Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, [7], 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> Re: New USNWR Nat'l LAC Ratings -- Steve, 09/10/15 7:06:06am Thu

>>I hear what you are saying and your views are always
>>shared by college presidents and admissions officers.
>>
>>That said, these rankings have shown to carry meaning
>>to people who don't know better, should know better,
>>and/or have an axe to grind.
>>
>>Who are these people? The first group includes
>>international applicants who believe that there is
>>some official i.e. US government recognition that the
>>top 2-3 schools are just plain superior to any and all
>>others- as in USn&wr or maybe publications in their
>>own countries. Then there are uber competitive parents
>>and lazy counselors who would dismiss somewhat lower
>>ranked schools for vaguely similar reasons e.g. tell
>>them what they want to hear.
>>
>>But I reserve opprobrium for the axe grinders of the
>>so-called A Better Colgate group who have been banging
>>on for a few years now that Colgate slipped from spot
>>16 to 22, artlessly - and therefore unfairly - without
>>any context such as the inclusion of the service
>>academies in the group and breakthrough measures of
>>quantitative and qualitative characteristics by many
>>top schools including Colgate.
>>
>>And now that Colgate has improved its relative
>>position in this list, we can rest easier while those
>>who may be especially interested can evaluate the news
>>further. Not that you will hear much about it, of
>>course, from the whingers.
>>
>>So with that as background, I would say that the
>>improved ranking is good news. 19 is a better ranking
>>than 22 if you are keeping score. Only Navy at 9 is
>>above us in the Patriot League. Army, Bucknell, HC and
>>Lafayette are below us.
>>
>>Go 'gate!
>
>Now I know the reason why the field hockey program is
>struggling.
>
>I will sleep soundly this evening.

Did you now, zappa? You can thank me later.

By the way, please tell me how USN&WR and these 2016 rankings relate to field hockey and the Colgate team. Lesser men might have asked the coach, the AD, players or parents about the program.

Go 'gate!

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> [> [> Re: New USNWR Nat'l LAC Ratings -- lone ranger, 09/10/15 12:59:38pm Thu

>>>I hear what you are saying and your views are always
>>>shared by college presidents and admissions officers.
>>>
>>>That said, these rankings have shown to carry meaning
>>>to people who don't know better, should know better,
>>>and/or have an axe to grind.
>>>
>>>Who are these people? The first group includes
>>>international applicants who believe that there is
>>>some official i.e. US government recognition that the
>>>top 2-3 schools are just plain superior to any and
>all
>>>others- as in USn&wr or maybe publications in their
>>>own countries. Then there are uber competitive
>parents
>>>and lazy counselors who would dismiss somewhat lower
>>>ranked schools for vaguely similar reasons e.g. tell
>>>them what they want to hear.
>>>
>>>But I reserve opprobrium for the axe grinders of the
>>>so-called A Better Colgate group who have been
>banging
>>>on for a few years now that Colgate slipped from spot
>>>16 to 22, artlessly - and therefore unfairly -
>without
>>>any context such as the inclusion of the service
>>>academies in the group and breakthrough measures of
>>>quantitative and qualitative characteristics by many
>>>top schools including Colgate.
>>>
>>>And now that Colgate has improved its relative
>>>position in this list, we can rest easier while those
>>>who may be especially interested can evaluate the
>news
>>>further. Not that you will hear much about it, of
>>>course, from the whingers.
>>>
>>>So with that as background, I would say that the
>>>improved ranking is good news. 19 is a better ranking
>>>than 22 if you are keeping score. Only Navy at 9 is
>>>above us in the Patriot League. Army, Bucknell, HC
>and
>>>Lafayette are below us.
>>>
>>>Go 'gate!
>>
>>Now I know the reason why the field hockey program is
>>struggling.
>>
>>I will sleep soundly this evening.
>
>Did you now, zappa? You can thank me later.
>
>By the way, please tell me how USN&WR and these 2016
>rankings relate to field hockey and the Colgate team.
>Lesser men might have asked the coach, the AD, players
>or parents about the program.
>
>Go 'gate!

I think someone's ascot gets a tad bit wrinkled when sarcasm is used on this forum. Guess I'll have to approach the subject this weekend.

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

[> [> Re: New USNWR Nat'l LAC Ratings -- Preskill Brookfield, 09/ 9/15 2:23:48pm Wed

From U.S. News:

Category {weighting}
(my estimation of how a serious D1 athletics program influences the category rating of Colgate, from +++ to ---)
[one person's biased comment, as needed]

assessment by administrators at peer institutions {15%}
(--)

retention of students {22.5%}
(++)
[Student-Athletes in general, and scholarship athletes in particular, are unlikely to transfer]

faculty resources {20%}
(push)

student selectivity {12.5%}
(--)
[small student body mean athletic "reaches" hurt more (as do other "reaches", including "political", etc.)]

financial resources {10%}
(+)

alumni giving {5%}
(++)

graduation rate performance {7.5%}
(++)

high school counselor ratings of colleges {7.5%}
(---)
[at strong high schools, when Colgate takes a student athlete with a lower profile than a strong student who is not an athlete, it really irritates the counselors, they remember, and it makes them think Colgate cares more about athletics than academics - Then then both send fewer good students to Colgate as well as downranking us in the survey]


The fact that Presidents, Deans and High School Counselor ratings carry so much weight is simply insane, but it is real.

Lastly, if the Board of Trustees truly did not care about U.S. News, no one on campus would either.

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]

[ Edit | View ]