And here lies the hypocrisy for you, jmanco. You are trying to argue the point that going to Harvard doesn't give you a distinct advantage over going to a different university and that ranking doesn't matter, but in supporting your argument you referenced Rice's acceptance rate. Even you rely on aspects of the USNWR's ranking systems to judge a college's prestige, while at the same time complaining about how colleges try to increase applicants and keep this percentage low and take advantage of the ranking system. You haven't proposed an alternative (or presented a problem really) and your argument is rather hypocritical, so please, stop while you are ahead.
Further, admission rates are also decreasing because of the increased number of students intending on going to college, so colleges don't really need to do anything to see increases in number of applicants. Further, I would content that while the USNWR rankings aren't the only (or even best) way of comparing universities, I believe that they certainly help.</p>
<p>I think Harvard would love to have fewer people apply.</p>
<p>With the possible exception of Cornell, Rice is simply not in the same leagye, pun intended, as the ivies IMO. It's student body is heavily regional. The love of the school in Texas is responsible for the 22% rate which is twice the rate of the ivy average.</p>
<p>Anyways, yes, grad school is more important, but that does not mean undergrad isn't in terms of education and etc. And not EVERYONE is all completely focused about the top schools just because of prestige.</p>
<p>Canada is a perfect example... we do just fine without prestige... even kids with low averages get into universities here... its great... but it helps cuz then we generate more educated people who didnt do well in high school but now are contributing... and that is the whole idea of education... to gain knowledge to aide humanity isnt it????</p>
<p>Albert Einstein didnt go to HYPSM... he went to school in germany... he is a physics GOD... he did fine lol...</p>
<p>GHANDI... went to school in south africa and UK... he did fine as well....</p>
<p>Great physicians went to school wherever they could get in... some didnt even care about being a doctor until 4th year... they are doing fine....</p>
<p>Again... Pros vs Cons for this thread... nothing can be in equilibrium (unless ur taking chemistry LOL WOOT WOOT)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>They want more people to apply so they can boost their ranking and selectivity.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>This is nonsense. If all they wanted to do was boost the number of apps so that they could then reject even more, there are far more efficient ways of doing this than by what you are suggesting. </p>
<p>They could just send out an auto-filled brief application form with their view books to all the kids who took the SAT, waive the application fee, and simply urge one and all to sign the app and send it back in. They'd instantly get millions of applications and their selectivity rating would go through the roof. Simple.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Rice is simply not in the same leagye, pun intended, as the ivies IMO. It's student body is heavily regional. The love of the school in Texas is responsible for the 22% rate which is twice the rate of the ivy average.
[/quote]
I assume you base this on the percent of students (~50%) at Rice who are from Texas. What most people don't consider when looking at this statistic is that Texas is the second-most populous state in the US. For comparison, 46% of students at Stanford are from California (from the CDS), and I doubt anyone would describe it as "regional."</p>
<p>Ambitious teen, I have loads of relatives in Canada. Every one goes to a US college. They don't consider any Canadian school to be on par with top US schools and fun them to have much less college life. </p>
<p>I looked at McGill because I love Montreal and was really surprised at how detached kids were from the school. They mostly live off campus, cook for themselves and just go to class.</p>
<p>A bit extreme, wouldn't you think, cookie? Not that I agree with jmanco's Harvard-bashing, but I'd like to think Rice is no slouch when it comes to academics.</p>
<p>"Ambitious teen, I have loads of relatives in Canada. Every one goes to a US college. They don't consider any Canadian school to be on par with top US schools and fun them to have much less college life. </p>
<p>I looked at McGill because I love Montreal and was really surprised at how detached kids were from the school. They mostly live off campus, cook for themselves and just go to class."</p>
<p>True... but at least the drop rate here isnt as bad for high school students... cuz everyone gets a chance to go to school... umm mcgill is 21 in the world right now, university of toronto is 24... they are pretty good in my opinion... but yah i wouldnt go here cuz its easy to get in... USA is good.. but im just saying lotta great people came from different education backrounds... not necessarily high order schools...</p>
<p>"A bit extreme, wouldn't you think, cookie? Not that I agree with jmanco's Harvard-bashing, but I'd like to think Rice is no slouch when it comes to academics."</p>
<p>Of course. I'm not saying Rice isn't an awesome school (I personally would love to go there if I had a nice scholarship), but Harvard is a better school than Rice.</p>
<p>And my mom is a Harvard grad so I had to defend the old crimson for her :)</p>
<p>"And here lies the hypocrisy for you, jmanco. You are trying to argue the point that going to Harvard doesn't give you a distinct advantage over going to a different university and that ranking doesn't matter, but in supporting your argument you referenced Rice's acceptance rate. Even you rely on aspects of the USNWR's ranking systems to judge a college's prestige, while at the same time complaining about how colleges try to increase applicants and keep this percentage low and take advantage of the ranking system. You haven't proposed an alternative (or presented a problem really) and your argument is rather hypocritical, so please, stop while you are ahead.
