<p>
[quote]
IF someone is ALWAYS walking across the street then I agree those people would be better off just staying across the street.
[/quote]
Well, speaking as the parent of a sophomore who no longer lives on the quad; who attends classes at Columbia 5 days a week; attends classes on the Barnard campus only 2 days a week; and finds the Nexus construction to be a pain in the rear.... there is a street to cross no matter which campus she goes to, and I am sure that some of the Columbia buildings are technically a few steps closer to her than the trek up to Milbank. Given the construction situation I doubt that my d. finds the Barnard campus to be any sort of peaceful refuge to study this year either. (Probably the construction is a big negative for the next 2 years -- nothing nice to say about it for those students who have to live what is essentially the main central corridor & plaza of their campus blocked off due to the construction).</p>
<p>The reality is that these are both postage stamp sized college campuses in an urban environment, with precious little in the way of on-campus open space. (Although I've never visited it, I'll bet the Oberlin campus is much, much larger in terms of campus acreage.)</p>
<p>In other words, it's quite possible that if my d. hypothetically took all her classes on the Columbia campus..... she'd have less walking to do.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now why should caltech, a school that's really comitted to educating students in the sciences, one that spends a ton on money on each undergrad and a school that maintains one of the most rigourous curriculums in the country to push students to their limits, be considered severly underperforming?
[/quote]
Actually, there's a history to that. One year the US News ran its rankings and Cal Tech came out #1. That wouldn't do, because the way they internally "validate" their ranking system is to make sure that Harvard, Yale & Princeton come out on top -- if those 3 names don't show up in some order at the very top of the list, they change the formula. Which is exactly what they did to make sure that Cal Tech will never come out on top again.</p>
<p>There is a theory called mean reversion... "suggesting that prices and returns eventually move back towards the mean or average. This mean or average can be the historical average of the price or return or another relevant average such as the growth in the economy or the average return of an industry..." If you run a simulation for interest rates you can throw out the results that say long term rates above 20 or short term rates below 0 in order to keep your simulation on track. Most ranking entities practice this. The world makes sense to them when HPY are on top, since they always have been, and they continue to exhibit those characteristics that put them there in the first place. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It is interesting that so many people object to rankings as they relate to colleges. People seem to accept that Consumer Reports might offer some utilizable input on the relative value of items, or that when in Paris it might be a good idea to consult the Michelin guide for suggestions of where to eat, or to consult JD Powers when buying a car, or AMA recommendations when finding a doctor or a hospital. When choosing a doctor to perform a quad by-pass most of us have to rely on someone else’s opinion of who will do a good job. In most circumstances we readily use rankings as a part of the decision process. If US News rates Columbia as one of the very best and Barnard as a good LAC that information can be used by potential applicants as one piece of the puzzle and that's a good thing.</p>
<p>I do not "object" to college rankings....really don't care one way or another. I just think it would be highly unwise to use rankings alone in deciding where to attend college. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If US News rates Columbia as one of the very best and Barnard as a good LAC that information can be used by potential applicants as one piece of the puzzle and that's a good thing.