The Absurdity of U.S. News College Rankings - Per Malcolm Gladwell

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange that a bankrupt magzine has so much sway on the higher-education systems.

That US NEWS ranking University of Florida much higher than Univ of Washington should make people think twice. Instead, people just take the ranking as if god-given.

Those are the obvious ones but other than those, the rankings are pretty solid relative to their actual prestige.

Don't act like you would've heard of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Washington University, Northwestern, or even Duke and Hopkins outside of the DC Area had it not been for US News.

The top 10 of USNews is a strong indicator of national and worldwide prestige. The ranking after 10 becomes
useless as a measure of prestige excluding the Ivies which will always hold sway due to being Ivies, not being ranked between 10-20.

The fact that Chicago went from >15 to top 3 (or where ever it is now) within 20 years shows how idiotic the rankings are even for prestige - schools don't rise in prestige so quickly at the top because prestige is entrenched. U. Chicago has always had strong graduate departments but that its often ranked ahead of Yale, Caltech, etc. or ranked alongside Harvard today is simply a result of ranking manipulation.

All the schools you named have <15% acceptance rate and average SATs of above 1450 so Id say there prestige is through the roof among prospective students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange that a bankrupt magzine has so much sway on the higher-education systems.

That US NEWS ranking University of Florida much higher than Univ of Washington should make people think twice. Instead, people just take the ranking as if god-given.

Those are the obvious ones but other than those, the rankings are pretty solid relative to their actual prestige.

Don't act like you would've heard of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Washington University, Northwestern, or even Duke and Hopkins outside of the DC Area had it not been for US News.

The top 10 of USNews is a strong indicator of national and worldwide prestige. The ranking after 10 becomes
useless as a measure of prestige excluding the Ivies which will always hold sway due to being Ivies, not being ranked between 10-20.

The fact that Chicago went from >15 to top 3 (or where ever it is now) within 20 years shows how idiotic the rankings are even for prestige - schools don't rise in prestige so quickly at the top because prestige is entrenched. U. Chicago has always had strong graduate departments but that its often ranked ahead of Yale, Caltech, etc. or ranked alongside Harvard today is simply a result of ranking manipulation.

All the schools you named have <15% acceptance rate and average SATs of above 1450 so Id say there prestige is through the roof among prospective students.

Certainly, and look at their acceptance rates and scores 20 years ago. The ranking provides a self-reinforcing cycle where schools ranked higher receive more applications, higher scores, etc.

That does not mean that the schools ranked higher are necessarily more prestigious nationally though, excluding the top 10 w/o Chicago.

Schools like Duke, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Chicago, Washington University were, in the 1990's and early 2000s, respected regional universities that attracted great students from their respective regions. If they were renowned nationally, they were so in a few specific fields - Hopkins for medicine, Chicago for Economics, Duke for Divinity (no joke), etc.

These schools were not nationally prestigious universities as they are today, and certainly not globally renowned, which they still largely aren't today

So the people acting like Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. were simply destined to be top national universities or already were largely considered prestigious nationally prior to the domination of these rankings is flat out lying. Had it not been for the rankings, they wouldn't have even heard of these universities. The rankings have provided a self-perpetuating cycle that has brought these universities to their current level of national prestige in recent years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange that a bankrupt magzine has so much sway on the higher-education systems.

That US NEWS ranking University of Florida much higher than Univ of Washington should make people think twice. Instead, people just take the ranking as if god-given.

Those are the obvious ones but other than those, the rankings are pretty solid relative to their actual prestige.

Don't act like you would've heard of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Washington University, Northwestern, or even Duke and Hopkins outside of the DC Area had it not been for US News.

The top 10 of USNews is a strong indicator of national and worldwide prestige. The ranking after 10 becomes
useless as a measure of prestige excluding the Ivies which will always hold sway due to being Ivies, not being ranked between 10-20.

The fact that Chicago went from >15 to top 3 (or where ever it is now) within 20 years shows how idiotic the rankings are even for prestige - schools don't rise in prestige so quickly at the top because prestige is entrenched. U. Chicago has always had strong graduate departments but that its often ranked ahead of Yale, Caltech, etc. or ranked alongside Harvard today is simply a result of ranking manipulation.

All the schools you named have <15% acceptance rate and average SATs of above 1450 so Id say there prestige is through the roof among prospective students.

Certainly, and look at their acceptance rates and scores 20 years ago. The ranking provides a self-reinforcing cycle where schools ranked higher receive more applications, higher scores, etc.

That does not mean that the schools ranked higher are necessarily more prestigious nationally though, excluding the top 10 w/o Chicago.

