Gourman Report Rankings

Applying to College
21

<p>AcceptedAlready, you are clueless. I keep telling you these aren’t my rankings. I’ve stated so twice already. You are saying it’s my criteria. It isn’t. I didn’t make them. Yet you always use my name and say they are “his” rankings. They aren’t. Until you can realize that, it’s pointless talking to someone as clueless as you.</p>

<p>

If you are going to make a statement like that, try showing some sort of supportive evidence that they are better. You have a gigantic US News bias and aren’t even looking into how that ranking is calculated, and how this ranking is calculated.</p>

22

<p>Lol what? When did I say these were YOUR rankings? Please quote me on that now. Go through my posts please and find them. I only said you liked the ranking (obviously) and liked its criteria.</p>

<p>" </p>

<p>If you are going to make a statement like that, try showing some sort of supportive evidence that they are better. You have a gigantic US News bias and aren’t even looking into how that ranking is calculated, and how this ranking is calculated."</p>

<p>I did.

  1. Yale sends more % of its kids to top grad schools than does schools like Umich
  2. Top recruiters like Goldman Sachs do not even RECRUIT at some of these state schools which are ranked above Georgetown, etc.</p>

<p>Do you want me to start listing average salaries now? You want to see how MIT’s 70k CS salaries absolutely crush Madison’s? How Amherst is an AMAZING feeder into top Grad schools which CRUSHES schools like Umich/Madison/other state schools that are ranked 40-60 spots above it?</p>

23

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Yale sending students to grad schools has nothing to do with US News being better than Gourman’s rankings.</p>

<p>Top recruiters recruiting at schools have nothing to do with US News being better than Gourman’s rankings.</p>

24

<p>I am very confused my friend. How does the quote: “I did EXACTLY what you said. I said the ranking is good if you are a diehard of the criteria used (which means you loooove publics)” indicate that the Gourman rankings are yours? </p>

<p>That quote means that I WAS open minded and that YOU liked the criteria. I in no way said the ranking was yours. Obviously you like the criteria and the ranking or you wouldn’t be arguing.</p>

<p>So feeder/salaries/job opps and top recruiters mean nothing? How about quality of education? How about more than 19 noble laureates being affiliated? How about educating namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University’s Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush. Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, VP candidate Dick Cheney, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.?</p>

<p>If education quality, recruiter prestige, job opps, high salaries, prestige, and connections all mean nothing; May I ask why go to college?</p>

25

<p>

</p>

<p>Geez, what exactly is that implicating??? Gosh. I never said I liked these rankings. However, this statement, as well as the other one (why aren’t you quoting that brainiac?) shows your thought that I made these rankings myself. Does it honestly think that I wrote the Goruman Report? Do you even read what others have posted, about the methodology, about the rankings, or do you just look at a list and go “ooooo whoop de doo… WHAT!? stanford behind michigan!!! these are terrible!!!”</p>

<p>I just showed these rankings for everyone to see. I was doing a FAVOR for people. Not everyone has access to a book that is being sold for $70+ on Amazon.com. Then a stupid kid like you comes in here making stupid claims. “Oh this is so stupid!!! There is no way!!! This ranking is clearly better because they make more money!!!”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>THAT DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE METHODOLOGY OF RANKINGS, WHICH WAS WHAT BOTH YOU AND I WERE DEBATING ABOUT.</p>

26

<ol>
<li>Response: You don’t like these rankings? LoL then what are we arguing about? </li>
<li>“However, this statement, as well as the other one (why aren’t you quoting that brainiac?) shows your thought that I made these rankings myself.”</li>
</ol>

<p>Response: No. Let’s make that clear now. I DO NOT THINK you made these rankings yourself. Why the heck would I think that? I think your powers of implication need a tune-up. :)</p>

<ol>
<li>I just showed these rankings for everyone to see. I was doing a FAVOR for people. Not everyone has access to a book that is being sold for $70+ on Amazon.com. Then a stupid kid like you comes in here making stupid claims. “Oh this is so stupid!!! There is no way!!! This ranking is clearly better because they make more money!!!”</li>
</ol>

<p>Response: That is good and I think I have been more understanding than other people who merely dismiss the ranking but please don’t play the innocent guy who just wants to share information. You’ve insulted me and have been very emotional in debating and defending the Gourman Rankings while insulting the Us News ones.</p>

<p>Not only that, you have insulted everyone who have expressed their feelings about the Gourman rankings by calling us “brainwashed” and now insulted me again by putting words in my mouth. Please show EVERYONE when I have said: ““Oh this is so stupid!!! There is no way!!! This ranking is clearly better because they make more money!!!””
I mentioned the money as one example that I PERSONALLY do not like the criteria or the Gourman rankings.
You know that you have been more than the innocent kid who merely wanted to introduce a ranking to save people money. You have been very defensive so far in arguing and dismissing everyone else’s opinions as them being not open enough is quite erroneous.</p>

<p>Lastly: Yes it is very hard to understand you. I’ve proved that these privates offer things that some publics cannot (such as quality of education, connections, top faculty, nobel laureates, networking) and you have yet to respond. Instead, your response is to call me stupid and to call everyone else “brainwashed”.
This conversation is over since you have resulted to extreme bias and now I understand why I will never get through to you.</p>

<p>Indiana '10…</p>

<p>I’m glad you found a ranking that ranked your school as #27 which I think is your main reason for getting your feathers so ruffled. </p>

<p>I’m sorry that you had to result to personal attacks and even more sorry that I couldn’t reach you through your bias to have a reasonable and intelligent conversation. Enjoy Indiana though.</p>

27

<p>Why does starting salary play a part in the rankings?</p>

28

<p>It doesn’t for most. It was one of my points to show that I was open to outside of the box thinking and how everyone had different criteria for rankings. Once again as I’ve said at the top of this page; I am sorry I was not more clear on that.</p>

29

<p>Great, now comes the “you hurt my feelings” statements. Cry me a river, Build a bridge, and get over it.</p>

<p>In this post, you have completely changed your tune (no pun intended). Now it’s “ohhhhhh so I guess you didn’t make these rankings” and “ohhhhhh, I guess he doesn’t like these rankings”. Yeah, DUH.</p>

<p>Again, how did you get into Carnegie Mellon if you think that quote was of you? You never said that, I never said you said that, and yet you are making more assumptions. I wish I was keeping track.</p>

<p>Throughout this discussion, you have not made one point in which the Gourman criteria is flawed and wrong. You don’t even know the criteria, and how it differs from US News. You have come up with completely irrevelant points, talking about recruiters and money and how that supports your initial point of “These rankings are bad!!!” (and no brainiac, i’m not quoting you this time, it’s not in a little box like all the other quotes were), I have no idea.</p>

<p>These rankings have NOTHING to do with Indiana. I went to a fricken library, found a book, and posted the rankings. Quit drawing incorrect conclusions. I have no bias. I just posted some rankings, asked for some reasoning behind a statement you made, and now you’re trying to end coversations, because you don’t have any idea what is going on.</p>

<p>I laugh at you talking about this being an “intelligent conversation”. I’ve had better conversations with walls. At least they have a clue.</p>

30

<p>I know I said the conversation was over but I can’t resist.</p>

<p>Post 29 by Wolves: “You never said that, I never said you said that, and yet you are making more assumptions.”
Post 25 by Wolves: “Then a stupid kid like you comes in here making stupid claims. “Oh this is so stupid!!! There is no way!!! This ranking is clearly better because they make more money!!!””</p>

<p>Ooops? :slight_smile: I’m pretty sure the use of “stupid kid like you” indicates me. </p>

<p>I have no problem for conversations and I would like them to continue as I have in all my constructive arguments on this site; not once have I ever unresolved one without both me and the other walking away with ill feelings and this is evident from my full PM box of kids asking me for help and advice. </p>

<p>However I will not stand for name calling or your hilarious yet erroneous statements. If you want to stop on the name calling and proceed with an intelligent conversation then I am always open for that. Also let us look at motivation. I have almost nothing to gain from this (wow CMU goes up 2 points) but you have quite a lot; when has Indiana jumped to #27? </p>

<p>PS: I assure you my feelings are not hurt.</p>

31

<p>I never said you said that. They aren’t in a quote box, like the ACTUAL QUOTES I took out of your statements. It’s not rocket science.</p>

<p>You need to grow a thicker set of skin if you think you are going to survive in the real world. I’m sick of reading “mommy, he called me a name!!! let me write 4 paragraphs of complaining about it”. </p>

<p>Again, make a conversation. Make a point. Put some thought and some sort of intellect into your claims. You made a statement, provided poor evidence, failed to comprehend what others have been saying, and now are backing out of it complaining about name calling. Please. That card doesn’t work either, what else do you have in your deck?</p>

