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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gladwell’s comment is obvious, not insightful. Would anyone in the US not expect wealth, whiteness, and education quality to correlate with US college rankings? Educated and wealthy parents naturally live in communities with excellent schools and stress the importance of education to their kids. Since whites have most of the wealth in the US, whiteness is correlated with these US educational outcomes. Moreover, this correlation holds the world over, save whiteness and replace it with a country’s dominant race/ethnic group.

This.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if the higher ranked USNWR schools have physically uglier and weaker students. Someone should do a survey. It would be easy to take random samples at a statistically relevant number then have the public rate unidentified photos. Looks are equal or more important in life than almost anything and it would be good to be associated with an institution with higher ranked attractiveness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the higher ranked USNWR schools have physically uglier and weaker students. Someone should do a survey. It would be easy to take random samples at a statistically relevant number then have the public rate unidentified photos. Looks are equal or more important in life than almost anything and it would be good to be associated with an institution with higher ranked attractiveness.

Anecdotally, in general I’ve noticed the higher ranked schools do seem to have less physically attractive alumni and it would be logical that if you aren’t attractive you would study harder to make up for it. Additionally, more studying and a less attractive physique would lend itself to physical weakness and possibly even chronic disease. These things would be fairly easy to examine with scientific surveys. Would be fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the higher ranked USNWR schools have physically uglier and weaker students. Someone should do a survey. It would be easy to take random samples at a statistically relevant number then have the public rate unidentified photos. Looks are equal or more important in life than almost anything and it would be good to be associated with an institution with higher ranked attractiveness.

Anecdotally, in general I’ve noticed the higher ranked schools do seem to have less physically attractive alumni and it would be logical that if you aren’t attractive you would study harder to make up for it. Additionally, more studying and a less attractive physique would lend itself to physical weakness and possibly even chronic disease. These things would be fairly easy to examine with scientific surveys. Would be fascinating.

I take it neither one of you went to a highly ranked school..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the higher ranked USNWR schools have physically uglier and weaker students. Someone should do a survey. It would be easy to take random samples at a statistically relevant number then have the public rate unidentified photos. Looks are equal or more important in life than almost anything and it would be good to be associated with an institution with higher ranked attractiveness.

Anecdotally, in general I’ve noticed the higher ranked schools do seem to have less physically attractive alumni and it would be logical that if you aren’t attractive you would study harder to make up for it. Additionally, more studying and a less attractive physique would lend itself to physical weakness and possibly even chronic disease. These things would be fairly easy to examine with scientific surveys. Would be fascinating.

I take it neither one of you went to a highly ranked school..

Just a physically attractively ranked one!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the higher ranked USNWR schools have physically uglier and weaker students. Someone should do a survey. It would be easy to take random samples at a statistically relevant number then have the public rate unidentified photos. Looks are equal or more important in life than almost anything and it would be good to be associated with an institution with higher ranked attractiveness.

Anecdotally, in general I’ve noticed the higher ranked schools do seem to have less physically attractive alumni and it would be logical that if you aren’t attractive you would study harder to make up for it. Additionally, more studying and a less attractive physique would lend itself to physical weakness and possibly even chronic disease. These things would be fairly easy to examine with scientific surveys. Would be fascinating.

I take it neither one of you went to a highly ranked school..

Just a physically attractively ranked one!!

Compensating for your worthless JMU degree, hilarious!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the higher ranked USNWR schools have physically uglier and weaker students. Someone should do a survey. It would be easy to take random samples at a statistically relevant number then have the public rate unidentified photos. Looks are equal or more important in life than almost anything and it would be good to be associated with an institution with higher ranked attractiveness.

Anecdotally, in general I’ve noticed the higher ranked schools do seem to have less physically attractive alumni and it would be logical that if you aren’t attractive you would study harder to make up for it. Additionally, more studying and a less attractive physique would lend itself to physical weakness and possibly even chronic disease. These things would be fairly easy to examine with scientific surveys. Would be fascinating.

I take it neither one of you went to a highly ranked school..

Just a physically attractively ranked one!!

Compensating for your worthless JMU degree, hilarious!

But JMU grad is probably better looking, physically stronger and less prone to chronic disease than the average ivy alum. Which is probably better off for life satisfaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the higher ranked USNWR schools have physically uglier and weaker students. Someone should do a survey. It would be easy to take random samples at a statistically relevant number then have the public rate unidentified photos. Looks are equal or more important in life than almost anything and it would be good to be associated with an institution with higher ranked attractiveness.