Schools like Duke, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Chicago, Washington University were, in the 1990's and early 2000s, respected regional universities that attracted great students from their respective regions. If they were renowned nationally, they were so in a few specific fields - Hopkins for medicine, Chicago for Economics, Duke for Divinity (no joke), etc.

These schools were not nationally prestigious universities as they are today, and certainly not globally renowned, which they still largely aren't today

So the people acting like Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. were simply destined to be top national universities or already were largely considered prestigious nationally prior to the domination of these rankings is flat out lying. Had it not been for the rankings, they wouldn't have even heard of these universities. The rankings have provided a self-perpetuating cycle that has brought these universities to their current level of national prestige in recent years.

You have no idea what you're talking about. It's a little embarrassing.

And I can tell from this familiar diatribe that you troll this forum (and have for the last year) spouting your same ignorant and spiteful diatribe against this group of universities. What a sad life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange that a bankrupt magzine has so much sway on the higher-education systems.

That US NEWS ranking University of Florida much higher than Univ of Washington should make people think twice. Instead, people just take the ranking as if god-given.

Those are the obvious ones but other than those, the rankings are pretty solid relative to their actual prestige.

Don't act like you would've heard of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Washington University, Northwestern, or even Duke and Hopkins outside of the DC Area had it not been for US News.

The top 10 of USNews is a strong indicator of national and worldwide prestige. The ranking after 10 becomes
useless as a measure of prestige excluding the Ivies which will always hold sway due to being Ivies, not being ranked between 10-20.

The fact that Chicago went from >15 to top 3 (or where ever it is now) within 20 years shows how idiotic the rankings are even for prestige - schools don't rise in prestige so quickly at the top because prestige is entrenched. U. Chicago has always had strong graduate departments but that its often ranked ahead of Yale, Caltech, etc. or ranked alongside Harvard today is simply a result of ranking manipulation.

All the schools you named have <15% acceptance rate and average SATs of above 1450 so Id say there prestige is through the roof among prospective students.

Certainly, and look at their acceptance rates and scores 20 years ago. The ranking provides a self-reinforcing cycle where schools ranked higher receive more applications, higher scores, etc.

That does not mean that the schools ranked higher are necessarily more prestigious nationally though, excluding the top 10 w/o Chicago.

Schools like Duke, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Chicago, Washington University were, in the 1990's and early 2000s, respected regional universities that attracted great students from their respective regions. If they were renowned nationally, they were so in a few specific fields - Hopkins for medicine, Chicago for Economics, Duke for Divinity (no joke), etc.

These schools were not nationally prestigious universities as they are today, and certainly not globally renowned, which they still largely aren't today

So the people acting like Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. were simply destined to be top national universities or already were largely considered prestigious nationally prior to the domination of these rankings is flat out lying. Had it not been for the rankings, they wouldn't have even heard of these universities. The rankings have provided a self-perpetuating cycle that has brought these universities to their current level of national prestige in recent years.

You sound extremely salty.

Also, some of these schools have been nationally relevant for a long, long time - namely, Duke, Hopkins, Northwestern, and Chicago. While your assessment may be true of some schools, it's simply not true for all. And in any case, even if your assessment were broadly true, these are trends that have been happening for about 4 decades now. You may as well rail against the Ivy League, which in my opinion is a significantly more nonsensical grouping of universities.

[Anonymous]

About Chicago, I am a parent who just took a look at its webpage. Afterwards I received messages and messages inviting me to apply for its undergraduates, which stopped only after the deadline. Which just show how much efforts Chicago is putting in recrutting. Never mind that I have high regards to its graduate programs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange that a bankrupt magzine has so much sway on the higher-education systems.

That US NEWS ranking University of Florida much higher than Univ of Washington should make people think twice. Instead, people just take the ranking as if god-given.

Those are the obvious ones but other than those, the rankings are pretty solid relative to their actual prestige.

Don't act like you would've heard of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Washington University, Northwestern, or even Duke and Hopkins outside of the DC Area had it not been for US News.

The top 10 of USNews is a strong indicator of national and worldwide prestige. The ranking after 10 becomes
useless as a measure of prestige excluding the Ivies which will always hold sway due to being Ivies, not being ranked between 10-20.

The fact that Chicago went from >15 to top 3 (or where ever it is now) within 20 years shows how idiotic the rankings are even for prestige - schools don't rise in prestige so quickly at the top because prestige is entrenched. U. Chicago has always had strong graduate departments but that its often ranked ahead of Yale, Caltech, etc. or ranked alongside Harvard today is simply a result of ranking manipulation.

All the schools you named have <15% acceptance rate and average SATs of above 1450 so Id say there prestige is through the roof among prospective students.

