<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_04_226219</id>
	<title>Clemson Staffer Outlines College Rankings Manipulation</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244110620000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>xzvf writes <i>"A disgruntled Clemson University staffer shows <a href="http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/762934.html">how US News and World Report college rankings are manipulated</a>. Techniques include bad-mouthing other schools, filling out applications from highly qualified students that never intended to apply, and lying about class size and professor salaries."</i> The school, naturally, denies that anything unethical went on. The New York Times has a <a href="http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/clemson/?hp">more detailed article</a>, which links to this <a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/06/03/rankings">first-person account</a> of the presentation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>xzvf writes " A disgruntled Clemson University staffer shows how US News and World Report college rankings are manipulated .
Techniques include bad-mouthing other schools , filling out applications from highly qualified students that never intended to apply , and lying about class size and professor salaries .
" The school , naturally , denies that anything unethical went on .
The New York Times has a more detailed article , which links to this first-person account of the presentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>xzvf writes "A disgruntled Clemson University staffer shows how US News and World Report college rankings are manipulated.
Techniques include bad-mouthing other schools, filling out applications from highly qualified students that never intended to apply, and lying about class size and professor salaries.
" The school, naturally, denies that anything unethical went on.
The New York Times has a more detailed article, which links to this first-person account of the presentation.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218167</id>
	<title>Why is Clemson's school color blaze orange?</title>
	<author>leftie</author>
	<datestamp>1244133720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the students can go to the game on Saturday, go hunting on Sunday, and pick up trash along the highway on work days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the students can go to the game on Saturday , go hunting on Sunday , and pick up trash along the highway on work days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the students can go to the game on Saturday, go hunting on Sunday, and pick up trash along the highway on work days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219371</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1244235000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Any time an important ranking system is devised, those being judged will figure out how to cheat the system. Given how important these rankings are perceived to be, this should be no surprise to anyone. I am more surprised this is a surprise.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>I'm surprised you're surprised that people are <i>acting</i> surprised; they aren't surprised, they just act that way for effect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any time an important ranking system is devised , those being judged will figure out how to cheat the system .
Given how important these rankings are perceived to be , this should be no surprise to anyone .
I am more surprised this is a surprise .
I 'm surprised you 're surprised that people are acting surprised ; they are n't surprised , they just act that way for effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any time an important ranking system is devised, those being judged will figure out how to cheat the system.
Given how important these rankings are perceived to be, this should be no surprise to anyone.
I am more surprised this is a surprise.
I'm surprised you're surprised that people are acting surprised; they aren't surprised, they just act that way for effect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216187</id>
	<title>doesn't sound too bad to me</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1244116320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Mostly, it doesn't sound to me like they did anything wrong.
</p><p>
They raised admissions standards.
They lowered the student-to-faculty ratio from 16 to 14.
They raised faculty salaries (and also changed the definition of salaries to fold in benefits, which apparently is allowed by U.S. News, so it was simply a mistake not to do so previously). These are all things that you would absolutely expect a school to do if they wanted to improve their academic reputation.
</p><p>
They seem to have good results to show from their efforts. "[...]the retention rate of freshmen has climbed to 89 from 82 percent and the graduation rate to 78 from 72 percent."
</p><p>
They did increase the number of large classes at the same time that they increased the number of small classes. TFA claims this was done in a cynical effort to match up their numbers with the exact criteria used by U.S. News. Maybe so, but it's also just an ordinary thing that big state schools have been doing for a long time. When I took freshman chemistry at UC Berkeley, they had 300 students in the room, but a lot of my other classes only had 20 or 30. That's just a normal way to make the school's money go further. The fact that the over-all faculty to student ratio did improve shows that they weren't just cooking the books.
</p><blockquote><div><p>Watt said that Clemson officials, in filling out the reputational survey form for presidents, rate "all programs other than Clemson below average," to make the university look better. "And I'm confident my president is not the only one who does that," Watt said.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
This one seems bad. However, she hasn't provided any evidence for her claim that it was widespread.
</p><p>
What really seems to upset a lot of the people quoted in the article is that they perceive Clemson as getting more elitist, which they thing is not appropriate for a land-grant university. Well, "elitist" is what you become when you join the elite.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mostly , it does n't sound to me like they did anything wrong .
They raised admissions standards .
They lowered the student-to-faculty ratio from 16 to 14 .
They raised faculty salaries ( and also changed the definition of salaries to fold in benefits , which apparently is allowed by U.S. News , so it was simply a mistake not to do so previously ) .
These are all things that you would absolutely expect a school to do if they wanted to improve their academic reputation .
They seem to have good results to show from their efforts .
" [ ... ] the retention rate of freshmen has climbed to 89 from 82 percent and the graduation rate to 78 from 72 percent .
" They did increase the number of large classes at the same time that they increased the number of small classes .
TFA claims this was done in a cynical effort to match up their numbers with the exact criteria used by U.S. News. Maybe so , but it 's also just an ordinary thing that big state schools have been doing for a long time .
When I took freshman chemistry at UC Berkeley , they had 300 students in the room , but a lot of my other classes only had 20 or 30 .
That 's just a normal way to make the school 's money go further .
The fact that the over-all faculty to student ratio did improve shows that they were n't just cooking the books .
Watt said that Clemson officials , in filling out the reputational survey form for presidents , rate " all programs other than Clemson below average , " to make the university look better .
" And I 'm confident my president is not the only one who does that , " Watt said .
This one seems bad .
However , she has n't provided any evidence for her claim that it was widespread .
What really seems to upset a lot of the people quoted in the article is that they perceive Clemson as getting more elitist , which they thing is not appropriate for a land-grant university .
Well , " elitist " is what you become when you join the elite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Mostly, it doesn't sound to me like they did anything wrong.
They raised admissions standards.
They lowered the student-to-faculty ratio from 16 to 14.
They raised faculty salaries (and also changed the definition of salaries to fold in benefits, which apparently is allowed by U.S. News, so it was simply a mistake not to do so previously).
These are all things that you would absolutely expect a school to do if they wanted to improve their academic reputation.
They seem to have good results to show from their efforts.
"[...]the retention rate of freshmen has climbed to 89 from 82 percent and the graduation rate to 78 from 72 percent.
"

