Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange that a bankrupt magzine has so much sway on the higher-education systems.

That US NEWS ranking University of Florida much higher than Univ of Washington should make people think twice. Instead, people just take the ranking as if god-given.

Those are the obvious ones but other than those, the rankings are pretty solid relative to their actual prestige.

Don't act like you would've heard of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Washington University, Northwestern, or even Duke and Hopkins outside of the DC Area had it not been for US News.

The top 10 of USNews is a strong indicator of national and worldwide prestige. The ranking after 10 becomes
useless as a measure of prestige excluding the Ivies which will always hold sway due to being Ivies, not being ranked between 10-20.

The fact that Chicago went from >15 to top 3 (or where ever it is now) within 20 years shows how idiotic the rankings are even for prestige - schools don't rise in prestige so quickly at the top because prestige is entrenched. U. Chicago has always had strong graduate departments but that its often ranked ahead of Yale, Caltech, etc. or ranked alongside Harvard today is simply a result of ranking manipulation.

All the schools you named have <15% acceptance rate and average SATs of above 1450 so Id say there prestige is through the roof among prospective students.

Certainly, and look at their acceptance rates and scores 20 years ago. The ranking provides a self-reinforcing cycle where schools ranked higher receive more applications, higher scores, etc.

That does not mean that the schools ranked higher are necessarily more prestigious nationally though, excluding the top 10 w/o Chicago.

Schools like Duke, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Chicago, Washington University were, in the 1990's and early 2000s, respected regional universities that attracted great students from their respective regions. If they were renowned nationally, they were so in a few specific fields - Hopkins for medicine, Chicago for Economics, Duke for Divinity (no joke), etc.

These schools were not nationally prestigious universities as they are today, and certainly not globally renowned, which they still largely aren't today

So the people acting like Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. were simply destined to be top national universities or already were largely considered prestigious nationally prior to the domination of these rankings is flat out lying. Had it not been for the rankings, they wouldn't have even heard of these universities. The rankings have provided a self-perpetuating cycle that has brought these universities to their current level of national prestige in recent years.

What? Nonsense. If you mean that they weren't known to the average middle class family, maybe. But they were nationally and internationally prestigious. They were elite schools, known to elites. All of those schools have been extremely well regarded for more than 50 years. I

They were known to elites in their respective regions, and certainly not upper-middle class families on the other end of the country.

And no, they were not internationally prestigious, and neither are they today. Have you even lived outside of the US?

I snorted at this. Have you ever lived outside of the US? Can you speak another language other than English? And what school did you attend? Awfully dangerous up there with all your high-horsing.

Good way to confirm you have never lived outside of the US.

Taking a few courses of Duolingo does not count as knowing a second language.

It's hilarious how individuals are so personally insulted by others mentioning that their school is objectively not prestigious internationally. It is not an insult of the school itself - although there are reasons these schools are not as prestigious - but primarily how those outside the US view universities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah what the ill-informed and nasty PP doesn't realize is that the schools that have benefited from rankings the most are the non-Harvard/Yale Ivies. The Ivy League went from being an old-school athletic conference to having the level of prestige they enjoy today. But sure, take it out on these other schools. The confident stupidity and lack of self-awareness truly knows no bounds.

What a ridiculous post. The Ivies have been the Ivies and ergo have been synonymous with prestige and top academics for a long time, whether deserved or undeserved. This is true in the US and it is true internationally.

The smaller Ivies - Brown and Dartmouth - are less recognized by name alone internationally but rather their affiliation to the Ivies. However in the US they have always been prestigious nationally and particularly in the Northeast - the economic and political center of the US.

Cornell in particularly is very popular internationally despite Americans desperately trying to compare it to a state school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange that a bankrupt magzine has so much sway on the higher-education systems.

That US NEWS ranking University of Florida much higher than Univ of Washington should make people think twice. Instead, people just take the ranking as if god-given.

Those are the obvious ones but other than those, the rankings are pretty solid relative to their actual prestige.

Don't act like you would've heard of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Washington University, Northwestern, or even Duke and Hopkins outside of the DC Area had it not been for US News.

The top 10 of USNews is a strong indicator of national and worldwide prestige. The ranking after 10 becomes
useless as a measure of prestige excluding the Ivies which will always hold sway due to being Ivies, not being ranked between 10-20.

