09-08-2021, 06:19 PM
Cal #1.
What hurts more? Cal first on Forbes or a possible Big Game loss?
What hurts more? Cal first on Forbes or a possible Big Game loss?
OT Forbes list
09-08-2021, 06:31 PM
Good for Cal; they are a great school, and I would have no hesitation in sending my son there (though he has no interest in going) if he got in. I don't think the rivalry extends to hoping for poor academics to the other school.
BC
BC
Good for Cal; they are a great school, and I would have no hesitation in sending my son there (though he has no interest in going) if he got in. I don't think the rivalry extends to hoping for poor academics to the other school.
BC
BC
Softball Fan
Unregistered
Unregistered
09-08-2021, 07:08 PM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/madisonfern...18850e47e0
"Only 12% of Harvard undergrads receive Pell Grants, which helps explain why that vaunted 384-year-old private institution in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a perennial No. 1 on college lists, fell to No. 7 in the Forbes ranking."
As soon as I start looking into metrics of these rankings everything seems subjective based on what the authors want to achieve. Pell Grant has nothing to do with academics (except min 2.0 GPA). All it indicates is a student needs financial help.
Nonetheless Cal is a great academic institution but this ranking doesn't mean much to my way of looking at it.
"Only 12% of Harvard undergrads receive Pell Grants, which helps explain why that vaunted 384-year-old private institution in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a perennial No. 1 on college lists, fell to No. 7 in the Forbes ranking."
As soon as I start looking into metrics of these rankings everything seems subjective based on what the authors want to achieve. Pell Grant has nothing to do with academics (except min 2.0 GPA). All it indicates is a student needs financial help.
Nonetheless Cal is a great academic institution but this ranking doesn't mean much to my way of looking at it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/madisonfern...18850e47e0
"Only 12% of Harvard undergrads receive Pell Grants, which helps explain why that vaunted 384-year-old private institution in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a perennial No. 1 on college lists, fell to No. 7 in the Forbes ranking."
As soon as I start looking into metrics of these rankings everything seems subjective based on what the authors want to achieve. Pell Grant has nothing to do with academics (except min 2.0 GPA). All it indicates is a student needs financial help.
Nonetheless Cal is a great academic institution but this ranking doesn't mean much to my way of looking at it.
"Only 12% of Harvard undergrads receive Pell Grants, which helps explain why that vaunted 384-year-old private institution in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a perennial No. 1 on college lists, fell to No. 7 in the Forbes ranking."
As soon as I start looking into metrics of these rankings everything seems subjective based on what the authors want to achieve. Pell Grant has nothing to do with academics (except min 2.0 GPA). All it indicates is a student needs financial help.
Nonetheless Cal is a great academic institution but this ranking doesn't mean much to my way of looking at it.
Forbes explicitly says it values diversity in its rankings, but from what I can see the detailed methodology includes economic diversity only in the graduation rate section (15% of total score) apparently by overweighting Pell student admission and graduation rates (1/3 of the 15%).
Forbes explicitly says it values diversity in its rankings, but from what I can see the detailed methodology includes economic diversity only in the graduation rate section (15% of total score) apparently by overweighting Pell student admission and graduation rates (1/3 of the 15%).
09-08-2021, 07:55 PM
haven't taken forbes rankings seriously in a while. what quality education when they have overcrowded class sizes and poor 4 year graduation rates?
09-09-2021, 03:45 PM
(09-08-2021, 07:08 PM)paloalto Wrote: https://www.forbes.com/sites/madisonfern...18850e47e0
"Only 12% of Harvard undergrads receive Pell Grants, which helps explain why that vaunted 384-year-old private institution in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a perennial No. 1 on college lists, fell to No. 7 in the Forbes ranking."
As soon as I start looking into metrics of these rankings everything seems subjective based on what the authors want to achieve. Pell Grant has nothing to do with academics (except min 2.0 GPA). All it indicates is a student needs financial help.
Nonetheless Cal is a great academic institution but this ranking doesn't mean much to my way of looking at it.
I remember that in the first year of the London Times Higher Education Supplement, they had Cal-Berkeley ranked #2 in the world.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(09-08-2021, 07:08 PM)paloalto Wrote: https://www.forbes.com/sites/madisonfern...18850e47e0
"Only 12% of Harvard undergrads receive Pell Grants, which helps explain why that vaunted 384-year-old private institution in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a perennial No. 1 on college lists, fell to No. 7 in the Forbes ranking."
As soon as I start looking into metrics of these rankings everything seems subjective based on what the authors want to achieve. Pell Grant has nothing to do with academics (except min 2.0 GPA). All it indicates is a student needs financial help.
Nonetheless Cal is a great academic institution but this ranking doesn't mean much to my way of looking at it.
I remember that in the first year of the London Times Higher Education Supplement, they had Cal-Berkeley ranked #2 in the world.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
09-09-2021, 05:07 PM
I think SF State was ranked first in the nation in matriculating high school football coaches 1965-1977.
09-09-2021, 05:09 PM
(09-08-2021, 06:19 PM)Phogge Wrote: Cal #1.
What hurts more? Cal first on Forbes or a possible Big Game loss?
