<p>The numbers are in Duke's favor; it's around the place it should be. What don't understand is why everyone is on the Chicago bandwagon. If there's a 'how did they pull that off' of the year, it's Chicago.</p>
<p>"If ILR, or any school for that matter, truly didn't care about test scores, they would not be required, or would be optional at best."</p>
<p>Cornell's overall policy requires an SAT I test ... any SAT II tests are determined on a school by school basis - and I believe ILR just dropped one of the SAT II requirements seeing how it was pointless. Also, SATs are not asked for transfer students, only they've ALREADY taken the exam in the past 2 or so years. Although you say many schools already take a hollistic approach to applications, ILR is one of the few that has come public with the way they look at and evaluate candidates: 3 people read each admissions essay and a 4th is called in for borderline candidates. Then, the approved essays are passed onto a pannel of 3-4 professors in the ILR school who will then evaluate all of the candidates separately from the admissions committee and who will also read through all of the admissions essays probing candidates for fit and perceived interest in the school and what it teaches. You don't need 8 people, 4 of whom with PhD's and who are scholars in their field to look at an SAT score sheet and to pick out 'quality' students ... admissions goes far far beyond that. Again, I'll be glad to provide the admissions' phone number if you would like to verify. </p>
<p>"Chicago kids aren't generally depressed, and they all have fun just as much as kids at any other school."
I agree. I have friends at chicago and although it may certainly be 'depressing' for many, most students know about the environment before actually enrolling into the school and it's where they want to be. </p>
<p>"If there's a 'how did they pull that off' of the year, it's Chicago."
here's how: they failed to have an updated count on their faculty. They revised the system to be more accurate. They would have been ranked so high (and I believe rightfully so) all along. CNN reported this a while back, I even posted the article here on CC in its own little thread. </p>
<p>" I agree. I think Duke is overrated personally - in at least the fact that, in the undergraduate area, it should not be ranked above Chicago, Columbia, or Dartmouth. I don't know how they pulled that one off."
Don't forget, Duke can give out merit scholarships to its top notch candidates, while the Ivys cannot. Same for WUSL.</p>
<p>“Cornell's overall policy requires an SAT I test ... any SAT II tests are determined on a school by school basis - and I believe ILR just dropped one of the SAT II requirements seeing how it was pointless.</p>
<p>-Northwestern (among other schools) does not require that students take SAT II tests (save the home-schooled and some special programs), so, again, ILR is not alone in this. </p>
<p>“Also, SATs are not asked for transfer students, only they've ALREADY taken the exam in the past 2 or so years.”</p>
<p>-This may be true, but what you don’t seem to realize is that a student would have to be transferring FROM a school that didn’t require the SAT or ACT in the first place (looks like ILR's not alone in that either, now is it).</p>
<p>“Although you say many schools already take a hollistic approach to applications, ILR is one of the few that has come public with the way they look at and evaluate candidates”</p>
<p>-If, as you say, ILR is one of the “few” schools that makes public its selection process, then you can’t be sure that other schools don’t have the SAME process now can you? In fact, EVERY school that hasn’t made the information public could be doing the same thing. Heck, some schools could require all professors to review applicants, who knows. </p>
<p>“here's how: they failed to have an updated count on their faculty. They revised the system to be more accurate. They would have been ranked so high (and I believe rightfully so) all along. CNN reported this a while back, I even posted the article here on CC in its own little thread.”</p>
<p>-This is something I already know. I, however, don’t believe the story. You’re telling me that a school full of some of the brightest people on the planet couldn’t report its information correctly for years? Give me a break. I don’t know what the school “discovered” this year (probably counting janitors as faculty or something of the like) but its peer schools are likely to follow suit and do the same in the coming years, especially since Chicago met with US News to learn how to report its data more “accurately”.</p>
<p>"Don't forget, Duke can give out merit scholarships to its top notch candidates, while the Ivys cannot. Same for WUSL."</p>
<p>-Yet another bs argument for you to try to justify your point. While Duke can and does give merit scholarships, all 6,200 students aren't getting said scholarships (192 to be exact). Duke is ranked highly because it has a strong student body and good graduate placement, not because it gives 192 merit scholarships. Even if it does get 50 or so students per year with merit scholarships, that number is not enough to skew its data, not when there are over 1700 people who are enrolled each year.</p>
<p>Yeah Duke is overrated.</p>
<p>"but what you dont seem to realize is that a student would have to be transferring FROM a school that didnt require the SAT or ACT in the first place (looks like ILR's not alone in that either, now is it)"</p>
<p>and ILR takes in alot of NY CC students. Most wont have SATs. I've also known about a dozen or so 'older' people who are getting back into education after so long. But, I guess your logic says "they don't count"</p>
<p>"If, as you say, ILR is one of the few schools that makes public its selection process, then you cant be sure that other schools dont have the SAME process now can you? In fact, EVERY school that hasnt made the information public could be doing the same thing. Heck, some schools could require all professors to review applicants, who knows"</p>
<p>Your arguments would make any lawyer weap. But I guess it makes for an easy comeback for me: "how do you know that every other school DOES have the same process?" Look, I go by facts, not assumptions, and for a good arguments please do the same. </p>
<p>"Youre telling me that a school full of some of the brightest people on the planet couldnt report its information correctly for years? Give me a break."</p>
<p>This is what was reported by CNN, yes. Perhaps a bit of jealousy on behalf of some Northwestern students??</p>
<p>
[quote]
Perhaps a bit of jealousy on behalf of some Northwestern students??
