<p>The NYT publishing that article is tantamount to the pot calling the kettle black. </p>
<p>Also, Nocera is still upset about having to go to B.U.</p>
<p>Pretty much saying what I’ve said all along, the rankings only matter if you think they matter, which they don’t, but if you need to say at your next cocktail party that my son or daughter goes to a top 20 school, then those rankings are important. Based on informal data on this site, the only area of the country that these rankings really matter is the NE, the rest of the country could care less (in general that is). :D.</p>
<p>I really enjoyed the article. The most important thing is how you do where you go. I really liked the last line.</p>
<p>Did you see the article in the Daily Beast about the Top 3 Lies in College Admissions? Would love to know what others think about the ‘lie’ referring to need blind not being true at a lot of places. With one child at college, we definitely do not receive financial aid, but with son number 2 starting in September 2013, we would at least like to see if he could get some aid until his brother graduates, but don’t want to have him negatively impacted, especially if they come back and say we aren’t eligible for FA in the end. Comments? Thoughts?</p>
<p>^ it depends where your son is planning to apply and where he really wants to go.</p>
<p>There are some schools that are truly need blind and rest call themselves need blind until they run out of scholarship money. </p>
<p>It can also depend on how much the need is. If they can reject a full need kid but can spread it around to support 4 partial need kids, it is easier to do that so their need met number goes up by 4 people vs 1.</p>
<p>He is planning on applying to Swarthmore ED. His RD list is distributed with some merit aid schools as well as LACs without merit. He is also in the running for NMA finalist.</p>
<p>If you are applying ED to Swarthmore, it is most important to find out what your package will look like before you apply. </p>
<p>Each school has a leeway to calculate numbers differently and unless you are sure you can live with Swarthmore’s numbers, it is not recommended you apply ED. If you are applying to EA schools, this would not be an issue.</p>
<p>That article is ridiculously hypocritical.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And others that appear to be need-blind in the admissions office, but then give financial aid that is far short of meeting need.</p>
<p>SteveMA in post 3 nails it. </p>
<p>Seems like in the NE, they’ve determined that they matter, so they matter. And they’re blissfully unaware that most people don’t care. Their problem. Shrug.</p>
<p>The article hits a whole bunch of nails squarely on their heads. </p>
<ul>
<li><p>The rankings are easy to game, and many colleges do. </p></li>
<li><p>Rankings mania is part of the reason for the tuition explosion </p></li>
<li><p>Rankings drive high school students to obsess about things that are basically nonsense, to the exclusion of more important things</p></li>
<li><p>Rankings contribute to the student debt problem</p></li>
<li><p>The rankings are based on things that have nothing to do with the quality of the educational offerings</p></li>
<li><p>“Where you go to college matters far less than what you put into college”</p></li>
</ul>
<p>I am sad, I am out of NYT clicks for the month. 
Good thing it is the last day!</p>
<p>
How so? They don’t publish the rankings. Both my kids chose schools about 20 places down from the best ranked school they were accepted to. I think rankings aren’t the worst thing in the world if people could really realize they come with huge error bars.</p>
<p>I think the worst thing about the rankings is that they make colleges place unproductive games. Even my husband’s med school is making decisions based on the rankings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Open another browser or clear your NYT cookies.</p>
<p>Rankings matter mostly for the minority of very tippy-top students who are bound for top jobs in finance, business, law, and medicine. For the most part, they do not matter, especially at the very top where differences are miniscule.</p>
<p>Rankings are not gospel, and exact rank# is not meaningful. But when researching colleges, it is helpful to review themes (by general rank area and especially by description of positive factors).</p>
<p>I tried clearing all my cookies (D1’s suggestion as well), it did not make a difference. But I bet another browser would, thanks. :)</p>
<p>I found it worthwhile to subscribe to the NYTimes digital edition just because I like the content so much.</p>
<p>Typical NY Times oped drivel that amounts to nothing but a plug for the Mother Teresa alternative garbage. </p>
<p>Huge yawn!</p>
<p>At the top of the heap is not the only place where the differences are miniscule. When comparing a couple of small state schools in Arkansas, I could not figure out why one made the US News cut and the other was “rank not published.” On “American School Search” their graduations rates were nearly identical, safety rating was close, faculty pay was similar, size very similar, student retention was actually a little better at the “not published” school as was their student: faculty ratio, even their % of students defaulting on loans was nearly identical. The it hit me; the ranked school had an acceptance rate of 31%, the not published school’s was 61%. The two schools appear to be performing at a near identical rate, but because one is a more sought after commodity, US News ranked them higher. I find the information provided by US News in their school profiles to be a useful tool, but the “numbers” game now annoys me. It reminds me of the Dutch tulip mania of the 1600’s or people paying tons of money for the Princess Di Beanie Baby. Just because everybody wants something doesn’t mean it actually has real value. If there has to be a ranking list, IMHO it should be decided by real numbers like graduation rates, debt upon graduation, % of students that were accepted to their graduate school of choice. Not how many applicants they turned away.</p>