They did increase the number of large classes at the same time that they increased the number of small classes.
TFA claims this was done in a cynical effort to match up their numbers with the exact criteria used by U.S. News. Maybe so, but it's also just an ordinary thing that big state schools have been doing for a long time.
When I took freshman chemistry at UC Berkeley, they had 300 students in the room, but a lot of my other classes only had 20 or 30.
That's just a normal way to make the school's money go further.
The fact that the over-all faculty to student ratio did improve shows that they weren't just cooking the books.
Watt said that Clemson officials, in filling out the reputational survey form for presidents, rate "all programs other than Clemson below average," to make the university look better.
"And I'm confident my president is not the only one who does that," Watt said.
This one seems bad.
However, she hasn't provided any evidence for her claim that it was widespread.
What really seems to upset a lot of the people quoted in the article is that they perceive Clemson as getting more elitist, which they thing is not appropriate for a land-grant university.
Well, "elitist" is what you become when you join the elite.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885</id>
	<title>In other news...</title>
	<author>Tigersmind</author>
	<datestamp>1244114700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>water is wet!</p><p>Of course they cheat. They have to. If they don't know how to cheat then how can they catch the students when they cheat so they can cheat better and better so they can cheat into a job where others learn to cheat from them!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/cheat cheat</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>water is wet ! Of course they cheat .
They have to .
If they do n't know how to cheat then how can they catch the students when they cheat so they can cheat better and better so they can cheat into a job where others learn to cheat from them !
/cheat cheat</tokentext>
<sentencetext>water is wet!Of course they cheat.
They have to.
If they don't know how to cheat then how can they catch the students when they cheat so they can cheat better and better so they can cheat into a job where others learn to cheat from them!
/cheat cheat</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217847</id>
	<title>Re:Is anyone surprised about this?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244130120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The internet competes with a college education in the same way that porn competes with sex.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The internet competes with a college education in the same way that porn competes with sex .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internet competes with a college education in the same way that porn competes with sex.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217629</id>
	<title>Hmmmmm.....</title>
	<author>IHC Navistar</author>
	<datestamp>1244127300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just out of curiosity, I have to ask:</p><p>Did the 'Disgruntled Staffer" happen to work in the mailroom?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just out of curiosity , I have to ask : Did the 'Disgruntled Staffer " happen to work in the mailroom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just out of curiosity, I have to ask:Did the 'Disgruntled Staffer" happen to work in the mailroom?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28220485</id>
	<title>Get them while they're hot</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1244206140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a roll of Clemson diplomas down in the men's room.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a roll of Clemson diplomas down in the men 's room .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a roll of Clemson diplomas down in the men's room.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219059</id>
	<title>College ranking is meaninless</title>
	<author>OutputLogic</author>
	<datestamp>1244144040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>College ranking is as meaningless as measuring an average temperature of patients in a hospital.
You can rank swimmers, chess players, runners.
But giving some abstract value to an educational institution ?!

<br> <br> <a href="http://outputlogic.com/" title="outputlogic.com" rel="nofollow">OutputLogic</a> [outputlogic.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>College ranking is as meaningless as measuring an average temperature of patients in a hospital .
You can rank swimmers , chess players , runners .
But giving some abstract value to an educational institution ? !
OutputLogic [ outputlogic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>College ranking is as meaningless as measuring an average temperature of patients in a hospital.
You can rank swimmers, chess players, runners.
But giving some abstract value to an educational institution ?!
OutputLogic [outputlogic.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217393</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244124660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looking through the comments, I see a lot of apathetic people talking about how obvious it is that this would happen, but I see no one talking about how to improve the situation (other than hinting that making education free would solve all our problems). We are in this situation because everyone just assumes it is the only way. Why don't people start thinking about how to change it? Keep in mind, though, that practical solutions are needed. A revolution in education funding isn't going to happen overnight.</p><p>There are so many intelligent people reading slashdot. It's sad that this isn't used as a forum for developing solutions. Instead it seems to be an outlet for apathy and pessimism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looking through the comments , I see a lot of apathetic people talking about how obvious it is that this would happen , but I see no one talking about how to improve the situation ( other than hinting that making education free would solve all our problems ) .
We are in this situation because everyone just assumes it is the only way .
Why do n't people start thinking about how to change it ?
Keep in mind , though , that practical solutions are needed .
A revolution in education funding is n't going to happen overnight.There are so many intelligent people reading slashdot .
It 's sad that this is n't used as a forum for developing solutions .
Instead it seems to be an outlet for apathy and pessimism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looking through the comments, I see a lot of apathetic people talking about how obvious it is that this would happen, but I see no one talking about how to improve the situation (other than hinting that making education free would solve all our problems).
We are in this situation because everyone just assumes it is the only way.
Why don't people start thinking about how to change it?
Keep in mind, though, that practical solutions are needed.
A revolution in education funding isn't going to happen overnight.There are so many intelligent people reading slashdot.
It's sad that this isn't used as a forum for developing solutions.
Instead it seems to be an outlet for apathy and pessimism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215841</id>
	<title>Moo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244114400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MooCow</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MooCow</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MooCow</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218161</id>
	<title>Rankings are just opinions in disguise</title>
	<author>dpbsmith</author>
	<datestamp>1244133660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mel Elfin pretty much let the cat out of the bag. When asked how he knew that the U. S. News and World Report rankings were sound,  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College\_and\_university\_rankings#U.S.\_News\_.26\_World\_Report\_College\_and\_University\_rankings" title="wikipedia.org">he answered</a> [wikipedia.org]that he knew it because Harvard, Yale, and Princeton always landed on top.</p><p>In other words, the rankings are simply a way to give the trappings of science and objectivity to a system whose purpose is merely to reaffirm the conventional wisdom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mel Elfin pretty much let the cat out of the bag .
When asked how he knew that the U. S. News and World Report rankings were sound , he answered [ wikipedia.org ] that he knew it because Harvard , Yale , and Princeton always landed on top.In other words , the rankings are simply a way to give the trappings of science and objectivity to a system whose purpose is merely to reaffirm the conventional wisdom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mel Elfin pretty much let the cat out of the bag.
When asked how he knew that the U. S. News and World Report rankings were sound,  he answered [wikipedia.org]that he knew it because Harvard, Yale, and Princeton always landed on top.In other words, the rankings are simply a way to give the trappings of science and objectivity to a system whose purpose is merely to reaffirm the conventional wisdom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215893</id>
	<title>And...?</title>
	<author>TD-Linux</author>
	<datestamp>1244114700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this surprising? It's difficult to fact-check a lot of this stuff, simply because there is no uniform way to measure it. It's like contrast ratio and response time for LCDs.

