Columbia permanently pulls out of US news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yale does the same thing Columbia did, which is to fold in the research and staff associated with the hospital into their numbers.

I've been surprised that the newspaper stories stopped with "Columbia prof says Columbia misled data on ranking" and didn't push further to see a lot of schools cheat in this same way. It's in the numbers.

Agree. The Columbia prof reported mainly on Columbia, probably because that’s where he could get the most internal info, or perhaps also because he was a gentleman, who the heck knows. He also alludes to things like “U Chicago also says 100% of its faculty has terminal degrees” which would be surprising given both schools have good art and literature departments, and would be easy to verify if someone had the time (I don’t).

So some of this data is already available for other schools, just waiting for more exposes.

Or maybe USNWR will start doing a better job verifying. For some of it, though, they’re still stuck with self-reporting.

[Anonymous]

“As far as Mr Thaddeus is concerned, the issue is far bigger than both Columbia and US News.

The way he sees it, many other universities must also be submitting false data, with the scandal exposing a wider system where colleges are clamouring for the top spots in rankings and – in doing so – are putting profits ahead of students’ education.

But, even more broadly, he feels the scandal exposes the lack of vetting in college ranking systems and how they do not give a true reflection of the quality of the given college.

College rankings should be scrapped altogether, he says.

“There’s so many flaws in the rankings. I’m not trying to reform the rankings I’m saying that it should be swept away entirely as it’s worthless,” he says.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/columbia-scandal-ranking-us-news-michael-thaddeus-b2179691.html

[Anonymous]

Has anyone had a chance to check out Malcom Gladwell's recent podcast episode on the Columbia scandal?

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-pushkin-prize-for-egregiously-deceptive-self/id1119389968?i=1000614390178&ign-itscg=30200S&ign-itsct=podcast_box

Haven't had a chance to listen yet myself, but curious what the main takeaways are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All good about GS and happy for you, but don’t cheat on ranking.

That's the point.

Columbia had someone internally who exposed the class size and PhD prof issues (NOT GS, you need to stop trashing them when they aren’t even the issue). Columbia hasn’t fired him.

Meanwhile USNWR can’t verify 80% of what colleges tell them, according to the same prof.

So you know ALL or NEARLY ALL colleges are cheating. This is undoubtedly going on everywhere.

Ergo the USNWR rankings are garbage.

That’s the point.

Most of US colleges are cheating, that sounds disturbing.

I know, right? With USNWR unable to verify 80% of what goes into their rankings, it's the Wild West, a free-for-all. We only know about Columbia because one of their own exposed it. But how many other profs and administrators are too afraid to do this for their schools?

THAT'S the takeaway from this. Don't trust the USNWR rankings period.

This appears to be Columbia's PR plan. Unfortunately for them, they constantly pushed USNWR before they were caught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All good about GS and happy for you, but don’t cheat on ranking.

That's the point.

Columbia had someone internally who exposed the class size and PhD prof issues (NOT GS, you need to stop trashing them when they aren’t even the issue). Columbia hasn’t fired him.

Meanwhile USNWR can’t verify 80% of what colleges tell them, according to the same prof.

So you know ALL or NEARLY ALL colleges are cheating. This is undoubtedly going on everywhere.

Ergo the USNWR rankings are garbage.

That’s the point.

Most of US colleges are cheating, that sounds disturbing.

I know, right? With USNWR unable to verify 80% of what goes into their rankings, it's the Wild West, a free-for-all. We only know about Columbia because one of their own exposed it. But how many other profs and administrators are too afraid to do this for their schools?

THAT'S the takeaway from this. Don't trust the USNWR rankings period.

This appears to be Columbia's PR plan. Unfortunately for them, they constantly pushed USNWR before they were caught.

As Prof Thaddeus said, there are undoubtedly lots of schools doing this too. Columbia was exposed only because of an eagle-eyed prof with tenure. But don’t fool yourself, this is a widespread problem.

[Anonymous]

The classic "whataboutism" / "Well, *other* people are cheating, too!!!" handwringing and defense tactic is not a flattering look...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The classic "whataboutism" / "Well, *other* people are cheating, too!!!" handwringing and defense tactic is not a flattering look...

You’re embarrassing yourself.

Several of us are interested in the broader ramifications of this exposure of how easy it is to game the USNWR rankings and how widespread it undoubtedly is, even according to Prof Thaddeus. I’m thinking of starting a thread about what if anything could replace the USNWR but I’m stuck on ideas (e g., just focussing on scores has the obvious problem of being biased to the UMC).

Your pathetic focus on hating on Columbia is embarrassing for you (we all think you or your kid was rejected) and distracts from the grownups’ more serious discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The classic "whataboutism" / "Well, *other* people are cheating, too!!!" handwringing and defense tactic is not a flattering look...

You’re embarrassing yourself.

Several of us are interested in the broader ramifications of this exposure of how easy it is to game the USNWR rankings and how widespread it undoubtedly is, even according to Prof Thaddeus. I’m thinking of starting a thread about what if anything could replace the USNWR but I’m stuck on ideas (e g., just focussing on scores has the obvious problem of being biased to the UMC).

Your pathetic focus on hating on Columbia is embarrassing for you (we all think you or your kid was rejected) and distracts from the grownups’ more serious discussion.

Please start a separate thread. This one is about Columbia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The classic "whataboutism" / "Well, *other* people are cheating, too!!!" handwringing and defense tactic is not a flattering look...

