Anonymous
Post 07/15/2013 21:43     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
i think that linked article is wrong about not that much differences in the top 10 compared to 10 vs. 25.

I think there is a much bigger difference in recruiting strength of elite firms, student experiences, etc for stanford vs duke or princeton vs duke

than georgetown and duke (for non-stem).
Anonymous
Post 07/15/2013 20:22     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Interesting interview from the guy who oversees the rankings:

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2012/10/19/us-news-rankings-editor-talks-duke-recent-trends



"acceptance rate counts only 1.5 percent in the final score" - so much for gaming the rankings by lowering the acceptance rate.


According to the New Yorker article in OP's original post, "selectivity" has a weight of 15%.


Apples and oranges. Acceptance rate is one factor (say 10%) of selectivity (which is say 15% of overall ranking), so acceptance rate is 0.10 x 0.15 or 1.5% of overall ranking. I don't know the exact weights given, but I'm guessing the guy who oversees the US News rankings has a pretty good handle on it.
Anonymous
Post 07/15/2013 20:03     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Interesting interview from the guy who oversees the rankings:

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2012/10/19/us-news-rankings-editor-talks-duke-recent-trends



"acceptance rate counts only 1.5 percent in the final score" - so much for gaming the rankings by lowering the acceptance rate.


According to the New Yorker article in OP's original post, "selectivity" has a weight of 15%.
Anonymous
Post 07/15/2013 17:32     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
Interesting summary of the rankings through the years, but it is dated and limited:

http://sylvester.math.nthu.edu.tw/d2/app-07-2/ranking/U.S.%20News%20Rankings%20Through%20the%20Years.htm

Anonymous
Post 07/15/2013 17:25     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
Anonymous wrote:Interesting interview from the guy who oversees the rankings:

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2012/10/19/us-news-rankings-editor-talks-duke-recent-trends



"acceptance rate counts only 1.5 percent in the final score" - so much for gaming the rankings by lowering the acceptance rate.
Anonymous
Post 07/15/2013 17:23     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
Interesting interview from the guy who oversees the rankings:

http://www.dukechronicle.com/articles/2012/10/19/us-news-rankings-editor-talks-duke-recent-trends

Anonymous
Post 07/15/2013 12:20     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:16:59 and the index person here. You're right, 17:05, Columbia's neighborhood in Morningside Heights was a scary place back in the 80s.

Small correction, though. The Wharton School did have an undergraduate program back in the day - I know two guys in their 60s who went to Wharton for undergrad. What may have changed is all the fancy new Wharton buildings - I think Steinberg-Deitrich went up in the early 80s, and the Huntsman building (I think that's the name, could be wrong) is brand new. If I were outside Wharton, I'd probably resent these opulent buildings too. Penn's neighborhood has also improved since the 80s.


Yes, there is the neighborhood issue as well.

I guess when I applied to Penn I don't remember Wharton being a very prominent aspect of the undergraduate education there, while when DC looked at Penn it seemed to loom very large.


When we did the tour a year or two ago, opulent Wharton buildings were a big part of it. Also our tour guide was a sorority sister. DC refused to apply. I went there for grad school and tried to explain that most if this wasn't really representative on the place (frats are less than 20%, I think), but DC had already ruled it out.
Anonymous
Post 07/14/2013 18:52     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
Anonymous wrote:16:59 and the index person here. You're right, 17:05, Columbia's neighborhood in Morningside Heights was a scary place back in the 80s.

Small correction, though. The Wharton School did have an undergraduate program back in the day - I know two guys in their 60s who went to Wharton for undergrad. What may have changed is all the fancy new Wharton buildings - I think Steinberg-Deitrich went up in the early 80s, and the Huntsman building (I think that's the name, could be wrong) is brand new. If I were outside Wharton, I'd probably resent these opulent buildings too. Penn's neighborhood has also improved since the 80s.


Yes, there is the neighborhood issue as well.

I guess when I applied to Penn I don't remember Wharton being a very prominent aspect of the undergraduate education there, while when DC looked at Penn it seemed to loom very large.
Anonymous
Post 07/14/2013 18:50     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
I never said NYU Law School was regarded as the same caliber as Harvard or Yale. It isn't now, either. I was just saying that it was regarded highly.

I have a leg up only because I attended and applies to these schools at a time period you refer to. I suspect that you are younger than I am.