Does anyone actually base their college choice on these rankings, anyway?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this surprising ?
It 's difficult to fact-check a lot of this stuff , simply because there is no uniform way to measure it .
It 's like contrast ratio and response time for LCDs .
Does anyone actually base their college choice on these rankings , anyway ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this surprising?
It's difficult to fact-check a lot of this stuff, simply because there is no uniform way to measure it.
It's like contrast ratio and response time for LCDs.
Does anyone actually base their college choice on these rankings, anyway?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216821</id>
	<title>Re:And...?</title>
	<author>iggymanz</author>
	<datestamp>1244120040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I chose mine for realistic flesh tones, it's supposed to help with high intensity scenes, like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>......er, certain sports.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I chose mine for realistic flesh tones , it 's supposed to help with high intensity scenes , like ......er , certain sports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I chose mine for realistic flesh tones, it's supposed to help with high intensity scenes, like ......er, certain sports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215925</id>
	<title>Same thing happens with Law Schools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244114880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This year USNews decided to count night programs where many law schools hid their most unqualified(by USNews standards) students.  Most bit the bullet and took the hit in their rankings.  Brooklyn Law pretended their night program didn't exist,which is why it isn't listed in the part-time section.<p>

If there is a way to monkey with the rankings, schools will do it. USNews rankings are taken seriously enough where they should really improve their methodology so that it is at least more difficult to cheat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This year USNews decided to count night programs where many law schools hid their most unqualified ( by USNews standards ) students .
Most bit the bullet and took the hit in their rankings .
Brooklyn Law pretended their night program did n't exist,which is why it is n't listed in the part-time section .
If there is a way to monkey with the rankings , schools will do it .
USNews rankings are taken seriously enough where they should really improve their methodology so that it is at least more difficult to cheat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This year USNews decided to count night programs where many law schools hid their most unqualified(by USNews standards) students.
Most bit the bullet and took the hit in their rankings.
Brooklyn Law pretended their night program didn't exist,which is why it isn't listed in the part-time section.
If there is a way to monkey with the rankings, schools will do it.
USNews rankings are taken seriously enough where they should really improve their methodology so that it is at least more difficult to cheat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215959</id>
	<title>It explains a lot</title>
	<author>docbrody</author>
	<datestamp>1244115060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've always wondered about these rankings.  If you get into Harvard, aren't you pretty much going to go there, regardless of whether it is 1st, 2nd or 15th on the school rankings.  And doesn't the same go with most Ivy League schools, as well as schools like Stanford, MIT, and a few others.<br> <br>
And by extension, it seems likely that these schools get the lions share of the best applicants... again, regardless of their rankings that year. And on top of that, aren't all the best professors trying to get jobs at these schools?<br> <br>
Maybe these rankings are more helpful to deciding where to go to school once you get past the top 20 schools, but based on this news I doubt it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wondered about these rankings .
If you get into Harvard , are n't you pretty much going to go there , regardless of whether it is 1st , 2nd or 15th on the school rankings .
And does n't the same go with most Ivy League schools , as well as schools like Stanford , MIT , and a few others .
And by extension , it seems likely that these schools get the lions share of the best applicants... again , regardless of their rankings that year .
And on top of that , are n't all the best professors trying to get jobs at these schools ?
Maybe these rankings are more helpful to deciding where to go to school once you get past the top 20 schools , but based on this news I doubt it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wondered about these rankings.
If you get into Harvard, aren't you pretty much going to go there, regardless of whether it is 1st, 2nd or 15th on the school rankings.
And doesn't the same go with most Ivy League schools, as well as schools like Stanford, MIT, and a few others.
And by extension, it seems likely that these schools get the lions share of the best applicants... again, regardless of their rankings that year.
And on top of that, aren't all the best professors trying to get jobs at these schools?
Maybe these rankings are more helpful to deciding where to go to school once you get past the top 20 schools, but based on this news I doubt it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216939</id>
	<title>Re:It explains a lot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244120880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've always wondered about these rankings. If you get into Harvard, aren't you pretty much going to go there, regardless of whether it is 1st, 2nd or 15th on the school rankings. And doesn't the same go with most Ivy League schools, as well as schools like Stanford, MIT, and a few others.</p></div><p>FWIW, Harvard offered me a full ride, and Stanford and MIT couldn't wait to get their hands on me.  I ended up going to a small private uni.
</p><p>
Granted, rankings had nothing to do with it, but your generalization there kinda annoyed me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wondered about these rankings .
If you get into Harvard , are n't you pretty much going to go there , regardless of whether it is 1st , 2nd or 15th on the school rankings .
And does n't the same go with most Ivy League schools , as well as schools like Stanford , MIT , and a few others.FWIW , Harvard offered me a full ride , and Stanford and MIT could n't wait to get their hands on me .
I ended up going to a small private uni .
Granted , rankings had nothing to do with it , but your generalization there kinda annoyed me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wondered about these rankings.
If you get into Harvard, aren't you pretty much going to go there, regardless of whether it is 1st, 2nd or 15th on the school rankings.
And doesn't the same go with most Ivy League schools, as well as schools like Stanford, MIT, and a few others.FWIW, Harvard offered me a full ride, and Stanford and MIT couldn't wait to get their hands on me.
I ended up going to a small private uni.
Granted, rankings had nothing to do with it, but your generalization there kinda annoyed me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216385</id>
	<title>Re:Same thing happens with Law Schools</title>
	<author>elashish14</author>
	<datestamp>1244117580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another trick that universities use to inflate their rankings is to give free applications to students that will never get in. Artificially increase the number of applications, then easily reject all of them to lower your admission rate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another trick that universities use to inflate their rankings is to give free applications to students that will never get in .
Artificially increase the number of applications , then easily reject all of them to lower your admission rate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another trick that universities use to inflate their rankings is to give free applications to students that will never get in.
Artificially increase the number of applications, then easily reject all of them to lower your admission rate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215925</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218231</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>bogjobber</author>
	<datestamp>1244134140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The solution is to ignore US News &amp; World Report rankings.  Even if schools didn't try and game the results, it's still a ridiculous way to gauge the quality of education you will receive at a university.<br> <br>

