Columbia permanently pulls out of US news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Or other admin or prof insiders leaking to Prof Thaddeus?

[Anonymous]

Honestly I’m so interested in this, as the parent of two kids at highly selective schools and being near retirement, that I’m tempted to write Prof Thaddeus and offer to take this on. I have some great math and research qualifications. But I suspect he’s already on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I’m so interested in this, as the parent of two kids at highly selective schools and being near retirement, that I’m tempted to write Prof Thaddeus and offer to take this on. I have some great math and research qualifications. But I suspect he’s already on it.

Should I add that I am at least as interested in what alternative could be helpful to students and families. Thaddeus has said he doesn’t think USNWR is redeemable. What else is there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I’m so interested in this, as the parent of two kids at highly selective schools and being near retirement, that I’m tempted to write Prof Thaddeus and offer to take this on. I have some great math and research qualifications. But I suspect he’s already on it.

Should I add that I am at least as interested in what alternative could be helpful to students and families. Thaddeus has said he doesn’t think USNWR is redeemable. What else is there?

Here is the problem that almost nobody seems to understand...you can look at WSJ, Forbes and other college rankings...but guess what. They all basically match the USNWR rankings with the schools just reordered a tiny bit.

Everyone thinks that some amazing, unbiased ranking will come out and magically rank schools significantly differently...but they won't.

[Anonymous]

And yet, just going by scores is biased. Nor is using the share graduated, because schools take different populations and that’s actually a good thing (Columbia GS). The share of terminal degrees among the profs is pointless—Thaddeus says Columbia’s arts programs would be a much lesser place without the extraordinary profs with “just” BAs.

So what’s left. I don’t know.

[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.

NP.

You are correct. The average SAT score for Columbia is generally around 1500-1560 depending on year and number of hooks.

However the average sat score for Columbia GS is around 1450. One of the things that Columbia wants to avoid is including the GS because it would the add fuel to the fire that Columbia is the weakest Ivy and has significantly lower stats that the schools it wants to be considered peers with, as opposed to the school it truly is a peer to.

https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/colleges/columbia-university/admissions#:~:text=Columbia%20University%20is%20extremely%20selective,applications%20are%20due%20January%201.
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleges/Columbia-University--School-of-General-Studies-sat-scores-GPA#:~:text=The%20average%20SAT%20score%20composite,General%20Studies%20is%20a%201450.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP.

You are correct. The average SAT score for Columbia is generally around 1500-1560 depending on year and number of hooks.

However the average sat score for Columbia GS is around 1450. One of the things that Columbia wants to avoid is including the GS because it would the add fuel to the fire that Columbia is the weakest Ivy and has significantly lower stats that the schools it wants to be considered peers with, as opposed to the school it truly is a peer to.

https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/colleges/columbia-university/admissions#:~:text=Columbia%20University%20is%20extremely%20selective,applications%20are%20due%20January%201.
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleges/Columbia-University--School-of-General-Studies-sat-scores-GPA#:~:text=The%20average%20SAT%20score%20composite,General%20Studies%20is%20a%201450.

Columbia should get rid of GS. Why it includes a separate undergrad college that other top colleges do not have? The only real reason I can see is for $$$

[Anonymous]

Doesn’t Harvard have an extension school? And other ivies have certificate programs and night programs? None of those are included in the usnwr rankings. How is that different from GS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP.

You are correct. The average SAT score for Columbia is generally around 1500-1560 depending on year and number of hooks.

However the average sat score for Columbia GS is around 1450. One of the things that Columbia wants to avoid is including the GS because it would the add fuel to the fire that Columbia is the weakest Ivy and has significantly lower stats that the schools it wants to be considered peers with, as opposed to the school it truly is a peer to.

https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/colleges/columbia-university/admissions#:~:text=Columbia%20University%20is%20extremely%20selective,applications%20are%20due%20January%201.
https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleges/Columbia-University--School-of-General-Studies-sat-scores-GPA#:~:text=The%20average%20SAT%20score%20composite,General%20Studies%20is%20a%201450.

Columbia should get rid of GS. Why it includes a separate undergrad college that other top colleges do not have? The only real reason I can see is for $$$

DP. I think GS is great--the mission is to provide a rigorous, high quality education to nontraditional students such as vets and returning students like moms. We need more universities doing this, not less.

The problem is with the USNWR trying to penalize Columbia for offering GS. The peer-to-peer comparison is between other universities' undergrads and the full-time, straight-out-of-high school kids in Columbia College and Fu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t Harvard have an extension school? And other ivies have certificate programs and night programs? None of those are included in the usnwr rankings. How is that different from GS?

+100. I don't get it the focus on GS alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t Harvard have an extension school? And other ivies have certificate programs and night programs? None of those are included in the usnwr rankings. How is that different from GS?

GS took it to the next level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t Harvard have an extension school? And other ivies have certificate programs and night programs? None of those are included in the usnwr rankings. How is that different from GS?

GS took it to the next level.

Tell us how, with cites. Even if Harvard's extension school is smaller, including it would almost certainly still knock Harvard down a few index points.

All this fuss over GS does is warn other schools not to try to educate anybody besides recent high school grads who can afford to go full-time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t Harvard have an extension school? And other ivies have certificate programs and night programs? None of those are included in the usnwr rankings. How is that different from GS?

GS took it to the next level.

The Columbia math prof doesn't even focus on whether GS should be included or not. Reading between the lines, he may even think "don't include GS." I skimmed the article, but I believe his main point about GS is that a lot of their students are transfer students (i.e., they're returning to college after a gap of several years in the workforce after studying somewhere else). This means they're more likely to (a) be committed to graduating, and (b) be full pay. Including GS actually *increases* Columbia's financial figures and their figures for the share graduating.

[Anonymous]

From the math prof's study:

"Columbia is not the only elite university to bend the rules in this way. All of the top ten in the U.S. News ranking appear to do it, in fact. Penn used to append a remark to its government reporting stating, “This is the ratio of undergraduate students to faculty.” It continues to bend the rules but no longer acknowledges it.20 At Johns Hopkins, the reported ratio jumped abruptly from 10:1 to 7:1 in a single year, clearly indicating that the cohorts being counted had been changed in Hopkins’s favor. Still, many less prestigious universities continue to count graduate students when computing their ratios, and following the rules more scrupulously has placed them at a competitive disadvantage."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t Harvard have an extension school? And other ivies have certificate programs and night programs? None of those are included in the usnwr rankings. How is that different from GS?

GS took it to the next level.

Columbia can, because Columbia is Columbia.

Isaac Asimov was a Columbia GS student. So was JD Salinger.