<p>
[quote]
I think anyone making that assumption would be looking at things wrong, but it is safe to assume that the percentage is similar at Columbia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you admit that the WSJ looked at things wrong? And your statement about what is safe to assume is conclusory. I think it's very safe to assume it isn't. But why are WE making assumptions? Because the WSJ put out a piece of irresponsible journalism in reporting this survey. And the WSJ's explanation of the methodology doesn't even MENTION this obvious flaw.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Going back to the original post, the fact that Columbia is one or five or however many spots behind Williams says nothing to me - in the end, I've learned that they both place exceptionally well, but it would be foolish to take this ranking (especially given its numerous flaws) for gospel.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You needed this survey to "LEARN" that the Ivies, the top LACs, Stanford, MIT, Duke, etc. all place well at the top graduate programs? No, you didn't. You knew that already. It's common sense. The survey failed to accurately do what it purported to do, namely to compare the schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So you admit that the WSJ looked at things wrong?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hell ya look at some of my old posts and you'll see how much I despise this ranking - it's rubbish.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You needed this survey to "LEARN" that the Ivies
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was well aware that the top schools (logically) do well in prof/grad placement, but were someone to go merely off what this ranking says, they would see that these schools place well. Who is 5th, 10th, etc. doesn't really matter as any of the schools even making this list should be considered excellent.</p>
<p>One could look at USNews for a list of the top schools and find the schools that are good for grad placement. There ranking didn't accomplish anything.</p>
<p>I think we can all agree we've gotten the important point of this discussion: Yoshi was and still is the best addition to Mario games. Thread closed.</p>
<p>A factor that I wondered about is which schools give preference to their own undergrads versus those that give preference to those who went elsewhere.
For example, looking at a graduate school department at Harvard, I noticed how many of its students had also been Harvard undergrads. The same department at UCLA explicitly states that it discourages its own undergrads from applying for PhDs there, because the department believes students get a broader experience if they get PhDs at different universitites than where they did their BAs.</p>
<p>Are there the same differences at professional schools? Does Harvard Law look more favorably on Harvard undergrads? Does Columbia Law look less favorably on Columbia undergrads? If both are true, would that help account for some of the differences in success rates if you are only looking at a handful of graduate institutions? I don't know the answer, I'm just asking.</p>
<p>Sac, most professional schools take the highest proportion of their students from the undergraduate college. Columbia has two professional schools on the list surveyed, more than any other Ivy except for Harvard. Therefore, logically, Columbia should have done better in these rankings than it did. C2002 refuses to acknowledge this fact. Whatever.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sac, most professional schools take the highest proportion of their students from the undergraduate college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But that's exactly my question. I know it's true for Harvard, but do Columbia professional schools actively discriminate for or against Columbia undergrads?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The WSJ has many readers. Much of the public is unaware of the quality of LACs. The WSJ feeder rankings places top LACs among top unis.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I repeat, how do you know that the survey ACCOMPLISHED what you say it accomplished (i.e., increasing public awareness of the LACs)? First of all, the WSJ readership is much more sophisticated than the general public. Second, just because someone reads the WSJ does not mean that they even read the survey (i.e., the many people who read the WSJ to find out stuff like who Blackstone and KKR are buying may very well have glossed over a fluff article on colleges/universities). Third, you absolutely do not know that people who read/skimmed the article formulated any sort of new impressions about LACs.</p>
<p>To sum up, you just made up the statement, "Well, it did accomplish one thing: it raised the public's awareness of the quality of liberal arts colleges," and simply cannot back it up. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Sac, most professional schools take the highest proportion of their students from the undergraduate college. Columbia has two professional schools on the list surveyed, more than any other Ivy except for Harvard. Therefore, logically, Columbia should have done better in these rankings than it did. C2002 refuses to acknowledge this fact. Whatever.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, logic isn't akin to using the word "logically" to cover up your utter lack of any logic. First off, you made an assumption about Columbia on the basis of what "most professional schools do" that may very well be totally false and to which you have absolutely no support for. Moreover, you've incorporated all of the prior flawed assumptions that I've pointed out earlier in this thread and to which you cannot justify as proper assumptions other than by unsupportedly stating as much.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But that's exactly my question. I know it's true for Harvard, but do Columbia professional schools actively discriminate for or against Columbia undergrads?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The conventional wisdom I've heard anecdotally is that Columbia doesn't like the idea of its undergrads continuing on to grad/prof programs at Columbia because they want to diversify their alumni base (i.e., more donors) and think that getting a different perspective at a different university is in the best interests of their undergrads. I've seen no empirical evidence either way.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I repeat, how do you know that the survey ACCOMPLISHED what you say it accomplished (i.e., increasing public awareness of the LACs)?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In that case, how do we know anything? How do I know you actually went to Columbia? How do I know you're not just a figment of my imagination or that I'm not just sleeping right now? Come on, C2002. Of course for one to make a conclusion one must make an assumption. That's called logic. If you're expecting me to come back at you with data for some silly discussion on the WSJ feeder rankings, which I (and likely you) have no idea how to gather, you're smokin some good stuff.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In that case, how do we know anything? How do I know you actually went to Columbia? How do I know you're not just a figment of my imagination or that I'm not just sleeping right now?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Irrelevant. Nobody's disputing these things. What I'm disputing is your horribly-reasoned conclusion.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Of course for one to make a conclusion one must make an assumption. That's called logic.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, one makes a conclusion by proving something, not making horrible assumptions that are unsupported by logic. There are good assumptions, and there are bad assumptions. Yours is the latter.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you're expecting me to come back at you with data for some silly discussion on the WSJ feeder rankings, which I (and likely you) have no idea how to gather, you're smokin some good stuff.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not expecting you to do anything. I'm calling you out for making a bullsh** statement that you cannot back up. You admit that there's no way to gather data to back up your statement. Do you really believe what you're saying? Just because something's in a newspaper does not mean that the public became generally aware of some random fact buried in the article.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Your assumption is that the article accomplished nothing.</p>
<p>Prove it.....</p>
<p>That's what I thought.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, that's not my assumption. I didn't make any assumption. I take no position. I have no idea what it accomplished -- whether it changed the public's perception or not. I'm calling you out for YOUR assumption.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The conventional wisdom I've heard anecdotally is that Columbia doesn't like the idea of its undergrads continuing on to grad/prof programs at Columbia because they want to diversify their alumni base (i.e., more donors) and think that getting a different perspective at a different university is in the best interests of their undergrads. I've seen no empirical evidence either way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>3 seniors this year i know were accepted to harvard/jh/wustl/univ.washington/etc but were each rejected by columbia.</p>