[HN Gopher] U.S. News pulls Columbia University from its 2022 ra... ___________________________________________________________________ U.S. News pulls Columbia University from its 2022 rankings Author : selimthegrim Score : 228 points Date : 2022-07-09 12:12 UTC (2 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.forbes.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.forbes.com) | crikeyjoe wrote: | sam-2727 wrote: | The beginning of the conclusion of the original study [1] is | worth repeating: | | No one should try to reform or rehabilitate the ranking. It is | irredeemable. In Colin Diver's memorable formulation, "Trying to | rank institutions of higher education is a little like trying to | rank religions or philosophies. The entire enterprise is flawed, | not only in detail but also in conception." | | Students are poorly served by rankings. To be sure, they need | information when applying to colleges, but rankings provide the | wrong information. As many critics have observed, every student | has distinctive needs, and what universities offer is far too | complex to be projected to a single parameter. These observations | may partly reflect the view that the goal of education should be | self-discovery and self-fashioning as much as vocational | training. Even those who dismiss this view as airy and | impractical, however, must acknowledge that any ranking is a | composite of factors, not all of which pertain to everyone. A | prospective engineering student who chooses the 46th-ranked | school over the 47th, for example, would be making a mistake if | the advantage of the 46th school is its smaller average class | sizes. For small average class sizes are typically the result of | offering more upper-level courses in the arts and humanities, | which our engineering student likely will not take at all. | | [1]: | http://www.math.columbia.edu/~thaddeus/ranking/investigation... | (section 8) | cuteboy19 wrote: | This is just the wrong way to look at it. Clearly, there is | real demand for rankings by students. No one is stupid enough | to think that there is some real difference between #47 and | #48. But obviously #47 is very different from #26. | | Just because you can't get an exact measurement does not mean | that a metric does not exist or is not useful. | lazyjeff wrote: | I've been looking at the bias in rankings for a little while. I | think one way to identify and raise awareness of the biases, is | just put rankings together side-by-side. I did this for | computer science programs, and there's some interesting | differences that I noticed: | | https://jeffhuang.com/computer-science-open-data/#bias-in-co... | function_seven wrote: | In the same way that one restaurant flouted Yelp ratings[1], | couldn't all the Ivy League schools just refuse to participate in | US News' annual rankings? What would happen if Harvard, Yale, | Princeton, Columbia, et. al. decided that this ranking is not | helpful, so they won't supply any info? | | Readers of US News would more likely start to lose trust in the | rankings rather than move their assessments of the Ivies | downward, right? | | [1] https://arstechnica.com/information- | technology/2014/09/why-t... | ketzo wrote: | But it's a prisoner's dilemma situation, right? | | If _none of_ the Ivy's are on US News, well, it's probably a | shitty ranking. | | But if e.g. _just Penn_ falls off the list... most people are | just gonna assume that Penn got worse. | lbarrow wrote: | These rankings consistently tell people that Harvard, Yale, | Princeton, etc are the best schools in the country. Why would | they boycott rankings that praise them? | genericone wrote: | Because it puts other 'less desirable' non-elite schools in | the same lists for top twenty/thirty/forty, etc. | CobrastanJorji wrote: | The Ivies rank 1, (UNLISTED), 2, 5, 8, 13, 14, and 17. All | of the "less desirable, non-elite schools" are listed BELOW | these schools, which keeps them looking good. | kupopuffs wrote: | Is that even really a negative? | bee_rider wrote: | Yeah they should stick all the ivies, MIT, etc... in a top | "non-rankable" rank. Like realistically a student will be happy | to go to whichever one they get into, and if someone gets into | multiple, they probably won't pick based on position in some | list. | ketzo wrote: | > if someone gets into multiple, they probably won't pick | based on position in some list | | Not trying to be contrarian, but I had two friends literally | pick between Ivies based on this very list (in 2015). | | It's generally accepted as "The List" by a lot of people. If | you're a parent with no other frame of reference, The List | has a serious impact. | buzzy_hacker wrote: | I'll chime in with contrary anecdotal experience having | gone to a high school with lots of selective college | placements. I didn't know anyone who chose between two | elite schools based on their relative US News ranking. | colinmhayes wrote: | I find this hard to believe. Obviously everyone had more | important considerations, but I know a few people that | got full rides to a few top schools and absolutely chose | based off rankings. | whimsicalism wrote: | These rankings absolutely influence people's decisions. | fleetwoodsnack wrote: | Mine neither. Maybe it's because they're the prep school | set, but what turned out to be the tie breaker for my | multi-Ivy admit friends was the campus visit. I remember | one who was adamant about getting in shape in college and | chose the one where the freshman dorms were closest to | the campus recreation building. | | If you're of a certain background, it's really your mom | or dad's alma mater, and then one of a few "perfectly | acceptable, fine schools." | | I think the difference between say #4 and #12 in a given | year exists in the minds of middle class strivers. I went | to a public university and a private one for | undergraduate and graduate school, and at the top levels | it really comes down to the professors on an individual | level and perhaps the department, more than the | institution itself. | bee_rider wrote: | Well, that's more direct experience than I have, at least. | | In any case, I bet Columbia will keep getting more really | high quality applicants than they have seats. | wil421 wrote: | What happens if your pick drops in ranking by the time you | graduate? | perpetualpatzer wrote: | Not much. Most peers and hiring managers stopped paying | attention to these ratings when _they_ got into college, | so the market 's perception of your degree is some | blended average of the programs' ratings over the past | ~40 years. By the time rankings after you matriculated | represent a meaningful portion of the average, your alma | mater is no longer a particularly relevant part of your | resume. | oneplane wrote: | Wouldn't it make more sense to just make sure that all | universities just pass the same requirements to be a university, | and beyond that not add some ranking or other entertainment | nonsense in the mix? | | This whole entertainifying business really isn't good for anyone, | except perhaps for people making money off of numbers, which is | still not good for most. | twblalock wrote: | The US News rankings were already a bit of a mess, but leaving | out one of the Ivy Leagues is only going to be bad for US News. | | An Ivy League school does not need help from the rankings -- but | rankings that leave out one of the most prestigious and well- | known universities in the country are useless. | prepend wrote: | > An Ivy League school does not need help from the rankings | | I tend to agree, but why then did Columbia fudge the numbers? | | I think there's some envy from the "lesser ivys" that they wish | they were Harvard or Princeton. A high USNews ranking proves | little, but I guess Columbia wanted to be tied with Harvard. | rr888 wrote: | Ivy league is kinda obsolete now, esp with places like | Stanford, Duke, John Hopkins better known than Dartmouth, | Brown, Cornell. | genericone wrote: | Columbia incentivized administration MBAs to increase the | rankings, perhaps attached to bonuses. They did it | unscrupulously by fudging the numbers and so Columbia will | hopefully will dis-incentivize the behavior in the future, | and so perhaps will other schools... doubt it. | bee_rider wrote: | I wonder how much these measurements actually matter, for a place | like Columbia. I mean, I can see why, like, people might want to | look at the list and see "hey this school I've never heard of is | actually OK." | | But like, people don't find out about Columbia from this list, | right? It is, uh, older than the country "U.S. News" is named | after and an Ivy League school. Not having them on the list just | reflects poorly on the list. | rel2thr wrote: | Not really , Knowing about Columbia is kind of a new york, | upper class thing | | They don't have good sports teams, no way a person in middle | america would have heard of them if not for school rankings | ladberg wrote: | I absolutely know people who have had the choice of multiple | top-tier schools and chose the one that ranked higher on U.S. | News, so it definitely matters. | zactato wrote: | Why? | | MIT vs Harvard vs Stanford are all amazing programs but are | better for different types of people/interests/goals | willhinsa wrote: | On the other hand, Coca-Cola spends 4 billion of dollars every | year on advertising. | toast0 wrote: | In 2010, Pepsi switched at least their superb owl advertising | budget to feel good community projects and lost sales at 6% | vs a 4.3% overall decline for soda. Advertising drives sales, | even if you can't tie a sale directly to an ad. | bee_rider wrote: | I dunno, Pepsi always seemed more faddish anyway, I'm not | surprised their marketshare would be less durable. | bee_rider wrote: | Yeah. | | I dunno, nothing about advertising makes sense to me, so I | guess I have trouble evaluating this kind of thing. | | Common sense would tell you that you don't give 4 billion | dollars to the guy who says "I'm really good at convincing | people to part with their money -- whether they should or | not!" But then I don't run Coca Cola, so I guess they've | figured out something I've missed. | peanuty1 wrote: | I imagine there is value in being in the same company of more | prestigious schools like Harvard and Princeton. | throwawayzXwEt wrote: | These rankings are rampant with manipulation. For instance, I | heard of classes at Hopkins being taught half in-class, half pre- | recorded, so that they could say the "classroom" size was half | its actual enrollment. It's especially frustrating when this kind | of manipulation actually hurts students' education. | endisneigh wrote: | Unless a school is willing to accept a entirely random set of | students all schools success or lack there of can be chalked up | to selection and survivor bias. | | I'd have to find it but someone did an analysis of folks who got | into elite schools and didn't go for whatever reason and saw that | by mid career they had more or less the same outcomes. | | Thiel Fellows entire premise is around this effect, as well. | labster wrote: | One down, 99 to go. These university rankings are absurd, and | just a status game that school administrators feel they are | forced to play. Individual programs may be outstanding at | otherwise middling colleges -- it's better to learn about | specific departments than try to reduce the school as a whole to | a number. | kupopuffs wrote: | Aren't there rankings for specific schools in schools? like | Engineering, etc... | labster wrote: | Sure, but excellence in computer engineering does not imply | excellence in chemical engineering does not imply excellence | in civil engineering. | sandstrom wrote: | But someone looking for a good chemical engineering school | won't look in the computer science ranking table, no? | unosama wrote: | Universities are a status game in general. Reputation and | networking opportunities matter more than education quality. | culi wrote: | One of the heaviest part of their grading is just the opinions | of academics. They just send a survey out and ask academics to | rank universities. Of course they end up reproducing and | reinforcing the existing rankings as always. | aiisjustanif wrote: | This has been brought up multiple time now over that last decade. | At least this is one step in the right direction. | | Adam Ruins Everything, Season 2, Episode 7 [1] 1: | https://youtu.be/EtQyO93DO-Q | willcipriano wrote: | If colleges manipulate rankings like this en mass I think we have | a solution to the student debt issue. | | A FTC review of college advertising would be interesting, if they | are selling you a degree with basically no career prospects while | proudly displaying these gamed rankings, that sounds like fraud | and misrepresentation. Perhaps the students can get a refund? | foolfoolz wrote: | a huge shift over the last 10 year and most visible in technical | roles is the elimination of college rankings. i used to work at a | company that had a ceo mandate "all resumes must come from top 20 | schools". saying something like that now as an engineering | manager would raise questions and probably make you look dumb. | there's many reasons for this but the biggest is it's impossible | to do this with a global workforce. this is great for high school | students, one less area of pressure | dang wrote: | Related: | | _An Investigation of the Facts Behind Columbia 's U.S. News | Ranking_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30603287 - March | 2022 (46 comments) | somethoughts wrote: | Somewhat related - How Northeastern Gamed the College Rankings | | https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2014/08/26/how-northeast... | | There are probably some significant parallels to any executive | who manages to game the compensation structure at any large | corporation to their financial benefit. | lofatdairy wrote: | If I'm not mistaken the news that Columbia "won't participate" in | the rankings came a bit sooner[^1], but if anything that struck | me as a "you can't fire me, I quit" sort of preempting of what | was inevitable. | | Honestly though, college rankings are toxic, as is this whole | prestige economy we've built around them. I don't even really | care about colleges faking numbers, so much as other shady | practices like sending students false promises to get their hopes | up - pretty much for the express purpose of rejecting them down | the line. As any unfortunate