Anonymous wrote:I think that it is good that Emory has an alternative quasi-community college attached to it so lower stat kids can get in.
As for cheating on US News, yeah it's unfortunate, but no one cares about US News rankings since they changed their metrics to make social equity more important than the academic quality of the students.
Anonymous wrote:I think that it is good that Emory has an alternative quasi-community college attached to it so lower stat kids can get in.
As for cheating on US News, yeah it's unfortunate, but no one cares about US News rankings since they changed their metrics to make social equity more important than the academic quality of the students.
Anonymous wrote:Top 3 Public Health. Top 5 Nursing. Top 15 Undergrad B School. Lots of top programs. A vibrant international city. Airport that can take you almost anywhere in a direct flight. An academic institution, not a football factory. A middle sized student body in a beautiful suburban setting.
Not sure what else is desired.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why did Northeastern drop 10 spots in the rankings?
They put several mediocre publics higher like Rutgers, Ohio State, UGA, Texas A&M etc.
Has zero impact.
So if mediocre publics are ranked higher…that makes NEU worse than mediocre?
We all have trouble following your logic.
Only if you religiously believe in the magazine ranking.
No wonder why Emory is a such a cheater school obsessed with the magazine ranking.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why did Northeastern drop 10 spots in the rankings?
They put several mediocre publics higher like Rutgers, Ohio State, UGA, Texas A&M etc.
Has zero impact.
So if mediocre publics are ranked higher…that makes NEU worse than mediocre?
We all have trouble following your logic.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why did Northeastern drop 10 spots in the rankings?
They put several mediocre publics higher like Rutgers, Ohio State, UGA, Texas A&M etc.
Has zero impact.
Anonymous wrote:Why did Northeastern drop 10 spots in the rankings?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just beacause Emory cheated on the US News data doesn't make it a bad school.
Didn’t that happen 14 years ago?
Here is a quote about NEU from a profile last year:
Northeastern University has been notorious for gaming the rankings. They introduced programs where students who tend to have lower grades study away for a semester or a year. Because those students aren’t going directly to the university, their statistics are not included in the ranking data.
Boston Magazine did a profile in 2014 all about NEU gaming the rankings.
Gaming is subjective claim.
The magazine basically says NEU played by the rules while there were schools that actually cheated (i.e. Emory).
With that 'gaming', NEU now beats Emroy in every major metrics.
On the other hand, Emory flat out cheated for more than 10 years like the magazine noted, and got caught bloody-handed.
It was just 10 years ago. What about gaming when there are real cheater schools like these, Emory, Berkeley, Columbia, etc.
SHAMELESS
By the way again, Emory sends lower stat kids to Oxford for 2 years.
And those Oxford students are still better than Northeastern students.
And you are wrong.
No you're just delusional
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just beacause Emory cheated on the US News data doesn't make it a bad school.
Didn’t that happen 14 years ago?
Here is a quote about NEU from a profile last year:
Northeastern University has been notorious for gaming the rankings. They introduced programs where students who tend to have lower grades study away for a semester or a year. Because those students aren’t going directly to the university, their statistics are not included in the ranking data.
Boston Magazine did a profile in 2014 all about NEU gaming the rankings.
Gaming is subjective claim.
The magazine basically says NEU played by the rules while there were schools that actually cheated (i.e. Emory).
With that 'gaming', NEU now beats Emroy in every major metrics.
On the other hand, Emory flat out cheated for more than 10 years like the magazine noted, and got caught bloody-handed.
It was just 10 years ago. What about gaming when there are real cheater schools like these, Emory, Berkeley, Columbia, etc.
SHAMELESS
By the way again, Emory sends lower stat kids to Oxford for 2 years.
And those Oxford students are still better than Northeastern students.
And you are wrong.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Just beacause Emory cheated on the US News data doesn't make it a bad school.
Didn’t that happen 14 years ago?
Here is a quote about NEU from a profile last year:
Northeastern University has been notorious for gaming the rankings. They introduced programs where students who tend to have lower grades study away for a semester or a year. Because those students aren’t going directly to the university, their statistics are not included in the ranking data.
Boston Magazine did a profile in 2014 all about NEU gaming the rankings.
Gaming is subjective claim.
The magazine basically says NEU played by the rules while there were schools that actually cheated (i.e. Emory).
With that 'gaming', NEU now beats Emroy in every major metrics.
On the other hand, Emory flat out cheated for more than 10 years like the magazine noted, and got caught bloody-handed.
It was just 10 years ago. What about gaming when there are real cheater schools like these, Emory, Berkeley, Columbia, etc.
SHAMELESS
By the way again, Emory sends lower stat kids to Oxford for 2 years.
And those Oxford students are still better than Northeastern students.