Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serously doubt you went to Princeton OP. If you did, you wouldn't dispute rankings. You'd applaud them.

People who went to Princeton don't care about the rankings. Princeton and other top schools were elite schools long before USNWR and their ilk came along. THAT'S why "ratings" are bunk. The elite schools will always been elite. There are some schools that can spend their way to the top (see NYU).

Have you met a Princeton grad? They care a whole lot about the rankings. Every time Princeton surpasses Harvard you never hear the end of it. Maybe it's only the Princeton folks I knew back in the day in law school. Insufferable.

Bizarre. Those people must be really insecure. Princeton's eliteness has nothing to do with USNWR or whatever other rankings BS is out there.

The US News rankings validate what Princeton students are taught to believe, which is that theirs is the best undergraduate education in the country, but many would believe that regardless of USNWR.

Anonymous wrote:Serously doubt you went to Princeton OP. If you did, you wouldn't dispute rankings. You'd applaud them.

OP again. Yes I went to Princeton, before anyone even talking about rankings. I'm not sure they existed in the early 80s. I didn't care about Harvard or Yale or whatever and i certainly don't get my self-esteem from US News.

I am going through the process now with a DC who is curious, has intellectual passions, and is very self-motivated. He could care less about what some corporation thinks about colleges, he's going to decide for himself. This isn't a game where you are trying to "win" by getting the highest number of points (or rank). Its my DC's future. I've glad he's thinking for himself.

And I certainly don't applaud rankings as they corrupt the process. Did you know that at Wash. U in St/ Louis they have students taking tours fill out a "preliminary application" so that they can inflate their application numbers? And how about the way some schools offer January admissions? This didn't use to happen as much and they do it so those applicants scores don't have to go in the database for rankings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reason the US News rankings gained such traction is that they are generally consistent with what most people think based on what they know - so they assume they are accurate in other respects. So, for example, when I see the comparative rankings of Princeton, Duke, Georgetown and UVA, I say "that seems about right" and I trust the other rankings.

The methodology is subject to question, but the results seem right.

This is precisely the point the author addressed. The rankings measure for "Yaleness," and Yale wins. The real question should be: Is Yaleness the best?

Independent of that question, the rankings would seem to be an example of the "misplaced concreteness" fallacy. The abstract of reality has become the reality.

It's true, but it's also sort of brilliant. It's the circle of hiring from the established college list, law school list list, "acceptable law firm" list as a company, etc. It feeds on itself in such a fascinating way that you have to be part of it, lest you be left behind. Are there any among us who weren't substantially influenced by the U.S. News & World Report rankings when we applied to college? To grad school? I was obsessed with it. My friends were obsessed with it. My teachers gave out hearty congrats to those of us who "made it." And we were rewarded with more internship opportunities, better post-school employment, etc etc. The cycle continues. It might all be fake, and X state school may provide just as decent an education objectively speaking, but when all the ambitious kids end up at the same 10 schools, and they are the ones getting all the great jobs in DC and New York and San Fran, etc., there's something to be said for the "abstract of reality" becoming reality.

Anonymous wrote:The reason the US News rankings gained such traction is that they are generally consistent with what most people think based on what they know - so they assume they are accurate in other respects. So, for example, when I see the comparative rankings of Princeton, Duke, Georgetown and UVA, I say "that seems about right" and I trust the other rankings.

The methodology is subject to question, but the results seem right.

This is precisely the point the author addressed. The rankings measure for "Yaleness," and Yale wins. The real question should be: Is Yaleness the best?

Independent of that question, the rankings would seem to be an example of the "misplaced concreteness" fallacy. The abstract of reality has become the reality.

Dartmouth's reputation suffers because of the social aspect. Many people don't want to send their dc to a school with such a hardcore fraternity culture. Not how I would spend $60000 a year.

The reason the US News rankings gained such traction is that they are generally consistent with what most people think based on what they know - so they assume they are accurate in other respects. So, for example, when I see the comparative rankings of Princeton, Duke, Georgetown and UVA, I say "that seems about right" and I trust the other rankings.

