Columbia permanently pulls out of US news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GS had more Rhodes scholarships than CC one year recently. It's nothing like an extension school and it's not a gen ed degree. You have a major, you take same classes with all other Columbia students. You just can't come directly out of HS. Faculty loves the GS students, which isn't surprising.

GS has had only two Rhodes -class of ‘13 and class of ‘17. Generally Columbia isn’t a big producer of RSS.

The number of Rhodes Scholars Columbia produces (per student) tracks with other schools at the bottom of T20.

UVA has more than twice the number of RSS at 56. Columbia, an Ivy, has only 26

Columbia is more concerned with creating and hiring Nobel Prize winners, a much more prestigious award where UVA lags painfully behind.

No UVA graduate or active faculty member has ever won a Nobel Prize.

Really? That’s embarrassing.

Except that it's not true. There's one anti-UVAt mom who trots this out on a yearly basis. Note, she wrote "active" faculty member, which is deceptive. Here are the Nobels from UVA: The University of Virginia has been affiliated with many highly decorated alumni and faculty. Over the years, there have been many noted Nobel Laureates who were directly affiliated with the university. They include Clinton Davisson, Ronald Coase, Barry Marshall, and James M. Buchanan, just to name a few. The list of awards received by these men and many others is quite long and shows a solid history of academic excellence.

And of course William Faulkner.

and Edgar Allan Poe and Thomas Jefferson should be in there but they predate the establishment of the prize.

Now, back to the subject, would you rather your CURRENT student win a Rhodes, Marshall, Fulbright or do you want to get hung up on your students' access to old professors who will have no impact on your child but have the title "nobel" . Every single time someone tries to point out the amazing record UVA has had with Rhodes (top public, after the west point, for all publics in Rhodes Scholarships) someone with a beef trots this out.

None of those cited won Nobels while at UVA or for work they did at UVA. Neither Poe nor Jefferson graduated from UVA. Jefferson obviously didn't even attend UVA and Poe was only for a short time. And, as you even admit, they didn't win anyway. No UVA graduate has ever won a Nobel prize.

False: UVA has nine Nobels

[Anonymous]

Forget everything in the prior 27 pages —
The fact is Columbia is falling behind in quality.

It’s like Georgetown - it now trades on location first and foremost.

A solid 20-30 rank school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GS had more Rhodes scholarships than CC one year recently. It's nothing like an extension school and it's not a gen ed degree. You have a major, you take same classes with all other Columbia students. You just can't come directly out of HS. Faculty loves the GS students, which isn't surprising.

GS has had only two Rhodes -class of ‘13 and class of ‘17. Generally Columbia isn’t a big producer of RSS.

The number of Rhodes Scholars Columbia produces (per student) tracks with other schools at the bottom of T20.

UVA has more than twice the number of RSS at 56. Columbia, an Ivy, has only 26

Columbia is more concerned with creating and hiring Nobel Prize winners, a much more prestigious award where UVA lags painfully behind.

No UVA graduate or active faculty member has ever won a Nobel Prize.

Really? That’s embarrassing.

Except that it's not true. There's one anti-UVAt mom who trots this out on a yearly basis. Note, she wrote "active" faculty member, which is deceptive. Here are the Nobels from UVA: The University of Virginia has been affiliated with many highly decorated alumni and faculty. Over the years, there have been many noted Nobel Laureates who were directly affiliated with the university. They include Clinton Davisson, Ronald Coase, Barry Marshall, and James M. Buchanan, just to name a few. The list of awards received by these men and many others is quite long and shows a solid history of academic excellence.

And of course William Faulkner.

and Edgar Allan Poe and Thomas Jefferson should be in there but they predate the establishment of the prize.

Now, back to the subject, would you rather your CURRENT student win a Rhodes, Marshall, Fulbright or do you want to get hung up on your students' access to old professors who will have no impact on your child but have the title "nobel" . Every single time someone tries to point out the amazing record UVA has had with Rhodes (top public, after the west point, for all publics in Rhodes Scholarships) someone with a beef trots this out.