Further, admission rates are also decreasing because of the increased number of students intending on going to college, so colleges don't really need to do anything to see increases in number of applicants. Further, I would content that while the USNWR rankings aren't the only (or even best) way of comparing universities, I believe that they certainly help."</p>
<p>You aren't actually attacking my argument, you're making extremely ignorantbroad generalizations that are wrong. I found out my info about Rice's acceptance rate from right here, Rice</a> University | Prospective Students. I think it shows your extreme ignorance that you assume that the only way to learn colleges' acceptance rates is through the usnews ranking. Seriously, you are not attacking my argument at all, all you did was say oooohh you used the usnews rankings yourself, you're a hypocrite, when I never actuallu used them at all, smart-pants.</p>
<p>Look, it is hypocritical how many college leaders say they disdain the rankings and say that there is too much pressure put on college applicants nowadays, yet they (with a few exceptions) continue to advocate the rankings system and its importance by continuing to supply usnews with data and using the usnews rankings to advertise the schools.</p>
<p>I'm not arguing that the college leader people are evil or anything, it's just hypocritical how many of them continue to disdain the ranking system and its importance while at the same time advocate its importance and allow it to keep happening yearly; if the colleges simply stopped providing data, the ranking system would be ruined.</p>
<p>And yes, there are many alternatives to school rankings. Have you ever read the fiske book? It's way more informative and helpful than the ranking system.</p>
<p>"You aren't actually attacking my argument, you're making extremely ignorantbroad generalizations that are wrong. I found out my info about Rice's acceptance rate from right here, Rice University | Prospective Students. I think it shows your extreme ignorance that you assume that the only way to learn colleges' acceptance rates is through the usnews ranking. Seriously, you are not attacking my argument at all, all you did was say oooohh you used the usnews rankings yourself, you're a hypocrite, when I never actuallu used them at all, smart-pants."</p>
<p>Yes. Boo me for my childish ignorance.
And yes there are alternatives to college rankings, but when one is being recruited for a job employers will still oooh and aaaw over the Ivy league degrees while possibly overlooking degrees from lesser universities.</p>
<p>"I think it shows your extreme ignorance that you assume that the only way to learn colleges' acceptance rates is through the usnews ranking."</p>
<p>BTW I can use google too! It's not that I don't know that there are other places for this information, it is that USNWR has a nicely compacted and compiled version of the data.</p>
<p>And finally, this statement:
"I'm not arguing that the college leader people are evil or anything, it's just hypocritical how many of them continue to disdain the ranking system and its importance while at the same time advocate its importance and allow it to keep happening yearly; if the colleges simply stopped providing data, the ranking system would be ruined."</p>
<p>is also very broad and general. And I still don't see what your argument is precisely.</p>
<p>"And yes there are alternatives to college rankings, but when one is being recruited for a job employers will still oooh and aaaw over the Ivy league degrees while possibly overlooking degrees from lesser universities."</p>
<p>So what's your point? That employes are prestige- whore idiots who think where you go for undergrad actually matterS?</p>
<p>it's hypocritical how many of the college amin people/ college leaders continue to publicly disdain the ranking system and its importance while, at the same time, they advocate its importance and allow it to keep happening yearly ( if the colleges simply stopped providing data, the ranking system would be ruined).</p>
<p>It's hypocritical how many of them keep saying they hate the system, but they actually are the ones (partly) responsible for keeping it going.</p>
<p>My point is two-fold:
1. That where you go for undergrad does matter because of others' perceptions
and
2. That the ranking system, while flawed, is not a conspiracy elaborately created by colleges but rather a decent way of judging the quality of education offered at a school</p>