<p>Indiana is ranked in the top 50 in the US News peer assessment ratings. It was in the top 40 a couple years back. In business rankings, they are in the top 10. In music, journalism, and other rankings, they are in the top 10. Gourman has always had them in the top 30. Another set of rankings done by the University of Texas had them in the top 45. The only set of rankings that have them in the 70s is US News, biased against publics, rankings useless factors like alumni giving rate, admission rate, and others. Indiana hasn’t “jumped”, they are that high in these rankings. In his other rankings, they have ben just that high. (Yes, you’re comparing these rankings to US News again and i’m avoiding that stupidity).</p>

32

<p>It seems you’ve calmed down a bit now so I will respond.</p>

<p>First off, I’m not understanding your quote argument since I think I’ve got you down verbatim for what you said but I can overlook that for now. </p>

<p>I made plenty of points on the first page and even on the 2nd. I still think this whole this is a HUGE misunderstanding. I never thought the rankings were yours and I never thought that the Gourman rankings were stupid or useless. Why you would think that is beyond me. I’m really trying hard to understand you here in showing you that I’m open to other rankings and I’m not “brainwashed”. I just think the Gourman reports overrate publics while you apparently think the opposite. I’ll quote you here so we don’t have futher misunderstandings “US News, biased against publics”.</p>

<p>I’ll skip the rest of your post insulting my intelligence for the sake of avoiding another flame war.
My basic point is that while the Us News ranking is not perfect (as said from page 1), the Gourman reports are not FOR ME because they don’t account for some things like connections, quality of education, and recruiter reputation. All these things I hope I have proven through the Yale example</p>

<p>Yale has 19 nobel laureates, a world class faculty, great feeder status, great connections (Presidents anyone?) and amazing recruiter rep as can be seen from Grad School entrance and stuff like Wall Street recruitment that certain PUBLICS do not have. That is my point and is why many people besides me think putting stuff like Yale behind Umich and Georgetown and Amherst after stuff like Minnesota is quite absurd.</p>

<p>Any misunderstandings?</p>

33

<p>

I never said that. I think that Gourman overrated publics. I said that here, or maybe it was in another thread. I said that Gourman’s criteria makes it so publics aren’t discriminated against in judging their education, which is different than what US News does. </p>

<p>No, there are no “misunderstandings”. Your points are just incredibly irrevelant and wrong. You are talking about how Gourman aren’t for you because tehy don’t account “connections”. There is no ranking on the web that accounts for “connections”, so how is that a point against Gourman’s rankings, and for other rankings?</p>

<p>They do account for quality of education. They do account for recruiter reputation. US News does not, which you said earlier, that they did. US News is solely based on statistics and the assessment of Deans and Senior Faculty members. Gourman goes off recruiters, and otehr “unnamed” people to decide his ranking, that he insists have a thorough understanding of each institution and it’s strengths and weaknesses. </p>

<p>Your Yale point makes absolutely no sense. Yale has great faculty, great connections, and others. Great. He talks to others and says Michigan is better, and shows it through his data. What is wrong with that? What’s wrong with that methodology? He’s going out to the people at Yale whom he knows, he asks them about their overall reputation, and from that he puts them where they are ranked. He does the same for every school, most departments. What’s your point? How is that related at ALL to how his methodology is (which by the way, you have STILL yet to even speak about, or the US News methodology, since you have been comparing the two this entire conversation).</p>

34

<p>I understood nothing in your post so I see no point in continuing a conversation where every one of your posts contains “You are just incredibly irrelevant and wrong” and “Your Yale point makes no sense.” You are not even being open because of your bias so I’m just going to make a final statement to others and then go to bed.</p>

<p>To others who are reading: Different people have different criteria for rankings but Gourman’s ranking is not for me because of the way the ranking was conducted. You have to look at actual facts and statistics such as Georgetown/Amherst/Columbia being AMAZING universities in every sense of the word with respect to important criteria like networking, Top Grad feeding, recruiter reputations, selectivity, endowment, quality of education, and everything else that makes an amazing university. If one looks at such stats, it is quite clear Amherst does not belong that low and not behind colleges like Minnesota and Indiana. Top recruiter companies do not even recruit at some of these schools that Gourman’s ranking overranks. Obviously that shows a lack of recruiter reputation. Look at the % of kids Yale and Amherst send to Top grad schools and Wall Street (Goldman Sachs, Morgan, Lynch, etc) as compared to the % of Umich and Minnesota. Look at the number of nobel laureates, quality of professors, quality of education, and top programs. How many top programs does Minnesota hold over schools it is ranked over? </p>