None of those cited won Nobels while at UVA or for work they did at UVA. Neither Poe nor Jefferson graduated from UVA. Jefferson obviously didn't even attend UVA and Poe was only for a short time. And, as you even admit, they didn't win anyway. No UVA graduate has ever won a Nobel prize.

False: UVA has nine Nobels

Name a UVA graduate that won a Nobel prize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GS had more Rhodes scholarships than CC one year recently. It's nothing like an extension school and it's not a gen ed degree. You have a major, you take same classes with all other Columbia students. You just can't come directly out of HS. Faculty loves the GS students, which isn't surprising.

GS has had only two Rhodes -class of ‘13 and class of ‘17. Generally Columbia isn’t a big producer of RSS.

The number of Rhodes Scholars Columbia produces (per student) tracks with other schools at the bottom of T20.

UVA has more than twice the number of RSS at 56. Columbia, an Ivy, has only 26

Columbia is more concerned with creating and hiring Nobel Prize winners, a much more prestigious award where UVA lags painfully behind.

No UVA graduate or active faculty member has ever won a Nobel Prize.

Really? That’s embarrassing.

Except that it's not true. There's one anti-UVAt mom who trots this out on a yearly basis. Note, she wrote "active" faculty member, which is deceptive. Here are the Nobels from UVA: The University of Virginia has been affiliated with many highly decorated alumni and faculty. Over the years, there have been many noted Nobel Laureates who were directly affiliated with the university. They include Clinton Davisson, Ronald Coase, Barry Marshall, and James M. Buchanan, just to name a few. The list of awards received by these men and many others is quite long and shows a solid history of academic excellence.

And of course William Faulkner.

and Edgar Allan Poe and Thomas Jefferson should be in there but they predate the establishment of the prize.

Now, back to the subject, would you rather your CURRENT student win a Rhodes, Marshall, Fulbright or do you want to get hung up on your students' access to old professors who will have no impact on your child but have the title "nobel" . Every single time someone tries to point out the amazing record UVA has had with Rhodes (top public, after the west point, for all publics in Rhodes Scholarships) someone with a beef trots this out.

I don't think UVA has been a standout for Fulbright or Marshall. I think many schools do better on a per capita basis.

Wrong on both https://news.virginia.edu/content/uva-named-top-producer-fulbright-us-student-program

You Googled and found one good year. Over the past 10 years UVA has had 136 Fulbright winners. Michigan had 351, Berkeley 219, UNC 180, Washington 177, Texas 174, etc. Harvard had 351 and Georgetown 286.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe a linear ranking of colleges and universities makes sense. It may be better to lump them together in groups of 10. But within the bucket, colleges don’t get individually ranked. What exactly is the difference between the number 1 and number 3 ranked school? Pretty much nothing. And peers don’t know enough to rank other schools so precisely.

How would you group the schools?

Even with Columbia’s scandal, I would go:

Tier 1A: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Tier 1B: Caltech, Yale, UPenn + Wharton, Duke, Columbia

Tier 2A: Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore

Tier 2B: Vanderbilt, Cornell, WashU, Rice, Pomona, Bowdoin, Georgetown + SFS

Nope, and you forgot some schools

Tier 1A: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Tier 1B: Caltech, Yale, UPenn + Wharton, Duke

Tier 2A: Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, Columbia

Tier 2B: Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore
Vanderbilt, Cornell, WashU, Rice, Georgetown + SFS, Emory, Notre Dame, Carnegie Mellon, UC Berkeley, UCLA

Tier 3A: Bowdoin, Wellesley, Tufts, Pomona, UNC, Umich, USC, UVA, Gatech, Barnard, NYU

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Forget everything in the prior 27 pages —
The fact is Columbia is falling behind in quality.

It’s like Georgetown - it now trades on location first and foremost.

A solid 20-30 rank school

Lol, try getting your snowflakes in first at Columbia, and then we will talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forget everything in the prior 27 pages —
The fact is Columbia is falling behind in quality.

It’s like Georgetown - it now trades on location first and foremost.

