Is John Hopkins an Ivy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sweet. I’m not a Penn grad. It’s a good school. There are tons of non-ivies including public’s (sic) I would put above it.

Again, this is more stupidity.

Where would you put Wharton?

This exercise remains incredibly foolish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweet. I’m not a Penn grad. It’s a good school. There are tons of non-ivies including public’s (sic) I would put above it.

Again, this is more stupidity.

Where would you put Wharton?

This exercise remains incredibly foolish.

NP. There’s more to Penn than Wharton. Wharton alone can’t make Penn awesomely good and better than all these other schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweet. I’m not a Penn grad. It’s a good school. There are tons of non-ivies including public’s (sic) I would put above it.

Again, this is more stupidity.

Where would you put Wharton?

This exercise remains incredibly foolish.

NP. There’s more to Penn than Wharton. Wharton alone can’t make Penn awesomely good and better than all these other schools.

But you see to say you'd put publics above it without consideration illustrates how stupid that kind of analysis is.

[Anonymous]

Hey dipsh*t, both Michigan and Berkeley are ranked #3 in undergraduate business with much better programs than Penn elsewhere. This isn’t hard analysis unless you’re simply sucking Wharton cock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey dipsh*t, both Michigan and Berkeley are ranked #3 in undergraduate business with much better programs than Penn elsewhere. This isn’t hard analysis unless you’re simply sucking Wharton cock.

Well aren't you a delicate and refined flower. "You obviously have a wonderful economy with words, Gloria. I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness.”

I stand by the comment that broad brush micro-analysis of elite colleges is a useless and stupid exercise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey dipsh*t, both Michigan and Berkeley are ranked #3 in undergraduate business with much better programs than Penn elsewhere. This isn’t hard analysis unless you’re simply sucking Wharton cock.

Well aren't you a delicate and refined flower. "You obviously have a wonderful economy with words, Gloria. I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness.”

I stand by the comment that broad brush micro-analysis of elite colleges is a useless and stupid exercise.

Not the PP you’re responding to, but it’s clear you have no real response. Also, the bolded is contradictory and sort of an oxymoron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've always felt the "top 3 schools" are actually about 5 schools.
The top 10 are about 15.
The top 25 are probably about 35-40 schools.

There is probably some truth in that in that no one can actually agree on what they are. USNWR is the most referenced, but they have Stanford at #6 and not top 3 for instance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey dipsh*t, both Michigan and Berkeley are ranked #3 in undergraduate business with much better programs than Penn elsewhere. This isn’t hard analysis unless you’re simply sucking Wharton cock.

Well aren't you a delicate and refined flower. "You obviously have a wonderful economy with words, Gloria. I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness.”

I stand by the comment that broad brush micro-analysis of elite colleges is a useless and stupid exercise.

Penn isn’t elite. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've always felt the "top 3 schools" are actually about 5 schools.
The top 10 are about 15.
The top 25 are probably about 35-40 schools.

There is probably some truth in that in that no one can actually agree on what they are. USNWR is the most referenced, but they have Stanford at #6 and not top 3 for instance.

Here’s a secret that you all probably will think is crazy, but is true: The average student will have about the same average outcome going to any of the top 50 research universities, so long as they work hard and get the most out of what their university has to offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey dipsh*t, both Michigan and Berkeley are ranked #3 in undergraduate business with much better programs than Penn elsewhere. This isn’t hard analysis unless you’re simply sucking Wharton cock.

Well aren't you a delicate and refined flower. "You obviously have a wonderful economy with words, Gloria. I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness.”

I stand by the comment that broad brush micro-analysis of elite colleges is a useless and stupid exercise.

Not the PP you’re responding to, but it’s clear you have no real response. Also, the bolded is contradictory and sort of an oxymoron.

No it isn't. It means using a broad brush and saying something like "Amherst is better than Williams" without any metrics to make what it, at best, a nominal distinction.