The methodology is subject to question, but the results seem right.

Anonymous wrote:


I agree with you, but let's be real. Harvard, Yale, Princeton have always been considered the "elite" of the Ivy League, with Penn and Cornell bringing up the rear. Stanford and MIT too have always been elite. This has nothing to do with USNWR.

Actually, Penn is a great example of a school that has benefited tremendously from the power and influence of U.S. News. Penn certainly used to be considered the "safety" of the Ivies, but as its admit rates have decreased considerably while its ranking has risen considerably (the two are obviously tied, as a large portion of US News's ranking is tied to low admit rates), Penn's reputation has improved substantially, while Cornell/Dartmouth/Brown have all suffered.

Someone brought up NYU - I'm not sure what its undergrad ranking is (it's still not in the top 10-15, certainly), but its astonishing rise in prestige among law schools is directly attributable to its U.S. News ranking, again suggesting that the power of that publication can't be under-estimated. Sure, you always had the power-house undergrads and law schools, and that list hasn't changed much since US News started its rankings, but there are some schools whose reputations have literally been made by US News. That's a pretty impressive feat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:31 here. Same with my alma mater - we know we're good, and we'll let the rest of you fight over slot 25 vs. slot 26. Plus, the Ivies will always be 8 colleges, and even if some people question Brown or Cornell, it's too late to change that.

Except people aren't really talking about slot 25 v. 26. They're talking about the top 5-10 schools. And because USNWR rankings hold so much weight, you can damn well be sure that kids today would rather go to Stanford, MIT, or Chicago than Brown or Cornell, your Ivy examples above. So, it's true that the Ivy League will never change, but their importance (outside of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia) certainly has.

I'm sorry, but that is truly stupid. I look at resumes every day, and I promise that someone's undergrad degree from MIT vs. Stanford vs. Cornell vs. Brown holds the same weight to me. I just think-- great, elite school, check, ok what else has he done.
Also, given the competitive nature of college admissions these days, we are really talking about a small subset of students who are even competitive for those elite schools anyway.

My point was that other schools have surpassed a substantial portion of the Ivy League in that intangible quality known as "eliteness," and it was a direct response to a poster above who suggested that Ivy is Ivy is Ivy = eight schools and so be it. I didn't mean to suggest that Brown or Cornell aren't great schools; what I was suggesting was that in the last couple of decades perceptions have changed, and US News and World Report is a big factor in that, like it or not. I don't know many people who would ever think Stanford wouldn't be superior to Brown and Cornell, but Stanford is not "Ivy." I think you read far too much into my original post. I agree that there is a small subset of students that is competitive for any of these schools. Again, that wasn't my point.

I agree with you, but let's be real. Harvard, Yale, Princeton have always been considered the "elite" of the Ivy League, with Penn and Cornell bringing up the rear. Stanford and MIT too have always been elite. This has nothing to do with USNWR.

Anonymous wrote:99% of the comments on this thread are utterly asinine. OP and maybe one other person have offered something intelligent. The rest of you seem bored.

Um, yes. But if we weren't bored we wouldn't be wasting our time on DCUM, would we.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serously doubt you went to Princeton OP. If you did, you wouldn't dispute rankings. You'd applaud them.

People who went to Princeton don't care about the rankings. Princeton and other top schools were elite schools long before USNWR and their ilk came along. THAT'S why "ratings" are bunk. The elite schools will always been elite. There are some schools that can spend their way to the top (see NYU).

Have you met a Princeton grad? They care a whole lot about the rankings. Every time Princeton surpasses Harvard you never hear the end of it. Maybe it's only the Princeton folks I knew back in the day in law school. Insufferable.

Bizarre. Those people must be really insecure. Princeton's eliteness has nothing to do with USNWR or whatever other rankings BS is out there.

It isn't Princetonians, it's lawyers.

