I think that’s the point of this thread. As the Temple online MBA article mentioned, that program went from being the number online B-school program in the US to the 100th because of the issues at the heart of the criminal conviction. Those folks that signed up when they thought it was the “best” must have felt terribly let down.
I have no way of knowing the soundness of the article mentioned in the OP by the Columbia math professor. But, I think the article about the Temple B-school dean and the reference by @roycroftmom to Moody’s ratings make it clear that universities and their administrators can be and are accountable for information they provide to the public, academic or investing.
One of the points in the article is if they had used public CDS some of the criteria are clearly spelled out and not using it gave them the opening to selectively re-interpret it in other ways.
I believe that U.S. News does use the CDS, for at least some measures. Frankly, it would help if USNWR would only include colleges that made their CDS available to the public.
USNWR has their own statistical surveys that they request colleges fill out for ranking information, rather than depend on the CDS. These USNWR statistical surveys include much of the same content as the CDS. Some survey questions clearly copy the CDS content and format. An example of their “main survey” is at https://oir.uga.edu/_resources/files/usnews/2021USNews.pdf . This relates to why sometimes the stats on USNWR websites differ from CDS/IPEDS when comparing equivalent survey year. Some colleges submit different information to USNWR than they do to CDS/IPEDS. When colleges do not fill out the USNWR statistical surveys (I expect well ranked colleges, such as Columbia, almost always fill out the survey), USNWR uses a combination of IPEDS and College Scorecard to get enough information to rank them.
Columbia spokesman Scott Schell: “We stand by the data we provided to U.S. News and World Report.
We take seriously our responsibility to accurately report information to federal and state entities, as well as to private rankings organizations. Our survey responses follow the different definitions and instructions of each specific survey.”
Columbia instead says the university’s climb up the rankings was propelled by U.S. News’s recent shift to give more weight to the graduation rates of low-income students, an area in which Columbia representatives said the school performs well.
I can appreciate that individuals would like to see CDS data published - but that’s not the issue here – it’s intentionally NOT what USNWR is asking for! After all, if USNWR would simply rank based on that, then they’d lose that profitable annual exercise of slightly tinkering factors to artificially create a different “hitparade” every year.
Otherwise, anyone with Excel could do it at home.
I stand corrected not deafening. Specific accusations responded too with generalizations and hyperbole.
Reminds me of Bill Clinton’s infamous “I did not have sex with that women” comment.
Are you really suggesting that Columbia wasn’t both conscious of the impact on rankings and or deliberately manipulative and that their failure to provide CDS is coincidence?
I’m certain they are conscious of the impact on rankings.
I also would not doubt that participants in the survey will carefully study the question and choose the most advantageous, yet correct, response.
If I read the chart correctly, the “scandal” (on the level of presidential impeachment?) is that Columbia was #4 in 2011, #3 in 2019 and three years later was #2. Sorry, but “hyperbole” applies more to a mathematician’s choice of headlining this upward trend as “dizzying ascent” (unless he is more susceptible to dizziness than average).
So between the “drama” in his language, at least some doubt in some of this methodology, and him (as a researcher) not having reconciled any discrepancies in numbers with in-house resources - I (as a forth party) am not willing to join the villagers with my pitchfork, yet.
Sounds curiously similar to a job applicant not providing their income tax info prior to applying for a very important government job, where every other job applicant had voluntarily provided this critical background information in the previous 40 years.
Just provide the independently verifiable info already.
Scandal is your word not mine. Having read the article the issues raised are far more specific than the resulting move in rankings.
I will not however engage in debate but suggest reading the entirety of the Columbia professor’s concerns as published not just the title. Regardless I don’t think it in any way impacts or diminishes students such as your daughter who are students at Barnard or Columbia.
To advance the conversation please point us to the schools direct and specific response to the very specific accusations if possible.
Agreed - we’re both 4th parties and not privy to more information - other than Columbia standing behind the figures they supplied. No point debating something that none of us actually know.
Further agreed that I won’t debate whether this truly rises to the same severity of a “national crisis” as (pick your favorite president from either side of the aisle) presidential impeachments, as was already suggested for the 3rd time now, including by yourself.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if USNWR clarifies their form for the next ranking, specifically saying that hospital patient costs should not be included as part of instructional costs (!?), and then Columbia’s ranking takes a bit of a tumble?
(Only people on CC would understand that as passing for something “interesting” - we are odd birds.)
A notable exception is Reed College, which is typically thought to be a top-25 liberal arts college.
Reed’s participation in (and enthusiasm for) reporting data to USNews has been lacking for years, and USNews has seen fit to allow Reed to dwell (in ranking) well beneath its academic reputation.
So – USNews doesn’t always cover for elite schools.
Yep - and over the years, there have been several colleges deciding against working with US News at various times, e.g.
Can’t find the reference now, but I recall a few years ago Barnard no longer submitting data. They are in a sports consortium with the University, and have a fee-for-access contract for full student access to common facilities (students from both sides of Broadway can and do access each others libraries, gyms, dining). Yet US News would not consider those actually available, paid-for facilities in their comparison - artificially lowering Barnard scores in those areas, in ignorance of the daily facts.
As an additional statistical aspect to consider, U.S. News, unlike in its early years of ranking colleges, now assigns ties. With respect to Columbia, which currently resides in a tie with two other schools, this means that its actual underlying position is 2, 3, or 4. Hypothetically, if the same method of rounding to ties were to have been used when Columbia was ranked 8th in 1990, Columbia may have appeared, say, in a tie for 6th place. This aspect diminishes the absolute magnitude of Columbia’s rise to its current rank of 2.
So do you think Columbia is a materially better school in relative terms today then it was in 1988 when it was ranked 18th?
My point being Columbia is and has always been an outstanding school as are arguably all of the top schools regardless of ranking.
The relativity that rankings artificially superimposes is arbitrary and ignores the individual needs and fit of the applicant. That is the shame of a school dedicating any time or effort to gaming their rank, as it is meaningless in terms of actual student experience.
As a random example think of the student who prefers a bucolic college setting but applies and is accepted ED 2 to UChicago based on ranking having been deferred at Dartmouth. That student is being manipulated both by the rankings and the schools manipulation of the ranking. Likely bad outcome all around.
That said rank clearly matters to many if not most applicants often at the expense of fit and seemingly Columbia has at a minimum played effectively.