Why the vitriolic pushback against the Chicago/Columbia USNWR rankings?

Colleges and Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
1

<p>This is a thread started in a spirit of true UChicago-style inquiry, and not an attempt to ignite another anti-Chicago/Columbia wildfire. Therefore, I respectfully ask that Chicagoans (and Columbians, if there are any here) weigh in and that "enemy fire" be withheld. </p>

<p>I am genuinely perplexed and disheartened to see the level of animus directed at Chicago and Columbia as institutions of higher learning in the wake of the 2013 USNWR rankings, which ranking placed Columbia and Chicago in a tie for fourth place behind Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. On both this forum and the Columbia forum there have been seriously over-the-top attempts to dismiss both institutions as essentially unworthy of their rankings. It has been suggested on the main forum (College Search and Selection's Rankings thread) that, in ways not quite ethical, Chicago and Columbia usurped ranking positions apparently granted in perpetuity to Stanford and MIT. There are insinuations being made of some dishonesty on the parts of Chicago and Columbia administrators, which dishonesty skewed the ratings (apparently without anyone at USNWR being saavy enough to check the truth-value of information supplied to it by both schools). I am deeply deeply deeply offended by the insinuations of dishonesty (as well as characterizations of unworthiness).</p>

<p>To those infiltrating the Columbia forum to remind us again that Columbia is unworthy, I have cited historical trends and, really, attempted to remind such posters that institutions and their reputations are not static, that institutional choices (such as faculty resource allocations and hiring) do ultimately have rankings consequences that negatively affect schools that are not so investing. Very tellingly, Stanford and MIT score low on such scores relative to Columbia and Chicago. I also talk about historical change over time. I won't summarize here, but invite you to the Columbia forum, if you are so inclined, to read my posts on this subject.</p>

<p>What is my stake? I am a proud U of C graduate from the "era of public obscurity" in the mid-late 1980s. Despite its low public profile and lack of lay-prestige, I feel I received an extraordinary undergraduate education grounded in the Common Core (since modified) and uplifted by an intense and spirited intellectualism that was a hallmark of the Chicago difference. I have taught undergrads at Harvard and I can assure you that, from my dual perspective, I received an undergraduate education superior to that available at Harvard. Harvard offers extraordinary opportunities, both curricular and extra-curricular. I believe its undergraduate education to be overrated. Remember the old saw: "the hardest thing about Harvard is getting in"? My Columbia stake? I have a family member who has just matriculated as a freshman, in large part because of its more prescribed core. She weighed the other Ivies and determined that Columbia FIT HER best. She applied to 11 schools, was rejected from only one. She had a wide range of choices, but Columbia was always her dream. Because of its "curricular kinship" to Chicago, Columbia has always been my own favorite Ivy for undergraduate education. It is not for nothing that Newsweek recently named Columbia the most rigorous school in the country. Harvard was far far below on that list. I don't think Stanford even placed.</p>

<p>These two superb schools, with their shared commitments to rigorous intellectual inquiry built on the assumption that some fields of knowledge are central to an educated life, are two of the finest institutions in the world of higher education, with long proud histories. As has been previously mentioned here, throughout the early decades of the 20th century, they were both firmly entrenched in the mighty four of higher education, along with Harvard and Yale.</p>

<p>Why, then, the attempts to PROVE that they are unworthy of their rankings? That they in essence "stole" these rankings from their hereditary superiors Stanford and MIT? As I say, insinuations have been made on CC that something less than ethical generated the rankings.</p>

<p>The rankings are what they are. Stanford has been falling behind Columbia for several years now, with perhaps institutional trends imperceptible to the public finally manifesting themselves in rankings, despite Stanford's undoubted name recognition. This is part of what we call historical change over time. None of this would matter to me --I have no insecurity about the places of these two univerities in the larger academic universe -- but for the vitriol lodged against the schools and the insinuations of dishonesty in achieving their ranks. </p>

<p>Can anyone explain these issues to me?</p>

2

<p>Salute! Support!
I read all your argument on rankings of Stanford, Chicago, Columbia & MIT in the forum starting from Mid night 9-11-2012. You did a great job. But MIT and Stanford are still very best universities…</p>

3

<p>Stanford is better than Columbia in every field of study and I mean every single one. There is no comparison to be made here. Chicago and Columbia alums need to realize that their peer schools are Cornell, Penn, Duke, and Northwestern. S&M are on another level.</p>