You’re embarrassing yourself.

Several of us are interested in the broader ramifications of this exposure of how easy it is to game the USNWR rankings and how widespread it undoubtedly is, even according to Prof Thaddeus. I’m thinking of starting a thread about what if anything could replace the USNWR but I’m stuck on ideas (e g., just focussing on scores has the obvious problem of being biased to the UMC).

Your pathetic focus on hating on Columbia is embarrassing for you (we all think you or your kid was rejected) and distracts from the grownups’ more serious discussion.

You keep conflating multiple different posters. Contrary to your imagination, there is more than just one "hater" on here... and they're not "haters" simply because they're calling out Columbia's shady practices...

[Anonymous]

It is impossible to have a thread on Columbia where one can discuss real issues without the crazy poster jumping in. Sigh!

Ok, we get it - you think Columbia sucks. You have made your point. Now move on to other threads and go ruin them with your inane and insipid comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the endnotes, the prof goes after a few other universities as well. Presumably where he can get the data. Here are some examples.

EN 22. Yale, by these measures, has the highest administrative spending of any university nationwide, $2.3 billion, and its U.S. News ranking for Financial Resources is in 1st place. See the Excel spreadsheet available here. Yale appears to classify a considerable amount of its spending on patient care (23% of its operating expenses) as administrative spending under the category “Academic support,” which is counted by U.S. News toward the Financial Resources ranking. Wake Forest University appears to follow a similar strategy. It lists expenditures of $939 million for “Academic support” in fiscal year 2020; since this is about twice the total expenditures of the entire non-medical part of the university, this figure has to include a substantial portion of the medical school budget, half of which is paid for by patient service. Among National Universities, Wake Forest is ranked 9th for Financial Resources and 28th overall — the highest U.S. News ranking for an institution that is not Tier I in the Carnegie Classification. As we will soon see, Columbia pursues a similar strategy, construing its spending on patient care as spending on “Instruction.” ↩

EN 29. Examples of “independent operations” reported by other universities in 2020 include (a) the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, operated by Princeton University on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy, and (b) the Hilton Inn at Penn, the Sheraton University City Hotel, University City Associates, the Penn Club of New York, the University of Pennsylvania Press, and the Penn Wharton China Center, all operated by the University of Pennsylvania. ↩

I'm almost certain UCLA does the same thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is impossible to have a thread on Columbia where one can discuss real issues without the crazy poster jumping in. Sigh!

Ok, we get it - you think Columbia sucks. You have made your point. Now move on to other threads and go ruin them with your inane and insipid comments.

+100. The Columbia haters have one simple, very basic point (“Columbia sucks!) and they’ve made 50 times.

The rest of us would like to discuss broader issues. This can only happen if the haters run along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is impossible to have a thread on Columbia where one can discuss real issues without the crazy poster jumping in. Sigh!

Ok, we get it - you think Columbia sucks. You have made your point. Now move on to other threads and go ruin them with your inane and insipid comments.

+100. The Columbia haters have one simple, very basic point (“Columbia sucks!) and they’ve made 50 times.

The rest of us would like to discuss broader issues. This can only happen if the haters run along.

PS. I’m not even convinced it’s more than one crazy person just plus one-ing herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In the endnotes, the prof goes after a few other universities as well. Presumably where he can get the data. Here are some examples.

EN 22. Yale, by these measures, has the highest administrative spending of any university nationwide, $2.3 billion, and its U.S. News ranking for Financial Resources is in 1st place. See the Excel spreadsheet available here. Yale appears to classify a considerable amount of its spending on patient care (23% of its operating expenses) as administrative spending under the category “Academic support,” which is counted by U.S. News toward the Financial Resources ranking. Wake Forest University appears to follow a similar strategy. It lists expenditures of $939 million for “Academic support” in fiscal year 2020; since this is about twice the total expenditures of the entire non-medical part of the university, this figure has to include a substantial portion of the medical school budget, half of which is paid for by patient service. Among National Universities, Wake Forest is ranked 9th for Financial Resources and 28th overall — the highest U.S. News ranking for an institution that is not Tier I in the Carnegie Classification. As we will soon see, Columbia pursues a similar strategy, construing its spending on patient care as spending on “Instruction.” ↩

EN 29. Examples of “independent operations” reported by other universities in 2020 include (a) the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, operated by Princeton University on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy, and (b) the Hilton Inn at Penn, the Sheraton University City Hotel, University City Associates, the Penn Club of New York, the University of Pennsylvania Press, and the Penn Wharton China Center, all operated by the University of Pennsylvania. ↩

I'm almost certain UCLA does the same thing.

What would be interesting to know is whether other insiders are working on exposing similar issues. Alternatively, whether USNWR intends to do a more thorough examination of the data they get. The problem is, as the math professor pointed out, that 80% of the index inputs are self-reported by the schools.

So you really need insiders across many schools to reveal what’s going on. Yet as the professor points out for Yale and Penn, and as pp thinks may be true for UCLA, this isn’t happening.

Then the question becomes, do we have alternatives to the USNWR? Is a qualitative description of the school, maybe by actual students not the administration, good enough? Or is that subject to bias too?

[Anonymous]

Maybe an investigative journalist could take this on? They’d probably get a book deal in the end. Not sure how they’d access the data though. Maybe anonymous sources?