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Heh.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You’re telling me that a school full of some of the brightest people on the planet couldn’t report its information correctly for years? Give me a break.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm...or perhaps the school just never cared enough about the rankings to evaluate how it reported things to USNews? </p>
<p>As for Duke, some may be able to argue for its equivalency or superiority to Dartmouth or Chicago but there is no way Duke is a better undergraduate institution than Columbia. I still can't believe Duke's ranking of #5 last year. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Columbia >>>>>>>>>>> Duke</p>
<p>“Your arguments would make any lawyer weap. But I guess it makes for an easy comeback for me: "how do you know that every other school DOES have the same process?" Look, I go by facts, not assumptions, and for a good arguments please do the same.”</p>
<p>-You clearly did not correctly read what I wrote. I did not say that every other school DOES have the same process, just that all schools that haven’t made their selection processes public COULD have the same process. Are you arguing that this is in some way untrue?....... It is impossible for you to say that they don’t- and as such, you can not see with any certainty that any of Cornell’s colleges are in any way shape or form unique in their selection of applicants </p>
<p>This was not a rebut from you; you simply took my words and mixed them to try to make your point- mixed them incorrectly I might add. Since you thought it prudent to give me tips on how to argue, I’ll do you the same favor…. I suggest you take a class in the Northwestern Communication School: communication studies 320, advanced argumentation….. It will do wonders for you. :) </p>
<p>“and ILR takes in alot of NY CC students. Most wont have SATs. I've also known about a dozen or so 'older' people who are getting back into education after so long. But, I guess your logic says "they don't count”</p>
<p>-Who cares how many NY community college or older students ILR takes? The fact that transfer students (if they don’t want to report SAT scores) would have to be transferring from a school that didn’t require SAT scores in the first place still stands. You may use all the bs anecdotes you want to try to prove your point, but the facts are the facts. </p>
<p>“This is what was reported by CNN, yes. Perhaps a bit of jealousy on behalf of some Northwestern students??”</p>
<p>Jealous? You really think I, or any other Northwestern student would care that much about Chicago’s rank? I may be posting on here about these things now, but rest assured that when I’m in Evanston at school, the ranking of the University of Chicago on US News is the least of my worries. </p>
<p>“Hmm...or perhaps the school just never cared enough about the rankings to evaluate how it reported things to USNews?”</p>
<p>Yeah right…. Don’t kid yourself… US News has an impact on schools’ reputations, and they know it. If Chicago really didn’t care about its ranking in the past, it would do like some other schools and not report data all together. The fact that it has been reporting data tells us a lot- mainly that it DID care enough about the rankings to do so. Not to mention that a school that didn’t care about said rankings probably wouldn’t meet with the people creating the rankings to try to rise in them. </p>
<p>“As for Duke, some may be able to argue for its equivalency or superiority to Dartmouth or Chicago but there is no way Duke is a better undergraduate institution than Columbia. I still can't believe Duke's ranking of #5 last year” </p>
<p>-Based on what? Tell me, what stats or facts or data you have that would lead you to conclude that Duke should/could be ranked above or equal to Dartmouth or Chicago and not Columbia…. I have, time and again, seen many different data pointing to otherwise. So, I ask you, what leads you to this conclusion? If it’s just that you happen to like Columbia more than Duke, then really… who cares?</p>
<p>I disagree with TonyT88:
I think Notre Dame is way UNDERrated.
