Columbia permanently pulls out of US news

[Anonymous]

Sure, I'm not a Columbia stan. They cheated on the rankings. I'm a fan of the GS program, which is 43% Pell-eligible students. So I dismiss the idea that this is a rich kids back door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Columbia GS is one of the few things that is right about higher ed.

It's the biggest side door to an ivy followed by Cornell hotel management

If the thing you really admire about the Ivy League is not the education, but how many people they keep out, then I can see why you'd dislike GS.

But if you think top colleges should explore ways to provide access to more people, rankings be damned, then you should admire GS. Columbia had an extension school, much like Harvard's, and then decided after WW2 to create a more robust program for non-traditional students. GS welcomed returning WW2 vets along with the other working adults who had been at the "night school" (extension program). America is better for it. Over 20% of GS is still vets.

GS has always had lower graduation rates, because that's the nature of adults who are balancing other responsibilities. And because the quality of the GS program is the exactly the same as the CC program. Nothing is dumbed down, there are no lowered expectation, classes are the same. We should admire this integrity to quality.

I think it would be 100% bad ass to see a law school like Yale offer a GS-style degree-issuing program in the prison system. It would tank their rankings because the competition rate would likely be low and the employment rate would be shit. But if the quality of the degree was just the same, would I think less of the degree? I would not. Because the gatekeeping is not the thing I admire about any of these schools.

Good for Columbia.
However, don't cheat on ranking by doing so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Columbia GS is one of the few things that is right about higher ed.

It's the biggest side door to an ivy followed by Cornell hotel management

If the thing you really admire about the Ivy League is not the education, but how many people they keep out, then I can see why you'd dislike GS.

But if you think top colleges should explore ways to provide access to more people, rankings be damned, then you should admire GS. Columbia had an extension school, much like Harvard's, and then decided after WW2 to create a more robust program for non-traditional students. GS welcomed returning WW2 vets along with the other working adults who had been at the "night school" (extension program). America is better for it. Over 20% of GS is still vets.

GS has always had lower graduation rates, because that's the nature of adults who are balancing other responsibilities. And because the quality of the GS program is the exactly the same as the CC program. Nothing is dumbed down, there are no lowered expectation, classes are the same. We should admire this integrity to quality.

I think it would be 100% bad ass to see a law school like Yale offer a GS-style degree-issuing program in the prison system. It would tank their rankings because the competition rate would likely be low and the employment rate would be shit. But if the quality of the degree was just the same, would I think less of the degree? I would not. Because the gatekeeping is not the thing I admire about any of these schools.

That is fine. You can do this "right" thing of GS school and taking in all the $$ while still be honest to the ranking, but you can't cheat for a higher ranking by holding back CDS of GS school...An example, G'Town and its law school are dinged in ranking due to a relatively larger No. of adjunct prof. and larger class size, but the school provides that data correctly knowing it will get hurt in ranking...

How much would the share of full profs tank Columbia's ranking? Not much, to down to 20 as some of you Columbia rejects are hoping for. Plus Columbia would quickly hire a lot of full profs, to bring itself back up. This is a no-brainer.

Never applied to any cheater schools....

Don't you have to get back to your summer job? Or maybe you don't have one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I'm not a Columbia stan. They cheated on the rankings. I'm a fan of the GS program, which is 43% Pell-eligible students. So I dismiss the idea that this is a rich kids back door.

It's a backdoor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I'm not a Columbia stan. They cheated on the rankings. I'm a fan of the GS program, which is 43% Pell-eligible students. So I dismiss the idea that this is a rich kids back door.

It's a backdoor.

DP. I mean, if it's a backdoor for 43% Pell-eligible students, why would anybody complain? I'm cheering them on for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I'm not a Columbia stan. They cheated on the rankings. I'm a fan of the GS program, which is 43% Pell-eligible students. So I dismiss the idea that this is a rich kids back door.

It's a backdoor.