Fair enough, but I'm one of those unpleasant lawyer types, and I attended a top law school that was full of people from the "elite" undergrad institutions, and they/we all were pretty aware of the US News rankings. Including the Princeton folks, of whom there were many.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:31 here. Same with my alma mater - we know we're good, and we'll let the rest of you fight over slot 25 vs. slot 26. Plus, the Ivies will always be 8 colleges, and even if some people question Brown or Cornell, it's too late to change that.

Except people aren't really talking about slot 25 v. 26. They're talking about the top 5-10 schools. And because USNWR rankings hold so much weight, you can damn well be sure that kids today would rather go to Stanford, MIT, or Chicago than Brown or Cornell, your Ivy examples above. So, it's true that the Ivy League will never change, but their importance (outside of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia) certainly has.

I'm sorry, but that is truly stupid. I look at resumes every day, and I promise that someone's undergrad degree from MIT vs. Stanford vs. Cornell vs. Brown holds the same weight to me. I just think-- great, elite school, check, ok what else has he done.
Also, given the competitive nature of college admissions these days, we are really talking about a small subset of students who are even competitive for those elite schools anyway.

My point was that other schools have surpassed a substantial portion of the Ivy League in that intangible quality known as "eliteness," and it was a direct response to a poster above who suggested that Ivy is Ivy is Ivy = eight schools and so be it. I didn't mean to suggest that Brown or Cornell aren't great schools; what I was suggesting was that in the last couple of decades perceptions have changed, and US News and World Report is a big factor in that, like it or not. I don't know many people who would ever think Stanford wouldn't be superior to Brown and Cornell, but Stanford is not "Ivy." I think you read far too much into my original post. I agree that there is a small subset of students that is competitive for any of these schools. Again, that wasn't my point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serously doubt you went to Princeton OP. If you did, you wouldn't dispute rankings. You'd applaud them.

People who went to Princeton don't care about the rankings. Princeton and other top schools were elite schools long before USNWR and their ilk came along. THAT'S why "ratings" are bunk. The elite schools will always been elite. There are some schools that can spend their way to the top (see NYU).

Have you met a Princeton grad? They care a whole lot about the rankings. Every time Princeton surpasses Harvard you never hear the end of it. Maybe it's only the Princeton folks I knew back in the day in law school. Insufferable.

Bizarre. Those people must be really insecure. Princeton's eliteness has nothing to do with USNWR or whatever other rankings BS is out there.

It isn't Princetonians, it's lawyers.

99% of the comments on this thread are utterly asinine. OP and maybe one other person have offered something intelligent. The rest of you seem bored.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:31 here. Same with my alma mater - we know we're good, and we'll let the rest of you fight over slot 25 vs. slot 26. Plus, the Ivies will always be 8 colleges, and even if some people question Brown or Cornell, it's too late to change that.

Except people aren't really talking about slot 25 v. 26. They're talking about the top 5-10 schools. And because USNWR rankings hold so much weight, you can damn well be sure that kids today would rather go to Stanford, MIT, or Chicago than Brown or Cornell, your Ivy examples above. So, it's true that the Ivy League will never change, but their importance (outside of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia) certainly has.

I'm sorry, but that is truly stupid. I look at resumes every day, and I promise that someone's undergrad degree from MIT vs. Stanford vs. Cornell vs. Brown holds the same weight to me. I just think-- great, elite school, check, ok what else has he done.
Also, given the competitive nature of college admissions these days, we are really talking about a small subset of students who are even competitive for those elite schools anyway.

Anonymous wrote:14:31 here. Same with my alma mater - we know we're good, and we'll let the rest of you fight over slot 25 vs. slot 26. Plus, the Ivies will always be 8 colleges, and even if some people question Brown or Cornell, it's too late to change that.

Except people aren't really talking about slot 25 v. 26. They're talking about the top 5-10 schools. And because USNWR rankings hold so much weight, you can damn well be sure that kids today would rather go to Stanford, MIT, or Chicago than Brown or Cornell, your Ivy examples above. So, it's true that the Ivy League will never change, but their importance (outside of Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia) certainly has.