I would send my kid there before the ivies any day, based on the overall benefits.</p>
<p>"You clearly did not correctly read what I wrote. I did not say that every other school DOES have the same process, just that all schools that havent made their selection processes public COULD have the same process. Are you arguing that this is in some way untrue?"</p>
<p>not untrue, but unworthy of a blatant assumption (and you presented your argument with an implied assumption ... surely you learned that in the COMM320 class). Harvard COULD have 26 people in admissions reading over every essays ... and they COULD have 3 people who write a formula based on GPA, SAT scores, and hook factors. Your argument is too wide to have any merit, take it away from the 'could' into some facts, otherwise it shouldn't be said. Listen, I won't make assumptions if you wont. If proof exists, present it, otherwise lets not assume that all colleges evaluate the applicants exactly the same way. In fact, many of the larger schools (in particular state schools) often do the exact opposite and form cutoff formulas for students ... this isn't an assumption, it's fact (articles about the topic have been posted on CC and i'm sure you've come across them too). Whose to say this doesn't go on at other schools as well? You see how this can cause problems in making arguments, right? I know they don't evaluate applicants the same in arts and sciences at Cornell, at least based on information given to me from other adcoms in ILR ... it will vary heavily form college to college, most people would easily agree with this.</p>
<p>"I suggest you take a class in the Northwestern Communication School: communication studies 320, advanced argumentation
.. It will do wonders for you"
I suggest you do the same, and if you already have taken it then I must wonder about the quality of the material they teach based on the merits of the arguments you have made in this thread.</p>
<p>"The fact that transfer students (if they dont want to report SAT scores) would have to be transferring from a school that didnt require SAT scores in the first place still stands."
again, university policy requires it. You're mixing up a request to report with weight in admissions decisions. I assure you SATs cary very little weight for transfer decisions at the ILR school at Cornell. Again, PM me for their phone number and you can call them up yourself. </p>
<p>"You may use all the bs anecdotes you want to try to prove your point, but the facts are the facts"
my anecdotes comes from working with admissions at my school. Yours come from your ass at best. </p>
<p>"Jealous? You really think I, or any other Northwestern student would care that much about Chicagos rank?"
not any other NU student, just you. I get that impression mostly after reading this thread: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=249800&page=2&highlight=northwestern%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=249800&page=2&highlight=northwestern</a></p>
<p>Roseaura88, people on CollegeConfidential put way too much stock in minor differences in US News rankings, so most people here will tell you Williams is WAY better than Middlebury because it's ranked a few spots ahead of Middlebury. But I think when two colleges are that closely ranked, such a differential is DWARFED (dwarved?) by the intangible factors people usually refer to as "fit." People will tell you certain recruiters will go to Williams and not Middlebury, but the schools are so similar in setting and atmosphere (small New England town in mountains with a sort of jockish student body and great academics) that I don't think you could say one is a slam dunk over the other. If you can visit them both, I'm sure you'd prefer one to the other. If you can't visit, look at some photos on the internet. I know Middlebury is easier to get into, but for academics I think anybody who says one is way ahead of the other is making a Berkshire mountain out of a molehill.</p>
<p>Overrated: Harvard</p>
<p>Underrated: Marquette, St. Louis Univ, Holy Cross, Syracuse, Ohio Wesleyan, Wheeling Jesuit</p>
<p>Overrated: Cornell, Harvard, Yale, Washington in St. Louis, Dartmouth, Duke, Vassar, Mt. Holyoke, Bryn Mawr</p>
<p>meaning... all the universities you can't get in...nathanmc give me a break.</p>
<p>
I assume you're intimately familiar with both institutions? The THES ranking puts Duke at #10, directly behind Chicago and Columbia.</p>
<p>“Listen, I won't make assumptions if you wont.”</p>
<p>-Is that right? Let’s see how long this lasts. </p>
<p>“I must wonder about the quality of the material they teach based on the merits of the arguments you have made in this thread.”</p>
<p>-The quality of the material, huh? Yeah you’re right. I should think twice about the $50,000 I’m kicking out for this education annually. :rolleyes: .... but hey, we can't all go to state-affiliated colleges. </p>
<p>“my anecdotes comes from working with admissions at my school. Yours come from your ass at best.”</p>
<p>-Ohh, do you kiss your mother with that mouth? There are children around; shame on you. :)</p>
<p>"Jealous? You really think I, or any other Northwestern student would care that much about Chicago’s rank?"
