<p>Tier 1 school means you are going to living a happy life. Tier 2 school means you have to live a life serving people went to Tier 1, but do not worry, those who go to Tier 3 and 4 will serve you. That is my definition of capitalism.</p>
<p>I think I just ruined this thread.</p>
<p>redcrimblue: In response to Post #17…First of all, it’s impossible for me or my children to have gone to a “Tier 2” or “Tier 3” school because, as I said, no such thing actually exists. Perhaps you feel the way you do about me because what I espouse may be hitting too close to home for you. Usually those who are caught up in the “college frenzy” don’t like what I say. That’s fine. </p>
<p>If you don’t agree with what I say about the rankings, I invite you to read the best book on the market regarding college rankings. It’s called
“College Unranked: Ending the College Admissions Frenzy” (Harvard University Press), edited by Lloyd Thacker, founder of the Education Conservancy. Chapters of the book were written by the Dean of Admissions at Vanderbilt, the Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid and the Director of Admissions at Harvard, the Vice President and Dean of Admissions at Pomona College, the Dean of Admissions at Grinnell, the Dean of Admissions at Dartmouth, the Dean of Admissions at Reed, the Dean of Admissions of the University of Chicago, the President of Reed College, etc.</p>
<p>Once you read the book (and it’s a quick and easy read) I invite you to share your thoughts on college rankings. It will be interesting to see if you really believe that Tier 1, Tier 2, etc. colleges actually exist. </p>
<p>To get a quick overview of what Lloyd Thacker is doing, please go to this link: <a href=“http://chronicle.com/colloquylive/2004/11/admissions/[/url]”>http://chronicle.com/colloquylive/2004/11/admissions/</a></p>
<p>I appreciate the thoughtful response and am familiar with that point of view. </p>
<p>In general, my experience is that people who don’t like ratings are similar to the tone deaf contestants on “American Idol” who are angry when the judges don’t think they can sing well. </p>
<p>I do, however, agree that rankings can be manipulated. Washington U in St. Louis is a the poster child for that thaumaturgy, but Penn and others also play the game well. </p>
<p>Nonetheless, the rankings at USNWR disclose their criteria. One might disagree with those criteria, or the weight accorded a particular criterion, but overall there is some validity. At least we don’t have to suffer with DePauw calling itself the “Harvard of the West” anymore, for example. Local schools that bluffed their way to a good local reputation (SMU, Emory, Tulane and a host of others) have been exposed for their Oz-like lack of credibility and can now be placed in a national context. </p>
<p>It hurts sometimes, but I would rather have a poor measuring stick fairly applied than the Dactylic dance that existed before, with protean academic stories promulgated by schools all over the nation.</p>
<p>In my view, where USNWR really fouls its nest is by categorizing hundreds of backwater schools as “regional” or “masters” schools, taking them out of any honest measurement and enabling them to foist inflated ratings on an unsophisticated community. One only has to look at the websites of the Berea Colleges and Transylvania Universities of the world to see where the real manipulation and misrepresentation resides.</p>
<p>ohhhh snap…u go old but wise.lol</p>
<p>old but wise, you are wise indeed.</p>
<p>redcrimblue: I could put out a ranking based simply on SAT scores, and (in your words…) there would be SOME validity. Just because there is SOME validity, that doesn’t mean that people should take that information so seriously that they would use it to determine whether a college is “right” for them.</p>
<p>And ferris…Thanks for the compliment…the problem is getting people to actually believe what I say.</p>
<p>redcrimblue: Further response to what you said in Post #24 (your last paragraph)… (1) What criteria does a college have to meet in order to fall into your category of “backwater” college…since you mentioned Berea and Transyvania, apparently being located in Kentucky must be it. Maybe USNWR should put out its top list of “backwater” colleges that students should avoid.</p>
<p>As far as “manipulation” of the ratings is concerned, consider this: Some colleges are currenly spending up to $800,000 on consultants to enhance their image among the public. The result of these “image-enhancing” efforts is that colleges attract more applicants even though virtually nothing about the school itself has changed. The result: More applicants equal a higher rating in USNWR because the school gets to admit a smaller percentage of its applicants.</p>
