Pervasive Myths - set the record straight

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is this still coming up? A bunch of clueless newbies on the board?
The old articles basically say Northeastern played by the rules, while there have been many schools that not just gamed but actually cheated. Emory, Berkeley, and Columbia are some examples. Nobody ever brings up the cheating when talking about these schools. Unlike these cheating schools, Northeastern was never accused of cheating, so dumb haters keep bringing up 'gaming'.

Northeastern is probably the school that has made the most improvements over the decades, too, and now its major metrics rival those of very top schools, including retention rate, graduation rate, student profile, and outcomes. If this is the result of 'gaming', schools please do game but don't cheat.

Gamed is playing within the rules. That is what NEU did. Cheating is outside of the rules. Schools caught cheating/fudging data on USNWR include Tulane, Emory, Berkeley, GWU, Claremont McKenna, Bucknell, Oklahoma, Villanova, Penn, USC, and Columbia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:that northeastern gamed the system for rankings

But that’s not a myth. It’s actually true. Took about 2 decades but they did it.

You can call it gaming, but Northeastern looked at the formula and sought to improve where they could. A myth would be that no other schools did the same thing. They might not have been as effective, but so many have. Schools took steps to lower admission rate when it was a factor (by inducing applications through push marketing), class size (through registration cutoffs), student faculty (by counting faculty that are peripheral to undergraduate education), same with resources (counting resources in IPEDS, the government database used by USNWR, that are peripheral to undergraduate education), improving alumni giving rate when it was a factor by dropping alumni from the database to lower the denominator (I think Berkeley was caught doing this), influencing other voters like it is Eurovision, admitting students that don't count against stats (foreign, Spring, etc.). There is literally no factor on USNWR that could not be "gamed" to some extent.

And this is part of the reason USNWR dropped some of these metrics, with the myth being that they did it to “hurt” private schools. The Pell grant criteria existing just to help public schools is also a partial myth, because many T20s actually do very well on these metrics, especially Ivies.

Pell grants, along with factoring research output, greatly aided large publics when coupled with dropping alumni giving, student faculty ratio, etc. I think USNWR thought it would broadened the appeal of the ranking by greatly expanding the enrollment of the schools that are say top 50.

Yes, but I see you missed the words “part of” and “partial.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is this still coming up? A bunch of clueless newbies on the board?
The old articles basically say Northeastern played by the rules, while there have been many schools that not just gamed but actually cheated. Emory, Berkeley, and Columbia are some examples. Nobody ever brings up the cheating when talking about these schools. Unlike these cheating schools, Northeastern was never accused of cheating, so dumb haters keep bringing up 'gaming'.

Northeastern is probably the school that has made the most improvements over the decades, too, and now its major metrics rival those of very top schools, including retention rate, graduation rate, student profile, and outcomes. If this is the result of 'gaming', schools please do game but don't cheat.

Gamed is playing within the rules. That is what NEU did. Cheating is outside of the rules. Schools caught cheating/fudging data on USNWR include Tulane, Emory, Berkeley, GWU, Claremont McKenna, Bucknell, Oklahoma, Villanova, Penn, USC, and Columbia.

Yes, the point is people never mention cheating when talking about these schools, but immediately bringing in 'gaming' when Northeastern is mentioned.
Also it's 'gaming' if the school's ranking rose without much changes and improvements, but again Northeastern is probably the school that has made the most improvements over the decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:myth - ranking and prestige don’t matter

truth - they matter in every aspect of
life!

Al Roker, Bob Moritz, Linda Cohn and I are rocking 7 figures plus out of good old SUNY Oswego.

sure, when you add all the compensation it exceeds 7 figures, but that’s misleading!

[Anonymous]

myth is that kids from < T20 do as well as kids in the T20s. Sure there will be exceptions that get trumpeted all over DCUM, but my 3 kids - all attending T20s - all started post grad careers from a higher launch point than their UMD or VTech or Salisbury or Gettysburg friends. And starting from a higher launch point conveys a built in advantage, that is hard for the other kids to make up
not trying to be provocative- is what it is

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:myth is that kids from < T20 do as well as kids in the T20s. Sure there will be exceptions that get trumpeted all over DCUM, but my 3 kids - all attending T20s - all started post grad careers from a higher launch point than their UMD or VTech or Salisbury or Gettysburg friends. And starting from a higher launch point conveys a built in advantage, that is hard for the other kids to make up
not trying to be provocative- is what it is

That's a myth.

