<p>RamRay - you have put more words in my mouth than I thought possible. Hardly know where to start. I do think Emory committed fraud, but factually the numerical difference with respect to the effect it would have had on their ranking was small. It is a mathematical formula, and the overall weighting is 1.5%. Look it up. I don’t know how one can argue with a straightforward mathematical equation. You plug in the wrong numbers, then you plug in the right numbers, and the difference in the end results, due to the very low weighting, is miniscule. I do not know how you are thinking it can magically be otherwise.</p>
<p>I am not that familiar with the Iona case, I was basing my statement on what YOU said, which was that they were “not rated”. Of course you also said they dropped 30 points, which I am not sure how that is possible if they were not rated at all. I just assumed you meant they dropped out of the rankings because USNWR didn’t rank them at all, which is what YOU said. I then speculated that USNWR did not trust the data they subsequently provided, because otherwise, as bernie correctly says, they should have had a ranking based on the new data. Or maybe Iona didn’t provide data until they were sure they had cleaned up their act. But I made it clear that I was speculating by saying “I suspect”. Surely anyone can understand that is just hypothesizing for the sake of putting a theory out there. If in fact they were rated and dropped 30 places, which is also possible from your contradictory statements, then my hypothesis makes no sense. I just thought your statement of saying they were “Not Rated” was so specific, it was the more likely to be true.</p>
<p>It is quite possible that USNWR will not trust the Emory data either, and show then as “Not Rated” next time. Personally I doubt that, I think that Emory has made a good enough case that the data is now correct that USNWR will take it, and possibly print corrected versions of the old rankings if they get corrected data and if it makes enough of a difference to be pertinent to anyone.</p>
<p>I have no idea where you came up with saying that I think that Emory is above reproach or whatever assessment the peer review decides to give them. I mean, I think the whole idea of the peer assessment and the USNWR rankings is a crock to begin with, but I never said anything like what you seem to think I said. In fact, I said that the way this fraud they perpetrated could have a bigger effect than the 1.5% is if the peer and counselor assessment punishes them, just the opposite of what you seem to think I am saying. But I have no idea if that will come to pass or not. We will see.</p>
<p>Honestly, not to be mean or anything, but you don’t seem to comprehend what you are reading very well. In the end, you seem to be trying to distract from your original statement that USNWR can somehow go outside their formula and “punish” Emory for this transgression by dropping it more places than the data and formula dictate. There is zero basis for that scenario, and frankly it is absurd to postulate it.</p>