Columbia permanently pulls out of US news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They also counted and reported their hospital operating expense as research funding to USNWR. Apparently they took this crock very seriously....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The GS students have a higher SAT average than the CC kids. Not talking Columbia vs ROW

[Anonymous]

Columbia wasn't caught by some outside individual. Columbia faculty outed their admissions department. We need more people who act like the Columbia faculty and fewer people who act like the admissions department.

[Anonymous]

As a thought experiment, I'd like to see every department in the top 200 colleges ranked by some broad brush, focused on this "merit" argument. Let's see average SAT by degree by college. CS kids at even mid-range CS programs like Santa Clara would come out above a lot of liberal arts kids at ivy schools.

I'm a liberal arts proponent - I just think the "merit" thing is bullshit. No, your drama kid at Brown is not more meritorious than a CS kid at Cal Poly SLO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a thought experiment, I'd like to see every department in the top 200 colleges ranked by some broad brush, focused on this "merit" argument. Let's see average SAT by degree by college. CS kids at even mid-range CS programs like Santa Clara would come out above a lot of liberal arts kids at ivy schools.

I'm a liberal arts proponent - I just think the "merit" thing is bullshit. No, your drama kid at Brown is not more meritorious than a CS kid at Cal Poly SLO.

At the top ivies, including Columbia, the test score cut-off is 1550 unless you're a recruited athlete or something. The difference between that and 1600 is only a few questions. So it's sort of splitting hairs at the top tail of the SAT distribution.

But I agree on the merit of a CS at Caltech. The drama kids did need a 1550 to get into their ivy, but in terms of sheer brain power it's no contest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYTs article says US news was going to count Columbia GS into the Columbia numbers so their ranking would certainly drop out of the T20.

I had been arguing this point about not including GS students in Columbia’s rankings for a long time. I was also ridiculed about it by many Columbia boosters here at DCUM.

+1. GS students count for 1/3 of undergraduate students at CU. This is substantial and should be included in CDS submitted to the USNWR ranking.

I don't have the time to check this, but GS has a completely different mission from CC. Tons of GS students are part-time, for starters. As PP above wrote, GS is one of the best things about higher education today. Explain why it should be treated differently to Harvard's adult ed program?

It's a backdoor to a Columbia degree. Harvard's extension school gives a bachelors in extension studies making it obvious that it isn't a Harvard degree, Columbia lets GS students choose from majors so their degree isn't obviously a GS degree.

You obviously have no knowledge about Columbia other than bashing it.
A GS student gets a different degree from a CC/SEAS student, and it shows on the diploma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a thought experiment, I'd like to see every department in the top 200 colleges ranked by some broad brush, focused on this "merit" argument. Let's see average SAT by degree by college. CS kids at even mid-range CS programs like Santa Clara would come out above a lot of liberal arts kids at ivy schools.

I'm a liberal arts proponent - I just think the "merit" thing is bullshit. No, your drama kid at Brown is not more meritorious than a CS kid at Cal Poly SLO.

At the top ivies, including Columbia, the test score cut-off is 1550 unless you're a recruited athlete or something. The difference between that and 1600 is only a few questions. So it's sort of splitting hairs at the top tail of the SAT distribution.

But I agree on the merit of a CS at Caltech. The drama kids did need a 1550 to get into their ivy, but in terms of sheer brain power it's no contest.

Category mistake. No Brown CS student will choose Cal Poly SLO CS - unless for FA reasons.

There's an urban legend that a student once chose Cal Poly SLO over MIT. That's never been confirmed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They also counted and reported their hospital operating expense as research funding to USNWR. Apparently they took this crock very seriously....

Also easily fixable, especially as they previously reported overspending compared to other colleges. If they wanted to fix this, the class size issue, and the profs' qualification thing, these are not huge lifts. In fact, I can't find that including GS was ever an issue: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/us/columbia-university-us-news-rankings.html and other sources.

They don't want to take some simple steps, probably because they think USNWR isn't worth it.

You're a sad, sad puppy who needs to find a hobby that doesn't involve bashing colleges you've never attended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a thought experiment, I'd like to see every department in the top 200 colleges ranked by some broad brush, focused on this "merit" argument. Let's see average SAT by degree by college. CS kids at even mid-range CS programs like Santa Clara would come out above a lot of liberal arts kids at ivy schools.

I'm a liberal arts proponent - I just think the "merit" thing is bullshit. No, your drama kid at Brown is not more meritorious than a CS kid at Cal Poly SLO.