Anecdotally, in general I’ve noticed the higher ranked schools do seem to have less physically attractive alumni and it would be logical that if you aren’t attractive you would study harder to make up for it. Additionally, more studying and a less attractive physique would lend itself to physical weakness and possibly even chronic disease. These things would be fairly easy to examine with scientific surveys. Would be fascinating.

I take it neither one of you went to a highly ranked school..

Just a physically attractively ranked one!!

Compensating for your worthless JMU degree, hilarious!

But JMU grad is probably better looking, physically stronger and less prone to chronic disease than the average ivy alum. Which is probably better off for life satisfaction.

You mean the people that have money for dentists, orthodontists, dieticians, plastic surgery, and pretty clothes at Top unis or the models and actress that make up the student body??? Get real! That may be the dumbest comment I have ever read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the higher ranked USNWR schools have physically uglier and weaker students. Someone should do a survey. It would be easy to take random samples at a statistically relevant number then have the public rate unidentified photos. Looks are equal or more important in life than almost anything and it would be good to be associated with an institution with higher ranked attractiveness.

Anecdotally, in general I’ve noticed the higher ranked schools do seem to have less physically attractive alumni and it would be logical that if you aren’t attractive you would study harder to make up for it. Additionally, more studying and a less attractive physique would lend itself to physical weakness and possibly even chronic disease. These things would be fairly easy to examine with scientific surveys. Would be fascinating.

I take it neither one of you went to a highly ranked school..

Back in the day, I thought Yale women looked pretty attractive (usually) and Harvard women looked...less so.

[Anonymous]

Anecdotally I’ve noticed the higher ranked school alums are less healthy looking than regular schools in general. It would be very interesting doing a scientific survey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You provide no counter point, so likely are a desperate booster trying to equate their above-average university with globally renowned ones.

Honey, the fact that you got into Chicago when it had a 40%+ acceptance rate does not mean that you degree is as prestigious as other top 10s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

They were known to elites in their respective regions, and certainly not upper-middle class families on the other end of the country.

And no, they were not internationally prestigious, and neither are they today. Have you even lived outside of the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the higher ranked USNWR schools have physically uglier and weaker students. Someone should do a survey. It would be easy to take random samples at a statistically relevant number then have the public rate unidentified photos. Looks are equal or more important in life than almost anything and it would be good to be associated with an institution with higher ranked attractiveness.

Unlikely, considering individuals who come from wealth tend to be more attractive and healthier (for obvious selection and socioeconomic reasons).

Sure, wealthy private universities known for party culture may have more attractive students than the Ivies, but certainly not true when comparing the Ivies to the average university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's got a bee in his bonnet about elite colleges.

He did a whole thing about how Bowdoin sucks because their food is better than Vassar's, meaning they spent more on that than financial aid.

Without, of course, doing any financial analysis of the procurement and preparation methodologies of the dining services. So he has no idea. Didn't stop him from making the correlative claim.

I do find him entertaining, but his BS is no better than any other entertainment that claims complex topics are simply illustrated.

That episode of his podcast made me so mad - I still think of it to this day. Why can't you have good food AND good financial aid? Why don't we want kids eating better food? It was such a false dichotomy. Such lazy thinking!!

The thing is, when he is wrong, he is really, really wrong. But sometimes I agree with him, which is when I start to wonder if he's wrong, then, too.

Ever since I read Outliers I have despised Gladwell. Saying that Asians are good at math because our ancestors were rice farmers? It’s racist and ridiculous and there was no outrage at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's got a bee in his bonnet about elite colleges.

He did a whole thing about how Bowdoin sucks because their food is better than Vassar's, meaning they spent more on that than financial aid.

Without, of course, doing any financial analysis of the procurement and preparation methodologies of the dining services. So he has no idea. Didn't stop him from making the correlative claim.

I do find him entertaining, but his BS is no better than any other entertainment that claims complex topics are simply illustrated.

That episode of his podcast made me so mad - I still think of it to this day. Why can't you have good food AND good financial aid? Why don't we want kids eating better food? It was such a false dichotomy. Such lazy thinking!!

The thing is, when he is wrong, he is really, really wrong. But sometimes I agree with him, which is when I start to wonder if he's wrong, then, too.

Not just the false dichotomy. I remember listening to that podcast and the description of Vassar food, and thinking “they must be using Sodexo or similar for their food services”. I checked later, sure enough they were, and there are so many issues with those companies - from sustainability to minimum wage jobs - that Bowdoin clearly wins, even if it costs them a bit in scholarships (I am not convinced that’s the case).