What "real response" would you want? "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Hitchens's Razor

[Anonymous]

True. For most schools, it’ll be fine. Most college grads go on a and get a grad degree. Going to a top 50 school and being successful will get you into an elite program. Undergrad is fairly pointless and you should go to the cheapest highest rank school you get into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey dipsh*t, both Michigan and Berkeley are ranked #3 in undergraduate business with much better programs than Penn elsewhere. This isn’t hard analysis unless you’re simply sucking Wharton cock.

Well aren't you a delicate and refined flower. "You obviously have a wonderful economy with words, Gloria. I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness.”

I stand by the comment that broad brush micro-analysis of elite colleges is a useless and stupid exercise.

Not the PP you’re responding to, but it’s clear you have no real response. Also, the bolded is contradictory and sort of an oxymoron.

No it isn't. It means using a broad brush and saying something like "Amherst is better than Williams" without any metrics to make what it, at best, a nominal distinction.

What "real response" would you want? "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Hitchens's Razor

You were given evidence, derived from department rankings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey dipsh*t, both Michigan and Berkeley are ranked #3 in undergraduate business with much better programs than Penn elsewhere. This isn’t hard analysis unless you’re simply sucking Wharton cock.

Well aren't you a delicate and refined flower. "You obviously have a wonderful economy with words, Gloria. I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness.”

I stand by the comment that broad brush micro-analysis of elite colleges is a useless and stupid exercise.

Not the PP you’re responding to, but it’s clear you have no real response. Also, the bolded is contradictory and sort of an oxymoron.

No it isn't. It means using a broad brush and saying something like "Amherst is better than Williams" without any metrics to make what it, at best, a nominal distinction.

What "real response" would you want? "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Hitchens's Razor

Metrics are grad school rankings. It’s not hard. Man my of the lower end Ivies don’t have good grad programs. This is not arguable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey dipsh*t, both Michigan and Berkeley are ranked #3 in undergraduate business with much better programs than Penn elsewhere. This isn’t hard analysis unless you’re simply sucking Wharton cock.

Well aren't you a delicate and refined flower. "You obviously have a wonderful economy with words, Gloria. I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness.”

I stand by the comment that broad brush micro-analysis of elite colleges is a useless and stupid exercise.

Not the PP you’re responding to, but it’s clear you have no real response. Also, the bolded is contradictory and sort of an oxymoron.

No it isn't. It means using a broad brush and saying something like "Amherst is better than Williams" without any metrics to make what it, at best, a nominal distinction.

What "real response" would you want? "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Hitchens's Razor

You were given evidence, derived from department rankings.

Yes, and the subjective aspects and confirmation bias exhibited by choosing those particular rankings - which differ wildly from other rankings with different criteria -- is exactly the point. The specifics were pointed out above too.

The WSJ rankings have Duke ahead of Princeton, Cornell above JHU and Columbia, will you accept that as proof that they are better? No? Why not? Because you know that this is dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey dipsh*t, both Michigan and Berkeley are ranked #3 in undergraduate business with much better programs than Penn elsewhere. This isn’t hard analysis unless you’re simply sucking Wharton cock.

Well aren't you a delicate and refined flower. "You obviously have a wonderful economy with words, Gloria. I look forward to your next syllable with great eagerness.”

I stand by the comment that broad brush micro-analysis of elite colleges is a useless and stupid exercise.

Not the PP you’re responding to, but it’s clear you have no real response. Also, the bolded is contradictory and sort of an oxymoron.

No it isn't. It means using a broad brush and saying something like "Amherst is better than Williams" without any metrics to make what it, at best, a nominal distinction.

What "real response" would you want? "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Hitchens's Razor

You were given evidence, derived from department rankings.

Yes, and the subjective aspects and confirmation bias exhibited by choosing those particular rankings - which differ wildly from other rankings with different criteria -- is exactly the point. The specifics were pointed out above too.

The WSJ rankings have Duke ahead of Princeton, Cornell above JHU and Columbia, will you accept that as proof that they are better? No? Why not? Because you know that this is dumb.

Can you provide rankings—or any evidence—that disprove the notion that Penn has relatively mediocre departments, outside of Wharton, compared to schools like Michigan and Berkeley?