Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They haven't made their Common Data Set public for years, maybe ever? Makes one wonder what others--like the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins--who won't make their data public are hiding.
The CDS is an useless piece of aggregated nonsense. What you really need is the govt to compel universities to submit disaggregated data on applicants, admitted, scores, ratings etc by interest group: legacy, athletes, by race, by gender, by geography and by citizenship.
Without Govt compulsion the universities will never reveal this because it will show the kind of shenanigans going on in admissions at almost every school
Why do you refer to “shenanigans”? Most of these schools are private institutions that can put classes together in any way they want.
Anonymous wrote:They cheated, and now suddenly don't want to play to the game.
Anonymous wrote:They shouldn't have cheated. Their true ranking is probably closer to 15 like it is on WSJ.
Anonymous wrote:I read the Columbia professor's website and had the feeling about the reports that he posted were like college students' reports, not like a mathematician's research reports. I suspect the professor for some reason has hatred toward the college that supports his life, maybe he is not happy Columbia shares rank with his dear alma mater.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They shouldn't have cheated. Their true ranking is probably closer to 15 like it is on WSJ.
WSJ ranking fluctuate a lot. Going back 1-2 years, Columbia was at 2 or 3.
You're confusing WSJ with Forbes, Columbia has been 15 for the last 3 years on WSJ/Times ranking.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/rankings/united-states/2022#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They shouldn't have cheated. Their true ranking is probably closer to 15 like it is on WSJ.
WSJ ranking fluctuate a lot. Going back 1-2 years, Columbia was at 2 or 3.
Anonymous wrote:They shouldn't have cheated. Their true ranking is probably closer to 15 like it is on WSJ.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They haven't made their Common Data Set public for years, maybe ever? Makes one wonder what others--like the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins--who won't make their data public are hiding.
The CDS is an useless piece of aggregated nonsense. What you really need is the govt to compel universities to submit disaggregated data on applicants, admitted, scores, ratings etc by interest group: legacy, athletes, by race, by gender, by geography and by citizenship.
Without Govt compulsion the universities will never reveal this because it will show the kind of shenanigans going on in admissions at almost every school
Why do you refer to “shenanigans”? Most of these schools are private institutions that can put classes together in any way they want.
Anonymous wrote:This is funny, but unfortunately, also true.US News, for better or worse, moves markets. The Jim Cramer of college rankings. Meaning often wrong, but still has market power.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:They haven't made their Common Data Set public for years, maybe ever? Makes one wonder what others--like the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins--who won't make their data public are hiding.
The CDS is an useless piece of aggregated nonsense. What you really need is the govt to compel universities to submit disaggregated data on applicants, admitted, scores, ratings etc by interest group: legacy, athletes, by race, by gender, by geography and by citizenship.
Without Govt compulsion the universities will never reveal this because it will show the kind of shenanigans going on in admissions at almost every school