<p>Not that this really adds anything to the discussion, but I just wanted to chime in that, as a former journalist, I liked when people asked questions. Even stupid ones. I always responded.</p>
<p>wifey99999999, I have a feeling that you only asked to antagonize me, but I’ll humor you.</p>
<p>I was writing to him in regards to a panel discussion he hosted/moderated (and I watched) about U.S.-China relations. The entire discussion was headlined by a false (for a variety of reasons) either/or dichotomy that I pointed out. It’s not like I was expecting a response, so I was surprised when I received it. He wrote that, in retrospect, he also realized the false dichotomy, and we both agreed that in fact, the two seemingly contradictory points are both held to be true simultaneously. In particular, he writes many articles on U.S.-China cultural/economic/political relations because he has spent many years living in China while writing for The Atlantic, and he makes return trips on a regular basis. Because U.S.-China relations are one of my points of specific interest, I keep up with his writings/work on a very regular basis.</p>
<p>Columbia2002, it only seems irrelevant because you entirely failed to understand the point, which was that magazine publishers do not object to fielding questions by their readers (thank you for weighing in on that fact, goestowashington). Maybe you hail U.S. News & World Report as some sort of magazine that is so high up that they don’t have time to deal with questions, but they’re JUST a magazine publisher.</p>
<p>Maybe the difference between you and a lot of other people is that a lot of people value a genuine curiosity and willingness to ask questions without being held back by the fear of coming off as “stupid” or “awkward”.</p>
<p>Speaking of which, I am wondering if it’s even possible that you entirely misunderstand the question I wrote to U.S. News. I am well aware that they have a system for the rankings and that it’s not arbitrary or whimsical. My question was specifically about which changing factors (very specific ones) caused their system to push Columbia 4 ranks higher.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>maybe 8–>4 is a drastic jump for a school in one year, especially when columbia has never been ranked top 5 ever before. but to many it’s a realization of steady improvement over several years. So is Columbia different than it was yesterday? - absolutely not. Is this ranking going to affect people’s perceptions of Columbia? absolutely yes. and improved perceptions have a positive effect on the future reality for a college: smarter kids applying, opting to matriculate, maybe a better prof or two, alumni pride, general populace awareness, and employer perception a little.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one’s saying that the USNWR is “some sort of magazine that is so high up that they don’t have time to deal with questions,” but that your question is self-evident. USNWR changed their methodology. Flawed as it is, the (change in) methodology is clearly explained on the USNWR website. So what is there to ask?</p>
<p>As a result of the change, some schools went up (Columbia, Northwestern); others went down (MIT, Caltech, Chicago). USNWR messes with its methodology from time to time to sell more magazines. IIRC, Harvard was onced ranked #4. Duke #3. Caltech #1. (Not in the same year though.) Heck, even Stanford was once ranked #1. As much as I love Stanford, it was not the best school in the country that year. An argument could be made (and I’ve made it) that Stanford is as good as any school, but it’s not better than HYP or MIT. Pretty much anything can happen when people play around with methodology that’s already arbitrary and subjective to begin with.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, Harvard will still have more money/resources and win the majority of cross-admits from YPSM. And YPSM will still have more money/resources and win the majority of cross-admits from the non-HYP ivies. And so on down the food chain…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Only if they’re the “perceptions” of naive and gullible people…</p>
<p>anyhow - let’s divorce ourselves from reality and only live in ‘rankings world.’ what is impressive is just how methodical columbia’s rise has been. after spending more than a decade outside of the top 10, and it looking like they could never crack it, they have not only cracked the top 10, but the top 5. </p>
<p>now let’s analyze in our rankings world what happened - columbia’s selectivity rank went from 7 to 3 (combination of SAT scores, top 10% in school and admit percentage), from 10 to 4 in faculty resources (they’ve been going on a spending spree with the new campaign, and their 6:1 student fac ratio is one of the best of the national universities). did the best in the overperformance in terms of graduation than any other school in the top 10. is second only to yale in the country in freshman retention. slight improvement in its overall economic position (alumni and financial resources ranking). </p>
