<p>leanid, whether academics are peccable or not is not the point. Their feelings, whether flawed or not, matter to anybody who applies to graduate school.</p>
<p>My point was about something else. Please read the previous posts.</p>
<p>@DolorousEdd</p>
<p>The percentages of students in whatever tier of their graduating class is misleading here. BC has 9,000 undergards. USC has over 17,000. The recruited athletes at BC are going to skew the statistics much more than the recruited athletes at USC. Standardized scores are very comparable between the two. Tufts is not skewed at all because any athlete worth his weight (and I’m assuming here) not as academically focused would much rather be called an Eagle or a Trojan and not a Jumbo (=P excuse the flaming). However, I would agree that Notre Dame and Tufts have, generally, a more academic student body and environment, but not better academics.</p>
<p>“Except that just depends upon requirements, not academic quality. Brown gets an F, but any school that requires its philosophy majors to take algebra and geometry and non-science-major geology will be just fine.”</p>
<p>Is it really? But shouldn’t the students already know how to do algebra and geometry if they had taken them in HS? I believe the point of What Will They Learn.com is trying to make, is that the rigor of the core curriculum of each institution is not the same value. Those schools allow the students to take basket weaving instead of math so to speak. As an example, no credit given for Mathematics because the Quantitative Symbolic, and Computational Reasoning requirement may be satisfied by linguistics courses. No credit given for Foreign Language because students may fulfill the requirement with elementary-level study. No credit given for Natural or Physical Science because the Science and Technology requirement may be satisfied by courses with little science content.</p>
<p>While Brown and Yale both got F’s, how did Columbia and Chicago both got B’s? If I had to choose a well-rounded education, I would probably consider schools with grade A,B or C over D or F, wouldn’t you?</p>
<p>How refreshing, Ocelite, to have you set the record straight on what is and what isn’t actual academic achievement. By your reckoning, I figure that a large majority of current college students are not really getting the education they should be getting, rigor being hard to come by, and all. Furthermore, I would suggest that, again, a large majority of college graduates, going back, I don’t know, maybe 75 years, should turn-in their worthless diplomas since their course of studies did not quite measure up to the rigor with which everybody MUST comply.</p>
<p>I am merely extending your reasoning to its logical extreme… So, who SHOULD attend college?</p>
<p>I don’t think the minimum requirements prevent anyone from taking tougher classes. It’s really your call. 20 years later you will remember just a few snippets anyway. And much of that will be obsolete.</p>
<p>Perhaps that’s one of the reasons why so many people are unemployed, even for some of the college grads, because they’re lack in some of the skills needed for some of the jobs.</p>
<p>OCELITE, I’ve told you before that that website is flawed.</p>
<p>Clemson requires students to take two social science classes in two different field. Just because they don’t require students to take classes like history or economics doesn’t mean that students aren’t taking classes such as Psychology or Geography (classes that can be just as important).</p>
<p>So which website is not flawed?</p>
<p>
None of them. But others being flawed, too, doesn’t make yours any less flawed itself.</p>
<p>So basically we shouldn’t count on any of them. Then what’s the purpose of rankings other than making money for these companies?</p>
<p>No, it has nothing at all to do with unemployment. Zero, nada, zip, nothing.</p>
<p>
The sole purpose of the rankings are to generate money/publicity, yes.</p>
<p>They suck. We know this. People shouldn’t rely on them. Doesn’t make a letter system any better than a rankings system, though.</p>
<p>Pointless things, however, can still be interesting. The trick is, don’t get caught up in them.</p>
<p>" No, it has nothing at all to do with unemployment. Zero, nada, zip, nothing.a’</p>
<p>Then why did Obama ask people to go back to school to get training? I thought it’s because they didn’t have the skills needed for the jobs.</p>
<p>i know i am interupting a very intense discussion, but when do the rankings come out?</p>
<p>If you look at many different rankings (from different sources), you will easily get an idea of which schools are top notch schools (and there are many in my opinion). One should not limit themselves to just looking at US News only or Princeton Review only or NRC only or What will they learn only etc… You have to take all these sources and put them together. The thing I hate about rankings is that it tries to give an exact order of how good a school is. I’m not saying that Clemson is equivalent to Princeton but if the schools are CLOSE in most rankings, more factors should come into play than “oh hey, this school is ranked higher so I should go here”. </p>
<p>Just my two cents.</p>
<p>^ agreed. I think tiers are more useful. And not tiers of 3-4 schools, but big fat tiers composed of 20 schools that could all possibly offer the same or similar quality to students. Sure there are differences, but those become immaterial when you consider the differences in what the students themselves demand. Some will want more research (like at MIT), others won’t. Some will want more study abroad, others won’t. So even if there are tangible differences among the top 10 or whathaveyou, it’s a moot point when you consider that the students they attract are content with the opportunities available, as content as the students at schools that supposedly offer more.</p>
<p>it seems that the consensus is BC belongs in the top 25… it is certainly gaining ground on Georgetown and Notre Dame. Really doesn’t make sense that big public schools like Michigan and UNC are consistently ranked above Boston College.</p>
<p>Private doesn’t necessarily mean better, and public doesn’t necessarily mean worse. They just have different styles.</p>
<p>“Really doesn’t make sense that big public schools like Michigan and UNC are consistently ranked above Boston College.”</p>
<p>Because heaven forbid that a school like Michigan should even be uttered in the same sentence, let alone considered a peer, of an academic powerhouse like BC. Geez…</p>