student who has either had to apply | to college, or been the parent of someone applying, you can't | avoid the "chance me" threads or the endless HYPSM dick measuring | contest while trying to get legitimate information. | | [^1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/30/us/columbia-us-news- | ranki... | NelsonMinar wrote: | I'm proud of my alma mater, Reed College, for refusing to | participate in the US News rankings since 1995. | kens wrote: | There's a very interesting article "How to Game the College | Rankings" about how Northeastern University's president focused | on improving the university's ranking. In 1996, it was a "third- | tier, blue-collar, commuter-based university" rated #162. The new | university president had a singleminded goal: to improve the | ranking. He got the university into the top 100 in 2006 and into | the top 50 by 2013. | | https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2014/08/26/how-northeast... | pcurve wrote: | #49 now. I guess it's harder to game the system past certain | threshold | saalweachter wrote: | Now the interesting question: did | Northwestern^H^H^H^H^H^H^Heastern get _meaningfully better_ for | _students_ between 1996 and 2013? | | Did they graduate in higher numbers? Did they have better | career outcomes? Did more get into better(?) grad schools? What | is their median income? Are they happier, did they enjoy | college more? | myko wrote: | Northeastern. | | Northwestern was already relatively prestigious. | dannykwells wrote: | Northwestern also - by the way. The president's goal when | he joined was to break into the top 10. | zerocrates wrote: | Just a note that this is Northeastern (in Boston) not | Northwestern (in Illinois). Northwestern was and is typically | a very high ranker. | | As for what the improvements are like... hard to say. Some | ways to improve the rankings like getting more students you | don't want to come to apply (so you can appear more | selective) don't actually help at all, while things like | small classes even if done to "game" the rankings could | actually help. | | There's also just the cyclical aspect of things: the quality | of your experience is going to be significantly determined by | the quality of the student body, so if you have a better | applicant pool because of your better rankings you maybe have | a bit of a virtuous cycle that's somewhat disconnected from | whether the things you changed actually improved anything | _real_ on their own other than the ranking. | pyuser583 wrote: | What about North Central? | kaesar14 wrote: | Was it that hard to read and get my alma mater right? ;) | | In my opinion as a student who entered Northeastern in the | mid 2010's the answer to all your questions is an unequivocal | yes. More competitive student body, better profile to attract | employers, more student amenities to enhance on campus life | (we could have more in this regard imho). Compared to the | commuter school of yesteryear it's for sure a much better | educational experience. | throwaway2037 wrote: | "better profile to attract employers" -- this is very | important in the United States. If you are good student | from a below average university, your job prospects are | /much/ worse! | ameliaquining wrote: | Almost certainly yes, because the school could presumably | attract a higher-quality applicant pool in 2013 than in 1996. | This, of course, makes it impossible to tell how much of that | value was produced by the university and how much was just | selection effects. | throwaway2037 wrote: | From first hand experience, I can say that quality of | selection makes a big difference in your university | experience. My first university was /modestly/ selective. | My second university was not-at-all selective. (I was a | terrible university student.) The difference in class | discussion and group projects cannot be understated. | Students from the higher quality selection university were | much more intellectually engaging. | pyuser583 wrote: | Most colleges have the ability to graduate close 100% of | their students. | | If a school only admits students who have at least two years | at another college with high grades, their graduation numbers | will skyrocket. | | A highly selective college, like Harvard, could even refuse | to grant credit for those two years. | | There are less nefarious ways of selecting a class of likely | graduators: leadership in extracurriculars is highly | correlated with post-secondary graduation. | | Foreign students with limited English fluency have very low | graduation rates. They could (should?) be excluded. | [deleted] | dataphyte wrote: | US colleges foresee a future where they are under attack for | being absurdly selective, what some are now calling being "highly | rejective". I think they want to avoid being targeted by the | fairness wonks anymore than they already are. | | Also, US News and World Report rankings have major problems, for | instance, the ranking algorithm considers campus aesthetics and | food quality, but doesn't account for price, giving schools | incentive to raise prices to fund campus improvements that boost | rank, in turn boosting applications, in turn reducing % | acceptance (the principal indicator of "quality" in US schools). | This was how TCU went from a meh christian school to a "selective | private college" in just a couple of years. World Report now | publishes a "best dollar value" report to account for this, but | few read it. | jseliger wrote: | The gap between the schools' rhetoric and reality is pretty | funny; I was just writing about it the other day: | https://seliger.com/2022/07/06/nonprofit-boards-of- | directors...: | | _You can see a lot of hypocrisy that's uncritically accepted | by a lot of organizations, including nonprofits. Exclusionary | higher education is a particular notable example, given the | soaring rhetoric of "inclusion" spouted by some people involved | with higher ed, versus the reality of those same schools | seeking to reject as many applicants as possible. Princeton | University's president, Chris Eisgruber, has, for example, | blathered extensively about the school's efforts to "combat | systemic racism." Princeton has a $37 billion endowment. The | school's undergrad acceptance rate is 5.6% and it charges a | sticker price of $73,000 a year (yes, the school does accept a | handful of token low-income students every year, but that the | school's overall demographics reflect its target: the wealthy). | Does that sound like a school devoted to combating systemic | racism to you? How can people make these kinds of arguments | with a straight face? Colleges and universities are run largely | for the benefit of their administrators. The other exclusionary | schools are doing the same things, as are their private-school | feeders, despite their vigorous marketing to the contrary._ | | _Regarding the above paragraph, let me be clear: describing | how something is, is not the same thing as approving of it._ | rayiner wrote: | It's truly mind-boggling. The Ivies were always bastions for | maintaining the position of WASP elites. They still serve | that function. Maybe there is a bit more wiggle room about | skin color, but they still function to