<p>^ because that has something to do with anything</p>
<p>Brand, Until you've established that it has accomplished anything it is proper to say that it hasn't accomplished anything. However, I do not KNOW that it hasn't accomplished anything. And you do not KNOW that it has indeed accomplished anything. Yet you say it has.</p>
<p>Yet you say it hasn't accomplished anything.</p>
<p>Do you not understand the logic needed for this argument? You criticize my statement because I do not know, that is I cannot prove it beyond a doubt. But at the same time you cannot prove your position either. </p>
<p>And FYI, you said the ranking accomplished nothing before I said it accomplished something. You made the first assumption.</p>
<p>Anyways, this argument is silly. We both don't like the ranking, but I think it most likely did raise awareness of LACs among its readers. If you disagree with that, that's fine, but you can't disprove my statement or prove yours.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But at the same time you cannot prove your position either.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My position is that we have no idea what, if anything, the article accomplished and it therefore cannot be said that the article accomplished anything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think it most likely did raise awareness of LACs among its readers.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So now you THINK it MOST LIKELY did X. Previously, you said it did X. Now, you have a tenable position -- it's clearly your opinion and it's clear that you are at least somewhat equivocal about it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So now you THINK it MOST LIKELY did X
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course, you think the ranking most likely did nothing. We both think. And FYI, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. I tire of discussing this and wonder why you don't as well.</p>
<p>The comments in that ranking are silly, but the ranking itself is absolutely valid. That's not the only ranking that shows Columbia not faring nearly as well as some of its supposed "competitors" in terms of top grad school placement.</p>
<p>C02, you're decreasing the signal/noise ratio around here. Know when to quit, dude. Some things aren't worth arguing about - you can count on the good sense of other readers to recognize when someone just doesn't merit a response.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you can count on the good sense of other readers to recognize when someone just doesn't merit a response.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You overestimate the common sense of easily-persuaded herds.</p>
<p>You're so thoughtful. Why not change your s/n to Elitism2002 :rolleyes:</p>
<p>The 'herds' seem most easily swayed by you, C2002.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're so thoughtful. Why not change your s/n to Elitism2002
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1000 people have read this thread -- you think all of them would have well-functioning BS-o-meters? ;)</p>
<p>Its not wrong. For one reason or another on every graduate list I've seen Columbia does well but not as well as the top LACS or a few of the other Ivies. For example, there are more Dartmouth students at Columbia law than Columbia students and Dartmouth is much smaller.</p>
<p>I don't get how you can all sit there and say "it's not wrong," when clearly, Columbia does not have 1,600 undergrads per class.</p>
<p>No you're right. It should be 1350 a class. Maybe they included GS?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/enrollment_headcount.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/enrollment_headcount.html</a>
<a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/admissions_2006.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/admissions_2006.html</a></p>
<p>7,500 undergraduates total. Almost 2,000 per class if you look at the admissions statistics this year. Of course, some drop out so you're probably left with closer to 1,800 per class. </p>
<p>You can exclude GS, post-bac, nursing, etc and get down to 1,350 per class, but that's basically lying because many of those students end up taking the same classes and using the same resources (e.g., library, gym, etc.). Also, none of this factors in Barnard students who end up taking Columbia classes as well.</p>
<p>Columbia inherent complexity is why the number is off...</p>
<p>Even if you used a different figure, the school would only rise a couple of places. It's kind of pointless to discuss this because it's already pretty clear what "tier" the school falls into in that ranking. Let's move onto something else.</p>
<p>How about Pepsi vs. Coke?</p>
<p>Pepsi wins in taste tests but they say that's because Pepsi is better for a sip while Coke is better for a can. :)</p>
<p>this thread is already so messed up, please just let it die.</p>