The fact that Chicago went from >15 to top 3 (or where ever it is now) within 20 years shows how idiotic the rankings are even for prestige - schools don't rise in prestige so quickly at the top because prestige is entrenched. U. Chicago has always had strong graduate departments but that its often ranked ahead of Yale, Caltech, etc. or ranked alongside Harvard today is simply a result of ranking manipulation.

All the schools you named have <15% acceptance rate and average SATs of above 1450 so Id say there prestige is through the roof among prospective students.

Certainly, and look at their acceptance rates and scores 20 years ago. The ranking provides a self-reinforcing cycle where schools ranked higher receive more applications, higher scores, etc.

That does not mean that the schools ranked higher are necessarily more prestigious nationally though, excluding the top 10 w/o Chicago.

Schools like Duke, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Chicago, Washington University were, in the 1990's and early 2000s, respected regional universities that attracted great students from their respective regions. If they were renowned nationally, they were so in a few specific fields - Hopkins for medicine, Chicago for Economics, Duke for Divinity (no joke), etc.

These schools were not nationally prestigious universities as they are today, and certainly not globally renowned, which they still largely aren't today

So the people acting like Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. were simply destined to be top national universities or already were largely considered prestigious nationally prior to the domination of these rankings is flat out lying. Had it not been for the rankings, they wouldn't have even heard of these universities. The rankings have provided a self-perpetuating cycle that has brought these universities to their current level of national prestige in recent years.

What? Nonsense. If you mean that they weren't known to the average middle class family, maybe. But they were nationally and internationally prestigious. They were elite schools, known to elites. All of those schools have been extremely well regarded for more than 50 years. I

They were known to elites in their respective regions, and certainly not upper-middle class families on the other end of the country.

And no, they were not internationally prestigious, and neither are they today. Have you even lived outside of the US?

Uh this would only make sense if not for the extensive list of alumni from these schools who are not from the schools' respective regions. How old are you? You keep making all these bold claims but I can't help but feel you're an angsty 30-something-year-old that doesn't actually have insight into the time periods you're speaking on so authoritatively. You're also making a fatal mistake by indiscriminately grouping a whole bunch of universities together that don't really share all too much in common other than being non-Ivy private schools that are ranked relatively highly on US News (and thus betraying your own obsession with the very rankings that you are so painstakingly decrying). Like, I could maybe see your arguments for schools like Rice, Vanderbilt, Emory, and Wake Forest, but not for schools like Hopkins, Duke, Northwestern, and UChicago, which have been prominent research institutions for quite some time and have long legs as prestigious schools.

Anonymous wrote:Yeah what the ill-informed and nasty PP doesn't realize is that the schools that have benefited from rankings the most are the non-Harvard/Yale Ivies. The Ivy League went from being an old-school athletic conference to having the level of prestige they enjoy today. But sure, take it out on these other schools. The confident stupidity and lack of self-awareness truly knows no bounds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there an old magazine clipping or something that was shared on DCUM a while ago from like, the '60s that showed the rankings being almost virtually the same as today's US News rankings, except with the notable "decline" of some of the LAC's? That pretty much refutes the PP's point that the schools were never prestigious and have only US News to thank.

American Council on Education University Rankings, included in “Our Wonderful World (1962),” a guide for ambitious college applicants:
Harvard
Chicago
Columbia
California (Berkeley)
Wisconsin
Yale
Cornell
Michigan
Princeton
Johns Hopkins

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's strange that a bankrupt magzine has so much sway on the higher-education systems.

That US NEWS ranking University of Florida much higher than Univ of Washington should make people think twice. Instead, people just take the ranking as if god-given.

Those are the obvious ones but other than those, the rankings are pretty solid relative to their actual prestige.

Don't act like you would've heard of Chicago, Vanderbilt, Rice, Washington University, Northwestern, or even Duke and Hopkins outside of the DC Area had it not been for US News.

The top 10 of USNews is a strong indicator of national and worldwide prestige. The ranking after 10 becomes
useless as a measure of prestige excluding the Ivies which will always hold sway due to being Ivies, not being ranked between 10-20.

The fact that Chicago went from >15 to top 3 (or where ever it is now) within 20 years shows how idiotic the rankings are even for prestige - schools don't rise in prestige so quickly at the top because prestige is entrenched. U. Chicago has always had strong graduate departments but that its often ranked ahead of Yale, Caltech, etc. or ranked alongside Harvard today is simply a result of ranking manipulation.

