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

An Investigation of the Facts Behind Columbia's U.S. News Ranking

math.columbia.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: An Investigation of the Facts Behind Columbia's U.S. News Ranking

#41

Post by derbOac »

blagie wrote: post #26
lofatdairy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak for the math department, but I've noticed that there are general contentions between Columbia's faculty and administration that seem somewhat unique to the school. Professor Martin Chalfie has noted how cramped and run-down his lab is in an interview, which seems like soft-spoken criticism at the way Columbia has failed to use its enormous endowment towards acquiring more research and teaching spaces. P…

In 2022, MIT is a cesspool of fraud and corruption. This wasn't the case a quarter-century ago. The extreme competition seems to be overtaking all of the elites. MIT is the #1 university brand in the world, but it spent most of its integrity and soul to get there. There's a fine line you need to walk to become a faculty member at elite schools. You need to lie a little on grant applications to align when you want to…

Not to diminish what you wrote, but almost every single bit of it could be said of almost every research-heavy university in the US today. It's academics in general today, not just MIT.

Re: An Investigation of the Facts Behind Columbia's U.S. News Ranking

#42

Post by cardiology-fat »

blagie wrote: post #40
cardiology-fat wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MIT is the #1 university brand in the world Nah. Maybe 15 years ago.

The rankings lag reality by quite a lot. I think MIT probably was the #1 university in the world a couple of decades ago, but wasn't ranked ultra-high then. It is ranked ultra-high today. There's a #1: https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings

I'm talking more about brand/'hype' in particular. 15 years ago when I was starting my PhD, everyone adored MIT and wanted to be them.

Now I'm faculty at a reasonably good university in Europe, and obviously MIT is a fantastic place and I'd probably give a finger to get a tenured job there. But I think Harvard/Oxford/Princeton/Stanford have slightly eclipsed MIT in pure brand power. Stanford especially gets more of a 'wow!' reaction these days.

Re: An Investigation of the Facts Behind Columbia's U.S. News Ranking

#43

Post by blagie »

cardiology-fat wrote: post #42
blagie wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rankings lag reality by quite a lot. I think MIT probably was the #1 university in the world a couple of decades ago, but wasn't ranked ultra-high then. It is ranked ultra-high today. There's a #1: https://www.topuniversities.com/qs-world-university-rankings

I'm talking more about brand/'hype' in particular. 15 years ago when I was starting my PhD, everyone adored MIT and wanted to be them. Now I'm faculty at a reasonably good university in Europe, and obviously MIT is a fantastic place and I'd probably give a finger to get a tenured job there. But I think Harvard/Oxford/Princeton/Stanford have slightly eclipsed MIT in pure brand power. Stanford especially gets more of a…

MIT's hay day in terms of research was decades ago -- before I got there -- sixties and eighties. The book Hackers by Levy is a good read on MIT Classic. It took a while for the work from there to be recognized outside in other institutions; you can give a 10-20 year window there. In the general public, virtually no one had heard of MIT.

By the late nineties, MIT research was just past its peak. Peer reputation peaked then or a little bit later. The general public was just starting to notice it existed.

In the 2010's, MIT research quality and integrity was in freefall. General public noticed MIT was #1, perhaps a half-century after-the-fact. Peer reputation was just past the peak.

I expect it will take another 10-30 years before the general public notices MIT has declined.

Stanford gets a "Wow" reaction for entrepreneurship more so than research.

I definitely wouldn't give a finger to be at MIT or Stanford. Of the ones you'd mentioned, Princeton, I think I'd be pretty happy at. If I had my druthers, though, I'd pick a school which is on the rise, basically where MIT was in the sixties or eighties. Mostly, I want a place which has a lot of freedom, integrity, and an open, accepting culture. Georgia Tech seems like a decent place right now. Yale would be nice. ASU would be a uniquely good fit. There are a few state schools I like too.

