<p>I like being a public school fanboy…</p>
<p>.to be a private school fanboy sounds a little hoighty toity. ;-)</p>
<p>Just to add what I’m sure will ultimately be a meaningless $.02:</p>
<p>While these rankings do rank colleges at the undergraduate level, many of the top public schools offer classes that are taken through graduate programs. So you can’t point to a school and say ‘oh, they are only ranked #xx,’ because if their grad programs are much higher, then that is deceiving.</p>
<p>Case in-point: my entire minor (8+ classes) is run through a graduate school at my university. That program is ranked in the top-7 nationally. In addition, I have taken classes for my major through its graduate program (ranked in the top-10 nationally). Thus, it’s deceptive to say that I am ‘only’ receiving an education ranking in the top 30, because all but one (the intro course) for my minor, and many for my major, are taken with grad students at an incredibly competitive and rigorous level (and, after all, it’s ‘the grad degree that matters’). For the major this is optional, but for the minor it is required.</p>
<p>It’s a point that is often overlooked at top public universities, unfortunately, but in my opinion it’s an option- and a commonly used one, at my college- that really distinguishes larger schools from many others ranked above it.</p>
<p>
Haha, now we have to degrade ourselves with logical fallacies?
Point is you can’t pick and choose which students you are going to include in a dataset.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody HAS to be a … fanboy. It is so much easier to look at schools without bringing in emotional baggage. It helps greatly to look at the data without and a heavy bias and a narrow agenda to push your favorites schools. </p>
<p>Being a supporter does not require turning yourself into a fanboy.</p>
<p>But what happens if I like being “THAT” public school fanboy? :rolleyes:</p>
<p>More importantly, being a fanboy does not necessarily mean being a complainant of USNEWs. Au contraire, I’m also a supporter/fanboy of USNews (and the BCS, for that matter), PA and all. What you may perceive as “complaints” my good friend xiggi, may just be analytical review of the data usage. It is a fact that the BCS just loves the RICH Big 10, even tho they get blown out in the Big Games. It is a fact that the USNews’ quantitative criteria favor the wealthy schools, which also have wealthy student bodies. It is pretty clear that, like the BCS, USNews has to be geocentric (for greater sales), which hinders the rankings of west coast colleges, particularly such top LACs (in small town approximately 40 miles east of Los Angeles).</p>
<p>As you note, xig, just “look” at the data. The correlations are clear.</p>
<p>Apologize for the hastily composed list in my prior post, fraught with grammatical, spelling errors, and false rabbit-hole syntaxes. </p>
<p>Heres a PSA: </p>
<p>Studies have shown that multitasking negatively affects ones performance of completing the tasks at hand, wrt completing them well (see above) as well as timely. The time taken to perform individual tasks actually takes longer when multitasking, (v individually wholly and completely) because of the re-learning and reacquainting of tasks left midstream.</p>
<p>wilmingtonwave: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dont think UCs admit from cc to circumvent any of the US News metrics - is that the word used here? (I take this word as relating to performance. And a lot of US News metrics dont have a lot to do with performance.)</p>
<p>I think UCs admit a good deal from cc as a melding of the public higher-educational system in CA, part of the master plan. UCs admit from so-and-so rank, CSUs from so-and-so rank, and those whove missed the mark grade-wise on the two can attend a cc to be eligible to attend a UC or CSU later on if grades are raised, a second shot as it were. And the students can attend cc if finances are a large concern. It really is a beautiful system.</p>
<p>I believe Cals gpa of xfers from cc and other colleges is ~ 3.70, and UCLAs is catching up even if it admits more xfers, and will probably be ~ 3.63-3.64 this fall.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dont think he/she is trying to hit anyone over the head with his/her argument.</p>
<p>Wrt the word dataset:</p>
<p>Are you saying wrt a universitys applicants? Or wrt how US News chooses the variables to rank these universities?</p>
<p>If youre saying the former, then a university can indeed manipulate who applies. </p>
<p>If Harvard were to drop the SAT requirements I and II, counter to US News, then that would definitely affect who applied there and kids would be dropping the SAT cram courses and tutors quickly. Would the class admitted to Harvard be any less qualified? No way…</p>
<p>Wrt the latter, I think that theres a conscious effort to work the variables by those trying to climb the rankings, and those trying to attain or re-attain the number one spot. US News rankings are just as flawed as all the others. And by weighing SAT so much, that just meant that there would be more false and inflated scores. US News has done more to feed the SAT-prep industry than one can imagine</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Accuracy is a concern, auditing is a concern, but also apples and oranges. Even common datasets as incomplete as they are can have various manipulations.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Good stuff, b-dad. But the facts are that 50-65% of students at the top privates are full pay, i.e., top ~5% income earners in the US.</h2>
<p>USC gives need-based aid to 60% of its students and many others receive merit aid that would eclipse need.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand your point. I am not arguing against it on moral grounds or whatever. Personally, I think community colleges are great, but that has nothing to do with my point. It is a fact that the UC’s do not count community college transfers towards their SATs, class rank, etc. </p>
