<p>If Stanford and Caltech suddenly get bounced way off Top-10,
then they might whine a bit, else they know it’s
just magazine’s annual “upping and downing”
shuffling game within Top-10…</p>
<p>Yes! There you are docfreedaddy! Right on my cue: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also, to at least somewhat seriously reply to your post, the admit rate is a tiny fraction of the actual ranking and USC’s percentage decrease was ~5% while UCLA’s decrease from 2011-2012 was ~4%. 1% change is not going to do anything. And oh ya, I’m sure no one would “rather be a school like Stanford” lol (I thought you were serious for a second). </p>
<p>I say these things because I’m threatened by USC, in fact, USC’s drop, and UCLA’s rise was one of the most scary things for my pride. Please don’t bring up nonTrojans being threatened, docfreedaddy, it will eat away at me at night because I worry a lot about USC’s rise to HYPSM status.</p>
<p>Hi gOld3n,</p>
<p>“Please don’t bring up nonTrojans being threatened, docfreedaddy, it will eat away at me at night because I worry a lot about USC’s rise to HYPSM status”.</p>
<p>Yes, I am sorry for that. It is quite obvious, though, from this and your other posts. I had no idea your worry was USC’s rise to HYPSM status. I have never read anyone else suggesting that. Perhaps your fears will some day be realized.</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting article from a former TA of mine. From the Chronicle of Higher Education (inside baseball) on schools choosing their peer institutions:</p>
<p>[In</a> Selecting Peers for Comparison’s Sake, Colleges Look Upward - Administration - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“In Selecting Peers for Comparison’s Sake, Colleges Look Upward”>In Selecting Peers for Comparison’s Sake, Colleges Look Upward)</p>
<p>Data plot:</p>
<p>[Who</a> Does Your College Think Its Peers Are? - Administration - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Peers-Interactive-Data/134262/]Who”>Who Does Your College Think Its Peers Are?)</p>
<p>Schools that USC considers a peer:</p>
<p>Brandeis
Brown
Caltech
Carnegie-Mellon
Case
Columbia
Cornell
Duke
Emory
Harvard
Hopkins
MIT
NYU
Northwestern
Princeton
Rice
Syracuse
Stanford
Tulane
U Chicago
U Penn
U Rochester
Vanderbilt
Wash U
Yale</p>
<p>Schools that consider USC a peer:</p>
<p>Boston College
Boston U
Brandeis
Drexel
George Washington
Harvey Mudd
NYU
Northeastern
Northwestern
Nova Southeastern
Pepperdine
NYU Poly
SMU
Syracuse
U Denver
U Miami (FL)
Michigan
North Carolina
Notre Dame
U Rochester
U San Diego
U San Francisco
U Virginia
Vanderbilt
Virginia Tech
Wash U</p>
<p>Mutual recognition:</p>
<p>Brandeis
NYU
Northwestern
Syracuse
U Rochester
Vanderbilt
Wash U.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stanford’s actually been as low as #6 a few times within the ranking. These include 89, 90, 94, 97, 00, and 01. I can imagine Stanford’s drop being screamed in the line on a tabloid: “Stanford no longer in the top 5! Can they continue to be an elite school?” It’s clearly just sensationalism in an attempt to sell magazines. It’s no coincidence that US NEWS doesn’t provide access to the earlier rankings. Lacking this access, it’s easy to forget what ranking positions a university has held in the past.</p>
<p>i’m sure the only one who cares that Cornell got that land over the kids at Stanford are the kids at Cornell. These kids care because they ‘beat Stanford.’ I don’t think anyone else seriously cares however, since Cornell is in a much lower tier than Stanford is.</p>
<p>Don’t you love beyphy? He’ll bash rankings whole heartedly then make a statement like this:</p>
<p>" I don’t think anyone else seriously cares however, since Cornell is in a much lower tier than Stanford is"</p>
<p>Is that statement called infinite-looping-oxymoron(?)… just kidding…</p>
<p>I’m no Cornell fan myself especially middle-of-nowhere-snowy-Ithaca,
but what’s the data-argument
behind → “Cornell in a much lower tier than Stanford is” …</p>
<p>Perhaps ‘much lower’ is a bit of a stretch. But it’s certainly in a lower tier. (at least one tier lower.)</p>
<p>Data can be found looking at admissions rates for undergraduates, average SAT/ACT scores, acceptance rates, etc. This in addition to looking at rankings of professional schools.</p>
<p>beyphy, those input data are noted, but is there any evidence students at Cornell are receiving a better or inferior education, specifically learning more, as measured by any output variable of student performance across their college tenure?</p>
<p>Wow… just the 2nd game?