Schools in Europe are a mixed bag. I've considered going to a less-well-known school in one of the poorer countries in Europe, where there are smart people, and where I could buy a home for cash, and have the perfect freedom of being independently wealthy. If you're at MIT or Stanford, you need to do consulting, startups, or similar to have a decent standard of living, and that brings a pile of conflicts-of-interest. Entry level mortgage requires $200k+ in income in either of those housing markets, which is more than junior faculty are paid. Tenured faculty -- including consulting and outside interests -- make a mint.

Re: An Investigation of the Facts Behind Columbia's U.S. News Ranking

#44

Post by cardiology-fat »

blagie wrote: post #43
cardiology-fat wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking more about brand/'hype' in particular. 15 years ago when I was starting my PhD, everyone adored MIT and wanted to be them. Now I'm faculty at a reasonably good university in Europe, and obviously MIT is a fantastic place and I'd probably give a finger to get a tenured job there. But I think Harvard/Oxford/Princeton/Stanford have slightly eclipsed MIT in pure brand power. Stanford especially gets more of a…

MIT's hay day in terms of research was decades ago -- before I got there -- sixties and eighties. The book Hackers by Levy is a good read on MIT Classic. It took a while for the work from there to be recognized outside in other institutions; you can give a 10-20 year window there. In the general public, virtually no one had heard of MIT. By the late nineties, MIT research was just past its peak. Peer reputation peake…

It's not that I disagree with you exactly, but I think you're overgeneralising from tech. In my discipline (in the humanities) MIT is still top-notch, though has never quite been on a par with Princeton. Research integrity isn't really an issue, and there's no outside or consulting income to be had, so it's all salary. Housing is complex because rich universities often own property that they let you live in for free.

Re: An Investigation of the Facts Behind Columbia's U.S. News Ranking

#45

Post by blagie »

cardiology-fat wrote: post #44
blagie wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT's hay day in terms of research was decades ago -- before I got there -- sixties and eighties. The book Hackers by Levy is a good read on MIT Classic. It took a while for the work from there to be recognized outside in other institutions; you can give a 10-20 year window there. In the general public, virtually no one had heard of MIT. By the late nineties, MIT research was just past its peak. Peer reputation peake…

It's not that I disagree with you exactly, but I think you're overgeneralising from tech. In my discipline (in the humanities) MIT is still top-notch, though has never quite been on a par with Princeton. Research integrity isn't really an issue, and there's no outside or consulting income to be had, so it's all salary. Housing is complex because rich universities often own property that they let you live in for free.

Hahaha.

The humanities? Like education? Where MIT acquired a bunch of IP through fraud, lies, and sometimes intimidation, bundled it up into edX, and sold it for $800M, with money lining the pockets of well-positioned faculty members?

Or Stanford? With their school of ed? Baking data to support politically-popular causes, and gaining "impact" when fraudulent research is adopted by virtue of reinforcing what teachers want to hear, with the only victims being the students?

Yeah. Please. Do some research and come back another time.

If you want high-integrity ed research, you can look towards ASU, WPI, or many other schools one tier down in brand, and two tiers up in integrity.

Re: An Investigation of the Facts Behind Columbia's U.S. News Ranking

#46

Post by cardiology-fat »

blagie wrote: post #45
cardiology-fat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that I disagree with you exactly, but I think you're overgeneralising from tech. In my discipline (in the humanities) MIT is still top-notch, though has never quite been on a par with Princeton. Research integrity isn't really an issue, and there's no outside or consulting income to be had, so it's all salary. Housing is complex because rich universities often own property that they let you live in for free.

Hahaha. The humanities? Like education? Where MIT acquired a bunch of IP through fraud, lies, and sometimes intimidation, bundled it up into edX, and sold it for $800M, with money lining the pockets of well-positioned faculty members? Or Stanford? With their school of ed? Baking data to support politically-popular causes, and gaining "impact" when fraudulent research is adopted by virtue of reinforcing what teachers…

No, not education. You guessed wrong about which discipline, and then went on a crazy rant... not a good look for you.