socialize the next | generation of people to run WASP institutions like "JP Morgan | Chase." | selimthegrim wrote: | I guess I must have hallucinated reading all those Stewart | Alsop articles about the decline of the WASP Elite then. | pyuser583 wrote: | A big problem: admitting too many students actually decrease | the number who apply. | peanuty1 wrote: | > the ranking algorithm considers campus aesthetics and food | quality. | | wtf | duk wrote: | "the fairness wonks" | deepzn wrote: | A reminder that the growth and cost of College administration is | one of the primary causes of the massive increase in College | tuition across the U.S. | onemoresoop wrote: | https://www.theblueandwhite.org/post/michael-thaddeus | burlesona wrote: | Per the article this came in response to questions raised by a | Columbia faculty member critiquing the university's data. I | thought that report[1] was actually more interesting than the | original article. | | As per the quote at the top of the report: | | > Rankings create powerful incentives to manipulate data and | distort institutional behavior for the sole or primary purpose of | inflating one's score... | | It would be shocking to me if Columbia was the only institution | that fudged its numbers a bit in pursuit of a higher US News | ranking. Given how important that ranking has become in US | culture, I wonder if it's time for the methodology to change to | require audited/auditable metrics rather than continuing to allow | self-reporting. | | 1: | http://www.math.columbia.edu/~thaddeus/ranking/investigation... | aiisjustanif wrote: | Adam Ruins Everything, Season 2, Episode 7 [1] | | 1: https://youtu.be/EtQyO93DO-Q | twobitshifter wrote: | It's like doping in cycling. Everyone was getting caught but | we're supposed to believe the couple who snuck through weren't | like the rest. Once the tests got good enough there was hardly | any one left standing. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Tour_de_France | nus07 wrote: | I have a friend who works at Duke University's marketing | analytics and performance metrics team. It's filled with MBAs | who's job is to massage the numbers and metrics that are asked | by US News every year and provide them to US News. | noipv4 wrote: | username checks out ;) you guya have a collab prog with duke | humanistbot wrote: | See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law | colinmhayes wrote: | I took an Econ class with northwestern's president and he said | that they straight up lie about their middle 50 gpa and | standardized test scores. Can't say I was super surprised. | Every top 25 school is saying 25% of their students got a 35 or | better on the ACT, the numbers just didn't add up. | whimsicalism wrote: | Maybe it is because they "super score" (ie. take the best of | each section if they take it multiple times). | rayiner wrote: | Morty? He was getting pretty chatty nearing retirement. | colinmhayes wrote: | Yea the class was basically him gossiping | gofreddygo wrote: | Funny how this reminded me of a PG essay[1] | The most damaging thing you learned in school wasn't something | you learned in any specific class. It was learning to get good | grades. | | [1]:http://paulgraham.com/lesson.html | [deleted] | hardtke wrote: | My kid just went through college selection process and I can | assure you that the US News rankings are largely irrelevant in | terms of decision making. The revealed preference score[1] or | global university rankings[2] are much closer to how students, | their counselors, and their parents rank the universities. For | instance, any ranking that does not have Stanford first among | non specialized US universities (i.e. excluding MIT, Caltech, | Julliard, etc.) is suspect. | | [1] https://www.parchment.com/c/college/college- | rankings.php?pag... [2] | https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-un... | brianbreslin wrote: | I work at a university, and honestly have never heard of this | ranking that you referenced in [1]. Also seems super weighted | towards military academies. What's their model? Are kids in | the states now looking at more global options ? | nemothekid wrote: | > _What 's their model? Are kids in the states now looking | at more global options ?_ | | According to their methodology[1] page, it looks like for | student who gets multiple offers they do an Elo style | ranking. The first problem; and which probably explains the | weight to military academies, is that students tend to self | select into tiers of colleges, so a group of students who | are interested in the Air Force might not even apply to | Harvard (even though the USAFA is a competitive school) and | upon admission opt to go there (after all if you even were | even considering of joining the air force, why would you | reject your one shot there to go any other school)? | | [1] https://www.parchment.com/c/college/college- | rankings.php | pyuser583 wrote: | So this would favor specialized schools in general? | hardtke wrote: | The revealed preference rankings use co-admittance data | (student got into Harvard and Stanford) along with that | student's final choice (went to Stanford) to rank the | schools. The military academies will have a huge edge | because their decisions come out later and most students | are highly committed once they continue their application | to that point (they've gotten congressional | recommendations, passed physical exams, etc.). So basically | throw those out. | marincounty wrote: | rayiner wrote: | > For instance, any ranking that does not have Stanford first | among non specialized US universities (i.e. excluding MIT, | Caltech, Julliard, etc.) is suspect. | | LOL wut? Stanford is modestly well known, but obviously | Harvard is the one that is unambiguously first. | gnicholas wrote: | I'd give Stanford a bit more credit than this, but people I | know who were admitted to both all went to Harvard. | Stanford is surely the most prestigious general-purpose | university west of, well, Harvard. | corrral wrote: | > Stanford is surely the most prestigious general-purpose | university west of, well, Harvard. | | Is that no longer Yale? From the perspective of someone | who had a rather poor exposure to universities during my | high school years--so, precisely what someone gets from | pop-culture and osmosis without anyone in particular | acting as a guide--my impression was that Harvard and | Yale were unambiguously the Big Two, and everything else | fell somewhere after them in terms of recognition and | prestige. | | Is this a CS perspective? I hear a lot about Stanford's | CS program so I assume it's notably good. | whimsicalism wrote: | I think Stanford is viewed as having eclipsed Yale and is | competitive with Harvard. Princeton probably also | eclipses Yale. | gnicholas wrote: | Fair point. I would guess there would be some people who | would choose Yale over Stanford, and vice-versa. It | probably depends mostly on which coast you want to be on, | and if you prefer a very old institution or one that is | much younger. | hardtke wrote: | I've seen a few places that Stanford and Harvard are | close to 50/50 on cross admits now, and that Stanford has | even passed Harvard a few times (which no school has ever | done). Likely a lot to do with press around Stanford | students becoming rich Silicon Valley founders. My | original point is that there has been a lot of changes in | how students perceive schools that may not get reflected | in the US News ratings. | corrral wrote: | Interesting! My impressions were formed some time ago, so | I'm not surprised they're out of date. Thanks. | t_mann wrote: | I think it's easy to underestimate the impact of rankings. | Just from your description, it seems that one of the most | important overall decision factors for you seems to have been | some sort of vague personal sense of how you'd rank them. | That subjective ranking is probably influenced by a lot of | factors, including many rankings that you consciously claim | to disregard. | hardtke wrote: | My personal opinion is that students are highly influenced | by where the best students in the grades above them chose | to apply, where they got in, and where they eventually | chose to go. The software the students use also ranks how | likely they are to get into each college/university based | on the past performance of students at their high school | with similar grades and test scores. | gnicholas wrote: | I find revealed preference to be very useful in many | situations, but a ranking that has Harvard just below | Swarthmore, at #61, does not pass the smell test. I say this | as a graduate of Swarthmore -- I cannot take seriously a list | with Harvard so far down. | pyuser583 wrote: | It's really weird Cambridge is ahead of Oxford in world | rankings. | | Cambridge has a reputation for strongly preferring UK | students. | mtlmtlmtlmtl wrote: | This is a good example of Campbell's Law at work: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law | ethbr0 wrote: | An obvious takeaway in this case: US News shouldn't be the | primary ranker. | | If statistics were distributed in open format, transparently, | and there were multiple rankers (each with their own weights | and mixes), universities would be less incentivized to game | "the US News metrics". | t_mann wrote: | That seems naive to assume. We already live in a world | where there are multiple rankings, and many of them (even | some of the most important ones, like QS or Shanghai) rely | only on independently collected or public data. | | We already have what you suggested as a solution, and look | at where we are. The problem is more fundamental. | humanistbot wrote: | It already exists and is a free US Dept of Education | service. Schools have to report that data to the Dept of Ed | already, so they have both an interactive search tool [1] | and the raw data available [2]. | | [1] https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/search/?page=0&sort=thr | eshol... | | [2] https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/data | t_mann wrote: | Thanks for sharing. Sounds very similar to Goodhart's law: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law | hackyhacky wrote: | Your suspicion is correct. | | I've taught at several US universities, and it's an open secret | that the administrative takes steps to manipulate numbers in | order to secure better rankings. | | Typical example: a small, prestigious liberal arts college | always has smaller class sizes in the fall semester than in the | spring semester. Why? Because classes with less than 30 | students are ranked higher by US News, but they only take into | consideration the fall semester. No one cares about class sizes | in the spring. | pishpash wrote: | What's that adage? Every metric that becomes an optimization | target ... | CogitoCogito wrote: | > Because classes with less than 30 students are ranked | higher by US News, but they only take into consideration the | fall semester. No one cares about class sizes in the spring. | | What a bizarre and totally unnecessary restriction. | unosama wrote: | You add a simple and reasonable (until it gets abused) | assumption to your model which allows a lesser data | collection burden on thousands of universities. I wouldn't | call it a restriction. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > which allows a lesser data collection burden on | thousands of universities. | | How's it supposed to do that? Universities all already | collect the data on enrollment for every class they | offer. | genewitch wrote: | Parents helping/guiding their near-adult children in the | final spring of highschool to apply at or choose | universities, where they would start university that same | fall seem to be the target audience, here. Fall is when | "most" incoming freshmen will start. | [deleted] | bogota wrote: | Great to know many peoples graduations were delayed so | someone could game some numbers | abakker wrote: | Gotta pay for another semester then, right? | zerocrates wrote: | I think they mean the size of individual classes, so | they're paying for more sections/instructors/instruction | time in the ranking-relevant periods. | | Though shrinking the admit size is another well worn | tactic, as it's the easiest way to increase how "selective" | you are which is another major ranking element, plus it | helps you more cheaply achieve smaller average class sizes, | though of course you're forgoing some revenue to get there. | btilly wrote: | Encouraging people to apply is also a common tactic. You | can't reject them if they don't apply! | javajosh wrote: | Applications are also a revenue source. | dhosek wrote: | Apparently there's a common application thing now where | you can apply to large numbers of schools for undergrad | without spending large amounts of money. | thaumasiotes wrote: | The common application just means you don't have to fill | out unique admission forms for every school. You still | pay an application fee to every school. | thaumasiotes wrote: | > You can't reject them if they don't apply! | | You can if you admit on objective metrics. If you only | take people who are 215 pounds or above, you can fairly | claim to reject everyone lighter than that, regardless of | whether they apply. | tenpies wrote: | What are they going to do? Transfer out and have only half | their credits recognized therefore pushing them back 4 | semesters instead of the 1? | | It's a fantastically anti-consumer market they've managed | to create. | nostromo wrote: | Gaming and manipulation should absolutely be addressed, but | it seems Columbia was just straight up lying about their | numbers, not gaming them. | greymalik wrote: | Goodhardt's law in action. | eduction wrote: | I attended a well known and regarded public university. I was | admitted for spring, and for fall entered a program where I | could live in a regular university dorm and take classes for | full credit taught at the same university's extension, but | special extension classes just for this program (so all | spring admit students). Then you stay in the dorm in spring | as you become a "regular" student. | | I always suspected it was a way to fudge numbers, but at the | same time I knew I was genuinely on the bubble of being | admitted so I took the opportunity gladly. (My memory is that | the other spring admits were, like me, from racial groups | considered "over represented" so they may have been trying to | affect diversity