<p>And no one is disputing that statistics can be manipulated. Your arguments explained the obvious and made no real points. </p>
<p>Also, I think some people overvalue how schools view the rankings. Most college administrators realize that they are yes metric with value, but also a for-profit publication.</p>
<h2>
Yes, but in general Pell Grants are pretty evenly distributed (there are some outliers obviously). Many times privates have the financial resources to close the gap that public schools can’t. Case in point, my public school would have cost more than the private school i graduted from and might I add without any merit aid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what it has to do with morality or whatever, even if the purpose was to circumvent.</p>
<p>I’m not sure how the UCs can include SAT’s, class rank, in something that would be incoming frosh characteristics. Generally, the person attending UC from community college is a whole different person, more mature more advanced academically.</p>
<p>How would you report this segment?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not doing this for your edification, yourself being here since 2004 with > 1,000 posts, but for those who might not be keen on seeing the data manipulation and who are more new here.</p>
<p>You’ve been here so long, you’d be like a film critic. And I’m not stating this as an insult to you; roll with my comparison if you would. But a film critic has seen so many films, seen so many recycled stories, he/she often reviews negatively, mainly because he/she has become jaded, though for someone who hasnt seen as many movies, he/she might the movie fresh and entertaining. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Im not real concerned really, and certainly not how schools view the rankings, but more how prospective students might view them. If a prospective student compares university x versus university y, its most likely comparing apples and oranges wrt private v public.</p>
<p>No school counts transfers of any sort in their freshmen admissions data. For one, they are not freshmen. Without any data showing that transfers perform worse at the UC than freshmen admits, the point is not really important.</p>
<p>Bandten:</p>
<p>good point about 'SC. They are one of the rare privates schools that has a sizeable number of Pell Grantees (~25%). (But the real number of those receiving need-based aid is a question mark since 'SC refuses to publish its Common Data Set. How many recruited athletes have “need”, for example?)</p>
<p>Contrast that with Colgate, for example, which is ~65% full pay, or many Ivies which were/are ~50% full pay. And, yes, H is no longer that high because they have decided that ~$175k in income is “needy” and worthy of a tuition discount. (Prior to their change in finaid policy, approx half of their students were full pay.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have seen studies that have shown that such students perform on par with the other students, but that is besides the point. The point is that this demographic makes up a much larger chunk of students at public schools and it is unaccounted for. </p>
<p>I am using the UC schools as an example, albeit probably one of the more extreme examples, of schools with a larger portion of community college transfers. </p>
<p>All the students at schools should be accounted for. For example, most SAT-optional schools require that their SAT’s are sent in before their freshman year. These SAT’s, although not used, are reported for publications such as this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This was just based on your inference that schools manipulate data (which in some cases is true: Clemson and Florida State for PA). However, yes it is for the high school students, which is what I have always advocated. The rankings should reflect undergraduate experience and preparation–not be a gauge of how many nobel prize winners we have working here or how much government funding our grad schools get.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BB, I am afraid we are talking about different things. When I speak about fanboys, I think about the brainless cheerleading and clueless pompom waving. I am talking about the people who spend their time peppering the board with silly nonsense or transforming about every discussion in the same trite attempts to boost their favorite school and bash anyone who might date to have a different opinion. That is my definition of fanboys and I believe that the posters who display that attitude are easy to pick out of the crowd. </p>
<p>Fwiw, i also expect people to stand by their opinions. And, as someone said well before my time, everyone is entitled to an opinion … but not to his or her own sets of facts. When does the interpratetion of facts become an opinion is what makes debates lively. </p>
<p>Regarding the debate about PA, I believe that it COULD be an important element if it were cleaned up, expanded, and made ENTIRELY public. Simply stated, I want to ferret out the SOB who are either playing games or show a total lack of ignorance or integrity. I also want to know what the heck the PA stands for instead of this unclear FFA that permits anyone to answer whimsically. </p>