For outcome and career, major and personal competency are more important .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:myth is that kids from < T20 do as well as kids in the T20s. Sure there will be exceptions that get trumpeted all over DCUM, but my 3 kids - all attending T20s - all started post grad careers from a higher launch point than their UMD or VTech or Salisbury or Gettysburg friends. And starting from a higher launch point conveys a built in advantage, that is hard for the other kids to make up
not trying to be provocative- is what it is

The question is whether a top 20 caliber student attending a sub 20 school would have a different outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:that northeastern gamed the system for rankings

But that’s not a myth. It’s actually true. Took about 2 decades but they did it.

You can call it gaming, but Northeastern looked at the formula and sought to improve where they could. A myth would be that no other schools did the same thing. They might not have been as effective, but so many have. Schools took steps to lower admission rate when it was a factor (by inducing applications through push marketing), class size (through registration cutoffs), student faculty (by counting faculty that are peripheral to undergraduate education), same with resources (counting resources in IPEDS, the government database used by USNWR, that are peripheral to undergraduate education), improving alumni giving rate when it was a factor by dropping alumni from the database to lower the denominator (I think Berkeley was caught doing this), influencing other voters like it is Eurovision, admitting students that don't count against stats (foreign, Spring, etc.). There is literally no factor on USNWR that could not be "gamed" to some extent.

NEU calls it gaming: https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2014/08/26/how-northeastern-gamed-the-college-rankings/

quoting NEU: "We did play other kinds of games,” he says. “You get credit for the number of classes you have under 20 [students], so we lowered our caps on a lot of our classes to 19 just to make sure.” From 1996 to the 2003 edition (released in 2002), Northeastern rose 20 spots. (The title of each U.S. News “Best Colleges” edition actually refers to the upcoming year.)"

quoting NEU: "There was one thing, however, that U.S. News weighted heavily that could not be fixed with numbers or formulas: the peer assessment. This would require some old-fashioned glad-handing. Freeland guessed that if there were 100 or so universities ahead of NU and if three people at each school were filling out the assessments, he and his team would have to influence some 300 people. “We figured, ‘That’s a manageable number, so we’re just gonna try to get to every one of them,’” Freeland says. “Every trip I took, every city I went to, every conference I went to, I made a point of making contact with any president who was in that national ranking.” Meanwhile, he put less effort into assessing other schools."

Quoting the article: "but he had “gamed” the system as far as he could on his own. To break into the top 100, he’d need more intel on the news magazine’s methodology. He would also need U.S. News’s complicity. “We were trying to move the needle,” Freeland says, “and we felt there were a couple of ways in which the formula was not fair to Northeastern.” And so it was in 2004 when Freeland, a 63-year-old with bushy gray eyebrows and slightly unkempt hair, stepped out of a taxi near the waterfront in Washington, DC’s fashionable Georgetown neighborhood. With his head down, his lips tightly pursed, he marched into the red-brick offices of U.S. News, determined to make the rankings wizard, data guru Robert Morse, his accomplice.

These are not things other schools do.

They absolutely are things other schools do.

What other schools camped out to meet the US News reporter and wait and wait until they talk to them?

Northeastern was an early mover, more effective, and went to greater lengths. But other schools do it.

Name the schools and cite sources showing school admin waited at the offices to talk to usnwr

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:myth is that kids from < T20 do as well as kids in the T20s. Sure there will be exceptions that get trumpeted all over DCUM, but my 3 kids - all attending T20s - all started post grad careers from a higher launch point than their UMD or VTech or Salisbury or Gettysburg friends. And starting from a higher launch point conveys a built in advantage, that is hard for the other kids to make up
not trying to be provocative- is what it is

The question is whether a top 20 caliber student attending a sub 20 school would have a different outcome.

Yes because it’s about peer group and ease of opportunities.
Ultimately, that’s the only difference.
But it matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:myth - ranking and prestige don’t matter

truth - they matter in every aspect of
life!

Al Roker, Bob Moritz, Linda Cohn and I are rocking 7 figures plus out of good old SUNY Oswego.

Who?

Forgot Steve Levy. We all make far more than you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:myth is that kids from < T20 do as well as kids in the T20s. Sure there will be exceptions that get trumpeted all over DCUM, but my 3 kids - all attending T20s - all started post grad careers from a higher launch point than their UMD or VTech or Salisbury or Gettysburg friends. And starting from a higher launch point conveys a built in advantage, that is hard for the other kids to make up
not trying to be provocative- is what it is

That's a myth.

For outcome and career, major and personal competency are more important .