My uni regularly gets knocked down in the rankings because the average graduation time is a little less than six years.  But the majority of students work full time!  If you want to work and gain experience on the job and money while attending, we're better situated than 95\% of schools, but that isn't taken into account.<br> <br>

There are just way too many factors to take into account, and personal preference should guide the decision, not the weird criterion that US News &amp; World Report uses.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The solution is to ignore US News &amp; World Report rankings .
Even if schools did n't try and game the results , it 's still a ridiculous way to gauge the quality of education you will receive at a university .
My uni regularly gets knocked down in the rankings because the average graduation time is a little less than six years .
But the majority of students work full time !
If you want to work and gain experience on the job and money while attending , we 're better situated than 95 \ % of schools , but that is n't taken into account .
There are just way too many factors to take into account , and personal preference should guide the decision , not the weird criterion that US News &amp; World Report uses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The solution is to ignore US News &amp; World Report rankings.
Even if schools didn't try and game the results, it's still a ridiculous way to gauge the quality of education you will receive at a university.
My uni regularly gets knocked down in the rankings because the average graduation time is a little less than six years.
But the majority of students work full time!
If you want to work and gain experience on the job and money while attending, we're better situated than 95\% of schools, but that isn't taken into account.
There are just way too many factors to take into account, and personal preference should guide the decision, not the weird criterion that US News &amp; World Report uses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217083</id>
	<title>Fraud?</title>
	<author>DoofusOfDeath</author>
	<datestamp>1244122140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, dues this constitute criminal fraud by Clemson?  It sounds like it was used to like to students and their parents regarding what their tuition was getting them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , dues this constitute criminal fraud by Clemson ?
It sounds like it was used to like to students and their parents regarding what their tuition was getting them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, dues this constitute criminal fraud by Clemson?
It sounds like it was used to like to students and their parents regarding what their tuition was getting them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216797</id>
	<title>Re:Playboy's Top Party Schools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244119860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Like the other dude noted, girls from Wellesley didn't come for the guys, maybe except to chew their heads off.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like the other dude noted , girls from Wellesley did n't come for the guys , maybe except to chew their heads off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like the other dude noted, girls from Wellesley didn't come for the guys, maybe except to chew their heads off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215887</id>
	<title>So?</title>
	<author>DragonDru</author>
	<datestamp>1244114700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Any time an important ranking system is devised, those being judged will figure out how to cheat the system.  Given how important these rankings are perceived to be, this should be no surprise to anyone.  I am more surprised this is a surprise.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Any time an important ranking system is devised , those being judged will figure out how to cheat the system .
Given how important these rankings are perceived to be , this should be no surprise to anyone .
I am more surprised this is a surprise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any time an important ranking system is devised, those being judged will figure out how to cheat the system.
Given how important these rankings are perceived to be, this should be no surprise to anyone.
I am more surprised this is a surprise.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219879</id>
	<title>Is this the university bubble pop?</title>
	<author>An dochasac</author>
	<datestamp>1244199360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What has risen at a rate higher than inflation over the past few decades?
<ol>
<li>The price of housing:  A problem which is well on its way to correcting itself.</li>
<li>The price of medical care: Our average age is rising so it needs more sophisticated medical care.</li>

<li>The price of oil: Correction, it may eventually go back if we remain stupid about consumption but that's a supply/demand issue.</li>
<li>The price of a university education: Reaganistas convinced us that a University education should payback the individual in short order, universities capitalized on this false promise.  They've convinced us that investment would pay off while they <b>dumbed themselves down so anyone could get in (subprime anyone?)</b>  They've spent money on gyms, dorms and (apparently) rankings instead of good teachers and research.  Yes university education is good for the society as a whole.  But for the individual student the financial break-even point is very far out unless she follows hot trends such as IT in the early 1990s or investment banking in the early 2000s.  Smart students didn't pursue sciences, medicine, engineering or a variety of other careers where a creative individual can work for a better society.  When will this bubble pop?</li>

</ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>What has risen at a rate higher than inflation over the past few decades ?
The price of housing : A problem which is well on its way to correcting itself .
The price of medical care : Our average age is rising so it needs more sophisticated medical care .
The price of oil : Correction , it may eventually go back if we remain stupid about consumption but that 's a supply/demand issue .
The price of a university education : Reaganistas convinced us that a University education should payback the individual in short order , universities capitalized on this false promise .
They 've convinced us that investment would pay off while they dumbed themselves down so anyone could get in ( subprime anyone ?
) They 've spent money on gyms , dorms and ( apparently ) rankings instead of good teachers and research .
Yes university education is good for the society as a whole .
But for the individual student the financial break-even point is very far out unless she follows hot trends such as IT in the early 1990s or investment banking in the early 2000s .
Smart students did n't pursue sciences , medicine , engineering or a variety of other careers where a creative individual can work for a better society .
When will this bubble pop ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What has risen at a rate higher than inflation over the past few decades?
The price of housing:  A problem which is well on its way to correcting itself.
The price of medical care: Our average age is rising so it needs more sophisticated medical care.
The price of oil: Correction, it may eventually go back if we remain stupid about consumption but that's a supply/demand issue.
The price of a university education: Reaganistas convinced us that a University education should payback the individual in short order, universities capitalized on this false promise.
They've convinced us that investment would pay off while they dumbed themselves down so anyone could get in (subprime anyone?
)  They've spent money on gyms, dorms and (apparently) rankings instead of good teachers and research.
Yes university education is good for the society as a whole.
But for the individual student the financial break-even point is very far out unless she follows hot trends such as IT in the early 1990s or investment banking in the early 2000s.
Smart students didn't pursue sciences, medicine, engineering or a variety of other careers where a creative individual can work for a better society.
When will this bubble pop?

