New Wall Street Journal Rankings 2019

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to see which university is more academically rigorous and less politicized?

Not sure. Interesting question...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are looking at the quality of education you can get, there are a lot of small schools who don't rank very well that have a great curriculum and good professors that are actually much better than Harvard, Stanford etc.

Look at this website that actually looks at the curriculum and what kids actually get taught.

https://www.whatwilltheylearn.com/


The tool you link to gives Williams College a D- and Pepperdine an A+.

I'll pass.

That is exactly the point. Name wise and reputation wise, Williams has a lot more credibility but when you really look under the covers, the curriculum at Williams and other Elites have been watered down to such an extent that unless a kid is really determined to get a well rounded education, they offer very one dimensional educational experience.

What is your evidence of that? It flies in the face of every other bit of information I have seen, including every review, guidebook, visit, discussion with college counselors and professors. I have to call BS. Total BS.

When you don't require your students to have a "college level" understanding of US history and economics for example (and don't tell me taking an AP class in school is the same, it is not), they will be terrible voters and poor citizens unless they learn all this on the side.

So just list colleges that have strong core curricula so people that value that can choose them. UChi, Columbia, etc.

This was not the case 50 years ago. A lot of these colleges are just milking their reputations and are doing students a huge disservice, yet if you just look at "Is Williams more prestigious than Pepperdine", then USNews ranking is where you should go.

I'm not even gonna argue this one, or concede I might be wrong on this point. You'll get a better education from better professors at Williams or (open curriculum) Amherst than you will at Pepperdine, in almost every discipline. End period.

The grading is really on commitment to core curriculum. A counterpoint grading could be done on commitment to open curriculum. It might have been better to have some sort of assessment that shows where the schools fall on that continuum.

Core curriculum WRT what the core is exactly or what the quality of it is, or the teachers, or the facilities. Ludicrous to the point of negligent. Aside from just completely meaningless.

ps - Even open curriculum schools like Brown have requirements like 2 writing courses and other requirements per concentration. How is that accounted for in this silly methodology? It isn't? Oh...

It's not writing but composition that is being evaluated. None of courses Brown says will fulfill its writing requirements satisfy the requirement needed by get a check off against the composition rating

An introductory college writing class that emphasizes some or all of the following topics: mechanics, style, grammar, usage, argument, rhetoric, research, expository writing, understanding of tone and audience, editing, revision, rewriting, and an understanding of academic writing conventions[i]

Brown defines it as "any course requiring significant writing" which is a joke

And the grading is not for a "Core Curriculum", but for a good "Gen Ed" curriculum and the two are totally different, in case you don't know. You can clearly have a very good general education curriculum without having a "Core Curriculum". Brown is being singled out for a "F" grade not because it does not have a "Core curriculum" but because its general education curriculum is a freaking joke.

Again let me emphasize that this does not mean that you cannot get a fantastic education at Brown and that the profs there are not excellent. I am sure for a dedicated student who is willing to eschew "fluff courses" and plunge into the "serious courses" offered at Brown, Brown will provide a wonderful education, but by setting the bar so low for most students and by allowing students to graduate without a robust and serious general education requirement (notwithstanding their marketing message) they are doing a disservice to their students in the long run.

Please provide evidence that Brown students/graduates are hurt in the long-run if they pursue the classes they want to take vs. being required to plunge into so-called "serious courses". I think your perspective on what makes a successful graduate is very narrow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any methodology that uses "diversity" to juke the shakeout is worthless.

You can adjust "Environment" (diversity) in the WSJ rankings to 0. Only 10% weight to begin with.

I'm on a work laptop and can't view WSJ. Do the top 20 rankings change much when you remove diversity?

I'm at work avoiding doing anything constructive...
DEFAULT: Outcomes-40%, Resources-30, Engagement-20, Enviro-10
ADJUSTED: 50,30,20,0
1 Harvard, 2 MIT, 3 Yale, 4 CIT, 5 Penn, 6 Cornell, 6 Princeton, 8 Duke, 9 Brown, 10 Dartmouth

So much for the Cornell "bashers"

So, it turns out that it was diversity scores that repelled Stanford to surpass other schools and reach the top bracket in rankings?

Repelled? That sentence makes no sense. Better to use simple words correctly than big words incorrectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any methodology that uses "diversity" to juke the shakeout is worthless.

You can adjust "Environment" (diversity) in the WSJ rankings to 0. Only 10% weight to begin with.

I'm on a work laptop and can't view WSJ. Do the top 20 rankings change much when you remove diversity?