I don't understand why you are wedded to the idea that US News has been responsible for the change in reputation of some schools when there are so many other, more powerful forces at work here. Not to mention the chicken/egg problem when you are discussing reputation and rankings. Whats the basis for your idea that it was rankings that did this? Remember, correlation is not causation.
Anonymous
Post 07/14/2013 18:24     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
Anonymous wrote:I did get into Columbia. And i chose NYU over Columbia. I'm not full of crap, its the truth. I think I know far more about this than you do.

The caliber of student everywhere has improved. the acceptance rates everywhere have declined. Thats true for many, many schools. This has nothing to do with US News and everything to do with demographic changes (including far more international applicants as well as the baby boomlet), the common app, better outreach to previously underrepresented groups.

I wonder how old you are. I went to college in the early 80s. Cornell and Dartmouth did not attract the top students, more like 2nd and 3rd tier. Columbia didn't seem to attract anyone because the housing situation back then was horrific. Penn was a sought after school and I applied while I did not apply to the others. Frankly what has changed about Penn is not its overall reputation but its relatively new reputation as a Wharton school, preprofessional haven. I think the Wharton school didn't even have an undergraduate arm back then and now it seems to have taken over the whole school. For my DC, this makes Penn very UNattractive.

I didn't go to Penn, I went to Princeton. I wrote that before.


On what basis do you think that you know "far more about this" than I do? It's unclear to me. On the basis that you went to college and law school at a different time? On the basis that you went to NYU Law and think it was regarded in same caliber as HYSCC the 1980s? (It wasn't.) On some other abstract basis you've yet to disclose? Suffice to say, my opinion on these matters is not less informed than yours, and I'd reckon that, in forums where people tend to be more informed about top colleges (not DCUM), many people would agree that USNWR has had a heavy hand in influencing the reputations of schools since its introduction in the 1980s. In any event, I don't care -- I went to top undergrad and grad schools that (I guess according to you) were top schools prior to USNWR's existence and post-USNWR. I think I'm just a bit more realistic in terms of estimating the impact the publication has had, and will have, on continuing generations of students. (Which is what this debate was originally about.) Feel free to continue believing that your 30 years-ago education gives you a leg up on everyone else in understanding the evolution of the reputation of national universities.
Anonymous
Post 07/14/2013 17:21     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
16:59 and the index person here. You're right, 17:05, Columbia's neighborhood in Morningside Heights was a scary place back in the 80s.

Small correction, though. The Wharton School did have an undergraduate program back in the day - I know two guys in their 60s who went to Wharton for undergrad. What may have changed is all the fancy new Wharton buildings - I think Steinberg-Deitrich went up in the early 80s, and the Huntsman building (I think that's the name, could be wrong) is brand new. If I were outside Wharton, I'd probably resent these opulent buildings too. Penn's neighborhood has also improved since the 80s.
Anonymous
Post 07/14/2013 17:05     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
I did get into Columbia. And i chose NYU over Columbia. I'm not full of crap, its the truth. I think I know far more about this than you do.

The caliber of student everywhere has improved. the acceptance rates everywhere have declined. Thats true for many, many schools. This has nothing to do with US News and everything to do with demographic changes (including far more international applicants as well as the baby boomlet), the common app, better outreach to previously underrepresented groups.

I wonder how old you are. I went to college in the early 80s. Cornell and Dartmouth did not attract the top students, more like 2nd and 3rd tier. Columbia didn't seem to attract anyone because the housing situation back then was horrific. Penn was a sought after school and I applied while I did not apply to the others. Frankly what has changed about Penn is not its overall reputation but its relatively new reputation as a Wharton school, preprofessional haven. I think the Wharton school didn't even have an undergraduate arm back then and now it seems to have taken over the whole school. For my DC, this makes Penn very UNattractive.

I didn't go to Penn, I went to Princeton. I wrote that before.
Anonymous
Post 07/14/2013 16:59     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I went to college over 30 years ago and UPenn was absolutely a sought after school. Definitely more sought after than Cornell, Dartmouth and Columbia (which i chose not to apply to, although i did apply to Penn) and the US News rankings didn't exist or no one cared. I had certainly never heard of them.

The same is true when I applied to law schools almost 30 years ago. I went to NYU, and chose it over Columbia, and it absolutely had a stellar relationship back then. Again if the rankings existed, I had never heard of them. And NYU undergraduate had pretty much the same reputation back in my day as it does now, exactly the same the more i think about it.

