Anonymous wrote:US News rankings are hurting education and the futures of our young people …. For those with ears to hear, and a heart for those being excluded from access to quality educations, please read on with an open mind beyond where your or your children’s alma matas are ranked:

Here is the most impressive rankings for colleges - those high on the social mobility index -ranking the colleges that allow the most people to succeed in a world with growing wealth inequalities and access to quality education.

https://www.socialmobilityindex.org


Bravo California (and well done on throwing out the naked power grab to oust your democratically elected governor) …. These top ten access generators may not be high up the US News rankings but they are educational power houses.

Rank
SMI
Institution
1
366.426858
CUNY Bernard M Baruch College

2
359.3971
California State University-Los Angeles

3
328.993176
California State University-Fresno

4
288.894874
California State University-Northridge

5
282.896227
California State University-Long Beach

6
276.898345
California State Polytechnic University-Pomona

7
275.785038
California State University-San Bernardino

8
268.666227
CUNY Queens College

9
267.78645
CUNY Hunter College

10
257.857316
California State University-Dominguez Hills


According to SMI group, “despite the growing economic importance of the college degree, the proportion of US high school graduates going to college – a figure that increased for decades – is now declining. The upward ratchet in tuition since the 1980's has progressively limited affordability and access to college education. In 1980, for example, college tuition took an average bite of 26 percent of the median family income in the US; by 2004, this figure had more than doubled, to 56 percent.

One of the main culprits driving the tuition increases, and thus one of the central impediments to economic mobility, has been higher education's pursuit of the rankings, particularly those put forward by US News & World Report. Asked to explain the factors behind tuition jumps at Cornell, economists there remarked that "how much the university spends per student for education and maintaining a low student/faculty ratio both weigh heavily in determining rankings. Any slippage in the rankings is extremely costly to the institution." A study published in Research in Higher Education by a former Provost at the University of Rochester added that if a college or university wanted to move into one of the top 20 slots in the US News rankings it would have to increase spending by tens of millions of dollars a year. “

This means the often frivolous pursuit of dominance in the US News rankings are directly hurting millions of students and prospective students by driving up tuition costs and hence creating an even more unequal society than we already had.

Education is supposed to empower our young people not enslave them to life long debt or create so many barriers that they can never get in the front door.

Well done Cal and NY and even some deep red states are doing better than most states in providing more opportunities to enter/ stay in the shrinking middle classes.

Ave SMI Rank
State
1
CA

2
NJ

3
NY

4
LA

5
TX

6
FL

7
NV

8
MD

9
NC

10
MS



When are we going to finally reject the often preposterous, and immensely harmful, college arms race perpetuated by US News Best College ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s cute that Columbia, which is overwhelmingly a graduate/professional university, has ascended to the near top at USNWR. It is a superlative school for sure, but definitely has benefited by playing into the criteria used by that ranking system.

No idea what this means since everyone knows that Columbia has a very strong undergraduate presence

A very strong undergraduate presence with 1/3 of its undergraduates not matriculated as 18 year olds out of high school? Columbia’s stats are skewed by ignoring a huge minority of students who came through the back door. Those same students in the College of General Studies take classes alongside Columbia College students, so it’s not like they have an entirely separate curriculum. I highly doubt than any other of the top ten undergraduate schools have that high a percentage of alternative students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s cute that Columbia, which is overwhelmingly a graduate/professional university, has ascended to the near top at USNWR. It is a superlative school for sure, but definitely has benefited by playing into the criteria used by that ranking system.

No idea what this means since everyone knows that Columbia has a very strong undergraduate presence

A very strong undergraduate presence with 1/3 of its undergraduates not matriculated as 18 year olds out of high school? Columbia’s stats are skewed by ignoring a huge minority of students who came through the back door. Those same students in the College of General Studies take classes alongside Columbia College students, so it’s not like they have an entirely separate curriculum. I highly doubt than any other of the top ten undergraduate schools have that high a percentage of alternative students.

Why blame a school dare to serve disadvantaged students since long time ago while other elite schools only catered to upper-class WASP descendants, with only tinny programs for veterans to claim their social justice.

Also, Columbia was the only ivy that didn’t discriminate against Jewish students in 1920s, 1930s. A lot of hatred from the WASPs come from this fact. Even Donald Trump said Columbia is a “liberal, disgraceful institution.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are the extension students at Harvard taking classes alongside Harvard College students? It’s doubtful many are since 70% of the courses are given online. I think it’s wonderful that Columbia allows 1/3 of its undergraduates to be non traditional students and in classrooms with those brilliant 18 year olds. USNWR rewards them for this as well, by not reporting the huge percentage of students entering without the stellar grades and scores.

Yes, they are. HES students can sit in for the same in-person classes as Harvard College students, as well as online classes. About 1,000 sit in for a ALB degree. Harvard does not report this data, neither does Penn, which awards bachelor degrees to nontraditional students through the School of Liberal and Professional Studies.

I’m sure that the vast majority are taking mostly online classes however. Be it as it may, Columbia brings it to a whole new level. 1/3 of its undergraduates in the SGS!

No, you're wrong. And they get the ALB degree that has been the focal point of complaint by quite a few Harvard students because HES students frequently present themselves as Harvard College grads. Columbia enrolls about 2,000 non-traditional students. So, you're saying that veterans (who compose a large percentage of SGS) who fought and bled for our country don't really deserve to get an Ivy League education? What's wrong with expanding access to an elite education? Aren't universities meant to increase social mobility? I am really at a loss of words.

You’re projecting too much. I never said anything about veterans. I’m saying that Columbia’s ranking is too high because USNWR rewards it for having way too high of a percentage of its transfer students in its undergraduate program. The vast majority of those students would never be admitted as freshman. The data provided by Columbia and distributed by USNWR give it an air of ultra eliteness. Is that really an accurate picture?

Anonymous wrote:“I don’t see the issue. What is wrong with older students intermingling with the undergraduates. Older students bring life experience and different perspectives which can make class discussions more interesting and engaging.”

There is nothing wrong with it at all. But how much intermingling with transferred/non traditional students is acceptable when a rating system uses data from mostly accepted/matriculated 18 years olds to support its rankings. This is where I have a problem with a school like Columbia who has a huge percentage of their undergrads in the SGS taking classes alongside those from CC. They are basing their eliteness at USNWR off those 18-year-olds and completely ignoring the 1/3 of the undergraduates who are not included in that data set. Is it so hard to understand why this might be a problem? The SGS is not an extension school like the one at Harvard. USNWR should clarify to its readers that this is not a typical practice at most elite schools. On the contrary, it rewards Columbia for not reporting that it’s overall student body is more than likely NOT the caliber of SGS at Columbia is a special program for adults to received a BA as a separate degree from the College. They are two SEPARATE institutions at Columbia.


The real ivy league program with the 3.7% admissions this year ( and 5.1-6 % admissions in previous years) you are addressing is Columbia College.

SGS is a great program for adults and students who took time out from study either after high school or at some later time and decided to return to higher education. Their admissions has nothing to do with Columbia College, and they receive a separate BA which says SGS.

USNWR knows all about this. The only character who does not seem to appreciate this distinction is you. Maybe you are the one in need of an opportunity to return to higher education as an adult. Why don't you apply to SGS? I m sure its admissions committee would be intrigued by your application and consider you either for admissions or make a recommendation that you get some therapy to overcome whatever personal esteem difficulties you are facing.

Whatever Columbia is doing seems exceptionally fine. Lucky is anyone who has a chance to study there and to savor the best of New York City.