I'm at work avoiding doing anything constructive...
DEFAULT: Outcomes-40%, Resources-30, Engagement-20, Enviro-10
ADJUSTED: 50,30,20,0
1 Harvard, 2 MIT, 3 Yale, 4 CIT, 5 Penn, 6 Cornell, 6 Princeton, 8 Duke, 9 Brown, 10 Dartmouth

So much for the Cornell "bashers"

So, it turns out that it was diversity scores that repelled Stanford to surpass other schools and reach the top bracket in rankings?

Repelled? That sentence makes no sense. Better to use simple words correctly than big words incorrectly.

Sorry, meant to say propelled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to see which university is more academically rigorous and less politicized?

So when you say "less politicized" what do you mean? Most educated people are not what one would call a conservative these days. I mean, even the conservatives aren't conservative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Lol. Yes, it is.

You are a low IQ moron. Can you even string a cogent argument together?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aNp6bJCAhU

Total Straw man argument.
The main theme of this video that forcing students to take a biology course when they are not interested will drag disinterested kids to the class totally misses the point. Nobody is forcing a kid to take "A Biology" course in a good general education curriculum. That is not how a good gen ed curriculum is even structured. But to allow a student to graduate college without any rigorous science or math or literature or economics or foreign language course in today's global economy is total abdication of a college's core teaching mission.

I get that you are upset to be disagreed with. If you want to call names, go ahead, it does not bother me. I stand behind my opinion, and repeat it:

Yes, it is.

[Anonymous]

And to be clearest about the post above^^^^

This is the exchange that cause PP to call me a "low IQ moron" (as opposed to a high IQ moron?)

Yes, for a dedicated student I am sure Williams and Amherst will provide great courses and excellent professors and maybe they attract better profs than Pepperdine, but that is not the whole story.

Lol. Yes, it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to see which university is more academically rigorous and less politicized?

I'm not sure about "less politicized," but look for schools with a higher percentage of students who major in natural sciences and engineering. There's less time for nonsense in real courses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to see which university is more academically rigorous and less politicized?

I'm not sure about "less politicized," but look for schools with a higher percentage of students who major in natural sciences and engineering. There's less time for nonsense in real courses.

Agree. I have not heard any safe space that kind of crap at CalTech or MIT. Most students there are doing real science and tech, and the PC type students can't handle that and won't go there. A physics law will be a physics law no matter it hurts your feeling. Hiding in a safe space will not help you solve a scientific problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to see which university is more academically rigorous and less politicized?

I'm not sure about "less politicized," but look for schools with a higher percentage of students who major in natural sciences and engineering. There's less time for nonsense in real courses.

Agree. I have not heard any safe space that kind of crap at CalTech or MIT. Most students there are doing real science and tech, and the PC type students can't handle that and won't go there. A physics law will be a physics law no matter it hurts your feeling. Hiding in a safe space will not help you solve a scientific problem.

Nope MIT now has all of that plus more. MIT is changing from within. iI'll take a few years for the public to see the effects but I can tell academically, they're declining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to see which university is more academically rigorous and less politicized?

I'm not sure about "less politicized," but look for schools with a higher percentage of students who major in natural sciences and engineering. There's less time for nonsense in real courses.

Agree. I have not heard any safe space that kind of crap at CalTech or MIT. Most students there are doing real science and tech, and the PC type students can't handle that and won't go there. A physics law will be a physics law no matter it hurts your feeling. Hiding in a safe space will not help you solve a scientific problem.

Nope MIT now has all of that plus more. MIT is changing from within. iI'll take a few years for the public to see the effects but I can tell academically, they're declining.

If MIT and Caltech go South, it is all over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to see which university is more academically rigorous and less politicized?

So when you say "less politicized" what do you mean? Most educated people are not what one would call a conservative these days. I mean, even the conservatives aren't conservative.

I mean faculty and students focused on excelling at their fields of study and not distracted by what you can/ can't wear for Halloween, funny pronouns, and stuff like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there a way to see which university is more academically rigorous and less politicized?

I'm not sure about "less politicized," but look for schools with a higher percentage of students who major in natural sciences and engineering. There's less time for nonsense in real courses.

Good suggestion. How can I look for that data? And, does it apply to undergrad too? (am confused by the US system of "liberal arts")

[Anonymous]

Can you political jerks go to the politics forum?

It's a college forum, not a KKKollege forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you political jerks go to the politics forum?

It's a college forum, not a KKKollege forum.

Which school did you go to?