This business of Stanford being meh 20 years ago is the most laughable thing you wrote. I KNOW how competitive it was. Its always been seen as the west coast equivalent of the ivies.

You just don't know what you are talking about. There has been no upending of schools. There have been quite a few whose reputations have improved but thats not because of the rankings, thats because the ivies have gotten so competitive and its gotten so hard to get in that students who would have gone to an ivy in previous generations are now going to other schools. The rankings didn't do this. And the schools that were considered the most competitive back in my day, still are.

The rankings don't have superpowers. You can choose to pay attention to them if you want, but they really haven't been responsible for what you claim they are.


Oh, please; maybe in your mind Penn was more "sought after" than Cornell, Dartmouth, and Columbia (seriously, buddy?), but not in reality. I know plenty of people who went to Penn in the last few decades, and the caliber of student there has improved tremendously over the last 20 years. The acceptance rates have dropped tremendously and their yield and competitiveness has significantly increased vis-a-vis schools that used to routinely kick their butts in recruiting. Your graduation from Penn has obviously significantly affected your ability to see reality on this score.

And again, NYU Law's rise is absolutely a recent phenomenon; I'm sorry if you didn't get into Columbia 800 years ago, because clearly in those days NO ONE would have chosen NYU over Columbia. Come to think of it, I don't know many who would choose it today over Columbia. Once again, say whatever you want about where you allegedly got into and how prestigious those schools were at the time, but you're full of crap.


Different PP. That was an overreaction and nasty. (And DC goes to Columbia, so no bias here.)
Anonymous
Post 07/14/2013 16:05     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
Anonymous wrote:I went to college over 30 years ago and UPenn was absolutely a sought after school. Definitely more sought after than Cornell, Dartmouth and Columbia (which i chose not to apply to, although i did apply to Penn) and the US News rankings didn't exist or no one cared. I had certainly never heard of them.

The same is true when I applied to law schools almost 30 years ago. I went to NYU, and chose it over Columbia, and it absolutely had a stellar relationship back then. Again if the rankings existed, I had never heard of them. And NYU undergraduate had pretty much the same reputation back in my day as it does now, exactly the same the more i think about it.

This business of Stanford being meh 20 years ago is the most laughable thing you wrote. I KNOW how competitive it was. Its always been seen as the west coast equivalent of the ivies.

You just don't know what you are talking about. There has been no upending of schools. There have been quite a few whose reputations have improved but thats not because of the rankings, thats because the ivies have gotten so competitive and its gotten so hard to get in that students who would have gone to an ivy in previous generations are now going to other schools. The rankings didn't do this. And the schools that were considered the most competitive back in my day, still are.

The rankings don't have superpowers. You can choose to pay attention to them if you want, but they really haven't been responsible for what you claim they are.


Oh, please; maybe in your mind Penn was more "sought after" than Cornell, Dartmouth, and Columbia (seriously, buddy?), but not in reality. I know plenty of people who went to Penn in the last few decades, and the caliber of student there has improved tremendously over the last 20 years. The acceptance rates have dropped tremendously and their yield and competitiveness has significantly increased vis-a-vis schools that used to routinely kick their butts in recruiting. Your graduation from Penn has obviously significantly affected your ability to see reality on this score.

And again, NYU Law's rise is absolutely a recent phenomenon; I'm sorry if you didn't get into Columbia 800 years ago, because clearly in those days NO ONE would have chosen NYU over Columbia. Come to think of it, I don't know many who would choose it today over Columbia. Once again, say whatever you want about where you allegedly got into and how prestigious those schools were at the time, but you're full of crap.
Anonymous
Post 07/14/2013 14:58     Subject: Why rankings are bunk
11:49 again. Just to clarify. Acceptance rates are one of several components that go into the USNWR index. So anything that increases applications to a school will reduce the school's acceptance rate. And, because this feeds (with other things) into the school's USNWR ranking, this will lead to a rise in the school's place in the rankings.

Therefore, marketing, which improves a school's reputation, can definitely lead to a rise in applications and a corresponding rise in USNWR rankings. Apparently Tulane tried to change its image with brochures showing students in lab coats. Applications plummeted. For Tulane, New Orleans is a big selling point, so when it switched to pics of art students taking notes in the French Quarter, applications rose again. I think I read this in Crazy U.

I also read somewhere that Stanford didn't have the same reputation a few decades ago. Maybe 5-6 decades ago, I'm not sure.