A solid 20-30 rank school

Lol, try getting your snowflakes in first at Columbia, and then we will talk.

Not really the point Georgetown is also very hard to get into.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe a linear ranking of colleges and universities makes sense. It may be better to lump them together in groups of 10. But within the bucket, colleges don’t get individually ranked. What exactly is the difference between the number 1 and number 3 ranked school? Pretty much nothing. And peers don’t know enough to rank other schools so precisely.

How would you group the schools?

Even with Columbia’s scandal, I would go:

Tier 1A: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Tier 1B: Caltech, Yale, UPenn + Wharton, Duke, Columbia

Tier 2A: Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore

Tier 2B: Vanderbilt, Cornell, WashU, Rice, Pomona, Bowdoin, Georgetown + SFS

Nope, and you forgot some schools

Tier 1A: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Tier 1B: Caltech, Yale, UPenn + Wharton, Duke

Tier 2A: Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, Columbia

Tier 2B: Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore
Vanderbilt, Cornell, WashU, Rice, Georgetown + SFS, Emory, Notre Dame, Carnegie Mellon, UC Berkeley, UCLA

Tier 3A: Bowdoin, Wellesley, Tufts, Pomona, UNC, Umich, USC, UVA, Gatech, Barnard, NYU

Pomona is in 2B, it's heavily favored over UCLA/Berkeley among cross-admits

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe a linear ranking of colleges and universities makes sense. It may be better to lump them together in groups of 10. But within the bucket, colleges don’t get individually ranked. What exactly is the difference between the number 1 and number 3 ranked school? Pretty much nothing. And peers don’t know enough to rank other schools so precisely.

How would you group the schools?

Even with Columbia’s scandal, I would go:

Tier 1A: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Tier 1B: Caltech, Yale, UPenn + Wharton, Duke, Columbia

Tier 2A: Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore

Tier 2B: Vanderbilt, Cornell, WashU, Rice, Pomona, Bowdoin, Georgetown + SFS

Nope, and you forgot some schools

Tier 1A: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Tier 1B: Caltech, Yale, UPenn + Wharton, Duke

Tier 2A: Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, Columbia

Tier 2B: Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore
Vanderbilt, Cornell, WashU, Rice, Georgetown + SFS, Emory, Notre Dame, Carnegie Mellon, UC Berkeley, UCLA

Tier 3A: Bowdoin, Wellesley, Tufts, Pomona, UNC, Umich, USC, UVA, Gatech, Barnard, NYU

+1 This is much better. But I would move NYU up to 2B

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe a linear ranking of colleges and universities makes sense. It may be better to lump them together in groups of 10. But within the bucket, colleges don’t get individually ranked. What exactly is the difference between the number 1 and number 3 ranked school? Pretty much nothing. And peers don’t know enough to rank other schools so precisely.

How would you group the schools?

Even with Columbia’s scandal, I would go:

Tier 1A: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Tier 1B: Caltech, Yale, UPenn + Wharton, Duke, Columbia

Tier 2A: Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore

Tier 2B: Vanderbilt, Cornell, WashU, Rice, Pomona, Bowdoin, Georgetown + SFS

Nope, and you forgot some schools

Tier 1A: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Tier 1B: Caltech, Yale, UPenn + Wharton, Duke

Tier 2A: Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, Columbia

Tier 2B: Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore
Vanderbilt, Cornell, WashU, Rice, Georgetown + SFS, Emory, Notre Dame, Carnegie Mellon, UC Berkeley, UCLA

Tier 3A: Bowdoin, Wellesley, Tufts, Pomona, UNC, Umich, USC, UVA, Gatech, Barnard, NYU

This looks pretty fair except for some minor arguments like UCLA is really not a tier above USC.

[Anonymous]

It’s the diploma mill of the Ivy League

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the diploma mill of the Ivy League

Try getting your snowflake in first. Then we can talk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe a linear ranking of colleges and universities makes sense. It may be better to lump them together in groups of 10. But within the bucket, colleges don’t get individually ranked. What exactly is the difference between the number 1 and number 3 ranked school? Pretty much nothing. And peers don’t know enough to rank other schools so precisely.

