<p>Now y'all know. The attempt by the Chinese and Russian totalitarian governments to clean up their public images over the last 20 years was the equivalent of putting lipstick on pig. Now that they have been allowed access to western capital and technology (and stolen what they have not been given access to) they have reverted to form. Pucker up and sing kumbayah. By the way, Brown is way over-rated at 14.</p>
<p>noobcake
[quote]
Brown is terribly overrated on CC
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am guessing you mean...terribly "overliked" ? Otherwise, you clearly know nothing about Brown...</p>
<p>lol, what is with people bashing China.</p>
<p>By the way, not chinese, never been to china, just have a few chinese friends.. First of all, they are freaking smart so respect that! Second of all, their gold medals are dominating the rest of the world right now so respect. Also, why are people bringing up communism when referring to the Olympic Games? </p>
<p>While i do not agree with the whole Communism Policy and everything, umm if no one has noticed , it seems to be working. Uprising economy, good Sports etc. I only see bright future. Not sure why so many Americans hate them at much( I am from Canada). Maybe coz America is going through a bad crisis at home? Seriously, i expect to get bashed so go ahead :). I just do not get all the China hate. Last of all, if you must dislike something about them, dislike their foreign policies... not their people.. especially because they are performing wonderfully on the world stage.</p>
<p>Alicia Sacramone, leader of the US women gymnastic, failed one too many and can still go back to the happiest gay bar on earth.
Cheng Fei, leader of the China women gymnastic, was separated from her parents at a very early age. 4 years ago, there was an article showing her crying and begging to go home. They trained 8-12 hours/day to get the gold. At the end of the day, what does Cheng Fei get? Nothing. You bet your a$$ Cheng Fei would give up her arms and legs to be in Alicia Sacramone position.</p>
<p>State-media</a> story fuels questions on gymnast's age - Olympics - Yahoo! Sports</p>
<p>
[quote]
Just nine months before the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese government’s news agency, Xinhua, reported that gymnast He Kexin was 13, which would have made her ineligible to be on the team that won a gold medal this week.</p>
<p>In its report Nov. 3, Xinhua identified He as one of “10 big new stars” who made a splash at China’s Cities Games. It gave her age as 13 and reported that she beat Yang Yilin on the uneven bars at those games. In the final, “this little girl” pulled off a difficult release move on the bars known as the Li Na, named for another Chinese gymnast, Xinhua said in the report, which appeared on one of its Web sites, [url=<a href="http://www.hb.xinhuanet.com">http://www.hb.xinhuanet.com</a>]</p>
<p>middsmith,</p>
<p>Stay with the topic. If you really hate Chinese so much, wait you get into HYPS, and wait when you try to find a job. At one of the Merck's divisions, almost everyone is Chinese. Express yourself to them and try to find a job over there. Your mind set is the reason why they want to do better and show you. I just don't know why.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Joking aside, I see colleges like Columbia and Brown moving up in the standings while other colleges such as Duke, Northwestern, and UChicago moving down (they don't deserve their spots)!
[/quote]
On what basis? They certainly deserve their spots. I assume, given your handle and apparent age, that you aren't being sarcastic.</p>
<p>The most likely thing of all is that Chicago will rise. Applications increased 43% from last year. They're switching to the common app, becoming more numbers-oriented, and seeing steady increases in SAT range and selectivity. Also, big donations are flowing in. U of C is getting a lot of love right now.</p>
<p>Haha, this makes me wonder what would happen if the USWNR based its rankings on world-wide recognition of the univ.</p>
<p>I would say Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Stanford and Berkeley would be in the top six.</p>
<p>Then the list would end. Seriously, I don't think the average person outside of America would know anything past those 6 schools.</p>
<p>^^I completely agree about Chicago...didn't they just receive a $100 million donation???</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with applications.</p>
<p>The *ONLY* reason that Chicago jumped 6 spots from 15 to #9 spot which it currently occupies right now was because...</p>
<p>its graduation and retention rank went from #22 to #20....which is pretty significant I would say but it DID have an impact on the scoring and ranking of UCHICAGO overall, since schools which it was close ranked with (Brown, NU, JHU, Cornell, WUSTL etc...) differed by a 1 or 2 points.</p>
<p>One thing I'll say. Forget about rise in applications, just get your ppl graduating and you will continue your epic rise up in the rankings UChicago! Thats pretty impressive. lol</p>
<p>Re-read the post. I never claimed that the application increase was responsible for Chicago's jump from 15 to 9. In fact, the 43% application increase occurred in the '08 cycle, which obviously couldn't have manifested itself in the rankings at that time. </p>
<p>I cited Chicago's application increase, and subsequent selectivity increase, as reason why I am speculating it will rise THIS year.</p>
<p>Caillebotte, two problems: 1) 43% increase for class of 2012 will be used in the 2010 edition of america's best colleges, there's a time lag of one year.