</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216419</id>
	<title>Re:And...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244117820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I chose my HDTV based on contrast ratio and response time. It's supposed to help with high speed scenes, like sports.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I chose my HDTV based on contrast ratio and response time .
It 's supposed to help with high speed scenes , like sports .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I chose my HDTV based on contrast ratio and response time.
It's supposed to help with high speed scenes, like sports.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28220601</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>sunnyflorida</author>
	<datestamp>1244207100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The worse thing about colleges in the U.S. are the "diversity" programs. There is no way the most qualified students fit the nice proportional racial mix that colleges tout.

They are academic institutions and should favor the most academic applicants regardless of race.

Think about the NBA or the NFL or MLB. If any team said we have enough blacks or Puerto RIcans we need a few more American Indians or Chinese, it would be an outrage.

We expect sports teams to play the best players. Colleges should be encouraged to do the same.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The worse thing about colleges in the U.S. are the " diversity " programs .
There is no way the most qualified students fit the nice proportional racial mix that colleges tout .
They are academic institutions and should favor the most academic applicants regardless of race .
Think about the NBA or the NFL or MLB .
If any team said we have enough blacks or Puerto RIcans we need a few more American Indians or Chinese , it would be an outrage .
We expect sports teams to play the best players .
Colleges should be encouraged to do the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The worse thing about colleges in the U.S. are the "diversity" programs.
There is no way the most qualified students fit the nice proportional racial mix that colleges tout.
They are academic institutions and should favor the most academic applicants regardless of race.
Think about the NBA or the NFL or MLB.
If any team said we have enough blacks or Puerto RIcans we need a few more American Indians or Chinese, it would be an outrage.
We expect sports teams to play the best players.
Colleges should be encouraged to do the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219261</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>bzipitidoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244233260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Educating students about RL might do it.  Get everyone to understand that for any skill that's difficult to measure, you actually don't want the number 1 lawyer, realtor, doctor, dentist, plumber, etc.  You want someone who has a good reputation, but no more than that.

</p><p>Whoever clawed their way to number 1 has very likely put more expertize into gaming the system than doing a professional job.  While dazzling you with that number 1 rating, they will take shortcuts at your expense, and they will recklessly hustle you through their system as fast and cheaply as they can.   If you complain, they will be ready to squelch that too.  A useful contact at the BBB, a little bit of working that system too, and all record of your complaints will end up in the shredder.  One acquaintance of mine retained the "best" lawyer in the metroplex for his nasty divorce, and was talking almost gleefully about how his ex was going to be squashed in court.  Then he found out why that lawyer was the "best".  The lawyer instructed him to lie in court.  When he would not, the lawyer dropped him.

</p><p>After a little preparation on what to expect, send students to at least 2 very different "big money" tournaments.  It's one thing to hear about it, quite another to be the victim of cheating.  It won't matter what-- chess, baseball, poker, pool, any kind of racing, whatever.  All that matters is that there are big prizes.  More participants than usual are sure to have a cork bat, marked cards, things up their sleeves, tricks, co-conspirators, a fix.

