Anonymous wrote:Why is it popular? It attracts smart kids who have good outcomes. Sometimes it is not that hard.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:From selectivity and stats, NEU is top 10.
Maybe top 20, definitely top 25..
No and no. We get it, your kid attends NEU and you want to make it seem better than it actually is, it isn't. You can use all of the pretzel logic you like, no matter what all of you delusional boosters say it will never be a top 40 and laughable to utter the words top 25.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:From selectivity and stats, NEU is top 10.
Maybe top 20, definitely top 25..
Anonymous wrote:NEU never has and never will be T20, it will barely hold on to it’s current ranking because it cannot make the investments needed in professor caliber, student services, facilities upgrades. It has a minuscule endowment of 1.5B.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:From selectivity and stats, NEU is top 10.
Maybe top 20, definitely top 25..
Anonymous wrote:From selectivity and stats, NEU is top 10.
Anonymous wrote:From selectivity and stats, NEU is top 10.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think US News' rankings should matter at all, but Northeastern at least didn't cheat like Emory and Columbia. To me, that institutional behavior is inexcusable. It is one thing to focus on a metric, but quite another to just cheat.
I don't think many schools even care about US News' rankings nowadays. There is just way too much information available to parents and students than some "magazine". Majors, salary/incomes, selectivity, SAT scores, grad school outcomes are all information available to the consumer.
I have a friend whose daughter attends SMU's B school. She loves it and has great internships. SMU suddenly became a crappy school because of US News? Same for Tulane. I don't think so. It is a predominantly wealthy school that in the name of equity US News suddenly hates.
Likewise, UC Merced gamed the reputation ranking which comprises 20% of US News' ranking formula. All the other UC's and Cal States gave UC Merced a huge peer assessment. Everyone knows UC Merced is not a top 60 school, it can barely get the bottom of barrel students rejected from all the mainstream UC's. But the peer assessment combined with equity factors like first generation enrollment suddenly makes it better than much more established universities? No one is buying that.
I think someone asked this question before, but if you are blaming the USNWR metric for diversity, tell me why Notre Dame didn't fall in the rankings, considering 80% of the student body is Catholic and 70% white in addition to a strong portion of students being wealthy. Everyone predicted ND would fall with the new metrics, yet it is still T20. What I am saying it is likely very little to do with equity as much as you want to believe it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think US News' rankings should matter at all, but Northeastern at least didn't cheat like Emory and Columbia. To me, that institutional behavior is inexcusable. It is one thing to focus on a metric, but quite another to just cheat.
I don't think many schools even care about US News' rankings nowadays. There is just way too much information available to parents and students than some "magazine". Majors, salary/incomes, selectivity, SAT scores, grad school outcomes are all information available to the consumer.
I have a friend whose daughter attends SMU's B school. She loves it and has great internships. SMU suddenly became a crappy school because of US News? Same for Tulane. I don't think so. It is a predominantly wealthy school that in the name of equity US News suddenly hates.
Likewise, UC Merced gamed the reputation ranking which comprises 20% of US News' ranking formula. All the other UC's and Cal States gave UC Merced a huge peer assessment. Everyone knows UC Merced is not a top 60 school, it can barely get the bottom of barrel students rejected from all the mainstream UC's. But the peer assessment combined with equity factors like first generation enrollment suddenly makes it better than much more established universities? No one is buying that.
I think someone asked this question before, but if you are blaming the USNWR metric for diversity, tell me why Notre Dame didn't fall in the rankings, considering 80% of the student body is Catholic and 70% white in addition to a strong portion of students being wealthy. Everyone predicted ND would fall with the new metrics, yet it is still T20. What I am saying it is likely very little to do with equity as much as you want to believe it.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't think US News' rankings should matter at all, but Northeastern at least didn't cheat like Emory and Columbia. To me, that institutional behavior is inexcusable. It is one thing to focus on a metric, but quite another to just cheat.
I don't think many schools even care about US News' rankings nowadays. There is just way too much information available to parents and students than some "magazine". Majors, salary/incomes, selectivity, SAT scores, grad school outcomes are all information available to the consumer.
I have a friend whose daughter attends SMU's B school. She loves it and has great internships. SMU suddenly became a crappy school because of US News? Same for Tulane. I don't think so. It is a predominantly wealthy school that in the name of equity US News suddenly hates.
Likewise, UC Merced gamed the reputation ranking which comprises 20% of US News' ranking formula. All the other UC's and Cal States gave UC Merced a huge peer assessment. Everyone knows UC Merced is not a top 60 school, it can barely get the bottom of barrel students rejected from all the mainstream UC's. But the peer assessment combined with equity factors like first generation enrollment suddenly makes it better than much more established universities? No one is buying that.
I think someone asked this question before, but if you are blaming the USNWR metric for diversity, tell me why Notre Dame didn't fall in the rankings, considering 80% of the student body is Catholic and 70% white in addition to a strong portion of students being wealthy. Everyone predicted ND would fall with the new metrics, yet it is still T20. What I am saying it is likely very little to do with equity as much as you want to believe it.
Anonymous wrote:I don't think US News' rankings should matter at all, but Northeastern at least didn't cheat like Emory and Columbia. To me, that institutional behavior is inexcusable. It is one thing to focus on a metric, but quite another to just cheat.
I don't think many schools even care about US News' rankings nowadays. There is just way too much information available to parents and students than some "magazine". Majors, salary/incomes, selectivity, SAT scores, grad school outcomes are all information available to the consumer.
I have a friend whose daughter attends SMU's B school. She loves it and has great internships. SMU suddenly became a crappy school because of US News? Same for Tulane. I don't think so. It is a predominantly wealthy school that in the name of equity US News suddenly hates.
Likewise, UC Merced gamed the reputation ranking which comprises 20% of US News' ranking formula. All the other UC's and Cal States gave UC Merced a huge peer assessment. Everyone knows UC Merced is not a top 60 school, it can barely get the bottom of barrel students rejected from all the mainstream UC's. But the peer assessment combined with equity factors like first generation enrollment suddenly makes it better than much more established universities? No one is buying that.