How would you group the schools?

Even with Columbia’s scandal, I would go:

Tier 1A: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Tier 1B: Caltech, Yale, UPenn + Wharton, Duke, Columbia

Tier 2A: Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore

Tier 2B: Vanderbilt, Cornell, WashU, Rice, Pomona, Bowdoin, Georgetown + SFS

Nope, and you forgot some schools

Tier 1A: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Tier 1B: Caltech, Yale, UPenn + Wharton, Duke

Tier 2A: Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, Columbia

Tier 2B: Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore
Vanderbilt, Cornell, WashU, Rice, Georgetown + SFS, Emory, Notre Dame, Carnegie Mellon, UC Berkeley, UCLA

Tier 3A: Bowdoin, Wellesley, Tufts, Pomona, UNC, Umich, USC, UVA, Gatech, Barnard, NYU

Move UChicago up to 1B, Swarthmore down to 3A, and NYU up to 2B.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe a linear ranking of colleges and universities makes sense. It may be better to lump them together in groups of 10. But within the bucket, colleges don’t get individually ranked. What exactly is the difference between the number 1 and number 3 ranked school? Pretty much nothing. And peers don’t know enough to rank other schools so precisely.

How would you group the schools?

Even with Columbia’s scandal, I would go:

Tier 1A: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Tier 1B: Caltech, Yale, UPenn + Wharton, Duke, Columbia

Tier 2A: Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore

Tier 2B: Vanderbilt, Cornell, WashU, Rice, Pomona, Bowdoin, Georgetown + SFS

Nope, and you forgot some schools

Tier 1A: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Tier 1B: Caltech, Yale, UPenn + Wharton, Duke

Tier 2A: Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, Columbia

Tier 2B: Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore
Vanderbilt, Cornell, WashU, Rice, Georgetown + SFS, Emory, Notre Dame, Carnegie Mellon, UC Berkeley, UCLA

Tier 3A: Bowdoin, Wellesley, Tufts, Pomona, UNC, Umich, USC, UVA, Gatech, Barnard, NYU

Pomona is in 2B, it's heavily favored over UCLA/Berkeley among cross-admits

Okay but academically what is Pomona good at?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe a linear ranking of colleges and universities makes sense. It may be better to lump them together in groups of 10. But within the bucket, colleges don’t get individually ranked. What exactly is the difference between the number 1 and number 3 ranked school? Pretty much nothing. And peers don’t know enough to rank other schools so precisely.

How would you group the schools?

Even with Columbia’s scandal, I would go:

Tier 1A: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Tier 1B: Caltech, Yale, UPenn + Wharton, Duke, Columbia

Tier 2A: Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore

Tier 2B: Vanderbilt, Cornell, WashU, Rice, Pomona, Bowdoin, Georgetown + SFS

Nope, and you forgot some schools

Tier 1A: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Princeton

Tier 1B: Caltech, Yale, UPenn + Wharton, Duke

Tier 2A: Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, UChicago, Northwestern, Columbia

Tier 2B: Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore
Vanderbilt, Cornell, WashU, Rice, Georgetown + SFS, Emory, Notre Dame, Carnegie Mellon, UC Berkeley, UCLA

Tier 3A: Bowdoin, Wellesley, Tufts, Pomona, UNC, Umich, USC, UVA, Gatech, Barnard, NYU

Pomona is in 2B, it's heavily favored over UCLA/Berkeley among cross-admits

Okay but academically what is Pomona good at?

Well, for producing academics on a size adjusted basis, Pomona is in the top 20 nationally for biology, computer science, economics, education, history, math, physics, political science, and psychology.

Niche ranks these programs in the top 25 nationally among all colleges and universities: Political Science, International Relations, Public Policy, Religious Studies, History, Visual and Performing Arts, Environmental Science, Math, Media Studies, Chemistry, Economics, and Philosophy. Physics, Biology, and CS barely miss it.

So, to sum it up, Pomona excels at liberal arts disciplines. Not a major surprise.