VoyForums
[ 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: 123456[7]8910 ]


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09/ 9/15 1:29:20pm Wed
Author: 'gate80
Subject: Re: New USNWR Nat'l LAC Ratings
In reply to: Raider Archivist 's message, "New USNWR Nat'l LAC Ratings" on 09/ 9/15 11:12:14am Wed

Yes the rankings are silly, but yes people give credence to them and yes it's great that Colgate moved up.

I would not be true to character if I did not point out that there are at least half a dozen schools on the college list, including Davidson and - yikes - Hamilton (I'll never get used to seeing Hamilton ahead of us), and half a dozen on the university list, that ranked lower than us at the time we took unprecedented actions to downgrade football in order to improve our academic profile.

Even if one was not a Colgate football fan and only cared about our academic profile, it was hard to see how Colgate (19) joining a league with Bucknell (32), Holy Cross (32), Lafayette (37), Lehigh (47), Fordham (66), and Towson State (53, North Regional) would help our academic profile. (Georgetown (21) joined in fb 16 years after the start of the PL.) Especially when this meant giving up games with Duke (8), Northwestern (12), Vanderbilt (15), and Rice (18), as well as then sharing our Ivy games (#1 through 15) with our PL colleagues.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]


Replies:

[> [> Re: New USNWR Nat'l LAC Ratings -- cr, 09/ 9/15 2:05:03pm Wed

>Yes the rankings are silly, but yes people give
>credence to them and yes it's great that Colgate moved
>up.
>
>I would not be true to character if I did not point
>out that there are at least half a dozen schools on
>the college list, including Davidson and - yikes -
>Hamilton (I'll never get used to seeing Hamilton ahead
>of us), and half a dozen on the university list, that
>ranked lower than us at the time we took unprecedented
>actions to downgrade football in order to improve our
>academic profile.
>
>Even if one was not a Colgate football fan and only
>cared about our academic profile, it was hard to see
>how Colgate (19) joining a league with Bucknell (32),
>Holy Cross (32), Lafayette (37), Lehigh (47), Fordham
>(66), and Towson State (53, North Regional) would help
>our academic profile. (Georgetown (21) joined in fb 16
>years after the start of the PL.) Especially when this
>meant giving up games with Duke (8), Northwestern
>(12), Vanderbilt (15), and Rice (18), as well as then
>sharing our Ivy games (#1 through 15) with our PL
>colleagues.


Once again you nailed it.


[ 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 ]





[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.