and this year’s SC football National Champ’s lost.</p>
<p>Looks like SC football team is really lower than Stanford’s
by at least a tier.</p>
<p>Hope SC team get their butt kicked early and wake up
on track for a solid-post-sanction season (with or without national champ)…</p>
<p>Third game.</p>
<p>I went. It was actually a pretty even match, and you can argue that an idiotic personal foul on the part of one of the USC defensive linemen turned the momentum from USC to Stanford.</p>
<p>Still, USC didn’t bring an intimidating team. Stanford’s players looked like they all used steroids and spent four hours in the gym each day. USC’s team had too many skinny guys, and guys with bellies hanging down below their waists. The USC crowd, which made up about 40% of the stadium, seemed pretty dead, too.</p>
<p>While USC is closing the gap with Stanford academically, the gap is still pretty wide. If you suggested to someone at Stanford that they felt academically threatened by USC, they’d find that suggestion to be very amusing.</p>
<p>Apparently after tonight, the only gap between USC and Stanford isn’t just on the academic ranking but on the game stat sheet as well…</p>
<p>By the way, based on the articles and editing, particularly
in sports teams…</p>
<p>Is LA Times traditionally very anti-USC
and pro-UCLA ?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, but that wasn’t what i claimed. At that level it really depends on what your interests are. Stanford probably has more top programs than Cornell, and hence is able to provide their students with more respected and authoritative professors in their field. Proximity to silicon valley offers students interested in computer science and even business many opportunities as well. Stanford does a very good job of placing its applicants, and has the second number of billionaires behind Harvard.</p>
<p>That’s why i said Cornell’s in a lower tier than Stanford. The only thing Cornell has over Stanford is that it’s an ‘ivy league school’ and Stanford isn’t. Well, that and the NY Campus.</p>
<p>Stanford defines itself and prides itself with entrepreneurship and in effect has become a feeder school for Silicon Valley. Humanities have been further deemphasized at Stanford this year with non STEM coursework reduced to seemingly watered down theme courses in response to student complaints they wanted to devote even more time to STEM. Cornell offers a strong STEM focus in the context of a well-rounded education. Even MIT has Harvard to draw upon for additional coursework and a rich humanities culture. The Stanford, Inc experiment is a bold one with clear short term economic rewards for corporate endowment giving and faculty bounty from sitting on boards and encouragement to focus on their own startups. Some, both within and outside Stanford, believe student education, especially for undergraduates, is being compromised with the Stanford, Inc. direction, a direction Cornell had not taken.</p>
<p>“Humanities have been further deemphasized at Stanford this year with non STEM coursework reduced to seemingly watered down theme courses in response to student complaints they wanted to devote even more time to STEM.”</p>
<p>That’s a ridiculous statement. First, I have no idea what a “watered down theme course” is. Second, I’m on the Stanford campus fairly often, and haven’t seen any evidence that Stanford is de-emphasizing humanities, nor heard students say they want less humanities and more STEM.</p>
<p>Simba9, docfreedaddy is under the delusional impression that literally the only thing Stanford knows how to do is help students form startups like google and HP and that there literally is zero humanities faculty at Stanford. It’s a little bit funny and amusing. Don’t address him when he talks like that, it only encourages his crazy. He thinks that this article is the holy bible and word of god sent down from heaven to doom Stanford ([Is</a> Stanford Too Close to Silicon Valley? : The New Yorker](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/30/120430fa_fact_auletta]Is”>Stanford and Silicon Valley | The New Yorker)). </p>
<p>Of course docfreedaddy, of course, Stanford has no humanities at all in comparison to or superior even to Ivies. USC > Stanford. USC in everything (apparently except football after last night) >>> Stanford. And also, I’m saying these things because I’m threatened about USC’s rise after it dropped in both academic and football rankings back to back this year and yesterday.</p>
<p>Simba9,</p>
<p>The duck syndrome is pretty well known at Stanford as is the pressure of being told they are one of the best, but not necessarily feeling it. Emergency e.r. admissions this year for alcohol overdose are up sharply for Stanford:</p>
<p>[Campus</a> crime stable, alcohol incidents rising | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/05/31/campus-crime-stable-alcohol-incidents-rising/]Campus”>Campus crime stable, alcohol incidents rising) </p>
<p>A sign of not so happy campers or too happy campers?</p>
<p>simba9,</p>
<p>Pick up a Stanford Daily next time you are on campus:</p>
<p>[Thinking</a> Matters the next step in ‘cyclical’ humanities requirements | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/08/16/thinking-matters-the-latest-attempt-at-freshman-humanities-requirement/]Thinking”>http://www.stanforddaily.com/2012/08/16/thinking-matters-the-latest-attempt-at-freshman-humanities-requirement/)</p>
<p>doc, you’re only feeding the UCLA trolls.</p>