Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

anandsanwal.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#61

Post by LeanderK »

gruez wrote: post #57
aantix wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make friends with those that you're in class with. The entire school isn't the friend pool, but your proximity of classmates. If the class room sizes are roughly the same, probability of meeting two smart friends will be roughly the same.

>If the class room sizes are roughly the same, probability of meeting two smart friends will be roughly the same. Why must both schools have the same proportion of potential "smart friends"? Even if the school with better test grades somehow had the same proportion as all the other schools, all the tiger parents flocking to that school is going to change the proportion.

not sure exactly what we're talking about but why must tiger parents have smart kids? I thought its just really pushy parents?

As a kid, to light the spark of a topic, i would say its more important that the other kids are genuinely passionate about something. Otherwise its just more homework.

Also you forget that the mean usually doesn't tell you a lot if you, like the poster mentioned, are mainly influenced by the immediate surroundings. If your kid is academically interested and already has good, smart friends, the gain of switching a better on average school might be negative.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#62

Post by WalterBright »

sevensor wrote: post #60
WalterBright wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does that make comparative literature, for example, a "real" education and, say, math not? BTW, there's no need to go to university to learn history. All that's necessary is to read a history book. I read lots of them. Paying someone to lecture you about history seems a waste of time and money. Just read it. Much more time efficient.

A lot of people (present company excluded I’m sure) don’t know how to read critically. They may read history but not understand historiography. They may not be able to tell the difference between Livy and Tacitus. Being educated by a professional can save you a lot of time, for instance if you mistake Victor Davis Hanson for a historian.

I can vouch for reading a few history books makes it easy to distinguish them from a pseudo-history book written by an activist pushing an agenda.

Reading reviews of the books helps a lot in finding one worth the time reading, as well as looking at lists and reviews of what other books they've written.

Reading multiple books of the same event gives one a lot of perspective, too. I'm currently reading my 4th history book on the D-Day invasion - all quite different.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#63

Post by WalterBright »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #59
WalterBright wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Real education covers more than "skills and credentials I need to get a well-paid job." I'm curious what real education would be that does not impart a skill that others are willing to pay for? I speak as someone who selected classes based on maximizing skills that would be useful in the career I wanted.

The best examples I can give: 1. College educated people smoke less on average. This is true regardless of income even though typically less income correlates to more smoking. 2. In poor neighborhoods, when the number of residents without college drops below a certain threshold (like 4 percent maybe), crime skyrockets. The neighborhood stops being merely poor and becomes a dangerous slum. A liberal arts education is…

What bothers me about a liberal education that allegedly teaches critical thinking is they teach things that simply aren't true. For example, how can one have critical thinking skills yet firmly believe that Marxism works? There are no successful examples of Marxism - history is replete with its failure.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#64

Post by DoreenMichele »

WalterBright wrote: post #63
DoreenMichele wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best examples I can give: 1. College educated people smoke less on average. This is true regardless of income even though typically less income correlates to more smoking. 2. In poor neighborhoods, when the number of residents without college drops below a certain threshold (like 4 percent maybe), crime skyrockets. The neighborhood stops being merely poor and becomes a dangerous slum. A liberal arts education is…

What bothers me about a liberal education that allegedly teaches critical thinking is they teach things that simply aren't true. For example, how can one have critical thinking skills yet firmly believe that Marxism works? There are no successful examples of Marxism - history is replete with its failure.

I'm not personally aware of the idea of Marxism working being some essential belief for a liberal arts education.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#65

Post by WalterBright »

saagarjha wrote: post #51
WalterBright wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Supplying free rides results in students who don't have "skin in the game". If one works to pay the tuition, one is incentivized to get the most value out of their classes. Without such skin in the game, a student is more likely to do as little as possible and focus on having fun instead.

My parents paid for my college tuition. This was also the case for many of my peers. They turned out just fine. Honestly they seem to have done better than those who took out loans purely because they don't have loans .

I bet your parents didn't give you whatever you wanted for free.