4

<p>Goldenboy,
I totally agree with you. But the complains or protest should go to Mr. Morse, not Columbia and Chicago alums. Real Stanford alums, parents or students don’t care about the rankings, Stanford is Stanford, right? Don’t worry. No one on Stanford forum is talking about the current ranking, because they believe they are Stanford. Why are you so crazy about the displacement by Columbia and Chicago? As I mentioned in one reply, about 100 years ago, Stanford ended up #15 or 14 while Chicago was top 1 or 2. Things can change and will change. Mr. Morse has a reason to put Stanford under Columbia and Chicago, why not send him your protest or withdraw Stanford from the ranking system?</p>

<p>Harvard regarded the University of Chicago as its peer institution in its recent tuition summary, I don’t think Stanford is above Harvard.
<a href=“http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/Provost_-_FB2009_10_Sec03_Tuition.pdf[/url]”>http://www.provost.harvard.edu/institutional_research/Provost_-_FB2009_10_Sec03_Tuition.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Go to somewhere else, well spend your time.</p>

5

<p>To the two above (and to all others reading):</p>

<p>I’m not too sure what there is to agree with. Stanford is certainly better at some fields. For example no one is going to the UofC in order to work for Google’s Software Engineering. The UofC offers more strength in other fields. If you have gone through the process of searching for graduate schools (especially in mathematics, economics, political science, history, sociology, and quite a number of other departments), you know that the UofC (along with Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Cal) are always mentioned in the same line as the “most competitive.” Whether or not they are good fits at the graduate level depends upon one’s aimed study.</p>

<p>On the undergraduate level, I still don’t know why everyone is so up in arms about this. First: we all concede that the differences at the top level of schools are small if not trivial. Second: we concede rankings are subject to interpretation as they use different metrics. In order to make these substantive arguments and questions then, we should not be asking why is the UofC higher than X or Y or whatever school—we should be asking why is this metrics more important (weighted) than the other one, etc. In any case, it’s tiring to keep reading the same things about rankings every time; they are all good schools—let’s congratulate Boyer for doing his job branding the school, and move on. For the “oh no way, this school is definitely better”—we’ve already heard it all: X evidence proves X<em>0 and Y evidence proves Y</em>0. Let’s move on.</p>

<p>Edit: Upon re-reading the above two posts: there is another level of naivete that I’d like to address. There are two many comments such as “There is no comparison to be made here. Chicago and Columbia alums need to realize that their peer schools are Cornell, Penn, Duke, and Northwestern. S&M are on another level” from individuals who have not gone through the graduate/professional school application or recruiting process. High school students, parents, lower-div undergraduates who might not necessarily have had the experiences to apply to graduate school from Chicago and its peer institutions, do not have the authority to comment on what peer institutions Chicago ranks against. Individuals working at the bulge brackets and at MBB know of the school’s reputation; as do economists working from JP Morgan’s investment office to FRB’s central office; as do academics sitting in offices in Cambridge to Palo Alto. I’d like to think that individuals and parents of individuals applying to these elite institutions also have the wherewithal to understand what authority they have in commenting and judging the caliber of particular schools.</p>

6

<p>goldenboy: Please, Northwestern/Cornell are no longer peer schools of Columbia/Chicago. Duke and Penn, yes.</p>

<p>Anyway, the reason that people have a problem with Columbia/Chicago being ranked over Stanford/MIT is because they have pre-conceived notions that tech means more to today’s world than academia. And that’s certainly the common opinion in the plebian world, no matter what the score in Nobel Prizes is. I don’t know why this is such a mystery to some of the people on this board; obviously, the common people are going to prefer cool computers/robots to cool theoretical ideas, which is why MIT/Stanford have more lay prestige in the first place.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>There is a comparison. It’s the one we’re all discussing this week, namely US News. If you think US News is getting it wrong, then point to another set of comparisons and make the case that it reflects reality better.</p>

<p>To my knowledge, the set of measurements that could make the strongest case for Stanford being “better … in every field of study” is the NRC/Chronicle assessment. According to the NRC, Stanford does come out ahead of Columbia or Chicago (or both) in many fields (sometimes depending on which NRC ranking scale you use). However, at least on the R-rank scale, either Columbia or Chicago (or both) rank equal to or higher than Stanford in all of the following fields: Anthropology, Astrophysics & Astronomy, Classics, Earth Sciences, Economics, English, French, German, History, History of Art, Linguistics, Philosophy, Political Science, Religion, Sociology, and Spanish. That covers a lot of ground. Maybe Stanford pulls ahead in some of these fields on some of the other NRC scales (I haven’t looked at them all). At any rate, NRC is a graduate program ranking.</p>

<p>I guess I don’t quite understand the “peer schools” concept. If NU and Cornell (Duke, etc.) were peers of Chicago and Columbia last year or the year before, why aren’t they still peers this year?</p>

