US News 2020 rankings

[Anonymous]

This entire thread smells like duck sauce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This entire thread smells like duck sauce.

Don't read it, then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'd stop there.

Please do.

Did your ox get gored?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

I wouldn't put Amherst and Williams on Tier 2, maybe 10-20 years ago but not today. Personally to say Columbia, Penn, Chicago, and Duke aren't peers Of HYPSM put Caltech is... is odd.
Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

Tier two- Northwestern, Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Caltech, Penn

Tier three is rather large- Vanderbilt, Cornell, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, WashU, Georgetown, UCB, UCLA, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, CMU

3B- UVA, Umich, Tufts, UNC, USC, NYU, Gtech, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wellesley

Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona definitely belong in tier 2, and I'd bump Caltech to tier 1 and Chicago to tier 2

I don't agree, I know several students that were rejected or waitlisted to Vandy, Emory, WashU, Rice, CMU and accepted to Amherst, Williams, or Swarthmore to say those latter 3 are better than the former. I think there the same level. And CalTech isn't better than MIT in anything.

That's probably because those schools give a bump to kids who are full pay, while the WASP schools are fully need blind.

You're just speculating. All of these schools are need-blind. The LAC's in my experience have difficulty campaigning non-white students particularly Asian students. That's not the case for major universities especially Emory and Rice. Thus many students may have an easier admittance to Williams than Emory for that reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

I wouldn't put Amherst and Williams on Tier 2, maybe 10-20 years ago but not today. Personally to say Columbia, Penn, Chicago, and Duke aren't peers Of HYPSM put Caltech is... is odd.
Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

Tier two- Northwestern, Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Caltech, Penn

Tier three is rather large- Vanderbilt, Cornell, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, WashU, Georgetown, UCB, UCLA, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, CMU

3B- UVA, Umich, Tufts, UNC, USC, NYU, Gtech, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wellesley

Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona definitely belong in tier 2, and I'd bump Caltech to tier 1 and Chicago to tier 2

I don't agree, I know several students that were rejected or waitlisted to Vandy, Emory, WashU, Rice, CMU and accepted to Amherst, Williams, or Swarthmore to say those latter 3 are better than the former. I think there the same level. And CalTech isn't better than MIT in anything.

That's probably because those schools give a bump to kids who are full pay, while the WASP schools are fully need blind.

You're just speculating. All of these schools are need-blind. The LAC's in my experience have difficulty campaigning non-white students particularly Asian students. That's not the case for major universities especially Emory and Rice. Thus many students may have an easier admittance to Williams than Emory for that reason.

Between Williams and Emory, which will provide the better education? Are outcomes better at one than the other assuming you choose the same major? That is what I think should be considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

I wouldn't put Amherst and Williams on Tier 2, maybe 10-20 years ago but not today. Personally to say Columbia, Penn, Chicago, and Duke aren't peers Of HYPSM put Caltech is... is odd.
Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

Tier two- Northwestern, Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Caltech, Penn

Tier three is rather large- Vanderbilt, Cornell, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, WashU, Georgetown, UCB, UCLA, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, CMU

3B- UVA, Umich, Tufts, UNC, USC, NYU, Gtech, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wellesley

Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona definitely belong in tier 2, and I'd bump Caltech to tier 1 and Chicago to tier 2

I don't agree, I know several students that were rejected or waitlisted to Vandy, Emory, WashU, Rice, CMU and accepted to Amherst, Williams, or Swarthmore to say those latter 3 are better than the former. I think there the same level. And CalTech isn't better than MIT in anything.

That's probably because those schools give a bump to kids who are full pay, while the WASP schools are fully need blind.

You're just speculating. All of these schools are need-blind. The LAC's in my experience have difficulty campaigning non-white students particularly Asian students. That's not the case for major universities especially Emory and Rice. Thus many students may have an easier admittance to Williams than Emory for that reason.

Between Williams and Emory, which will provide the better education? Are outcomes better at one than the other assuming you choose the same major? That is what I think should be considered.

lol this is like comparing princeton to rutgers, or yale to uconn. not really a fair comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

I wouldn't put Amherst and Williams on Tier 2, maybe 10-20 years ago but not today. Personally to say Columbia, Penn, Chicago, and Duke aren't peers Of HYPSM put Caltech is... is odd.
Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

Tier two- Northwestern, Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Caltech, Penn

Tier three is rather large- Vanderbilt, Cornell, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, WashU, Georgetown, UCB, UCLA, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, CMU

3B- UVA, Umich, Tufts, UNC, USC, NYU, Gtech, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wellesley

Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona definitely belong in tier 2, and I'd bump Caltech to tier 1 and Chicago to tier 2

I don't agree, I know several students that were rejected or waitlisted to Vandy, Emory, WashU, Rice, CMU and accepted to Amherst, Williams, or Swarthmore to say those latter 3 are better than the former. I think there the same level. And CalTech isn't better than MIT in anything.

That's probably because those schools give a bump to kids who are full pay, while the WASP schools are fully need blind.

You're just speculating. All of these schools are need-blind. The LAC's in my experience have difficulty campaigning non-white students particularly Asian students. That's not the case for major universities especially Emory and Rice. Thus many students may have an easier admittance to Williams than Emory for that reason.

Between Williams and Emory, which will provide the better education? Are outcomes better at one than the other assuming you choose the same major? That is what I think should be considered.

lol this is like comparing princeton to rutgers, or yale to uconn. not really a fair comparison.

Which is Princeton and which is Rutgers? (The PP has Emory at same level as Williams.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

ND and Vandy clumped in with W&M, Wake and the rest? I don't think so. These schools are absolutely distinguished from the rest of your number 3 list. Come on now.