2) acceptance rate is 1.5% of total weightage, thus this 43% rise won't make any difference if the extra applicants are sub-par. Unless the 43% increases the median SAT score or the % of incoming students in the top 10% of HS class, you probably won't see chicago go anywhere. This is for the incoming class, so even if smarter students are accepted they have to enroll to affect the rankings.</p>
<p>Excuse me if this has already been asked, but when do the new rankings come out?</p>
<p>I heard on August 22nd it will be published</p>
<p>
[quote]
I cited Chicago's application increase, and subsequent selectivity increase, as reason why I am speculating it will rise THIS year.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Caillebotte:</p>
<p>Data coming in from this year will not be revealed in USNWR because it is 2008 information and USNWR's 2008 edition has data collected from 2006 so I believe the 43% increase will be reflected in the 2010 edition.</p>
<p>Believe me, Graduate and retention is given far more weight in USNWR than Selectivity.</p>
<p>The grand total of Selectivity is 15% and selectivity comprises 50% test scores of enrollees, 40% graduating in the top 10 percent, and 10% ratio of accepted students to applicants.</p>
<p>10% of 15% is 1.5%...which is kinda small when you think of the impact of graduation and retention (20%) has on USNWR ranking.</p>
<p>Just keep helping those grads graduate UChicago, you will continue your ascend up the charts :-)</p>
<p>The information in the 2009 USNews (which will be available on Aug 22) contains data from the Common Data Sets released by colleges in Dec 07/Jan 08 that contain admission statistics for the college class entering Fall 2007.</p>
<p>when will the rankings first be out and reported everywhere in the media? iirc, Aug 22 is the date for the online version only and the print version will be released a few days before that.</p>
<p>To KyleDavid:</p>
<p>I admire your defense of your alma mater; however, the stats you posted cannot be compared to USC and/or UCLA because USC, at least, has not yet published its SAT profile for the class of 2008. You compared Cal's 2008 class with USC's (and UCLA's) entering class of 2007. USC's admit SAT rate for this year is well over 2100, btw, but that does not count b/c it does not include matriculated students, and USC's classes do not begin for weeks.</p>
<p>That suggests that Cal's median score of 2060 is for admittees, not matriculatees, which is a huge difference (classes don't even begin until August 21, 2008, so Cal's published stats are misleading and unconfirmed).</p>
<p>We shall wait and compare notes later, after USC and UCLA have posted their 2008 statistics and you confirm that Cal's stats were for matriculated students ONLY.</p>
<p>Nice try.</p>
<p>I could see Forbes trying to mix it up to get a little splash of attention and to mix it up for people to buy their magazine but these are absolutely insane. I seriously doubt there is any legitimacy in these beyond the top ten which is virtually unchanged. </p>
<p>NYU being #324?!?! seriously guys??
By U.S. news they were just ranked #34</p>
<p>I love the guts of that school though. Some kids "daddy warbucks" donates $10 million and the kid still doesn't get in. That's saying something.</p>
<p>Forbes went to Princeton and guess which school is ranked number 1???? LOL</p>