<p>Instead of spending $800,000 on “image consultants”, Berea spends its money on its students, allowing them to go for free. Too bad it’s just a “backwater” college.</p>
<p>Also, answer this: Let’s pretend for a moment that USNWR college rankings didn’t exist…how would you go about selecting a college?</p>
<p>redcrimblue, you are unbelievable. You can go to a highly ranked school and not believe in rankings. I’m going to a school next year that is theoretically top ten LAC, but I didn’t choose it because of its ranking. In response to AJ you don’t have to go to a highly ranked school to be surrounded by peers that take academics seriously or to be highly challenged by your schoolwork. Also, redcrimblue your derision of “backwater” schools makes me embarassed on your behalf. You clearly have absolutely no grasp on what makes a school a quality academic institution, assuming of course that you have some grasp on reality in general.</p>
<p>redcrimblue:</p>
<p>You must be trained in a science?</p>
<p>Redcrimblue has it right. The US News methods are published. The rankings are useful in that context and only in that context. In that sense, the rankings are much like games theory. The predictions are useful (and accurate) only in the context of the underlying assumptions.</p>
<p>So, the first argument against rankings, “They’re not accurate” is not relevant. They are perfectly accurate (assuming the data are accurate) within the context of the ranking method. Choose any method you want, and that will still hold true.</p>
<p>The second argument is that none of us are smart enough to figure out what the rankings mean … none of us, that is, except for old but wise and ferris, who need to protect us from ourselves.</p>
<p>Tarhunt: In the last sentence of your above post, you indicated that “old but wise is trying to protect us from ourselves.” Quite frankly, that may actually be true.</p>
<p>I have worked with literally thousands of adolescents during my career, and over a 30-year period I saw an ever-increasing number of them who have fallen victim to eating disorders, depression, low self-esteem, anxiety attacks, etc. More and more teens are on medication or in treatment for these conditions today than ever before. And, more and more teens are missing out on the joys of adolescence because of their obsession with getting into the “right” school.</p>
<p>There are a variety of reasons why our teens are falling victim to the conditions mentioned above, but one reason is ever-increasing pressure to be the “best.” For many students that means getting straight A’s, getting high SAT’s, being overscheduled with extracurriculars, doing all the right things to get into “Tier 1” schools, etc. In some cases, the pressure is self-imposed; in other cases it is pressure put on adolescents by their parents. Being “Ivy-Obsessed” and getting caught up in this disease called “College-Frenzy” (part of which is obsession with rankings), is becoming epidemic.</p>
<p>So, yes, I guess it is my mission to “protect people from themselves,” if they are caught up in the “College-Frenzy.” If I prevent even one adolescent from falling victim to eating disorders, depression, low self-esteem, anxiety attacks, etc. I’ll be satisfied.</p>
<p>Well, how can I argue with that, since you and ferris clearly have the highest IQs on these boards, and are the best educated in every subject known to Man? I’m entirely incapable of interpreting data. Thank you for letting me know that. I’ve been fooling myself all these years. What an imposter I am.</p>
<p>Would you mind sending my your e-mail address so that we can have you speak at some faculty get togethers? It would be a great honor, and I’m sure you have more to tell us about our fields than we could possibly know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that is true, then the definition of a tier 1 school fluctuates quite often.</p>
<p>Tarhunt: Post #32. Agreed, you are obviously educated enough to interpret the data, so I’m not concerned about people like you. I am concerned about students and parents not experienced in data interpretation, who use the rankings as their primary means of choosing a college, taking the rankings as “gospel.”</p>
<p>old but wise:</p>
<p>But how can I, or anyone else, possibly compete with your utter brilliance? You’re clearly smarter than anyone else. Thank GOD we have you to protect us from our own moronic analysis.</p>