+1. Also, “sure there will be exceptions but here’s my n=3 anecdote” is an incredible take. In a bemusing way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:myth is that kids from < T20 do as well as kids in the T20s. Sure there will be exceptions that get trumpeted all over DCUM, but my 3 kids - all attending T20s - all started post grad careers from a higher launch point than their UMD or VTech or Salisbury or Gettysburg friends. And starting from a higher launch point conveys a built in advantage, that is hard for the other kids to make up
not trying to be provocative- is what it is

Bless your heart, PP!

[Anonymous]

That UCLA, Berkeley, and Michigan (and sometimes UVA) graduates tower in capability and intellectual stature over other public universities like the Brobdingnagians above the Lilliputians.

[Anonymous]

Myth 1: Privledge is bad these days and colleges now prefer public school kids. Reality: private kids are doing really well with t10/t20 admissions, whereas really smart public kids we know are getting accepted to strong public flagships but not many private t20.

Myth 2: that admissions people can spot/dislike apps with contrived and currated EC and narratives. Reality: curated narratives are effective to gain admission.

Myth 3: that kids don't get into tulane, case, etc unless you apply ED. Reality: my kid accepted to both EA with merit. (And didn't even apply for FA)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:that northeastern gamed the system for rankings

But that’s not a myth. It’s actually true. Took about 2 decades but they did it.

You can call it gaming, but Northeastern looked at the formula and sought to improve where they could. A myth would be that no other schools did the same thing. They might not have been as effective, but so many have. Schools took steps to lower admission rate when it was a factor (by inducing applications through push marketing), class size (through registration cutoffs), student faculty (by counting faculty that are peripheral to undergraduate education), same with resources (counting resources in IPEDS, the government database used by USNWR, that are peripheral to undergraduate education), improving alumni giving rate when it was a factor by dropping alumni from the database to lower the denominator (I think Berkeley was caught doing this), influencing other voters like it is Eurovision, admitting students that don't count against stats (foreign, Spring, etc.). There is literally no factor on USNWR that could not be "gamed" to some extent.

NEU calls it gaming: https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2014/08/26/how-northeastern-gamed-the-college-rankings/

quoting NEU: "We did play other kinds of games,” he says. “You get credit for the number of classes you have under 20 [students], so we lowered our caps on a lot of our classes to 19 just to make sure.” From 1996 to the 2003 edition (released in 2002), Northeastern rose 20 spots. (The title of each U.S. News “Best Colleges” edition actually refers to the upcoming year.)"

quoting NEU: "There was one thing, however, that U.S. News weighted heavily that could not be fixed with numbers or formulas: the peer assessment. This would require some old-fashioned glad-handing. Freeland guessed that if there were 100 or so universities ahead of NU and if three people at each school were filling out the assessments, he and his team would have to influence some 300 people. “We figured, ‘That’s a manageable number, so we’re just gonna try to get to every one of them,’” Freeland says. “Every trip I took, every city I went to, every conference I went to, I made a point of making contact with any president who was in that national ranking.” Meanwhile, he put less effort into assessing other schools."

Quoting the article: "but he had “gamed” the system as far as he could on his own. To break into the top 100, he’d need more intel on the news magazine’s methodology. He would also need U.S. News’s complicity. “We were trying to move the needle,” Freeland says, “and we felt there were a couple of ways in which the formula was not fair to Northeastern.” And so it was in 2004 when Freeland, a 63-year-old with bushy gray eyebrows and slightly unkempt hair, stepped out of a taxi near the waterfront in Washington, DC’s fashionable Georgetown neighborhood. With his head down, his lips tightly pursed, he marched into the red-brick offices of U.S. News, determined to make the rankings wizard, data guru Robert Morse, his accomplice.

These are not things other schools do.

They absolutely are things other schools do.

What other schools camped out to meet the US News reporter and wait and wait until they talk to them?

Northeastern was an early mover, more effective, and went to greater lengths. But other schools do it.

Name the schools and cite sources showing school admin waited at the offices to talk to usnwr

I can name a bunch of schools cheated and got caught including

UCBerkeley
https://poetsandquantsforundergrads.com/2019/07/26/uc-berkeley-booted-from-2019-us-news-ranking/

Emory
https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2012/08/emory-intentionally.html

Columbia
https://www.chronicle.com/article/columbia-is-ranked-no-2-by-u-s-news-a-professor-says-its-spot-is-based-on-false-data

Northeastern was transparent, made honest efforts, actually made vast improvements, and wanted proper ranking.
Absolutely no big deal compared to cheating. I don't understand the obsession when there have been many schools actually cheated.