Good for Cal.
Of course, it's all pretty meaningless.
As was the case all those years that Stanford was atop the USN&WR "rankings."
Just agenda, cloaked in supposed measurable indicia of "greatness."
Whatever.
Does anyone really care about these various publications/rankings? And if so . . . why?
P.S. To answer your question: Big Game loss.
(09-08-2021, 06:19 PM)Phogge Wrote: Cal #1.
What hurts more? Cal first on Forbes or a possible Big Game loss?
Good for Cal.
Of course, it's all pretty meaningless.
As was the case all those years that Stanford was atop the USN&WR "rankings."
Just agenda, cloaked in supposed measurable indicia of "greatness."
Whatever.
Does anyone really care about these various publications/rankings? And if so . . . why?
P.S. To answer your question: Big Game loss.
09-10-2021, 06:59 AM
(09-09-2021, 05:09 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(09-08-2021, 06:19 PM)Phogge Wrote: Cal #1.
What hurts more? Cal first on Forbes or a possible Big Game loss?
Good for Cal.
Of course, it's all pretty meaningless.
As was the case all those years that Stanford was atop the USN&WR "rankings."
Just agenda, cloaked in supposed measurable indicia of "greatness."
Whatever.
Does anyone really care about these various publications/rankings? And if so . . . why?
Very few. University presidents. Faculty. Students. Alumni. High school students. That's all...
I think they care about them for a variety of reasons. Because they're trying to attract and retain the best and brightest students, and this is one public, easy way to delineate between schools, using a variety of sensical and nonsensical criteria. But most of all for bragging rights.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(09-09-2021, 05:09 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(09-08-2021, 06:19 PM)Phogge Wrote: Cal #1.
What hurts more? Cal first on Forbes or a possible Big Game loss?
Good for Cal.
Of course, it's all pretty meaningless.
As was the case all those years that Stanford was atop the USN&WR "rankings."
Just agenda, cloaked in supposed measurable indicia of "greatness."
Whatever.
Does anyone really care about these various publications/rankings? And if so . . . why?
Very few. University presidents. Faculty. Students. Alumni. High school students. That's all...
I think they care about them for a variety of reasons. Because they're trying to attract and retain the best and brightest students, and this is one public, easy way to delineate between schools, using a variety of sensical and nonsensical criteria. But most of all for bragging rights.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
09-10-2021, 07:29 AM
(09-10-2021, 06:59 AM)Mick Wrote:Unfortunately the University administrations have convinced themselves these contrived rankings actually mean something. That makes them mean something and from that flows the high school students etc. This is a minor rant, but I believe that anybody who sets up a blog that "rates" something can start a stampede to increase ratings of a particular suppliers something. The suppliers know the ratings are junk but they are afraid that they will lose market share so they react. The public sees them react and concludes the ratings must mean something because the suppliers obviously do (because they reacted). Nobody bothers to ask if any of this is "real", they all assume it must be because of what other people are doing. What nonsense! Critical thinking is not required, just react to others reactions.(09-09-2021, 05:09 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(09-08-2021, 06:19 PM)Phogge Wrote: Cal #1.
What hurts more? Cal first on Forbes or a possible Big Game loss?
Good for Cal.
Of course, it's all pretty meaningless.
As was the case all those years that Stanford was atop the USN&WR "rankings."
Just agenda, cloaked in supposed measurable indicia of "greatness."
Whatever.
Does anyone really care about these various publications/rankings? And if so . . . why?
Very few. University presidents. Faculty. Students. Alumni. High school students. That's all...
I think they care about them for a variety of reasons. Because they're trying to attract and retain the best and brightest students, and this is one public, easy way to delineate between schools, using a variety of sensical and nonsensical criteria. But most of all for bragging rights.
(09-10-2021, 06:59 AM)Mick Wrote:Unfortunately the University administrations have convinced themselves these contrived rankings actually mean something. That makes them mean something and from that flows the high school students etc. This is a minor rant, but I believe that anybody who sets up a blog that "rates" something can start a stampede to increase ratings of a particular suppliers something. The suppliers know the ratings are junk but they are afraid that they will lose market share so they react. The public sees them react and concludes the ratings must mean something because the suppliers obviously do (because they reacted). Nobody bothers to ask if any of this is "real", they all assume it must be because of what other people are doing. What nonsense! Critical thinking is not required, just react to others reactions.(09-09-2021, 05:09 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(09-08-2021, 06:19 PM)Phogge Wrote: Cal #1.
What hurts more? Cal first on Forbes or a possible Big Game loss?
Good for Cal.
Of course, it's all pretty meaningless.
As was the case all those years that Stanford was atop the USN&WR "rankings."
Just agenda, cloaked in supposed measurable indicia of "greatness."
Whatever.
Does anyone really care about these various publications/rankings? And if so . . . why?
Very few. University presidents. Faculty. Students. Alumni. High school students. That's all...
I think they care about them for a variety of reasons. Because they're trying to attract and retain the best and brightest students, and this is one public, easy way to delineate between schools, using a variety of sensical and nonsensical criteria. But most of all for bragging rights.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »