suspiciously high ranking, people smell a rat.

+1. Honestly the next rat is looking like UChicago. Look at their comparison of rankings, US News looks like an outlier

Not publishing a CDS invites suspicion. Does Chicago publish one?

Columbia and UChicago were the only top schools that didn’t publish CDS before the scandal. Definitely suspicious.

+1, the lack of transparency over time wasn't a great look for Chicago after the Columbia debacle.

I think this combined ranking does a nice job of reflecting that. Columbia isn't as bad as US News claims at #18, but it's also definitely not #2 as it was before the scandal. Similarly, no way in hell is UChicago #6 as US News has it, this combined ranking has it at #20 which is probably a bit harsh but anywhere in the teens is fair for UChicago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just publish admissions stats and let people decide for themselves.

A few colleges lie about stats, as we saw with Columbia. The ranking data gives us a sanity check. If a college suddenly rockets to a suspiciously high ranking, people smell a rat.

+1. Honestly the next rat is looking like UChicago. Look at their comparison of rankings, US News looks like an outlier

Not publishing a CDS invites suspicion. Does Chicago publish one?

Columbia and UChicago were the only top schools that didn’t publish CDS before the scandal. Definitely suspicious.

+1, the lack of transparency over time wasn't a great look for Chicago after the Columbia debacle.

I think this combined ranking does a nice job of reflecting that. Columbia isn't as bad as US News claims at #18, but it's also definitely not #2 as it was before the scandal. Similarly, no way in hell is UChicago #6 as US News has it, this combined ranking has it at #20 which is probably a bit harsh but anywhere in the teens is fair for UChicago.

This is utter and complete drivel. There is no way you can measure any of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just publish admissions stats and let people decide for themselves.

A few colleges lie about stats, as we saw with Columbia. The ranking data gives us a sanity check. If a college suddenly rockets to a suspiciously high ranking, people smell a rat.

+1. Honestly the next rat is looking like UChicago. Look at their comparison of rankings, US News looks like an outlier

Not publishing a CDS invites suspicion. Does Chicago publish one?

Columbia and UChicago were the only top schools that didn’t publish CDS before the scandal. Definitely suspicious.

+1, the lack of transparency over time wasn't a great look for Chicago after the Columbia debacle.

I think this combined ranking does a nice job of reflecting that. Columbia isn't as bad as US News claims at #18, but it's also definitely not #2 as it was before the scandal. Similarly, no way in hell is UChicago #6 as US News has it, this combined ranking has it at #20 which is probably a bit harsh but anywhere in the teens is fair for UChicago.

This is utter and complete drivel. There is no way you can measure any of this.

Sure but I think in general you can tell by quality and caliber of students who attend each school, along with the outcomes of those students. Over the past 10 years where have Rhodes Scholars, startup founders, business leaders, rising stars in politics, innovative researchers, groundbreaking artists, etc. gone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just publish admissions stats and let people decide for themselves.

A few colleges lie about stats, as we saw with Columbia. The ranking data gives us a sanity check. If a college suddenly rockets to a suspiciously high ranking, people smell a rat.

+1. Honestly the next rat is looking like UChicago. Look at their comparison of rankings, US News looks like an outlier

Not publishing a CDS invites suspicion. Does Chicago publish one?

Columbia and UChicago were the only top schools that didn’t publish CDS before the scandal. Definitely suspicious.

+1, the lack of transparency over time wasn't a great look for Chicago after the Columbia debacle.

I think this combined ranking does a nice job of reflecting that. Columbia isn't as bad as US News claims at #18, but it's also definitely not #2 as it was before the scandal. Similarly, no way in hell is UChicago #6 as US News has it, this combined ranking has it at #20 which is probably a bit harsh but anywhere in the teens is fair for UChicago.

This is utter and complete drivel. There is no way you can measure any of this.