</p><p>There's little else that can be done, and maybe only so much that should be done.   Cheating and deceit is a fact of life.  Biology abounds with examples-- parasites and mimics and sneaks, like the cow bird, the king snake, the blue-throated lizard.  The incentive for such sharp competition can be reduced, maybe.  Systems can be improved so they are less gameable.  The goal isn't perfection, it's just to make the effort of cheating and the chances of pulling it off more and worse than honest training and honest victory.  It's like the 2 campers being chased by a bear.  You don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster than the other camper.  And finally, don't go out of the way to play games that lend themselves to cheating.  Perhaps the most surprising thing about all this is that US News has somehow managed to make their rankings so valuable, gotten so many to believe in it, that the schools are willing to get down and dirty over it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Educating students about RL might do it .
Get everyone to understand that for any skill that 's difficult to measure , you actually do n't want the number 1 lawyer , realtor , doctor , dentist , plumber , etc .
You want someone who has a good reputation , but no more than that .
Whoever clawed their way to number 1 has very likely put more expertize into gaming the system than doing a professional job .
While dazzling you with that number 1 rating , they will take shortcuts at your expense , and they will recklessly hustle you through their system as fast and cheaply as they can .
If you complain , they will be ready to squelch that too .
A useful contact at the BBB , a little bit of working that system too , and all record of your complaints will end up in the shredder .
One acquaintance of mine retained the " best " lawyer in the metroplex for his nasty divorce , and was talking almost gleefully about how his ex was going to be squashed in court .
Then he found out why that lawyer was the " best " .
The lawyer instructed him to lie in court .
When he would not , the lawyer dropped him .
After a little preparation on what to expect , send students to at least 2 very different " big money " tournaments .
It 's one thing to hear about it , quite another to be the victim of cheating .
It wo n't matter what-- chess , baseball , poker , pool , any kind of racing , whatever .
All that matters is that there are big prizes .
More participants than usual are sure to have a cork bat , marked cards , things up their sleeves , tricks , co-conspirators , a fix .
There 's little else that can be done , and maybe only so much that should be done .
Cheating and deceit is a fact of life .
Biology abounds with examples-- parasites and mimics and sneaks , like the cow bird , the king snake , the blue-throated lizard .
The incentive for such sharp competition can be reduced , maybe .
Systems can be improved so they are less gameable .
The goal is n't perfection , it 's just to make the effort of cheating and the chances of pulling it off more and worse than honest training and honest victory .
It 's like the 2 campers being chased by a bear .
You do n't have to be faster than the bear , you just have to be faster than the other camper .
And finally , do n't go out of the way to play games that lend themselves to cheating .
Perhaps the most surprising thing about all this is that US News has somehow managed to make their rankings so valuable , gotten so many to believe in it , that the schools are willing to get down and dirty over it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Educating students about RL might do it.
Get everyone to understand that for any skill that's difficult to measure, you actually don't want the number 1 lawyer, realtor, doctor, dentist, plumber, etc.
You want someone who has a good reputation, but no more than that.
Whoever clawed their way to number 1 has very likely put more expertize into gaming the system than doing a professional job.
While dazzling you with that number 1 rating, they will take shortcuts at your expense, and they will recklessly hustle you through their system as fast and cheaply as they can.
If you complain, they will be ready to squelch that too.
A useful contact at the BBB, a little bit of working that system too, and all record of your complaints will end up in the shredder.
One acquaintance of mine retained the "best" lawyer in the metroplex for his nasty divorce, and was talking almost gleefully about how his ex was going to be squashed in court.
Then he found out why that lawyer was the "best".
The lawyer instructed him to lie in court.
When he would not, the lawyer dropped him.
After a little preparation on what to expect, send students to at least 2 very different "big money" tournaments.
It's one thing to hear about it, quite another to be the victim of cheating.
It won't matter what-- chess, baseball, poker, pool, any kind of racing, whatever.
All that matters is that there are big prizes.
More participants than usual are sure to have a cork bat, marked cards, things up their sleeves, tricks, co-conspirators, a fix.
There's little else that can be done, and maybe only so much that should be done.
Cheating and deceit is a fact of life.
Biology abounds with examples-- parasites and mimics and sneaks, like the cow bird, the king snake, the blue-throated lizard.
The incentive for such sharp competition can be reduced, maybe.
Systems can be improved so they are less gameable.
The goal isn't perfection, it's just to make the effort of cheating and the chances of pulling it off more and worse than honest training and honest victory.
It's like the 2 campers being chased by a bear.
You don't have to be faster than the bear, you just have to be faster than the other camper.
And finally, don't go out of the way to play games that lend themselves to cheating.
Perhaps the most surprising thing about all this is that US News has somehow managed to make their rankings so valuable, gotten so many to believe in it, that the schools are willing to get down and dirty over it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216277</id>
	<title>Re:Playboy's Top Party Schools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244116800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I feel badly for all those kids who chose MIT because of its top-ten Playboy ranking, only to go and find a bunch of nerds, forever regretting not going to Clemson instead.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't know if you ever visited MIT in the 80s.  The parties were definitely off the hook, and the girls coming in from Wellesley, BU, BC, etc were pretty amazing.<br> <br>One thing I recall from the MIT guys I knew -- those guys were overachievers at <i>everything</i> -- academics, sports, leadership, and of course, partying.  My exposure was limited to guys like that, so I don't know if it applied to the rest of the student body... but you should have seen some of the fantastic hack-engineering used to hide kegs, jello pits, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel badly for all those kids who chose MIT because of its top-ten Playboy ranking , only to go and find a bunch of nerds , forever regretting not going to Clemson instead.I do n't know if you ever visited MIT in the 80s .
The parties were definitely off the hook , and the girls coming in from Wellesley , BU , BC , etc were pretty amazing .
One thing I recall from the MIT guys I knew -- those guys were overachievers at everything -- academics , sports , leadership , and of course , partying .
My exposure was limited to guys like that , so I do n't know if it applied to the rest of the student body... but you should have seen some of the fantastic hack-engineering used to hide kegs , jello pits , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel badly for all those kids who chose MIT because of its top-ten Playboy ranking, only to go and find a bunch of nerds, forever regretting not going to Clemson instead.I don't know if you ever visited MIT in the 80s.
The parties were definitely off the hook, and the girls coming in from Wellesley, BU, BC, etc were pretty amazing.
One thing I recall from the MIT guys I knew -- those guys were overachievers at everything -- academics, sports, leadership, and of course, partying.
My exposure was limited to guys like that, so I don't know if it applied to the rest of the student body... but you should have seen some of the fantastic hack-engineering used to hide kegs, jello pits, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217543</id>
	<title>Its Clemson...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244126160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cheating is in their blood...</p><p>(I kid, I kid... maybe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cheating is in their blood... ( I kid , I kid... maybe : ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cheating is in their blood...(I kid, I kid... maybe :) )</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219229</id>
	<title>what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244232780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>after reading the "first-person account", i'm really lost.</p><p>i imagine sitting through the talk and then hearing the question and answer session that followed.</p><p>just going by that first person account, it seems like during the talk we hear what doug lederman puts as:<br>"Watt continued, as she described what she called the "more questionable aspects of what we&#226;(TM)ve done.""<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...where those more questionable things seem to, according to doug's rendition, include rolling the benefits into the salary.</p><p>it sounds like in the questions at the close of the talk people were pretty interested in these questionable things. according to doug, it seems that when the presenter was pressed for details "Watt said that the university had added benefits to its faculty salary reporting to U.S. News after previously having failed to do so, as the magazine requires."</p><p>
&nbsp; so at what point does reporting the salary the way you are supposed to report it enter the box of "questionable practices"?</p><p>were there other things she was alluding to that failed to be highlighted? seems like those, if they exist, were the important points.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...so is watt the moron for presenting one thing and backsliding in the questions or is doug the moron for giving us a summary of this backsliding talk?</p><p>are we morons for wasting time reading this crap?</p><p>or is it just me... ?</p><p>am i the moron for thinking this is all garbage?</p><p>so university looks at the U.S. news model and conforms to that model. that model is what describes a top school. (they say) if your boss gives you a model for a top employee, you might conform to the model. you want that raise don't you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>after reading the " first-person account " , i 'm really lost.i imagine sitting through the talk and then hearing the question and answer session that followed.just going by that first person account , it seems like during the talk we hear what doug lederman puts as : " Watt continued , as she described what she called the " more questionable aspects of what we   ( TM ) ve done .
" " ...where those more questionable things seem to , according to doug 's rendition , include rolling the benefits into the salary.it sounds like in the questions at the close of the talk people were pretty interested in these questionable things .
according to doug , it seems that when the presenter was pressed for details " Watt said that the university had added benefits to its faculty salary reporting to U.S. News after previously having failed to do so , as the magazine requires .
"   so at what point does reporting the salary the way you are supposed to report it enter the box of " questionable practices " ? were there other things she was alluding to that failed to be highlighted ?
seems like those , if they exist , were the important points .
...so is watt the moron for presenting one thing and backsliding in the questions or is doug the moron for giving us a summary of this backsliding talk ? are we morons for wasting time reading this crap ? or is it just me... ? am i the moron for thinking this is all garbage ? so university looks at the U.S. news model and conforms to that model .
that model is what describes a top school .
( they say ) if your boss gives you a model for a top employee , you might conform to the model .
you want that raise do n't you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>after reading the "first-person account", i'm really lost.i imagine sitting through the talk and then hearing the question and answer session that followed.just going by that first person account, it seems like during the talk we hear what doug lederman puts as:"Watt continued, as she described what she called the "more questionable aspects of what weâ(TM)ve done.
"" ...where those more questionable things seem to, according to doug's rendition, include rolling the benefits into the salary.it sounds like in the questions at the close of the talk people were pretty interested in these questionable things.
according to doug, it seems that when the presenter was pressed for details "Watt said that the university had added benefits to its faculty salary reporting to U.S. News after previously having failed to do so, as the magazine requires.
"
  so at what point does reporting the salary the way you are supposed to report it enter the box of "questionable practices"?were there other things she was alluding to that failed to be highlighted?
seems like those, if they exist, were the important points.
...so is watt the moron for presenting one thing and backsliding in the questions or is doug the moron for giving us a summary of this backsliding talk?are we morons for wasting time reading this crap?or is it just me... ?am i the moron for thinking this is all garbage?so university looks at the U.S. news model and conforms to that model.
that model is what describes a top school.
(they say) if your boss gives you a model for a top employee, you might conform to the model.
you want that raise don't you?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216029</id>
	<title>Common</title>
	<author>gtwrek</author>
	<datestamp>1244115420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the late 80s, Georgia Tech would have any incoming freshmen with lower high school GPAs start in the Summer quarter.  This was under the auspices of giving those who were struggling, a bit more time to adjust to college curriculum before the incoming fall crush.</p><p>The interesting "side effect" was that the GPA of incoming Fall freshmen was thus higher, and the university had no trouble repeating that fact.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the late 80s , Georgia Tech would have any incoming freshmen with lower high school GPAs start in the Summer quarter .
This was under the auspices of giving those who were struggling , a bit more time to adjust to college curriculum before the incoming fall crush.The interesting " side effect " was that the GPA of incoming Fall freshmen was thus higher , and the university had no trouble repeating that fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the late 80s, Georgia Tech would have any incoming freshmen with lower high school GPAs start in the Summer quarter.
This was under the auspices of giving those who were struggling, a bit more time to adjust to college curriculum before the incoming fall crush.The interesting "side effect" was that the GPA of incoming Fall freshmen was thus higher, and the university had no trouble repeating that fact.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217817</id>
	<title>Re:SHOCKED</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244129760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>lol, college<br>
--<br>
Dr. Congressman Ron Paul MD is my new Dad!  Fuck you, regular dad!</htmltext>
<tokenext>lol , college -- Dr. Congressman Ron Paul MD is my new Dad !
Fuck you , regular dad !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol, college
--
Dr. Congressman Ron Paul MD is my new Dad!
Fuck you, regular dad!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215905</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216879</id>
	<title>Re:And...?</title>
	<author>drizek</author>
	<datestamp>1244120400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FYI, there is a relatively reliable and uniform way of measuring your LCD contrast ratio <a href="http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast\_ratio.php" title="lagom.nl" rel="nofollow">http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast\_ratio.php</a> [lagom.nl]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FYI , there is a relatively reliable and uniform way of measuring your LCD contrast ratio http : //www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast \ _ratio.php [ lagom.nl ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FYI, there is a relatively reliable and uniform way of measuring your LCD contrast ratio http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/contrast\_ratio.php [lagom.nl]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216913</id>
	<title>Cheating /and/ standards-chasing</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1244120640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if you're not going this far.... the business school at Wake Forest University a few years ago suddenly became a lot more selective and shrunk the number of people it would accept. The idea, I believe, was to increase the standings in various rankings. Of course, there were side effects of this, such as the economics department being flooded with people who didn't make it.... and it's not really good for the university as a whole, either... or "education" in the abstract.... It's going to look real good on someone's resume, though.</p><p>
Typical principal-agent problem at work.
</p><p>
(Then there's the "omg new logo" debacle... gaak... and you guys wonder why I don't give you a $5/yr pittance to "improve your ranking" in the alumni-willing-to-give category)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if you 're not going this far.... the business school at Wake Forest University a few years ago suddenly became a lot more selective and shrunk the number of people it would accept .
The idea , I believe , was to increase the standings in various rankings .
Of course , there were side effects of this , such as the economics department being flooded with people who did n't make it.... and it 's not really good for the university as a whole , either... or " education " in the abstract.... It 's going to look real good on someone 's resume , though .
Typical principal-agent problem at work .
( Then there 's the " omg new logo " debacle... gaak... and you guys wonder why I do n't give you a $ 5/yr pittance to " improve your ranking " in the alumni-willing-to-give category ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if you're not going this far.... the business school at Wake Forest University a few years ago suddenly became a lot more selective and shrunk the number of people it would accept.
The idea, I believe, was to increase the standings in various rankings.
Of course, there were side effects of this, such as the economics department being flooded with people who didn't make it.... and it's not really good for the university as a whole, either... or "education" in the abstract.... It's going to look real good on someone's resume, though.
Typical principal-agent problem at work.
(Then there's the "omg new logo" debacle... gaak... and you guys wonder why I don't give you a $5/yr pittance to "improve your ranking" in the alumni-willing-to-give category)...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219565</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244194200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, almost any time.</p><p>Studying Google's search engine is a fascinating look at a system where the developers consciously are trying to prevent any way of gaming the system. PageRank shows this: back when it was the core of a site's ranking, that meant the rankings were based on what other sites thought of you rather than how popular you said you were, because adding that extra layer tended towards more honest looks at a site's noteworthiness.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , almost any time.Studying Google 's search engine is a fascinating look at a system where the developers consciously are trying to prevent any way of gaming the system .
PageRank shows this : back when it was the core of a site 's ranking , that meant the rankings were based on what other sites thought of you rather than how popular you said you were , because adding that extra layer tended towards more honest looks at a site 's noteworthiness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, almost any time.Studying Google's search engine is a fascinating look at a system where the developers consciously are trying to prevent any way of gaming the system.
PageRank shows this: back when it was the core of a site's ranking, that meant the rankings were based on what other sites thought of you rather than how popular you said you were, because adding that extra layer tended towards more honest looks at a site's noteworthiness.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216085</id>
	<title>Alternatives to US News ranking</title>
	<author>GAATTC</author>
	<datestamp>1244115780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>One alternative is to bow out <a href="http://web.reed.edu/apply/news\_and\_articles/college\_rankings.html" title="reed.edu" rel="nofollow">http://web.reed.edu/apply/news\_and\_articles/college\_rankings.html</a> [reed.edu] of the rankings game and take a principled stand as Reed College has done.  One way of thinking about attending a fine school like this is that you "want to go to a school that isn't interested in selling out its education."  Perhaps not surprisingly, US News didn't actually remove Reed from the rankings, they just ranked Reed (lower) with an incomplete data set.