numbers too.) | lumost wrote: | Why is small class size a good thing? Anecdotally, you get | better class material and TA staff in larger lectures. Why | aren't Universities able to innovate here? | rglullis wrote: | My uncle was a math teacher in Brazil - mostly test-prep | course schools for university exams, later he opened some | of his own private schools. | | He used to say two things: that he has estimated to have | taught at least 100 thousand people in his life (seems just | crazy boasting, but feasible when you are working in 5-8 | different schools per semester and each class has 100-250 | people) and _that a teacher is always teaching for the | worst student in the class_ , and that the only reason that | top universities are better is because of their selection | process. | | Forget class material, forget infrastructure and fancy | facilities. _What makes the best universities is the fact | that the top students are there_. | | If you can not (dramatically) change your students and make | them smarter, you can make your classes smaller and segment | by performance. This at least stops your top 20 percentile | from being dragged down by your bottom 20. | acchow wrote: | > that a teacher is always teaching for the worst student | in the class | | It's been my experience in college that most teachers | just let the bottom quartile of the class fail (and | likely switch into another major). | rglullis wrote: | There is no "switching majors" in Brazil. You make the | application for the major that you want, and you are | competing against everyone that also applied to that | course. If you decide to switch after starting a major, | you almost certainly will be forced to drop out and re- | apply. | | But in reality, even that doesn't matter. In the best | universities, your worst students will be better than the | average students at the second-rate institutions. If the | teacher is simply giving the class to the top 75 | percentile, the class will be _even better still_ at the | top uni. | cm2012 wrote: | This is 100% true. It's also why attempts to make things | more fair by allowing lower testing kids into specialized | schools fail. It just makes the specialized school a | normal school. | bbor wrote: | Many courses rely on discussion! | ghaff wrote: | For liberal arts? It's probably a pretty interactive format | and smaller interactive classes are better than large | classes that are more broadcast. (Often. I've also had | great lecturers in the humanities.) But mostly don't look | at many liberal arts classes (or case study, etc.) through | the lens of an engineering lecture. | aquova wrote: | Fewer students per teacher is widely seen as a positive | thing. A greater percentage of the professor's time and | attention can be given to any one student. I've definitely | experienced this myself, it's easy to feel like just a | number when you're in a large lecture hall of hundreds | versus a small classroom of a few dozen. | bachmeier wrote: | I already said this elsewhere, but I do want to reply to | this comment, because it demonstrates a common mistake | that may not be clear from my other comment. | | If you have a given teacher, in a given classroom, with a | given amount of TA help, blah blah, so that all else is | equal, and then you reduce the class size, the students | will do better. | | The problem is that all else is far from equal in the | data used in these rankings. Instructor quality drops off | rapidly as you have more sections. TA help falls. The | classroom may no longer be appropriate for the class, | etc. | | The rankings are not able to capture the effect you're | talking about. | poulsbohemian wrote: | >Anecdotally, you get better class material and TA staff in | larger lectures. | | Where is this anecdote coming from? A billion years ago | when I studied at a small liberal arts college with small | class sizes, professors were keen to share with us exactly | why they were teaching from particular texts or why they | had selected certain materials to make it clear that while | the class wasn't being taught by that famous guy from MIT, | it was still his book and materials we were using. I knew | all my professors by first name, knew where many of them | lived, had access to them anytime it was needed, and that's | directly counter to my partner's experience at a large | university. | lumost wrote: | My undergrad was at Umass Amherst, and I currently attend | GA Tech's OMSCS program. Professors love sharing info on | why they chose to talk about one topic vs. another, and | by and large were happy to connect with any student | motivated enough to attend an office hours or talk to | them after class. I knew same personal information about | the professors I worked with in the lab, but I don't | generally see how that would improve my learning | outcomes. | | Class size naturally dropped as you got into niche | subjects, of which there were many! | poulsbohemian wrote: | What I've heard anecdotal bears out what you are saying, | IE: once you get through various mega weed-out classes, | in many universities you still get the luxury of smaller | class sizes and more direct access to professors as you | reach those upper level classes. | | Where I was asking for clarification was on the idea that | somehow people were getting better materials and a better | overall experience in thee 500+ people lecture hall type | experiences, rather than those 20-person intimate | learning style classes. | jimhefferon wrote: | One factor I don't see anyone mentioning here is the | student. Some people can do great in a large lecture. I | teach in a SLAC and often students tell me they don't | think they could do well without the smaller courses. | verst wrote: | Exactly this. | | I went to a liberal arts college and had small class | sizes (most around 9-15 in size, with the largest being | 30) - I could see my professors 1:1 pretty much anytime I | wanted, but there was also a preceptor (TA) for each | class who didn't teach, but was available to answer | questions related to assignments, projects etc. I went to | the house of many of my professors for food or drinks | too. Generally also was on a first name basis with | professors. | | The downside is that liberal arts colleges aren't | research institutions and they are generally | undergraduate only. This means you don't have as many | choices for advanced courses. However, the professors at | liberal arts colleges really tend to be there for the | teaching and tend to enjoy that. One of my math | professors was the head of the mathematical association | of America and also authored the books on Analysis (the | mathematical subject - not a data science thing) we were | using. | poulsbohemian wrote: | >The downside is that liberal arts colleges aren't | research institutions and they are generally | undergraduate only. | | What's ironic about this though is how many universities | won't accept their own undergrads into their grad | programs... IE: they know that their undergrad programs | are sub-standard but they don't seem to take action to | improve them because the money and the focus is on the | grad programs. | snowwrestler wrote: | Many professors at small liberal arts colleges still | conduct research. And because of small class sizes, there | is a good chance for a motivated student to get to know | their professor and participate in that research. | | There are also research consortiums of small colleges. I | did original geological research 2 out of my 3 summers in | a small college via the Keck Consortium: | | https://keckgeology.org/ | seanmcdirmid wrote: | I did research for a professor as an undergraduate at a | big university. Once you are out of lower division | courses and into your upper division major classes, your | classes are much smaller and the professors start to know | you as you see them around a lot. | Leary wrote: | One thing is closer interaction with faculty. Crucial if | you want to apply for grad school and need letters of | recommendation. | kmlevitt wrote: | Small class sizes are better precisely because the class | can then become more than a lecture. I am a professor, and | if you give me a hall full of students I'll give a lecture, | because that's all that can really happen under those | circumstances. | | If it's a small group, I can actually learn everybody's | names, get to know them, personalize the material more and | spend big chunks of the class just answering your questions | and starting discussions based on them. The class becomes | less of a mere information dump and more of a mentorship. | echelon wrote: | In my three student organic chemistry III class, the | professor had each of us reading ahead and taking turns | teaching the material ourselves. We'd be corrected for | mistakes, of course, but it was very much a fire drill. | We moved a lot of electrons. | | That was quite the course. | balls187 wrote: | > If it's a small group, I can actually learn everybody's | names, get to know them, personalize the material more | and spend big chunks of the class just answering your | questions and starting discussions based on them. | | I went to a relatively small private engineering school. | It made a world of difference in my education knowing the | professors, and having them know me, especially given | that with small classes the professors offered office | hours where I could come and discuss the material that | was covered during class, as well as problems I | encountered on midterms. | | I still remember nearly all of my professors, _fondly_ , | precisely because of the dynamic small class sizes | allowed for. | dan-robertson wrote: | 1) they aren't rewarded for innovating | | 2) I guess they can actually by having massive classes in | the spring and comparing to the fall. | deltree7 wrote: | It's a perfect example of reverse causation. | | Great Classes Implies Larger Classes (pure supply / | demand); Larger Classes doesn't imply Great Classes | [deleted] | mattwest wrote: | It's an interesting question, and that's probably why it | ends up in so many econometrics and stats courses. You have | the classic causality problem, along with ethical concerns | of generating experimental data for such a study. | | Controlling for as many of the relevant variables as | possible, there does seem to be a strong negative | correlation between class size and test scores. Beyond | that, who knows, but it makes sense that small classes | would succeed more often (at least up to a certain point of | course) | bachmeier wrote: | But...none of those studies justify a discontinuity at a | particular value. And if they control for things like TA | help, they cease to provide useful information, because | in the real world TA help increases with the class size. | bachmeier wrote: | There are real issues with using class size as they do. If | you have someone that's really good at teaching a | particular class, it's better to have them teach one | section of 60 students rather than have a second section | taught by someone that does a mediocre job. You also have | things like TA help for larger classes, and that doesn't | factor in at all. There's also the discontinuity thing. 30 | is way better than 31, but equally better vs 300 - which | obviously makes no sense. Overall, the measures they use | for class size in these rankings are garbage. | | The same is true for selectivity. It doesn't account for | education at all, only the difficulty of getting in. But | since it doesn't account for the applicant pool, it doesn't | account for the difficulty of getting in either. You could | use things like SAT scores as a measure of the difficulty | of getting in and ditch the acceptance % completely. I work | at an R1 that gets hit hard because we admit most | applicants because, you know, we exist to educate folks, | not to serve as a signalling device. | mbesto wrote: | Which begs the question - if you want to get top in rankings | wouldn't you simply design the school around the objective | ranking parameters and nothing else? | | Ripe for abuse... | colinmhayes wrote: | This is sort of what Columbia did... they juiced their | faculty numbers by counting the med school which has much | lower class sizes and more educated teachers. | nonameiguess wrote: | Not sure if this is still true, but at one point, the biggest | factor in the ranking was peer reputation rating. That kind | of results in a self-reinforcing vicious cycle of top schools | remaining top schools, but short of bribery, there isn't | really any way to manipulate that at least. | conqrr wrote: | Explains how ASU has always been number 1 in innovation. It's a | great school, but no.q for innovation is pushing it too much. | dwater wrote: | For context, U.S. News and World Report used to be a trusted | periodical that reported national and international news. In the | 80's they started ranking colleges and selling it as a separate | publication, which turned out to be pretty profitable, so they | repeated the trick by ranking hospitals (1990), cars (2007), and | then states (2017). The news business went online only in 2011, | then shuttered in 2015. Since then they've just been a rankings | company, but they kept the name to trade on their reputation. | UncleOxidant wrote: | U.S. News and World Report was a highly respected & trusted | news magazine in the 70s-90s, but it's online incarnation now | is just another clickbait site (similar for Newsweek). | uptownfunk wrote: | Wow fascinating - so US News is now a rankings company. | xanaxagoras wrote: | If you think of clickbait as a crowdsourced ranking of | emotionally manipulative hyperbole, that could be said of any | corporate press rag. | cuteboy19 wrote: | I feel like it would not be possible to sell such a static and | easily leaked thing as a ranking list | lpolovets wrote: | The influence of US News on colleges is wild. One absurd tidbit | that I've heard: the rankings weigh freshman stats much more than | transfer student stats, so a lot of competitive schools that | won't let you in as a freshman if you would hurt their | SAT/GPA/etc averages will happily let you in as a transfer | because they'll make more revenue and your stats no longer hurt | their rankings. * | | The ranking formula is also changed arbitrarily based on the | reactions of colleges and readers. My school went from #9 to #1 | one year, there were a lot of "wth??" reactions, and the | following year the formula was tweaked so that our ranking dipped | down to #4. I'm pretty sure nothing changed materially in the | school over those 3 years, but the ranking moved around a lot. | | The whole system is a farce. | | * I haven't researched freshman vs transfer data myself, but it's | something I've heard from multiple startup founders in the | college education space. | rr888 wrote: | Yeah this was one of the whistleblower topics. Columbia has | highest number of transfers | http://www.math.columbia.edu/~thaddeus/ranking/investigation... | whimsicalism wrote: | Depends on the school. At a place like Harvard or Yale it is | incredibly difficult to get in as a transfer, much harder than | to get in in the first place. | ffguuficc wrote: | For UW this is 100% true. A 4.0 is like a 50/50 to get in the | CS program but for transfers it's easier. | hprotagonist wrote: | tit for tat: | http://www.math.columbia.edu/~thaddeus/ranking/investigation... | gumby wrote: | I really wonder why Columbia even cares: it's a globally well | known ivy league school obviously producing a good education and | is in NYC.