not any other NU student, just you. I get that impression mostly after reading this thread: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...northwest%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/...northwest</a> ern</p>
<p>I stand by everything I said in that or any other thread. In fact, I challenge you or any one else to tell me what exactly I wrote in that thread would make me seem jealous.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I assume you're intimately familiar with both institutions?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That wouldn't be a good (or necessary) assumption to make. </p>
<p>It's very difficult to successfully argue that, on the undergrad level, Duke should be below Columbia, Dartmouth, or Chicago, or above them for that matter. In this case, yes, my opinons and comments are made on the basis of personal opinion. If we are to, instead, compare graduate programs at the institutions, the argument may go somewhere. </p>
<p>Just a quick comparison of some grad/professional fields (and I will stick to comparing Columbia and Duke since it will get a bit hard to see if we include Dartmouth, and Chicago would dominate several fields if I posted its rankings :D ):</p>
<p>US News</p>
<p>Business -
Columbia 7
Duke 11</p>
<p>Law -
Columbia 4
Duke 11</p>
<p>Medicine -
Columbia 11
Duke 6</p>
<p>Engineering -
Columbia 20
Duke 30</p>
<p>There are, of course, various other rankings that hold weight depending on who you ask, such as:</p>
<p>Revealed Preference Rankings -
Columbia 8
Duke 19</p>
<p>Academic Ranking of World Universities -
Columbia 7
Duke 31</p>
<p>Newsweek's Top Global Universities -
Columbia 10
Duke 14</p>
<p>There is a trend here...true, in some cases the difference is insignficant, but the fact remains. At least last year, USNews seemed to be the only ranking that considered Duke among the top 5 universities in the nation. I continue to disagree. Even now, I believe Duke is ranked too high and, especially comparing undergraduate educations, should be below CCD.</p>
<p>One thought..... It's probably not the best idea to use US News information to try to back up your claim that Duke's US News ranking is too high.... You can't have your cake and eat it too... plus, that makes for a pretty weak argument. Also tell me, how could the revealed preference ranking have anything to do with the academic quality of Duke???? As for the last two rankings.... come on.... provide some NUMBERS, some data, not a collection of absurd rankings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's probably not the best idea to use US News information to try to back up your claim that Duke's US News ranking is too high
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The fact that I disagree with USNews' undegraduate ranking of Duke does not mean that I discredit all of their rankings. Since we are comparing universities as a whole (and not merely their undergrad programs), information regarding their graduate programs is relevant.</p>
<p>
[quote]
plus, that makes for a pretty weak argument...provide some NUMBERS some data
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And a strong argument/numbers would be? SAT scores? Acceptance Rate? Grad school placement? Job opportunities? I am curious as to what numbers you will use and how you would form a strong argument against mine that perhaps Duke should be considered a better school than Columbia. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
[quote]
not a collection of absurd rankings
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm...well, it seems quite a few people focus on these various rankings. To my knowledge, these rankings are typically based on research = some NUMBERS some data. If you would like to go out and dig the data up for your argument (or for mine!) feel free.</p>
<p>“The fact that I disagree with USNews' undegraduate ranking of Duke does not mean that I discredit all of their rankings. Since we are comparing universities as a whole (and not merely their undergrad programs), information regarding their graduate programs is relevant.”</p>
<p>-You can’t see what’s wrong with this? You either take all the US News rankings, or you take none. You disagree with some of the rankings because they don’t fit your belief, but then cite the grad rankings because they do? That is simply ridiculous. </p>
<p>Also, you should know that the US News rankings are for the entire schools and not just the undergraduate programs….</p>
<p>“Those in the National Universities group are the 248 American universities (162 public and 86 private) that offer a wide range of undergraduate majors as well as master's and doctoral degrees; many strongly emphasize research.”</p>
<p>So, US News ALREADY compared universities as a whole- that is the ranking with which you disagree- you’re taking pieces of the ranking and using them as evidence to argue against the aggregate- this is absurd. </p>
<p>“And a strong argument/numbers would be? SAT scores? Acceptance Rate? Grad school placement? Job opportunities? I am curious as to what numbers you will use and how you would form a strong argument against mine that perhaps Duke should be considered a better school than Columbia.”</p>
<p>Quality of the student body (SAT scores, percent in the top of their high school classes), class sizes, retention rate, grad placement, etc, would all be better than finding any random ranking you can that agrees with your point. </p>
<p>“To my knowledge, these rankings are typically based on research = some NUMBERS some data.”</p>
<p>So you’re telling me that your definition of a “better” school is one that produces more research? Yeah, sure….. Are you even in college?</p>