<p>Columbia even beat Stanford in the Rose Bowl the last time they played. And us Columbia people will prove our # 4 level intelligence by making every possible excuse to avoid a rematch in the near future!</p>
<p>There you go again, iCalc. I’m certainly not “outraged”; it’s just preferable for data to be properly reflected if a company is going to attempt to present rankings.</p>
<p>Interestingly, rankings don’t seem to always correlate particularly well with the metric that selective colleges really care most about: yield. All of them want to get as many desirable students as possible. If you look at past year’s rankings, though, they don’t consistently have that much correlation with yield at the top schools, other than Harvard. E.g., Princeton was tied with Harvard in last year’s USNWR ranking, but its yield (at 56.9%) was very far below not only Harvard’s, but Stanford’s and Yale’s as well. I have several friends and family members who are Princeton alums, and they are pretty disturbed by the yield and say that some alums are even calling for changes of top administration over it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t judge me for following Stanford … =]</p>
<p>
I am not outraged. I really don’t care much about the ranking. I think Stanford’s better than Columbia, but that’s just my opinion. Your problem is that you confuse opinion with fact, as noted by your other statement (Manhattan>Silicon valley). A lot of people hate cities and will not apply to Columbia because of that. These blanket generalizations you make are not constructive. </p>
<p>I’m not even outraged at you, although you don’t seem to be very levelheaded and I am not the only one who thinks so. You make blatantly false statements, which I will refute because there are prospective applicants out there and I do not want them thinking Stanford is only some tech school you make it out to be. </p>
<p>
Well, if the calculations are all correct (which this thread shows may not be the case), then yes, Stanford does belong below Columbia in the USNWR ranking. No one is disputing that.</p>
<p>Why do you have such a beef against Stanford and its supporters? Generally it’s customary to support schools that accepted you, even if you did not matriculate there. That’s why I like Berkeley, even though they beat us this year in the Big Game (dang Golden Bears :)).</p>
<p>
ICalc is very special. Hopefully that he does not exemplify what Princeton students are. </p>
<p>Xiggi actually has done a great job here to damage the reputation of the rankings. Thanks.</p>
<p>^^^justadream, looks like that letter referenced on Twitter was written back in 1996, which shows that methodology/validity questions have been raised before.</p>
<p>The verdict is in:</p>
<p>Stanford’s corrected ARI
Peer assessment score (out of 5) 4.9
High School Counselor score (out of 5): 4.9
Undergraduate academic reputation index (100=highest) 98</p>
<p>Stanford’s corrected score
Score: 92
U.S. News Rank: 5 </p>
<p>Here’s how to read between the lines of the non-existing message.</p>
<p>*Despite the extensive data verification process that U.S. News World applies to every number which composes the best rankings in the universe, we are forced to recognize that a small error might have appeared in our recently revised tables. We have asked our entire staff to audit all the numbers that contributed to the final ranking of Stanford. </p>
<p>Despite the best efforts of our extremely talented staff that has mastered the art of creativity in statistical analyses, we have been unable to fabricate a plausible explanation on how an incorrect undergraduate academic reputation index would not impact the final ranking. For this reason, we have decided to borrow from the strategy book that allows us to bury all criticisms of our most valuable peer assessment, and simply ask you to believe that the numbers that contribute to the final rankings actually do not influence the final ranking. </p>
<p>Please understand that the importance of this issue forced us to contact the expert team at Synovate, and we have been assured that replacing the incorrect number by the correct number without further explanation is not only the most appropriate response, but also is the best preamble to the next step that consists of denying the error ever existed. </p>
<p>Please understand that at U.S. News World, the sum of the parts is not necessarily the same as adding all the parts because we reserve the apply different weights to the same criteria, or something along those lines. </p>
<p>That is our story and we are sticking to it. Rest assured that we will not repeat the mistake next year and focus our attention to the simpler task of irritating the public school supporters. </p>
<p>Statistically Yours</p>
<p>A soon to be fired intern
*</p>
<p>^ Nice one.</p>
<p>Congratulations, xiggi, good job on discovering the error.</p>
<p>icalc, you’re neglecting that HYP admits poor students, arguably at the same rate as Stanford and MIT. Cross-admitting with poor kids is notorious within all of the aforementioned schools so your argument about Stanford’s yield rate being credited to the admission of low-income students is weak.</p>