8

<p>Phuriku:</p>

<p>Eh check out this chronicle article about who colleges think their peers are:</p>

<p>[Who</a> Does Your College Think Its Peers Are? - Administration - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Who-Does-Your-College-Think/134222/]Who”>Who Does Your College Think Its Peers Are?)</p>

<p>According to the article and its accompanying interactive graphic, administrators at UChicago list Cornell and Northwestern as its peers (along with Wash U, Hopkins, etc.). </p>

<p>Interestingly, Harvard lists only Yale, Princeton, and Stanford as its peers.</p>

<p>In any case, if UChicago administrators feel NU and Cornell are its peers, it makes no sense why UChicago students shouldn’t feel the same way. Ostensibly, UChicago then looks at NU and Cornell for comparators regarding college initiatives, university initiatives, etc.</p>

<p>I think that article does a good job of showing what many on this board should keep in mind: if the schools themselves have a broader understanding of peer group, then maybe posters here should too.</p>

9

<p>@Cue7:</p>

<p>Are you sure that article (and its interactive graphic) is correct? Seems like Princeton is arrogant enough to select no one as its peers. What a modest school, eh? Based on the link in david05’s post above (#4), it is pretty clear that Harvard does consider UChicago to be its peer.</p>

10

<p>Yup - so I think it’s possible some schools just didn’t bother to answer the survey (e.g. schools selected “0” schools as their peer). </p>

<p>I’m not sure what the Harvard administration was trying to say by just selection P, Y, and S as peers. Maybe they were just being snobby, or maybe that’s honestly how the administration feels - they only consider those 3 schools to be their peers. We know in admissions (as seen in numerous books on the subject) that Harvard really only cares about what P, Y, and S do in terms of admissions. </p>

<p>Besides that, this seems like a good list.</p>

11

<p>Cue7: Chicago basically listed the top 15 colleges as its peers, which is fine, as those schools are good for comparison. But it doesn’t really give a picture into which schools are competitive against Chicago. For Northwestern, I challenge you to find a single significant ranking that lists Northwestern ahead of Chicago. For the NRC rankings, Northwestern doesn’t rank higher than Chicago in a single field. Chicago has literally 10x the number of Nobel Prizes than Northwestern. Chicago also wins about 80% of its cross-admits with NU, more than Chicago wins against Michigan, USC, and NYU, even despite the fact that Chicago tends to do worse against schools with ED policies. UChicago graduates earn ON AVERAGE about $10k more annually than NU graduates. There’s really not even a single metric that NU beats Chicago at that Chicago cares about, so I don’t see how there’s even an argument here, other than that we like to be friendly with the only other elite school in the area.</p>

<p>We all like to be nice and civil to each other, but let’s be real. Northwestern isn’t a peer to Chicago. It might be very roughly in the same ballpark as Chicago as a top 15 school, but that’s about all you can say. As far as I’m concerned, Northwestern hasn’t been a peer school to Chicago for the last 5 years, and probably even before then.</p>

12

<p>[Top</a> US Colleges ? Graduate Salary Statistics](<a href=“http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/top-us-colleges-graduate-salary-statistics.asp]Top”>http://www.payscale.com/best-colleges/top-us-colleges-graduate-salary-statistics.asp)</p>

<p>Mid-Career Salary
Princeton: $130,000
…
Caltech: $123,00
…
Harvard: $116,00
MIT: $115,000
Dartmouth: $114,00
Duke: $113,00
Stanford: $112,000
…
…
University of Chicago: $92,700
…
University of Michigan Ann-Arbor: $86,400</p>

<p>Interesting stuff from Payscale!</p>

13

<p>Goldenboy, you must have one big chip on your shoulder…Did you know that historically most Chicago grads went into scholarly academic fields that didn’t pay much. I have the utmost respect for those individuals that choose to “increase knowledge from more to more to enrich human life” rather than just being selfish little individuals who only care about “how much money they make.” I can assure you that the smartest students I know went to get their PhDs rather than go into medicine, law, or finance. I know most of my premed/prelaw/pre-wallstreet buddies were in awe of fellow students who went to get their PhDs at Harvard, Chicago, Princeton, Stanford, or MIT. Notice I didn’t even mention Duke…I don’t know of any students interested in applying to Duke (not really a powerhouse in academia)…</p>

14

<p>Moreover, notice…we have not gone over to Stanford, MIT, or Duke’s site to gloat over the “new” rankings…as history have come full circle to identify the “original” top schools for the past century…</p>