[Anonymous]

I agree with PP’s three categories above. I think Vandy and Notre Dame are not as well known in the northeast and definitely are lumped in category three.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

I wouldn't put Amherst and Williams on Tier 2, maybe 10-20 years ago but not today. Personally to say Columbia, Penn, Chicago, and Duke aren't peers Of HYPSM put Caltech is... is odd.
Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

Tier two- Northwestern, Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Caltech, Penn

Tier three is rather large- Vanderbilt, Cornell, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, WashU, Georgetown, UCB, UCLA, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, CMU

3B- UVA, Umich, Tufts, UNC, USC, NYU, Gtech, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wellesley

Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc

Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, Pomona definitely belong in tier 2, and I'd bump Caltech to tier 1 and Chicago to tier 2

I don't agree, I know several students that were rejected or waitlisted to Vandy, Emory, WashU, Rice, CMU and accepted to Amherst, Williams, or Swarthmore to say those latter 3 are better than the former. I think there the same level. And CalTech isn't better than MIT in anything.

That's probably because those schools give a bump to kids who are full pay, while the WASP schools are fully need blind.

You're just speculating. All of these schools are need-blind. The LAC's in my experience have difficulty campaigning non-white students particularly Asian students. That's not the case for major universities especially Emory and Rice. Thus many students may have an easier admittance to Williams than Emory for that reason.

Between Williams and Emory, which will provide the better education? Are outcomes better at one than the other assuming you choose the same major? That is what I think should be considered.

I think both schools have there strengths and weaknesses. For subjects regarding health, biology, chemistry, business etc. Emory would be better for humanities other than English and writing, Williams would be better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with PP’s three categories above. I think Vandy and Notre Dame are not as well known in the northeast and definitely are lumped in category three.

I agree but would say Vandy and Notre Dame are well known but not regarded as academiclly strong as long as Duke, for instance.

William and Mary and Wake are smaller, undergraduate-focused schools that are not as strong as larger schools in graduate programs. It this is an undergraduate rating and they are strong there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

First Tier: Harvard, Stanford, MIT, Yale, Princeton, Caltech (even within this, there is an understanding that those admitted to Harvard and Stanford, and perhaps MIT in STEM areas will generally choose those schools over the others)

Second Tier: Columbia, Penn, Duke, Dartmouth, Brown, Chicago

Below second tier, I think it is a lot harder to make distinctions needed for meaningful tiers. Clearly Rice is going to be above Rochester, but it is much more difficult to separate them as the two tiers above. Even on second tier, I'm starting to debate whether to add Williams, Amherst, Pomona, etc.

I wouldn't put Amherst and Williams on Tier 2, maybe 10-20 years ago but not today. Personally to say Columbia, Penn, Chicago, and Duke aren't peers Of HYPSM put Caltech is... is odd.
Tier One- Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Columbia, Chicago,

Tier two- Northwestern, Dartmouth, Brown, Johns Hopkins, Duke, Caltech, Penn

Tier three is rather large- Vanderbilt, Cornell, Rice, Notre Dame, Emory, WashU, Georgetown, UCB, UCLA, Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore, CMU

3B- UVA, Umich, Tufts, UNC, USC, NYU, Gtech, Bowdoin, Middlebury, Wellesley

Tier 4- Wake, William& M, Rochester, Boston College, Davidson etc

I don't see that clear of distinctions on your tier 3, 3B, 4. A number of those may be great graduate and research universities, but not sure about their commitment to undergraduates. Caltech should be tier 1.

The ones in three are typically ranked 15-20. Some of them aren't 20 right now but have been in the recent past. The ones in 3B are typically 25-30.

Wellesley is ranked #3 for SLACs and has been #4 or #5 every year for the past 20+ years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Statistically it is wrong to to assign a numerical store to its school because the margin of error of its data sources is greater than the difference of the scores.

They should rank schools in tiers:

1. Super elite tier: HYPMS

2. Elite tier (6 - 15): Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Duke, Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell, ...

3. Top tier (16 - 30): These schools are equals in terms of prestige and rankings -- UVA, Michigan, UCLA, Cal, CMU, Emory, Georgetown, NYU, USC, Georgia Tech ...

4. Wake Forest, W&M ...

Why is Cornell in tier two?

When I encounter graduates, e.g. for hiring, I think of them something like this:

1A) Harvard, Stanford, MIT (these are the ones that will generally be chosen over the ones below, they are the top of the top)
1B) Yale, Princeton, Caltech (will generally be chosen over the ones below but were perhaps not accepted to 1A)
2A) Columbia, Penn, Duke, Chicago, Brown, Dartmouth, Williams, Amherst, Pomona
2B) Northwestern, Rice, Cornell, WashU
3) Vanderbilt, Georgetown, Cal, Michigan, UCLA, NYU, USC, Notre Dame, Emory, UVA, UNC, Boston College, W&M, Wake, etc and a number of LACs (I'm just not going to distinguish much between graduates of these schools for suspected competence or intelligence.

You must be pretty old, or have a strong NE bias, because the students getting into Amherst and Pomona, arent getting, Rice, Vandy, ND, Emory, and Gtown. So you missing out on smarter students because of old New England prestige.

Gosh you are so very wrong. Extremely similar stats and overall acceptance rates, but totally different types of schools. However, comparatively, if you want an LAC, Amherst and Pomona are the Yale and Stanford of that group, respectively.

The students at all those schools will be top 5%ers of similar (and high) quality. But with LACs being so small and 40% of LAC seats going to athletes (in ED round), IMHO Amherst is a harder admit than Georgetown etc for the same quality student, especially in RD.

Arguing for a difference though, as you have, is very odd, and I ask you reveal your intention or bias.