<p>iCalc, though your absurd diatribe doesn’t merit a response, you should know that several people on these boards very much doubt that you were in fact admitted to Stanford. Your behavior is curiously similar to that of spurned applicants, and your statements are consistently hyperbolic and groundless. No one who had been admitted to a school but chosen to attend another would continuously show up on the first school’s threads to put it down, while suggesting that others have been “trashing” other institutions when they have done nothing of the sort. It’s getting mighty old, man. Isn’t it time to get your head in the game for Princeton?</p>
<p>Awesome work xiggi, and exactly zenkoan.</p>
<p>^^Yeah, xiggi, props to you. So are the statistical wizards at USNWR really not going to address the little matter of the bottom-line impact that the correction almost certainly would have had, even given the shifts in weightings of certain criteria? It’s hard to believe they will just leave it at that.</p>
<p>Thanks, justadream. : ) Be seeing you soon!</p>
<p>Talk about ad hominem attacks. I was accepted to Stanford. I’ll send you a copy of my email acceptance if you’d like to see it. I am pointing out that I OFTEN see Stanford students TRASH other schools. I do not appreciate this behavior coming from such a top institution. It’s dignified if state schools trash each other, but really, Stanford doesn’t need to trash the ivy-league(which it often does), or MIT(which it also often does). Learn some graces, for god sake.</p>
<p>I mean, some people go “NO WAY. STANFORD IS WAY BETTER THAN COLUMBIA. They are so much better. They are the harvard of the west!!” People from Caltech or MIT don’t implode because “MIT and CALTECH are SO MUCH BETTER THAN STANFORD. US NEWS IS A JOKE”</p>
<p>xiggi, I’m not sure if you ever responded, but isn’t it even remotely possible that the ARI was merely typoed and that the actual ranking calculation used stanford’s true ari of 98? Perhaps if they had miscalculated the ARI in the actual ranking stanford would have been at 91 or 90. Stanford is still ahead of MIT and Caltech and I don’t think that would have happened if an ARI of 93 were used in the actual rankings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, it is more than remotely possible. It will also be the official position of USNews. </p>
<p>Without access to the entire ranking program, it is not possible for mere mortals to know! While I “knew” that something was amiss with Stanford’s ARI, it is much harder to evaluate the story of the elevator rides of Stanford and Columbia, especially since Columbia is one of the last schools that refuse to publish its Common Data Set. I have to admit that I find puzzling that the changes between the 2010 and 2011 versions could have moved Stanford and Columbia to such extent. To the naked eye, it seems that Columbia did benefit from a very generous interpretation of its expected graduation rate – another “secretive” tool at the disposal of USNews. Fwiw, in the 2011 edition Columbia has a slighter upper hand in the selectivity index and a lower expected graduation rate … a rather strange combination that only could be explained by the staff of Morse. </p>
<p>Here is something we can count on: the opposite upward and downward movements will have to be confirmed next year to support the theory of the irrelevant typo. Unless more changes to the methology muddy the waters … again! </p>
<p>I would also be surprised if Stanford does not ensure that the numbers to be reported in its Common Data Set are rounded in the most favorable way. When a 98.5 becomes a 99, you may as well round it up, as some seem to do! :)</p>
<p></p>
<p>Moderator’s Note</p>
<p>College Confidential had to take the unusual step of removing a large part of this discussion. This was necessary to protect the integrity of our forums and eliminate cases of misrepresented identities. </p>
<p>Trinity </p>
<p>Xiggi, very unlikely the USNEWS will reply you, unless Stanford officials get involved as in the Princeton Review case:</p>
<p>[The</a> Dish Blog Archive ‘Princeton Review’ again bungles reporting of Stanford?s statistical data](<a href=“Additional campus climate survey analyses issued; review of terminology begins | Stanford News”>Additional campus climate survey analyses issued; review of terminology begins | Stanford News) </p>
<p>But, I doubt that Stanford will even try to find out the errors.</p>
<p>The whole ranking thing is garbage at core, especially the weighted averages. It is equivalent to say that you travel to Africa for 10 days and North Pole for 10 days is the same as to stay at home for 20 days. But, if they try to be “scientific”, do it right.</p>
<p>It’s funny, icalc. When I went to Princeton’s admit weekend and when I told the current students I was deciding between Pton and Stanford, they all had a roast fest. When I went to Stanford, that wasn’t the case. Most of the students just said “tough decision,” and proceeded to tell me about why I should look more into Stanford. The decision was made from there. Thank God.</p>
<p>Very witty Xiggi.</p>
<p>justadream92 - good decision. I think you would enjoy Stanford more than Princeton, though I don’t know much about Princeton.</p>