Sure but I think in general you can tell by quality and caliber of students who attend each school, along with the outcomes of those students. Over the past 10 years where have Rhodes Scholars, startup founders, business leaders, rising stars in politics, innovative researchers, groundbreaking artists, etc. gone?

A bunch of cherrypicked, fuzzy categories ('groundbreaking artists").

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not just publish admissions stats and let people decide for themselves.

A few colleges lie about stats, as we saw with Columbia. The ranking data gives us a sanity check. If a college suddenly rockets to a suspiciously high ranking, people smell a rat.

+1. Honestly the next rat is looking like UChicago. Look at their comparison of rankings, US News looks like an outlier

Not publishing a CDS invites suspicion. Does Chicago publish one?

Columbia and UChicago were the only top schools that didn’t publish CDS before the scandal. Definitely suspicious.

+1, the lack of transparency over time wasn't a great look for Chicago after the Columbia debacle.

I think this combined ranking does a nice job of reflecting that. Columbia isn't as bad as US News claims at #18, but it's also definitely not #2 as it was before the scandal. Similarly, no way in hell is UChicago #6 as US News has it, this combined ranking has it at #20 which is probably a bit harsh but anywhere in the teens is fair for UChicago.

This is utter and complete drivel. There is no way you can measure any of this.

Sure but I think in general you can tell by quality and caliber of students who attend each school, along with the outcomes of those students. Over the past 10 years where have Rhodes Scholars, startup founders, business leaders, rising stars in politics, innovative researchers, groundbreaking artists, etc. gone?

A bunch of cherrypicked, fuzzy categories ('groundbreaking artists").

What categories would you prefer?

[Anonymous]

Ivy and Big Ten are basically the elite (Hopkins as a big ten affiliate) plus the academies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ivy and Big Ten are basically the elite (Hopkins as a big ten affiliate) plus the academies

Agree. Since the Big Ten shanghaied the elite of the ACC and Pac12 .. UMD, UCLA and USC it’s now the Public leaning IVY research behemoth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ivy and Big Ten are basically the elite (Hopkins as a big ten affiliate) plus the academies

Eh not really. The 4 best non-ivies (Stanford, MIT, Duke, Caltech) have no affiliation to the Big Ten. And at least for Stanford/Duke they are also athletic powerhouses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ivy and Big Ten are basically the elite (Hopkins as a big ten affiliate) plus the academies

The lower ranked Ivies are no longer elite. Good schools, sure. Elite? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivy and Big Ten are basically the elite (Hopkins as a big ten affiliate) plus the academies

The lower ranked Ivies are no longer elite. Good schools, sure. Elite? No.

I’m sorry I’m one of those rejected you. You’ll get over it. Someday.

For the record what number out of 3000 colleges is the line for elite? Top 10 top five top three?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivy and Big Ten are basically the elite (Hopkins as a big ten affiliate) plus the academies

The lower ranked Ivies are no longer elite. Good schools, sure. Elite? No.

I’m sorry I’m one of those rejected you. You’ll get over it. Someday.

For the record what number out of 3000 colleges is the line for elite? Top 10 top five top three?

Did that feel good?

The pp is exactly correct. Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Penn, Columbia don't compare with MIT, Stanford, Rice, Vanderbilt, Caltech, Duke, Hopkins, Chicago, Northwestern.

Deal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ivy and Big Ten are basically the elite (Hopkins as a big ten affiliate) plus the academies

The lower ranked Ivies are no longer elite. Good schools, sure. Elite? No.

I’m sorry I’m one of those rejected you. You’ll get over it. Someday.

For the record what number out of 3000 colleges is the line for elite? Top 10 top five top three?

Did that feel good?

The pp is exactly correct. Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Penn, Columbia don't compare with MIT, Stanford, Rice, Vanderbilt, Caltech, Duke, Hopkins, Chicago, Northwestern.

Deal

Probably the funniest thing I’ll read all day. Enjoy living in La-La land. Penn can’t compare to Vanderbilt? Come on.

[Anonymous]

It makes no sense to rank colleges.