15

<p>Gravitas2 isn’t quite right, but he or she isn’t wrong, either.</p>

<p>Payscale is virtually worthless for looking at the effects of elite university degrees, because the only people included in its analysis are people with bachelor’s degrees and no more advanced degree. So none of those Chicago students who got PhDs and work in academia are included in the numbers. In the 8-person suite I had as a senior at an Ivy League university decades ago, only one out of the eight of us would have qualified for the Payscale survey: a guy who had a severe schizophrenic break at 20 and has spent most of his life heavily medicated (and tied to a government job with unlimited psychiatric benefits). Another guy was a serious alcoholic, never graduated, spent a few years as a homeless street person, and now owns a landscaping business. The rest of us include a corporate lawyer, an ex-environmental lawyer turned high school teacher (after spending 7 years sailing a small boat all over the world with his family), an MD/PhD with a leadership job at one of the world’s most famous hospitals, two MBAs (one of whom a commercial real estate developer who is richer than Croesus, and the other a Microsoft millionaire who retired in his early 40s), and an OR PhD serial entrepreneur. Looking at the salary of the one BA-only person would give a pretty misleading picture of what going to our college meant. There are a few other people I know who never got more than a bachelor’s degree; they work in journalism, publishing, and theater, and in fact they have done fine, but they aren’t exactly typical, either.</p>

<p>Now, a college like Princeton or MIT that produces a lot of engineers will at least have a bunch of students who base their careers entirely on their undergraduate degrees. The other people who don’t get advanced degrees are often people who go into family businesses they will take over from their fathers (although lots of them get MBAs, or something like it, too). In every case, though, you are effectively looking at a small, odd subset of what graduates of those colleges do with their lives.</p>

16

<p>

Do you have any numbers to back up your claim that Chicago graduates enter academica in much higher numbers than HYPSMDD graduates? I can provide one statistical data point to the contrary.</p>

<p>[Washington</a> Monthly](<a href=“http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings/national_university_research.php]Washington”>http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/rankings/national_university_research.php)</p>

<p>Bachelors to PhD Rank
Caltech: #1
MIT: #2
Yale: #3
Rice: #4
Princeton: #5
Brown: #6
Stanford: #7
University of Chicago: #8
Cornell: #9
Harvard: #10
University of Rochester: #11
Duke: #12
Dartmouth: #13</p>

<p>It is an urban myth that Chicago is more intellectual than the Ivies, Stanford, MIT, Duke, etc. besides maybe UPenn.</p>

<p>

JHS, wouldn’t the success of your Yale classmates that you references stem more from the effect of their terminal postgraduate degrees from Harvard/Stanford/etc. than from their AB/BS from Yale?</p>

<p>If we want to isolate how specifically an undergraduate institution impacts the career trajectory of a given individual, we need to look at those who have foregone futher education to accurately assess the impact of their alma mater. In essence, Payscale is a ranking of how good the job recruiting at these universities in the fields of Finance/Consulting/Trading/Engineering/Sales/Marketing/etc.</p>

<p>The fact that Princeton and Dartmouth do so well only affirms my belief that Payscale is on to something. I know that these two Ivies are highly overrepresented on Wall Street.</p>

17

<p>^^It is interesting to see that you and a few other posters like to present “statistics” that you find in some obscure journals to “refute” anything and everything that US News uses to “rank” schools. I’m sure you weren’t complaining when “Duke” was ranked “higher” in the 90s for a short period of time…But, as we know in anything, we can manipulate statistics to support whatever we want to “claim.” Let’s just be honest here, if you are upset about the silly rankings why don’t you complain to Mortimer Zuckerman (publisher of US News…who holds degrees from McGill, Wharton, and Harvard). I’m sure he has a hidden agenda…not.</p>

18

<p>^ There is also an overwhelming concentration of long hour, mind numblingly boring, and soul crushing jobs located on Wall Street. IBankers may pull 90k as first year analysts, but I wouldn’t say actually taking such a job is a good thing - it’s a job for reasonably smart people with fancy degrees and no original ideas whatsoever. Given that, as you yourself noted, the Payscale rankings seem to reflect the proportion of students going into finance, at least when you exclude the engineering schools, more money =/= better career prospects.</p>

19

<p>I have no interest in demoting UChicago or promoting Duke. I’m interested in establishing relevant criteria which we can use to evaluate the quality of American universities. As far as I can see, the only top 5 department that UChicago has is Economics. Stanford has everything else.</p>

<p>They are both peers in the sense that they are top 10 American universities.</p>

20

<p>^^Wow, your (in)sincerity really humbles me…and yet you like to use the words “only department” and you come to the aid of Stanford…as if they care. What is it that really “bothers” you???</p>