<p>as for folks who say “well they always mess with the methodology to keep things interesting,” that is honestly bollocks. the only real big change here was that the counselor rankings were added into the peer assessment score, columbia’s 4.8 lodged them for a tie for 6 place below the likes of stanford and mit. in the end this addition would’ve helped solidify some sort of order in the top 10 - consider penn’s failing is probably here, its 4.6 coefficient damaged its standing. as far as i can read, there were no changes to the areas where columbia gained the most - selectivity, faculty resources, nor the weighting on the overperformance. so in the end if we just live in rankings world - a lot of these speculations are just that speculations. when you look into the data and methodology, you see that columbia is performing better on paper than its peers, does it make it better? no. but as a columbiaphile - it makes me happy to know that without fanfare and without much notice, columbia has methodically improved itself from admissions to finances over the course of the decade. can it maintain itself? - well now the overperformance will be harder to retain, its selectivity surely will continue to drop, if it continues to improve in alumni and financial resources it will continue to be in a good position. whether it stays at #4 or not, it has staked a claim that it is in the top 10 for sure. Bollinger once boldly claimed when he became president that he would make columbia a top 5 school. it is good when things work out.</p>
<p>good job columbia!</p>
<p>Thanks for clarifying things, admissionsgeek.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…which is a “real big” change in methodology. Let’s just say this, if Columbia’s really the #4 university this year, then Duke was really the #3 university in 1998. </p>
<p>“There’s a sucker born every minute.” --PT Barnum</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let the games (and gaming) continue:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065371073-post44.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1065371073-post44.html</a></p>
<p>After personal experience with prospective students and admitted students, I can attest to the meaningfulness of rankings in the admissions process. It really does make a difference to kids who are cross admitted and those who are looking for a place to apply early. Columbia is now the best university to which one can apply Early Decision. To some, that offer is marginally more attractive. </p>
<p>Not everyone cares about these rankings, but to some they mean a lot. This ranking certainly helps the university, and we will hopefully see positive feedback in the future.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m trying to picture the prospective Ivy Leaguers who would’ve applied ED to Penn but will instead ED to Columbia this year because of a newsrag for the masses. Good luck to them!</p>
<p>What is this change to common app?</p>
<p>I have a feeling the acceptance rate just might dip below 9% this year. </p>
<p>:(</p>
<p>You guys sure are getting more worked up over the new rankings than any other school’s forums lol.</p>
<p>Did all the schools jump up four spots? If so, then you’re right, it doesn’t matter one bit. Would that mean the highest ranked school is now at -3rd? :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This thread is a pretty good ownage of this dude.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Obviously it’s better to be ranked higher (i.e., closer to 1) than lower, all things being equal. There’s no reason you’d want to be ranked lower. </p>
<p>Columbia has been steadily improving over the years – even as it was consistently ranked at the low end of the top 10 for the last 10-15 years. People recognized that, as reflected in the shrinking admissions rate, etc. I don’t think achieving a #4 USNews ranking is what validates Columbia’s improvement. If Columbia comes out at #6 or 7 next year for whatever reason, Columbia is still the same school and the steady improvement still existed. It’s the same story as the year Caltech became #1 – Caltech wasn’t validated as a great school by reaching #1, and its no different a school now that it’s back where it always was.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Didn’t you Duke students and alums used to get all worked up over your “top 5” ranking…before the lacrosse, ahem, “incident?” Let the Columbia people show their school spirit while they can. Maybe they’ll start getting incredibly obnoxious in their trash talk against peers/rivals, painting their faces blue and sleeping in makeshift tents like “y’all.” </p>
<p>Who knows? Someday perhaps Columbia might even get as many students at their football games as you guys get at your basketball games. But that’s not likely. Because unlike HYPSM and the Ivies, Duke is the only good school with any school spirit. (That’s what you keep telling everybody anyway.) You are the (self-proclaimed) envy of the USNWR top 10.</p>
<p>Dear Columbia2002, </p>
<pre><code> I’d rather be sincere and curious at the cost of being a little naive about trivial matters, than a smug and arrogant jackass such as yourself. 
</code></pre>
<p>Best regards,
Me</p>
<p>…LOL… (i don’t even know if this is a valid comment)</p>