There is one of the humanities disciplines that MIT has been excellent in for several decades... if you don't know which one it is, then you don't know as much as you think you do.

(As I said, 'integrity' isn't really an issue in my discipline. Outside possible plagiarism, I guess. Another way in which your rant was a bit silly.)

Also, ASU and WPI one tier down in brand from MIT? Dream on, try three or four tiers.

Re: An Investigation of the Facts Behind Columbia's U.S. News Ranking

#47

Post by blagie »

cardiology-fat wrote: post #46
blagie wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hahaha. The humanities? Like education? Where MIT acquired a bunch of IP through fraud, lies, and sometimes intimidation, bundled it up into edX, and sold it for $800M, with money lining the pockets of well-positioned faculty members? Or Stanford? With their school of ed? Baking data to support politically-popular causes, and gaining "impact" when fraudulent research is adopted by virtue of reinforcing what teachers…

No, not education. You guessed wrong about which discipline, and then went on a crazy rant... not a good look for you. There is one of the humanities disciplines that MIT has been excellent in for several decades... if you don't know which one it is, then you don't know as much as you think you do. (As I said, 'integrity' isn't really an issue in my discipline. Outside possible plagiarism, I guess. Another way in whi…

For your reference, tiers are traditionally defined by Carnegie. There are around 5000 schools in the US. A couple hundred are in the top two tiers, R1 and R2. Here is a list:

https://cehd.gmu.edu/assets/docs/faculty/tenurepromotion/ins...

MIT, ASU, and WPI are all on this list. MIT and ASU are both R1, while WPI is R2.

As a footnote, elitism isn't a good look either, at least in 2022. I had that look when I was affiliated with the elites, and I believed it too.

Re: An Investigation of the Facts Behind Columbia's U.S. News Ranking

#48

Post by cardiology-fat »

blagie wrote: post #47
cardiology-fat wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not education. You guessed wrong about which discipline, and then went on a crazy rant... not a good look for you. There is one of the humanities disciplines that MIT has been excellent in for several decades... if you don't know which one it is, then you don't know as much as you think you do. (As I said, 'integrity' isn't really an issue in my discipline. Outside possible plagiarism, I guess. Another way in whi…

For your reference, tiers are traditionally defined by Carnegie. There are around 5000 schools in the US. A couple hundred are in the top two tiers, R1 and R2. Here is a list: https://cehd.gmu.edu/assets/docs/faculty/tenurepromotion/ins... MIT, ASU, and WPI are all on this list. MIT and ASU are both R1, while WPI is R2. As a footnote, elitism isn't a good look either, at least in 2022. I had that look when I was affi…

You started out talking about '#1 university brand', and now you want to pretend you mean the Carnegie categories? Come off it. Not only are they much too coarse-grained, but they're also (by design) US-centric.

I'm at somewhere way less prominent than either, but even I can see that there are way more than 1 prestige tiers between MIT and ASU.

But of far greater concern is your bizarre condescending tone. You even told me to do my research. Are you an antivaxxer?

Re: An Investigation of the Facts Behind Columbia's U.S. News Ranking

#49

Post by relaxing »

I couldn’t find his data set available, so his assertion about terminal degrees is curious to me.

He seems to consider Ph.D. the only terminal degree, and specifically calls out the Arts school for having faculty with Master’s. But in most fields in the Arts, an MFA (though usually not an MA) is terminal.

Re: An Investigation of the Facts Behind Columbia's U.S. News Ranking

#50

Post by alisonkisk »

colinmhayes wrote: post #10

I took a class with Northwestern's last president Morton Schapiro. He admitted that the school lies about standardized test numbers in one of the lectures. Can't say it was too surprising. It seems like every school in the top 50 is claiming that at least 25% of their students get 34+ on the act.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN