Again, all of this is pretty meaningless when it comes to the school itself, what it has to offer, and the clear general trend of Northeastern.
How does any of this relate in any way to the school’s quality and offerings of great academics, research opportunities and professional services?
You can dislike how NEU got to where it is, but it does nothing to change the actual quality of the school. As people have said now for the 5th or 6th time, the positive feedback loop has made significant, real improvements to the school.
Over the course of NEU’s rise, it has built many new facilities, offered significantly more financial aid and scholarship, decreased class sizes, hired many more new professors, and better ones, and the school started to get more donations (see the business school). All of this is blatantly stated, even with graphics, in the article. What of all that doesn’t make it a better school?
NU.in didn’t exist until 2007. The international SAT requirement was dropped in 2010. At those points, NEU had already risen over 50 and nearly 100 spots respectively since 1996. Since both of those, it has risen less than 30. So, which part again is false about NEU’s drastic improvement?
IMO, Northeastern “gamed” the rankings mostly by actually becoming a better school. They just focused on areas the rankings cared about while they did. NU.in and the international SAT policy aren’t very unusual these days, as already shown. Why aren’t you on Emory’s case, who literally got caught cheating, while Northeastern is transparent with their policies?