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

[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.

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.

Places like JMU and U of South Carolina have better looking people with healthier and more fertile bodies than the elite schools. Look at people like Hillary and Bill Gates or the tech billionaires. They are really unattractive and are pretty typical for the ivys. Personally I’d rather be decent looking with a healthy fertile body and go to JMU.

[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.

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.

Places like JMU and U of South Carolina have better looking people with healthier and more fertile bodies than the elite schools. Look at people like Hillary and Bill Gates or the tech billionaires. They are really unattractive and are pretty typical for the ivys. Personally I’d rather be decent looking with a healthy fertile body and go to JMU.

You have to be a troll. Hillary was kind of hot at Yale, no cap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I snorted at this. Have you ever lived outside of the US? Can you speak another language other than English? And what school did you attend? Awfully dangerous up there with all your high-horsing.

[Anonymous]

Is there any reason why schools aren’t ranked by which schools have the best looking, most fertile, physically strong and healthy students? The public should be given the information so they can make choices they desire. Just because it would make tons of schools more desirable than the USNWR darlings to the public is no reason to keep the rankings from being performed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The world rankings are more logical and respected globally.

This is simply not true. The global rankings are even more nonsensical, and one of them, QS, is notorious for its British bias.

THIS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Uh this would only make sense if not for the extensive list of alumni from these schools who are not from the schools' respective regions. How old are you? You keep making all these bold claims but I can't help but feel you're an angsty 30-something-year-old that doesn't actually have insight into the time periods you're speaking on so authoritatively. You're also making a fatal mistake by indiscriminately grouping a whole bunch of universities together that don't really share all too much in common other than being non-Ivy private schools that are ranked relatively highly on US News (and thus betraying your own obsession with the very rankings that you are so painstakingly decrying). Like, I could maybe see your arguments for schools like Rice, Vanderbilt, Emory, and Wake Forest, but not for schools like Hopkins, Duke, Northwestern, and UChicago, which have been prominent research institutions for quite some time and have long legs as prestigious schools.

[Anonymous]

Wasn't there an old magazine clipping or something that was shared on DCUM a while ago from like, the '60s that showed the rankings being almost virtually the same as today's US News rankings, except with the notable "decline" of some of the LAC's? That pretty much refutes the PP's point that the schools were never prestigious and have only US News to thank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there an old magazine clipping or something that was shared on DCUM a while ago from like, the '60s that showed the rankings being almost virtually the same as today's US News rankings, except with the notable "decline" of some of the LAC's? That pretty much refutes the PP's point that the schools were never prestigious and have only US News to thank.

American Council on Education University Rankings, included in “Our Wonderful World (1962),” a guide for ambitious college applicants:
Harvard
Chicago
Columbia
California (Berkeley)
Wisconsin
Yale
Cornell
Michigan
Princeton
Johns Hopkins

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there an old magazine clipping or something that was shared on DCUM a while ago from like, the '60s that showed the rankings being almost virtually the same as today's US News rankings, except with the notable "decline" of some of the LAC's? That pretty much refutes the PP's point that the schools were never prestigious and have only US News to thank.

American Council on Education University Rankings, included in “Our Wonderful World (1962),” a guide for ambitious college applicants:
Harvard
Chicago
Columbia
California (Berkeley)
Wisconsin
Yale
Cornell
Michigan
Princeton
Johns Hopkins

No, there was another one, too... like an actual PDF or screenshot of the magazine clipping.

[Anonymous]

Yeah what the ill-informed and nasty PP doesn't realize is that the schools that have benefited from rankings the most are the non-Harvard/Yale Ivies. The Ivy League went from being an old-school athletic conference to having the level of prestige they enjoy today. But sure, take it out on these other schools. The confident stupidity and lack of self-awareness truly knows no bounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there an old magazine clipping or something that was shared on DCUM a while ago from like, the '60s that showed the rankings being almost virtually the same as today's US News rankings, except with the notable "decline" of some of the LAC's? That pretty much refutes the PP's point that the schools were never prestigious and have only US News to thank.

American Council on Education University Rankings, included in “Our Wonderful World (1962),” a guide for ambitious college applicants:
Harvard
Chicago
Columbia
California (Berkeley)
Wisconsin
Yale
Cornell
Michigan
Princeton
Johns Hopkins

No, there was another one, too... like an actual PDF or screenshot of the magazine clipping.

I remember that post too. Could someone repost the link?

[Anonymous]

Calling Duke regional before us news is just your bias against the south. I would say Emory and Rice were regional schools until about 10 years ago when they took off in popularity. Vandy has been national for a bit longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any reason why schools aren’t ranked by which schools have the best looking, most fertile, physically strong and healthy students? The public should be given the information so they can make choices they desire. Just because it would make tons of schools more desirable than the USNWR darlings to the public is no reason to keep the rankings from being performed

They’re schools, not gyms, bars, or beaches. I don’t think many are trying to select an EDUCATION based on student health, looks, and fertility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there an old magazine clipping or something that was shared on DCUM a while ago from like, the '60s that showed the rankings being almost virtually the same as today's US News rankings, except with the notable "decline" of some of the LAC's? That pretty much refutes the PP's point that the schools were never prestigious and have only US News to thank.

American Council on Education University Rankings, included in “Our Wonderful World (1962),” a guide for ambitious college applicants:
Harvard
Chicago
Columbia
California (Berkeley)
Wisconsin
Yale
Cornell
Michigan
Princeton
Johns Hopkins

You can certainly argue Berkeley, Wisconsin, Cornell, and Michigan aren't in the same group as the others anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He went to Trinity College so he just sounds bitter to me.

LOL- I did not know that. Ivy envy wannabee