* Doesn't US News need Columbia more than the other way | around? | | * No I have no connection to the school except I do have some | friends who teach there and some others who attended decades ago. | colinmhayes wrote: | Having high ranking is like the entire job of administrators. | Especially at Ivys they're selling prestige, being highly | ranked gives you prestige. | gumby wrote: | If you're in the small top 'n' I think the prestige goes the | other way. Will anyone care if MIT is +1 or -1 some year? I | assume those top schools can just run themselves the way they | want and still get highly ranked. | | And if US news were serious they could simply have kicked | columbia out for a year, but it would have hurt them to do | so. They'd probably do it for a small college ranked 100 or | below though. | | I'd be embarrassed for Columbia that they gamed the numbers. | Outside that small n though, I presume gaming the numbers is | commonplace. | lofatdairy wrote: | I think professors and the actual scholars there don't really | care. However, administration cares because ranking is tied to | both how many undergraduates students apply and how much they | can charge these students. If college rankings didn't matter | financially then I hazard that Columbia would've had | questionable numbers to begin with. | | That said I agree that being an Ivy in NYC certainly was a | major contributor to its more recent rise in the rankings and | applications. | resoluteteeth wrote: | It's interesting to think what most universities would do to a | student who tried to falsify their data like this. | data4lyfe wrote: | The fact that U.S. News and World Report can pull a school from | it's own rankings and it makes such a strong impact is really a | strange phenomenon. | epgui wrote: | For all of the ways we can easily criticize the incentive | structures and possible intentionality behind these bad numbers | (which I agree merit scrutiny), I think it's worth noting and | remembering that the issue was flagged by a mathematics professor | of the same university: there is at least some well-aligned | incentives, some measure of self-regulation, with respect tenured | positions and academic freedom. | geebee wrote: | One interesting thing to come of these discussions - a lot of the | problems with US News methodology arise from the attempt to push | certain metrics from 90% to 100%. Class size, faculty with a | "terminal" degree, class size, admissions rate. Many of these | things are treated by the rankings as "the higher (or lower) the | better." As an analogy, I'd use lean muscle mass percentage for | elite athletes. Generally speaking, lower is better, and in many | sports, all elite athletes are all under 10% body fat. But much | below this starts to become harmful, and would eventually be | fatal. | | I think this is kind of what's happening with Columbia here. For | example, Columbia claimed that 100% of the faculty had a terminal | degree. Prof Thaddeus (if you read his full blog post) questioned | this from two angles. The first was to say it can't possibly be | true. The second (which I found more interesting) was: why would | you even want this to be 100%? Seems like Columbia has valuable | faculty who don't have a PhD or MFA or whatever is the "terminal" | degree int he field. | | The harm here isn't in wanting a terminal degree for a high | percentage of faculty, it's trying to get this to 100%. I'd say | that it probably is a good sign, overall, that most of the | faculty has a doctoral degree, as this is the main training | degree for research and teaching. But the way US news does it, | you get more points for 95% than 90%, more points for 99% than | 95%. Seems like a lot of harm comes from trying to wring out that | last bit, since even if you do generally agree with the value of | a PhD for research (or other terminal degree), it does seem like | you'd build a stronger faculty overall with the ability to hire 1 | in 10 or 1 in 20 based on some other credential. | | So much else fits this pattern. Small class sizes.. kind of the | same thing. Sure, it's a good sign, but they're only an | indicator, not a goal in and of themselves. Low admissions rates, | high test scores. All good metrics, but things that can become | not just harmful but harmful and maybe even fatal to a university | if pursued with a single minded intensity as if total purity in | the metric is the goal. | | Honestly, overall we just have to reject the US news rankings. I | appreciate what Prof Thaddeus did here, and it was a useful and | very well reasoned and sourced takedown. But now and then, I | realized that there isn't much to be added, just new and | interesting ways to say what everyone knows at this point - | yousnoozeandworlddistort rankings are pretty well idiotic. I | actually think college rankings in general can be useful if | managed cautiously and read critically, but this one is just a | turkey. | danielmorozoff wrote: | Having pursued a PhD at Columbia and having taught classes there. | I am surprised it took this long for someone to speak up. Also | the fact that there are no checks in place to certify top ranking | academic institutions is fascinating. | xiaolingxiao wrote: | could you expand on what you mean please? | taveras wrote: | If folks are curious about how schools are ranked, I highly | encourage you to listen to the following podcast: | | https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/lord-of-... | saagarjha wrote: | Kind of sad that US News decided to unrank just Columbia rather | than suspending the whole thing. If one college games your | ranking to the point that a professor from the university is like | "hey you guys this seems pretty sus", it's probably true that all | the other universities have the same problem and just don't have | anyone willing to talk about it. As it stands it seems like just | Columbia did something wrong, when they are the only university | that did something wrong but also had someone who did something | _right_. | wombat-man wrote: | Well, it's kinda their main business at this point. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-11 23:00 UTC)