I would assume they will, but to the only party who is actually entitled to any such details.
Outside of that, they might just let their P/R folks assess, how relevant this thread on College Confidential is, for next year’s application round.
Yes, but wouldn’t both traditional and non-traditional students studying engineering both be in SEAS? College and SGS only separate traditional and non-traditional students in liberal arts (including science) majors. Also, wouldn’t the entire undergraduate population (College, SEAS, SGS) that broadly shares the same classes and instructors within Columbia University be the most representative of Columbia University?
2 Likes
I can’t read The Chronicle’s article as it’s behind a paywall. Does it give any new information that wasn’t in the professor’s post? Any response from Columbia besides what was posted above?
It appears it is growing legs outside of CC…
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2022/03/17/us/columbia-university-rank.amp.html
Given some of the details in the NYT piece I suspect they will have to respond publicly or risk the absence of a response being interpreted as an admission. I also suspect USNWR will have to issue a statement to avoid “discrediting” of their rankings. They can’t be perceived as being willfully ignorant.
5 Likes
If this doesn’t die down, the next step would be for Columbia to announce an investigation.
And if the ruckus still hasn’t died down after a while, it wouldn’t surprise me for Columbia to announce that they are “shocked, SHOCKED that a low-level rogue employee submitted misleading information.”
7 Likes
The argument that Columbia is a great school and might have done just as well in the ratings even if they hadn’t [fill in the blank of you choice: cheated/gamed/legal but outside the spirit, etc.] is about as convincing as the Varsity Blues parents and their lawyers who argued some of the kids were strong enough to get in even if they hadn’t [bribed, gamed, cheated, whatever]. It’s beside the point.
6 Likes
That article (and perhaps the others) cite a Davidson U professor who has looked over the data analyzed by the Columbia math professor. He notes that there appear to be “fundamental” issues with Columbia’s data.
Interestingly, the Davidson professor would like to do away with USNWR and other rankings, which is apparently why The Chronicle consulted him.
You should be able to sign up for a free account to read certain stories like this one on The Chronicle. I get enough spam emails, but I did sign up for this, as this publication often has some really interesting pieces.
1 Like
The NYT article was interesting because the spokesperson did try and respond to some points. They effectively admitted the challenge about counting patient care as “student instruction” and are trying to make the implausible leap that because it is a teaching hospital all patient care is a form of student instruction. There’s zero chance that was a good faith belief on their part, reinforced by the fact that their own public financial statements that classifies patent care separately, reporting almost a billion less in instruction (they drop patient care as a category in the data used for US News, as if it doesn’t exist outside of instruction, despite coming to the same total expense to the penny). They knew what they were doing, knew they shouldn’t but knew they could because US News entirely relies on self-reported results. It really doesn’t matter if you call it fraud or say its just creative interpretation, it reflects a fundamental lack of ethic.
7 Likes
That should not be surprising as most academics hate all rankings. Indeed, even the ‘rankings’ completed by the National Research Council for PhD programs received a lot of angst and criticism the last time it was released, requiring a large delay. (And academics under the National Academy of Sciences themselves are the ones completing that ranking.) The NRC is supposed to be completed every decade…anyone know what happened to them? (Last published in 2010, based on 2005 data.)
1 Like
But perhaps not academic administrators?
1 Like
yeah, Administrators hate them too. (Too many donating/influential alums asking why they dropped a couple of spots this year…)
1 Like
Quote from Professor Thaddeus…
“My administration is more focused on perception than reality,” he said. “And this is a away to steer their attention back to reality.”
I suspect may lead to a few awkward meetings going forward.
2 Likes
But the NY Times article did confirm that he is tenured. So awkward meetings, but no termination.
To add a touch of levity (IMO), the second most popular comment on the NY Times article starts off with this, “Rankings are considered valuable only by the least informed and/or laziest college applicants. People who really want to understand and compare colleges use Common Data Sets (free and easily accessible).” I don’t think most students and parents posting on CC would agree!
1 Like
Of course, Columbia University common data sets are not too easily accessible.
3 Likes
“Could you describe the ruckus, sir”.
Sorry seemed like an opportunity for a random “The Breakfast Club” quote.
8 Likes
The professor seems to have a problem with the UNSWR methodology that makes outcomes of transfer students have no impact on rankings, rather than something Columbia reported wrong. For example, if outcomes of transfer students do not influence rankings, then this creates incentives to cut FA short for transfer students (graduation rate is strongly influenced by ability to pay for college), which the professor claims is something Columbia does. He suggests that Columbia deemphasizing outcomes of transfer students is one factor that contributes to Columbia’s increased ranking, even though they are reporting grad rate as USNWR specifies.
Though he clearly noted in that section that unlike the other categories he examined he wasn’t suggesting Columbia was doing something inconsistent with what is asked of them. It was the exception.
1 Like
Columbia says that it “meets need” (by its definition of “need”) for some undergraduate students but not others.
“Meets need”:
- Most College and SEAS students: How Aid Works | Columbia Financial Aid and Educational Financing
Does not “meet need”:
- Combined Plan (3+2 with Columbia as the “2” school) transfer students: Combined Plan Applicants | Columbia Undergraduate Admissions
Not stated:
1 Like
I believe USN collapses certain input data with a logarithmic function. If this is the case, then the impact on Columbia’s rank from something such as the above would be lessened. The ethical principle remains the same, however.