DP. I mean, if it's a backdoor for 43% Pell-eligible students, why would anybody complain? I'm cheering them on for that.

College should admit students on academic merit.

[Anonymous]

Where this really hurts Columbia is in long term fundraising and endowment. Those alums really liked the prestige, now not so much. And the endowment drives need based scholarships.

[Anonymous]

Here's a side door for ya: work for two years or study abroad for two years or join the military for (more than two years) and then apply to ANY top college and you'll get in at a much higher rate than a 17 or 18 yo high school senior. True at Columbia. True at Harvard. True at MIT. True at Princeton and Stanford, especially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I'm not a Columbia stan. They cheated on the rankings. I'm a fan of the GS program, which is 43% Pell-eligible students. So I dismiss the idea that this is a rich kids back door.

It's a backdoor.

DP. I mean, if it's a backdoor for 43% Pell-eligible students, why would anybody complain? I'm cheering them on for that.

College should admit students on academic merit.

But the test scores for these applicants are generally higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where this really hurts Columbia is in long term fundraising and endowment. Those alums really liked the prestige, now not so much. And the endowment drives need based scholarships.

Haha. Keep dreaming, this wishful thinking is just sad. Alums will never give up on Columbia, not even because of their football team's dismal performances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I'm not a Columbia stan. They cheated on the rankings. I'm a fan of the GS program, which is 43% Pell-eligible students. So I dismiss the idea that this is a rich kids back door.

It's a backdoor.

DP. I mean, if it's a backdoor for 43% Pell-eligible students, why would anybody complain? I'm cheering them on for that.

College should admit students on academic merit.

Love your assumption that Pew-eligible students lack academic merit. Why do you think GS has its own admissions committee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I'm not a Columbia stan. They cheated on the rankings. I'm a fan of the GS program, which is 43% Pell-eligible students. So I dismiss the idea that this is a rich kids back door.

It's a backdoor.

DP. I mean, if it's a backdoor for 43% Pell-eligible students, why would anybody complain? I'm cheering them on for that.

College should admit students on academic merit.

Love your assumption that Pew-eligible students lack academic merit. Why do you think GS has its own admissions committee?

* Pell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I'm not a Columbia stan. They cheated on the rankings. I'm a fan of the GS program, which is 43% Pell-eligible students. So I dismiss the idea that this is a rich kids back door.

It's a backdoor.

DP. I mean, if it's a backdoor for 43% Pell-eligible students, why would anybody complain? I'm cheering them on for that.

College should admit students on academic merit.

But the test scores for these applicants are generally higher.

No, it's the opposite. that's a big part of this Columbia cheating thing.
They have lower stats but not counted in the ranking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Columbia never was top 5, they were just cheating in the rankings. It probably always was about #20 or so.

You're just embarrassing yourself by repeatedly showing us your sour grapes that you/your kid was rejected.

Hope you know you aren't speaking to the same person. Another of ymus have similar views of Columbia. In fact Times/WSJ ranker Columbia at 15 the months before the scandal happened. I think that's fairer.

Forbes ranked Harvard at 15 the month before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, I'm not a Columbia stan. They cheated on the rankings. I'm a fan of the GS program, which is 43% Pell-eligible students. So I dismiss the idea that this is a rich kids back door.

It's a backdoor.

DP. I mean, if it's a backdoor for 43% Pell-eligible students, why would anybody complain? I'm cheering them on for that.

College should admit students on academic merit.

But the test scores for these applicants are generally higher.

No, it's the opposite. that's a big part of this Columbia cheating thing.
They have lower stats but not counted in the ranking.

Who cares. With test optional, scores won’t matter anyway as only the top 98% will submit their scores. Plus if too few full profs was the stated problem, they can easily hire more profs.

All these problems are easily fixable and would keep Columbia in the top 5-10.

They’re probably doing it for other reasons, like the SC decision or just believing the USNWR is a crock, which it is.