The other alternative could be called 'open source' ranking.  The University and College Accountibility Network <a href="http://www.ucan-network.org/" title="ucan-network.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.ucan-network.org/</a> [ucan-network.org] ranks colleges in a common format, has useful information, and best of all, you don't have to buy a copy of US News to get the rankings!</htmltext>
<tokenext>One alternative is to bow out http : //web.reed.edu/apply/news \ _and \ _articles/college \ _rankings.html [ reed.edu ] of the rankings game and take a principled stand as Reed College has done .
One way of thinking about attending a fine school like this is that you " want to go to a school that is n't interested in selling out its education .
" Perhaps not surprisingly , US News did n't actually remove Reed from the rankings , they just ranked Reed ( lower ) with an incomplete data set .
The other alternative could be called 'open source ' ranking .
The University and College Accountibility Network http : //www.ucan-network.org/ [ ucan-network.org ] ranks colleges in a common format , has useful information , and best of all , you do n't have to buy a copy of US News to get the rankings !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One alternative is to bow out http://web.reed.edu/apply/news\_and\_articles/college\_rankings.html [reed.edu] of the rankings game and take a principled stand as Reed College has done.
One way of thinking about attending a fine school like this is that you "want to go to a school that isn't interested in selling out its education.
"  Perhaps not surprisingly, US News didn't actually remove Reed from the rankings, they just ranked Reed (lower) with an incomplete data set.
The other alternative could be called 'open source' ranking.
The University and College Accountibility Network http://www.ucan-network.org/ [ucan-network.org] ranks colleges in a common format, has useful information, and best of all, you don't have to buy a copy of US News to get the rankings!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216103</id>
	<title>People will game any system for maximum reward ...</title>
	<author>bleuchez</author>
	<datestamp>1244115840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This brings to mind an article I read way back in Inc magazine where the author talks about how employees will figure out how game any system that rewards them. <br> <br>