My parents gave me the necessities of life for free, but if I wanted more than that, I had to work for it. For example, I bought my first car at 15 from proceeds of a paper route I had for years.

My parents made a deal with me that they'd pay half of my tuition, and I had to come up with the other half. By the time I was a junior, I was making enough on the side I could afford the rest myself, and phoned my parents and said don't send me any more money. It felt really really good to do that.

Yes, I know that college is considerably more expensive these days.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#66

Post by WalterBright »

norir wrote: post #50
WalterBright wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it all the time. Money is a very effective motivator. Working to get money is very much going to influence what you choose to buy with it - and you're going to want to get your money's worth.

Money is an effective motivator until it isn't. I quit an extremely lucrative job because I hated the person I was turning in to and haven't looked back. I would be wary of making generalizations on motivation which is highly variable person to person.

I neither wrote nor implied that money is the sole motivator of people. There are many things I won't do for money. For example, I won't engage in the lucrative business of drug dealing. That doesn't imply that money doesn't motivate me.

I bet you still do things for money, even if you'd rather have fun instead.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#67

Post by WalterBright »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #64
WalterBright wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What bothers me about a liberal education that allegedly teaches critical thinking is they teach things that simply aren't true. For example, how can one have critical thinking skills yet firmly believe that Marxism works? There are no successful examples of Marxism - history is replete with its failure.

I'm not personally aware of the idea of Marxism working being some essential belief for a liberal arts education.

The liberal arts departments of most colleges lean heavily towards Marxism.

Do any of them even teach free market economics?

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#68

Post by DoreenMichele »

WalterBright wrote: post #67
DoreenMichele wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not personally aware of the idea of Marxism working being some essential belief for a liberal arts education.

The liberal arts departments of most colleges lean heavily towards Marxism. Do any of them even teach free market economics?

"Liberal" as a political term is wholly unrelated to the original meaning of liberal arts though it's unsurprising that the two things are being conflated, even by people teaching at the college level.

"Ninety percent of everything is crap." Just because there are a lot of terrible liberal arts programs doesn't mean it can't be done well.

Try to not throw the baby out with the bath water while sorting this out for your personal edification.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#69

Post by WalterBright »

saagarjha wrote: post #52
WalterBright wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does that make comparative literature, for example, a "real" education and, say, math not? BTW, there's no need to go to university to learn history. All that's necessary is to read a history book. I read lots of them. Paying someone to lecture you about history seems a waste of time and money. Just read it. Much more time efficient.

You could do the same for math. Or any subject, really. There's a reason people go to college for that, and it's not because they want to sit with a book to learn the subject.

> Or any subject, really

It isn't equivalent. Very, very few people manage to self-educate advanced math. But it's a lot easier with liberal arts.

Allow me to pose this question - does a literature degree enable one to write best selling books? Does JK Rowling have a degree in literature? In contrast, learning math and engineering enables one to use that knowledge to create great things. One has zero chance of building a successful liquid fuel rocket engine without that training.

I recall reading a lament by a literature professor who said he knew everything there was to know about Romeo and Juliet. He said he'd throw all that knowledge away for the joy of reading it for the first time.

Re: From Myth to Measurement: Rethinking US News and World Report College Rankings

#70

Post by WalterBright »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #68
WalterBright wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The liberal arts departments of most colleges lean heavily towards Marxism. Do any of them even teach free market economics?

"Liberal" as a political term is wholly unrelated to the original meaning of liberal arts though it's unsurprising that the two things are being conflated, even by people teaching at the college level. "Ninety percent of everything is crap." Just because there are a lot of terrible liberal arts programs doesn't mean it can't be done well. Try to not throw the baby out with the bath water while sorting this out for yo…

> while sorting this out for your personal edification.

I wasn't rude to you, and rudeness won't bolster your case.

> Just because there are a lot of terrible liberal arts programs doesn't mean it can't be done well.

The difference is that, with a STEM degree, if you design an airplane and it doesn't fly then you're wrong. There's no way to delude oneself into thinking one's design works.

There's no such corrective force with liberal arts.

Post reply on HN