<p>In the end, it’s pretty simple: people who support it in the present form do it because it does HELP their own school and see the PA as the vindication of their position that their school is “screwed.” For this reason, they will forever remain oblivious to the countless criticisms and admissions of manipulation by school officials. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I pick up the clue here! However, my position on the PA versus the “objective data” is not directly related to the OUTCOME of the USNews for my “favorite schools.” Fwiw, the same applies to the Forbes rankings … the fact that the results for the “west coast colleges” in the best of lights, I still consider the methology to be a huge sack of horse manure. Schools should DESERVE their ranking based on a credible methodology. The Forbes and the other garbage rankings do NOT do that. The PA used by USNews is mostly a tool to be used … just as Bob Morse admits. </p>
<p>Oh well, is there anything to say that we have not said many times in the past? I think we all know where we stand.</p>
<p>Instead of the PA you could just substitute the ARWU rankings for universities. LACs would be on their own. I think it would track decently with PA scores but might make you happier. No matter HOW they get the PA scores the ordinal ranking it gives is pretty decent if the goal is measuring the academic/faculty horsepower of the school.</p>
<p>Xiggi is just too awesome. Why is he so cool? No one can debate him down… :D</p>
<p>And ARWU is almost as ridiculous as Forbes. Just plain ridiculous.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that is a wonderful idea. </p>
<p>/sarcasm</p>
<p>Northwestern and University of Southern California being in the top 25 will no doubt inspire other “directionals” to try even harder. Right now they’re probably brainstorming at Southwest Missouri and Middle Tennessee.</p>
<p>Xiggi-yes, there is no satisfying you that there are non elite schools that might just be as good in many areas as the so-called elite schools. Your bias is showing. Facts be damned. Where do you think many of the faculty now at elite schools made their reputations? Does a Guggenheim or NSF Early Career Award not mean as much at Stanford as Wisconsin?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, quit the BS, will you!</p>
<p>What bias, my dear friend Barrons? Please do tell! And also, please do tell how and when I did belittle the University of Wisconsin academic value? And when did I ever write that an award is better at Stanford than in Madison, or something along those lines? </p>
<p>** Is it because I believe that the official of Wisconsin who fiddled with the PA is dishonest and a disgrace to the school? I plead guilty.</p>
<p>** It is because I do not drop into a deep genuflexion to honor the recent greatness of the Big 10? Oh yes, I plead guilty.</p>
<p>** Is it because I think that the current PA is a poor execution of a good idea? I plead guilty.</p>
<p>Fwiw, this is not very different from an allegation made by Alexandre about my “continuing” attacks of Michigan. My response was to ask him to go find the posts I had written that were supposedly offensive. Verdict: he could not find any!</p>
<p>Fwiw, all I remember ever discussing Wisconsin with you is when we made a bet about the direction of the admit rate and the yield. A bet I ended up winning but refrained to make a fuzz about it. </p>
<p>Rather than making up stories about my bias, why do not ask me about what I think. Fwiw, there are plenty of LARGE PUBLIC schools I really, really like and several I find amazing. Amazing enough that I would have been happy --no been thrilled-- to attend. If you REALLY knew anything about me, you’d know how silly your allegations of elitism are. If it were not for hearsay, you would not have a clue about the schools I attended. On the other hand, you would find plenty of positive comments about a number of public and research universities. Strange how reality does not match perceptions, isn’it! </p>
<p>Where we do seem to deviate quite a bit is that I believe that students should make their choice based on what is the best for them, and not worry about where the schools ranks and how others view their school. And, fwiw, I find the need to constantly trying to elevate one school over others extremely annoying and … childish. </p>
<p>And, as last note, my friend Barrons, someone who steadfastly refuse to consider that schools which do not rely on TAs and large research departments can provide a superior education should not accuse others of being … biased.</p>
<p>Nice rant that has nearly nothing to do with the matter at hand. Which, to refresh your memory, was a substitute for the hated (by some) PA.<br>
I carved out LACs so there goes that portion. Now we are deaing with roughly comparable places most of which use TAs in large classes and most of which have large classes for some intro level classes. </p>
<p>I do believe I noted your winning the bet not that it was that monumental and was meant in good fun–something for which you seem sadly to be lacking a feeling.</p>
<p>So, what is your thinking as to a good way to measure the contribution of having an excellent faculty with strengths in many areas to the overall academic enterprise? </p>
<p>And please show me where I ever said LACs can’t provide a good education. I just don’t grant the superior tag if you mean it as in superior to all other forms/sizes. </p>
<p>Funny thing is it has been done many times by some pretty smart people and they keep getting pretty much the same answers. </p>
<p>The fact that you remain somewhat secretive about your colleges is hardly honorable. At least people know where I am coming from and that is fine. I think some places like Wisconsin are not given due consideration because many are not that familiar with it and it’s accomplishments over many decades. Being in a small cold out of the way state and having an inclination to avoid tooting it’s own horn have not helped. Who/what gave you the right to decide how this forum is to be used? Mostly you just criticize others which does not really move the discussion forward and I find annoying and …childish.</p>