All the schools you named have <15% acceptance rate and average SATs of above 1450 so Id say there prestige is through the roof among prospective students.

Certainly, and look at their acceptance rates and scores 20 years ago. The ranking provides a self-reinforcing cycle where schools ranked higher receive more applications, higher scores, etc.

That does not mean that the schools ranked higher are necessarily more prestigious nationally though, excluding the top 10 w/o Chicago.

Schools like Duke, Hopkins, Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Rice, Chicago, Washington University were, in the 1990's and early 2000s, respected regional universities that attracted great students from their respective regions. If they were renowned nationally, they were so in a few specific fields - Hopkins for medicine, Chicago for Economics, Duke for Divinity (no joke), etc.

These schools were not nationally prestigious universities as they are today, and certainly not globally renowned, which they still largely aren't today

So the people acting like Northwestern, Chicago, Rice, Vanderbilt, etc. were simply destined to be top national universities or already were largely considered prestigious nationally prior to the domination of these rankings is flat out lying. Had it not been for the rankings, they wouldn't have even heard of these universities. The rankings have provided a self-perpetuating cycle that has brought these universities to their current level of national prestige in recent years.

What? Nonsense. If you mean that they weren't known to the average middle class family, maybe. But they were nationally and internationally prestigious. They were elite schools, known to elites. All of those schools have been extremely well regarded for more than 50 years. I

They were known to elites in their respective regions, and certainly not upper-middle class families on the other end of the country.

And no, they were not internationally prestigious, and neither are they today. Have you even lived outside of the US?

I snorted at this. Have you ever lived outside of the US? Can you speak another language other than English? And what school did you attend? Awfully dangerous up there with all your high-horsing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there an old magazine clipping or something that was shared on DCUM a while ago from like, the '60s that showed the rankings being almost virtually the same as today's US News rankings, except with the notable "decline" of some of the LAC's? That pretty much refutes the PP's point that the schools were never prestigious and have only US News to thank.

American Council on Education University Rankings, included in “Our Wonderful World (1962),” a guide for ambitious college applicants:
Harvard
Chicago
Columbia
California (Berkeley)
Wisconsin
Yale
Cornell
Michigan
Princeton
Johns Hopkins

You can certainly argue Berkeley, Wisconsin, Cornell, and Michigan aren't in the same group as the others anymore.

Ranking methodologies back then were mostly based on research output and departmental peer-assessments by professors. Unlike today’s absurd criteria that makes no sense, rankings in the past actually tried to measure academic prowess.

With the exception of Wisconsin, the schools you listed are still premier research institutions. Even though such rankings are not good reflections of the undergrad experience at those colleges, neither is USNWR, so I’d rather take these rankings over it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there an old magazine clipping or something that was shared on DCUM a while ago from like, the '60s that showed the rankings being almost virtually the same as today's US News rankings, except with the notable "decline" of some of the LAC's? That pretty much refutes the PP's point that the schools were never prestigious and have only US News to thank.

American Council on Education University Rankings, included in “Our Wonderful World (1962),” a guide for ambitious college applicants:
Harvard
Chicago
Columbia
California (Berkeley)
Wisconsin
Yale
Cornell
Michigan
Princeton
Johns Hopkins

You can certainly argue Berkeley, Wisconsin, Cornell, and Michigan aren't in the same group as the others anymore.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God this thread has made me throw up in my mouth. You people are disgusting.

Sounds like a you problem bud

Anonymous wrote:God this thread has made me throw up in my mouth. You people are disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:He went to Trinity College so he just sounds bitter to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any reason why schools aren’t ranked by which schools have the best looking, most fertile, physically strong and healthy students? The public should be given the information so they can make choices they desire. Just because it would make tons of schools more desirable than the USNWR darlings to the public is no reason to keep the rankings from being performed

playboy used to have that ranking decades ago. I had so many friends dead set on going to ASU

Anonymous wrote:Is there any reason why schools aren’t ranked by which schools have the best looking, most fertile, physically strong and healthy students? The public should be given the information so they can make choices they desire. Just because it would make tons of schools more desirable than the USNWR darlings to the public is no reason to keep the rankings from being performed