At the top ivies, including Columbia, the test score cut-off is 1550 unless you're a recruited athlete or something. The difference between that and 1600 is only a few questions. So it's sort of splitting hairs at the top tail of the SAT distribution.

But I agree on the merit of a CS at Caltech. The drama kids did need a 1550 to get into their ivy, but in terms of sheer brain power it's no contest.

Only 54% of enrolled Brown first year students submitted SAT scores. Of those, a score of 1560 was in the 75th percentile. 1530 was 50th percentile. 1500 was 25th. And again, nearly half didn't even submit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They also counted and reported their hospital operating expense as research funding to USNWR. Apparently they took this crock very seriously....

Also easily fixable, especially as they previously reported overspending compared to other colleges. If they wanted to fix this, the class size issue, and the profs' qualification thing, these are not huge lifts. In fact, I can't find that including GS was ever an issue: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/us/columbia-university-us-news-rankings.html and other sources.

They don't want to take some simple steps, probably because they think USNWR isn't worth it.

You're a sad, sad puppy who needs to find a hobby that doesn't involve bashing colleges you've never attended.

I just hate cheaters, that’s all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They also counted and reported their hospital operating expense as research funding to USNWR. Apparently they took this crock very seriously....

Also easily fixable, especially as they previously reported overspending compared to other colleges. If they wanted to fix this, the class size issue, and the profs' qualification thing, these are not huge lifts. In fact, I can't find that including GS was ever an issue: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/us/columbia-university-us-news-rankings.html and other sources.

They don't want to take some simple steps, probably because they think USNWR isn't worth it.

You're a sad, sad puppy who needs to find a hobby that doesn't involve bashing colleges you've never attended.

I just hate cheaters, that’s all.

Sure it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The GS students have a higher SAT average than the CC kids. Not talking Columbia vs ROW

If this is true (and I haven't tried to verify), then the Columbia haters have been wasting our time talking about those dumb Pell grant students over at GS.

So we're back to the share of PhD profs, average class sizes, and whether the school counted medical teaching school overhead to boost its teaching expenditures way over any other school.

All super fixable and not that expensive to deal with when you have a huge endowment. That is, if Columbia wanted to stay at the top of the USNWR. Apparently they don't care enough, which might just be the right call.

[Anonymous]

It’s a little embarrassing that one of the posters in this thread keeps claiming that it’s only one person criticizing Columbia. Look anywhere else on the internet beyond DCUM and a lot of people are expressing disappointment and ridicule at Columbia’s expense. They were caught cheating, red-handed, and are now throwing in the towel while maintaining an air that the rankings don’t matter or that they’re above the rankings. Well, they certainly *did* care about the rankings for the many, many years they baldly lied to get ahead, and enjoyed the accompanying prestige.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a little embarrassing that one of the posters in this thread keeps claiming that it’s only one person criticizing Columbia. Look anywhere else on the internet beyond DCUM and a lot of people are expressing disappointment and ridicule at Columbia’s expense. They were caught cheating, red-handed, and are now throwing in the towel while maintaining an air that the rankings don’t matter or that they’re above the rankings. Well, they certainly *did* care about the rankings for the many, many years they baldly lied to get ahead, and enjoyed the accompanying prestige.

Did you read what the Columbia math Prof said? Did he say this is unique to Columbia? He concluded the US News ranking is meaningless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a little embarrassing that one of the posters in this thread keeps claiming that it’s only one person criticizing Columbia. Look anywhere else on the internet beyond DCUM and a lot of people are expressing disappointment and ridicule at Columbia’s expense. They were caught cheating, red-handed, and are now throwing in the towel while maintaining an air that the rankings don’t matter or that they’re above the rankings. Well, they certainly *did* care about the rankings for the many, many years they baldly lied to get ahead, and enjoyed the accompanying prestige.

Did you read what the Columbia math Prof said? Did he say this is unique to Columbia? He concluded the US News ranking is meaningless.

+1.

From the Columbia math prof's report: "Eighty percent of the U.S. News ranking of a university is based on information reported by the university itself. This information is detailed and subtle, and the vetting conducted by U.S. News is cursory enough to allow many inaccuracies to slip through." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~thaddeus/ranking/investigation.html

The only difference is that somebody at Columbia had access to the data and reported it. And Columbia still hasn't fired this guy, you can still find his CV on their website.

ALL colleges game the system. Even without that unverifiable 80% of the ranking, how is what Columbia did much different from U Chicago sending my kids weekly postcards to boost applications and lower their acceptance rate? The USNWR incentives are all wrong, as the math prof points out in more detail in his article.