<p>Yet, the ranking does not match these results as Georgetown, Amherst, and Columbia are shot down along with many other good schools like UVA and yes even Emory which does not belong THAT low.</p>

<p>I think my past post history speaks for itself so with all that said I’m off to bed :)</p>

35

<p>i’m from california and IMO this is extremely cali biased</p>

36

<p>Why does it matter if some company recruits at a school.</p>

37

<p>Pomona tied with SUNY Albany, great ranking.</p>

38

<p>Wolves…I sort of suspect you are a ■■■■■ based on your reaction to AA’s comments.</p>

<p>It was obvious he (she? I’ll use he as the general singular pronoun) did not think you created the rankings, only that you agreed with them, or at least thought they were better than other ranking systems. His point about other criteria was to indicate that schools which are ranked higher by usnews do in fact offer better resources, opportunities, etc. to their students. I’m not taking a position on this, just stating his points very clearly, since you obstinantely refuse to understand them.</p>

<p>Is Ohio State a good school? Sure. Do you get a better education there than at Amherst? Probably not. This is AA’s point.</p>

39

<p>Gourman has always been regarded as highly suspect, haven’t they?–and I say that being at a school which has fared quite well under Gourman’s methods, whatever they are.</p>

<p>Has he become more open about his measures? He used to be pretty opaque about them. U.S. News is also a little mysterious about how they weight some things over others, and why they determined the weight they should have. But I feel I knew more about U.S. News than Gourman.</p>

<p>I confess I haven’t touched his rankings in years, so I may not be speaking knowledgably here. Things may have changed. But I haven’t heard much that would convince me his ideas/methods/judgments have become more reliable or worthy of trust.</p>

40

<p>

I’m not being open to my bias??? Are you kidding me??? You haven’t even once thought of what criteria has gone into these rankings. You don’t understand how these work, how they differ from the US News rankings, and when I start talking about it, you walk away from the converstation! And you’ve got the nerve to tell me that i’m bias? Please. I came on here, showed some rankings, responded to a moronic comment, and now i’m being put as this ridicuolous bad guy because I said a couple facts to a person who can’t pass reading comprehension.</p>

<p>Stop talking to me, stop getting into conversations that you don’t know what you are talking about. You preface conversations about how rankings are bogus, when you have no clue how they were formulated, and state that others were much better, and you don’t know how they were calculated either, and how they were different. Then I come and ask you questions, set you right on facts about how each ranking was formulated, and you back away trying the ‘he was mean to me!’ ‘you’re not smart!’ cards. </p>

<p>Now you keep on talking about how the ranking “is not for me”. That’s great. I have no problem with that. I never debated that. But when you make outlandish statements like that this is so bad and is worse than the US News, and don’t even know how the ranking was made, and the logic behind it, then how can I possibly respect your opinion?</p>

<p>Your new argument (about your 5th different wrong point in this thread) is related to recruiting at schools, and how rankings should be formulated towards how firms recruit at schools. WHAT? How the heck does recruiting at schools have anything to do with how an undergraduate education that you receive at an institution is judged? Why do you keep bringing up irrevelant points?</p>

<p>Honestly, grow up. You are 18 years old and heading to college next year. Mommy’s not going to be there next year when you go to Carnegie Mellon. How far are you going to get in life if you won’t talk to people because you don’t like their tone? Here’s life lesson number 1: don’t make stupid statements and have no evidence behind them. Lesson 2: you will get run over in life if you don’t stand up for yourself.</p>

<p>garrr! - please don’t get involved. You’re already on my bad side for mistankenly calling me a “■■■■■”. AA had 2 quotes in which they thought the ranking was mine. I quoted them, they only responded to one of them (dismissing the other as ‘ohhhhh, did I say that?’), in which I showed how AA was acknowledging the rankings as mine. He did NOT talk about the resources and oppurtunities, he talked about “connections”, and somehow thought that that was </p>

<p>Gourman thinks that Amherst doesn’t allow the oppurtunities and resources that a school like Amherst does. That was his point. He wrote a book, showed criteria, showed how he formulated his point. You disagree? Fine. But don’t tell me that the ranking is bogus when you haven’t made one, you don’t know the guy’s background, you don’t know how the rankings were made, how they were formulated, and you even state that another set of rankings is better than another, and don’t know the differences between the two.</p>