Please, do not cite college transitions rankings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. College transitions' feeder lists are stupid.

No, USNWR rankings list is stupid.

[Anonymous]

For those interested in context, it seems this represents the type of post to which the OP objects, particularly based on the timing of the creation of this thread:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1327021.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. College transitions' feeder lists are stupid.

[b]No, USNWR rankings list is stupid.

[url]

Yet it has been the gold standard of all rankings since 1983. Look it up in Wikipedia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree. College transitions' feeder lists are stupid.

[b]No, USNWR rankings list is stupid.

[url]

Yet it has been the gold standard of all rankings since 1983. Look it up in Wikipedia

[Anonymous]

Love Transitions. Sorry OP that you fav college doesn’t do well in that data.

[Anonymous]

As an alternative title, consider, "Please, Do Not Cite College Transitions Rankings. I Don't Like Them."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those interested in context, it seems this represents the type of post to which the OP objects, particularly based on the timing of the creation of this thread:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1327021.page

+1
That poster always shows up to plug a certain school using that site. It's comical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those interested in context, it seems this represents the type of post to which the OP objects, particularly based on the timing of the creation of this thread:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1327021.page

+1
That poster always shows up to plug a certain school using that site. It's comical.

Less comical than using USNWR to plug some fantasy “Top 20” ? Not really

[Anonymous]

I'd think people would want to decide for themselves which posts to read, provided the comments are civil and match the topic, and that any sources used are reasonably reliable. Or they can read past posts they don't believe to be of value. Pretty much everyone understands that they're not going to like all that they see on DCUM. And If the OP would like censorship, she hasn't made a case for it. Moreover, censorship doesn't really match the ethos of public discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd think people would want to decide for themselves which posts to read, provided the comments are civil and match the topic, and that any sources used are reasonably reliable. Or they can read past posts they don't believe to be of value. Pretty much everyone understands that they're not going to like all that they see on DCUM. And If the OP would like censorship, she hasn't made a case for it. Moreover, censorship doesn't really match the ethos of public discussion.

I'll revise this to say that it's conventional for discussion sites to have suitable terms of service. However, it seems that the OP seeks to assume the role of a site administrator without the authority with which to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd think people would want to decide for themselves which posts to read, provided the comments are civil and match the topic, and that any sources used are reasonably reliable. Or they can read past posts they don't believe to be of value. Pretty much everyone understands that they're not going to like all that they see on DCUM. And If the OP would like censorship, she hasn't made a case for it. Moreover, censorship doesn't really match the ethos of public discussion.

I'll revise this to say that it's conventional for discussion sites to have suitable terms of service. However, it seems that the OP seeks to assume the role of a site administrator without the authority with which to do so.

They're just making a discussion on an issue they find important. At no point, do they elevate themselves to any authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those interested in context, it seems this represents the type of post to which the OP objects, particularly based on the timing of the creation of this thread:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1327021.page

+1
That poster always shows up to plug a certain school using that site. It's comical.

Less comical than using USNWR to plug some fantasy “Top 20” ? Not really

Welll, you could open a topic: "Please, do not cite USNWR rankings."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those interested in context, it seems this represents the type of post to which the OP objects, particularly based on the timing of the creation of this thread:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1327021.page

+1
That poster always shows up to plug a certain school using that site. It's comical.

Less comical than using USNWR to plug some fantasy “Top 20” ? Not really

I don't have a dog in this fight, but how about you use the sources you prefer, and the rest of us will as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those interested in context, it seems this represents the type of post to which the OP objects, particularly based on the timing of the creation of this thread:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1327021.page

+1
That poster always shows up to plug a certain school using that site. It's comical.

Agree. Clueless and comical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is not everyone uses LinkedIn. I know, for one, that I wouldn't be listed, as a recent grad from Harvard law, in these rankings' datapoints, because LinkedIn serves no purpose in my professional career. Do not use these rankings.

This seems much like saying "I wasn't polled, therefore the survey is invalid." This would represent the case with whichever law school you attended. That said, I'm not even sure where people are seeing College Transitions feeder lists through DCUM.

+1. And I, as another HLS grad, DO use linked In as does every else in my class!