Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any methodology that uses "diversity" to juke the shakeout is worthless.

You can adjust "Environment" (diversity) in the WSJ rankings to 0. Only 10% weight to begin with.

I'm on a work laptop and can't view WSJ. Do the top 20 rankings change much when you remove diversity?

I'm at work avoiding doing anything constructive...
DEFAULT: Outcomes-40%, Resources-30, Engagement-20, Enviro-10
ADJUSTED: 50,30,20,0
1 Harvard, 2 MIT, 3 Yale, 4 CIT, 5 Penn, 6 Cornell, 6 Princeton, 8 Duke, 9 Brown, 10 Dartmouth

So much for the Cornell "bashers"

So just list colleges that have strong core curricula so people that value that can choose them. UChi, Columbia, etc.

Core curriculum is not the same as a gen ed curriculum. You can have a great gen ed curriculum without a core curriculum, so this argument is a total red herring. In fact if you don't believe in a gen ed curriculum at all, why not go the way of the "British system" and spare the students a year in undergraduate school? If you are going to have a gen ed curriculum, then make it robust and strong and not some "BS watered down" nonsense. And Williams' gen ed curriculum is just not strong enough, because the types of courses that fulfill the requirement are not rigorous enough as defined on that site.

I'm not even gonna argue this one, or concede I might be wrong on this point. You'll get a better education from better professors at Williams or (open curriculum) Amherst than you will at Pepperdine, in almost every discipline. End period.

That is just an assertion without any proof. Yes, for a dedicated student I am sure Williams and Amherst will provide great courses and excellent professors and maybe they attract better profs than Pepperdine, but that is not the whole story. Unless you force students to choose from a list of rigorous courses (mind you that is different from a core curriculum), the quality of courses and the strengths of the profs do not matter at all. The fact is that the average Williams and Amherst student can get by and graduate by taking a very poorly structured gen ed curriculum, because the college allows them to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any methodology that uses "diversity" to juke the shakeout is worthless.

You can adjust "Environment" (diversity) in the WSJ rankings to 0. Only 10% weight to begin with.

I'm on a work laptop and can't view WSJ. Do the top 20 rankings change much when you remove diversity?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any methodology that uses "diversity" to juke the shakeout is worthless.

and, nine pages later, our white nationalist comes out to play . . .

?

I'm Korean-American, my husband is Jewish.

Hispanic here, and I agree with you.

And I'm tired of dumb PPs like the one above accusing you of being a "white nationalist" -- whoever she is, she should go back to the Beauty forum.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any methodology that uses "diversity" to juke the shakeout is worthless.

and, nine pages later, our white nationalist comes out to play . . .

?

I'm Korean-American, my husband is Jewish.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are looking at the quality of education you can get, there are a lot of small schools who don't rank very well that have a great curriculum and good professors that are actually much better than Harvard, Stanford etc.

Look at this website that actually looks at the curriculum and what kids actually get taught.

https://www.whatwilltheylearn.com/


The tool you link to gives Williams College a D- and Pepperdine an A+.

I'll pass.

That is exactly the point. Name wise and reputation wise, Williams has a lot more credibility but when you really look under the covers, the curriculum at Williams and other Elites have been watered down to such an extent that unless a kid is really determined to get a well rounded education, they offer very one dimensional educational experience.

What is your evidence of that? It flies in the face of every other bit of information I have seen, including every review, guidebook, visit, discussion with college counselors and professors. I have to call BS. Total BS.

When you don't require your students to have a "college level" understanding of US history and economics for example (and don't tell me taking an AP class in school is the same, it is not), they will be terrible voters and poor citizens unless they learn all this on the side.

So just list colleges that have strong core curricula so people that value that can choose them. UChi, Columbia, etc.

This was not the case 50 years ago. A lot of these colleges are just milking their reputations and are doing students a huge disservice, yet if you just look at "Is Williams more prestigious than Pepperdine", then USNews ranking is where you should go.

I'm not even gonna argue this one, or concede I might be wrong on this point. You'll get a better education from better professors at Williams or (open curriculum) Amherst than you will at Pepperdine, in almost every discipline. End period.

The grading is really on commitment to core curriculum. A counterpoint grading could be done on commitment to open curriculum. It might have been better to have some sort of assessment that shows where the schools fall on that continuum.

Core curriculum WRT what the core is exactly or what the quality of it is, or the teachers, or the facilities. Ludicrous to the point of negligent. Aside from just completely meaningless.

ps - Even open curriculum schools like Brown have requirements like 2 writing courses and other requirements per concentration. How is that accounted for in this silly methodology? It isn't? Oh...

It's not writing but composition that is being evaluated. None of courses Brown says will fulfill its writing requirements satisfy the requirement needed by get a check off against the composition rating

An introductory college writing class that emphasizes some or all of the following topics: mechanics, style, grammar, usage, argument, rhetoric, research, expository writing, understanding of tone and audience, editing, revision, rewriting, and an understanding of academic writing conventions[i]

Brown defines it as "any course requiring significant writing" which is a joke

And the grading is not for a "Core Curriculum", but for a good "Gen Ed" curriculum and the two are totally different, in case you don't know. You can clearly have a very good general education curriculum without having a "Core Curriculum". Brown is being singled out for a "F" grade not because it does not have a "Core curriculum" but because its general education curriculum is a freaking joke.

Again let me emphasize that this does not mean that you cannot get a fantastic education at Brown and that the profs there are not excellent. I am sure for a dedicated student who is willing to eschew "fluff courses" and plunge into the "serious courses" offered at Brown, Brown will provide a wonderful education, but by setting the bar so low for most students and by allowing students to graduate without a robust and serious general education requirement (notwithstanding their marketing message) they are doing a disservice to their students in the long run.

Anonymous wrote:Any methodology that uses "diversity" to juke the shakeout is worthless.

You can adjust "Environment" (diversity) in the WSJ rankings to 0. Only 10% weight to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:Any methodology that uses "diversity" to juke the shakeout is worthless.

and, nine pages later, our white nationalist comes out to play . . .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are looking at the quality of education you can get, there are a lot of small schools who don't rank very well that have a great curriculum and good professors that are actually much better than Harvard, Stanford etc.

Look at this website that actually looks at the curriculum and what kids actually get taught.

https://www.whatwilltheylearn.com/


The tool you link to gives Williams College a D- and Pepperdine an A+.

I'll pass.

That is exactly the point. Name wise and reputation wise, Williams has a lot more credibility but when you really look under the covers, the curriculum at Williams and other Elites have been watered down to such an extent that unless a kid is really determined to get a well rounded education, they offer very one dimensional educational experience.

What is your evidence of that? It flies in the face of every other bit of information I have seen, including every review, guidebook, visit, discussion with college counselors and professors. I have to call BS. Total BS.

When you don't require your students to have a "college level" understanding of US history and economics for example (and don't tell me taking an AP class in school is the same, it is not), they will be terrible voters and poor citizens unless they learn all this on the side.

So just list colleges that have strong core curricula so people that value that can choose them. UChi, Columbia, etc.

This was not the case 50 years ago. A lot of these colleges are just milking their reputations and are doing students a huge disservice, yet if you just look at "Is Williams more prestigious than Pepperdine", then USNews ranking is where you should go.

I'm not even gonna argue this one, or concede I might be wrong on this point. You'll get a better education from better professors at Williams or (open curriculum) Amherst than you will at Pepperdine, in almost every discipline. End period.

The grading is really on commitment to core curriculum. A counterpoint grading could be done on commitment to open curriculum. It might have been better to have some sort of assessment that shows where the schools fall on that continuum.

Core curriculum WRT what the core is exactly or what the quality of it is, or the teachers, or the facilities. Ludicrous to the point of negligent. Aside from just completely meaningless.

ps - Even open curriculum schools like Brown have requirements like 2 writing courses and other requirements per concentration. How is that accounted for in this silly methodology? It isn't? Oh...

Any methodology that uses "diversity" to juke the shakeout is worthless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outside of the Ivies & Ivy-Plus (10 to 15 colleges, max), rankings 15 to 200, no matter where your college is, DOES NOT MATTER. Nobody cares about non-elite rankings -- except insecure psychotic striver parents who need some scoreboard to prove to the world their kid isn't just another dime a dozen 'above average' teen (spoiler: that's really all they are). You all sound so low class arguing about 20-something v 40-something. Or 50-something v 100-something.

Sorry, but I don't buy your argument. A school considered to be in the top 25-50 is a lot more respected than #200. How can you say it doesn't matter beyond the top 15. I say it doesn't matter where you are on the top 15...lump those schools together for that matter.

The thing about rankings it is an attempt to implement a tier of 1. I can't really buy into that, and I also can't really work at such a granular level in everyday life. If I meet someone from Group 1A of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, and Caltech, I'm going to think they've hit the top level for selectivity. There may be a group below that in my mind with Columbia, etc., where I think they just missed Group 1A (for argument's sake, I'll call this group 1B and name Columbia, Duke, Brown, Chicago, Dartmouth, Penn). Below that one, my groups start getting broader. I'm not going to distinguish much between a Vanderbilt grad, a Notre Dame grad, a Naval Academy grad, a Wellesley grad, etc. (with the provision that the Naval Academy grad has the military background) although they may fall at different points in these rankings. But compare those to say, University of Arkansas (hope I'm not offending anyone), and I'm going to note mentally that the prior people have gone to a more selective school. I don't have very firm cutoffs in my mind for these schools. They are just ones I note as very good/highly regarded (but not 1A/1B). I can't really process tiers of 1.

Anonymous wrote:The methodology favors

-schools in CA, urban areas, etc. where there are many diverse applicants. My school got slammed for this, but it’s located in an state with low diversity, and there’s only so much recruitment that can be done to bring in diverse students

-schools in urban areas or with engineering and business majors, as starting incomes is a big factor. My school gets slammed because it’s located in an area that doesn’t have high paying jobs, it’s a SLAC that doesn’t offer technical or business degrees, and many grads choose to go into lower paying professions like teaching, academia, music performance, or public service.

-schools that have big endowments and can spend more money on students. Or conversely public schools that charge less in tuition. My school has a low student-teacher ratio, only allows teaching by actual PHDs, and has great rankings when it comes to things like intellectual challenge and student satisfaction. But because the school does this while spending less money than other schools, it gets dinged big time. (I do concede that schools with big endowments that use the money to fund scholarships and reduce student loans is an important factor.)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument at all. Small, isolated liberal arts schools all over these college rankings.

Anonymous wrote:This ranking is so random except for the top 1-7. US Naval Academy is at #80 behind many public universities. No logic to its ranking.

They just weight the usual stuff differently.

Since military life doesn't pay all that well, and this is the journal, USNA gets creamed.

And I personally think they leave out stuff like "can get into the classes you need in the semester you want" as a key element.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are looking at the quality of education you can get, there are a lot of small schools who don't rank very well that have a great curriculum and good professors that are actually much better than Harvard, Stanford etc.

Look at this website that actually looks at the curriculum and what kids actually get taught.

https://www.whatwilltheylearn.com/


The tool you link to gives Williams College a D- and Pepperdine an A+.

I'll pass.

That is exactly the point. Name wise and reputation wise, Williams has a lot more credibility but when you really look under the covers, the curriculum at Williams and other Elites have been watered down to such an extent that unless a kid is really determined to get a well rounded education, they offer very one dimensional educational experience.

What is your evidence of that? It flies in the face of every other bit of information I have seen, including every review, guidebook, visit, discussion with college counselors and professors. I have to call BS. Total BS.

When you don't require your students to have a "college level" understanding of US history and economics for example (and don't tell me taking an AP class in school is the same, it is not), they will be terrible voters and poor citizens unless they learn all this on the side.

So just list colleges that have strong core curricula so people that value that can choose them. UChi, Columbia, etc.

This was not the case 50 years ago. A lot of these colleges are just milking their reputations and are doing students a huge disservice, yet if you just look at "Is Williams more prestigious than Pepperdine", then USNews ranking is where you should go.

I'm not even gonna argue this one, or concede I might be wrong on this point. You'll get a better education from better professors at Williams or (open curriculum) Amherst than you will at Pepperdine, in almost every discipline. End period.

The grading is really on commitment to core curriculum. A counterpoint grading could be done on commitment to open curriculum. It might have been better to have some sort of assessment that shows where the schools fall on that continuum.

Anonymous wrote:The methodology favors

-schools in CA, urban areas, etc. where there are many diverse applicants. My school got slammed for this, but it’s located in an state with low diversity, and there’s only so much recruitment that can be done to bring in diverse students

-schools in urban areas or with engineering and business majors, as starting incomes is a big factor. My school gets slammed because it’s located in an area that doesn’t have high paying jobs, it’s a SLAC that doesn’t offer technical or business degrees, and many grads choose to go into lower paying professions like teaching, academia, music performance, or public service.

-schools that have big endowments and can spend more money on students. Or conversely public schools that charge less in tuition. My school has a low student-teacher ratio, only allows teaching by actual PHDs, and has great rankings when it comes to things like intellectual challenge and student satisfaction. But because the school does this while spending less money than other schools, it gets dinged big time. (I do concede that schools with big endowments that use the money to fund scholarships and reduce student loans is an important factor.)

Hmmm. Kenyon?