Certainly, and look at their acceptance rates and scores 20 years ago. The ranking provides a self-reinforcing cycle where schools ranked higher receive more applications, higher scores, etc.

That does not mean that the schools ranked higher are necessarily more prestigious nationally though, excluding the top 10 w/o Chicago.

Schools like Duke, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Chicago, Washington University were, in the 1990's and early 2000s, respected regional universities that attracted great students from their respective regions. If they were renowned nationally, they were so in a few specific fields - Hopkins for medicine, Chicago for Economics, Duke for Divinity (no joke), etc.

These schools were not nationally prestigious universities as they are today, and certainly not globally renowned, which they still largely aren't today

So the people acting like Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. were simply destined to be top national universities or already were largely considered prestigious nationally prior to the domination of these rankings is flat out lying. Had it not been for the rankings, they wouldn't have even heard of these universities. The rankings have provided a self-perpetuating cycle that has brought these universities to their current level of national prestige in recent years.

What? Nonsense. If you mean that they weren't known to the average middle class family, maybe. But they were nationally and internationally prestigious. They were elite schools, known to elites. All of those schools have been extremely well regarded for more than 50 years. I

[Anonymous]

I applied to college 30 years ago from a town in the middle of the country. Schools like Chicago, Duke, Hopkins etc. were all considered prestigious and were nationally known. The poster claiming they weren’t 20 years ago is off-base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I heard Malcolm Gladwell explain this on Farid Zakariah’s program today this way:
There are five different variables in U.S. News algorithm, of which the one with the most weight is a given institution’s reputation. To get this, all the college/university Presidents are asked to give their opinion of the reputation of all other institutions on a scale of 1 to 5. What does a college President in one part of the country know about colleges in other parts of the country? But this reputation value contributes the most to a college’s ranking in the results. He said, some smart hackers got into the algorithm and they could correlate a college’s reputation value depends on three factors with a 91.3% correlation. The three factors are the size of a college’s endowment, the annual tutu on fee it charges, and the percent of white students in its student body. In other words, the richer a colleges, the more it serves the rich people (who can afford to pay high tuition fee), and the more it attracts white students, it’s ranking in the U.S. News list will be higher. He said he could talk about the other four variables similarly. No wonder we don’t see much of State Schools and none of HBCUs in the top 40 or 60 national colleges/universities. Same thing goes for many liberal arts colleges where undergraduate education is the focus.

Ah! Gladwell, the know-it-all that knows nothing. He's a good story teller that connects seemingly unrelated things and most fools that listen/read seem to walk away thinking he's right. Remember 10,000 hours? Seriously!

And Farid Zakaria is another plagiarizing clown. Enough said.

[Anonymous]

I find it odd that so many people here are invested in this list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd that so many people here are invested in this list.

That was my thought as I was reading this thread. Who would make the effort to post a defense of it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd that so many people here are invested in this list.

That was my thought as I was reading this thread. Who would make the effort to post a defense of it?

I don't think you should confuse an attack on Gladwell with a defense of rankings. Everyone who understands knows rankings are bullshit with minimal practical value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd that so many people here are invested in this list.

That was my thought as I was reading this thread. Who would make the effort to post a defense of it?

Especially these people resort to personal attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it odd that so many people here are invested in this list.

That was my thought as I was reading this thread. Who would make the effort to post a defense of it?

Are people defending the rankings here? I think it's fair to level criticism against people who use these kinds of threads as a proxy to bash schools that they can't bear to see be ranked higher than whatever school(s) they're affiliated with. The idea that schools like Duke, UChicago, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins were not prestigious before US News & World Report came around is simply and categorically false, and the person who continually spouts that here on DCUM clearly has an agenda.

[Anonymous]

I find it weird that people are debating which universities people had or had not heard of in the 90s and acting as though "heard of" equates to merit.

In David and Goliath, Gladwell describes why he thinks a particular student should have gone to UMD rather than Brown, where the science was too hard for her. What that told me is that Gladwell doesn't know squat about Maryland. Or what the options were for someone at Brown.

Signed,
Someone who'd heard of Duke, Chicago, Northwestern, Hopkins, Rice, and WashU in the 80s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it weird that people are debating which universities people had or had not heard of in the 90s and acting as though "heard of" equates to merit.

In David and Goliath, Gladwell describes why he thinks a particular student should have gone to UMD rather than Brown, where the science was too hard for her. What that told me is that Gladwell doesn't know squat about Maryland. Or what the options were for someone at Brown.

Signed,
Someone who'd heard of Duke, Chicago, Northwestern, Hopkins, Rice, and WashU in the 80s

+1

I can confirm Rice, Chicago, Northwestern, Duke et al were all prestigious and highly regarded universities when I was applying to schools in the '70s.