<a href="http://www.inc.com/magazine/20081001/how-hard-could-it-be-sins-of-commissions.html" title="inc.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.inc.com/magazine/20081001/how-hard-could-it-be-sins-of-commissions.html</a> [inc.com] <br> <br>

Clemson is just gaming the system, I imagine other schools that change quickly change their ranking probably are doing the same.  Even if US News and World Report changes their ranking methodology, I guarantee that schools will simply change their tactics to beat the system agian.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This brings to mind an article I read way back in Inc magazine where the author talks about how employees will figure out how game any system that rewards them .
http : //www.inc.com/magazine/20081001/how-hard-could-it-be-sins-of-commissions.html [ inc.com ] Clemson is just gaming the system , I imagine other schools that change quickly change their ranking probably are doing the same .
Even if US News and World Report changes their ranking methodology , I guarantee that schools will simply change their tactics to beat the system agian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This brings to mind an article I read way back in Inc magazine where the author talks about how employees will figure out how game any system that rewards them.
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20081001/how-hard-could-it-be-sins-of-commissions.html [inc.com]  

Clemson is just gaming the system, I imagine other schools that change quickly change their ranking probably are doing the same.
Even if US News and World Report changes their ranking methodology, I guarantee that schools will simply change their tactics to beat the system agian.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28220521</id>
	<title>Re:Playboy's Top Party Schools</title>
	<author>Maximum Prophet</author>
	<datestamp>1244206500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The guys who graduated in the 80's became the quants on Wall Street in the 90's and 2000's.  We all know how that party ended...</htmltext>
<tokenext>The guys who graduated in the 80 's became the quants on Wall Street in the 90 's and 2000 's .
We all know how that party ended.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The guys who graduated in the 80's became the quants on Wall Street in the 90's and 2000's.
We all know how that party ended...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28222435</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>dogeatery</author>
	<datestamp>1244216820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe because it's not THAT important.  It's US News' ranking, not a government policy.  The best way to change it is to get this story publicized so people stop believing US News</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe because it 's not THAT important .
It 's US News ' ranking , not a government policy .
The best way to change it is to get this story publicized so people stop believing US News</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe because it's not THAT important.
It's US News' ranking, not a government policy.
The best way to change it is to get this story publicized so people stop believing US News</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218323</id>
	<title>Re:Common</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244135340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They still do this. my roommate at Tech had to go to summer session to be able to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They still do this .
my roommate at Tech had to go to summer session to be able to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They still do this.
my roommate at Tech had to go to summer session to be able to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216051</id>
	<title>Re:It explains a lot</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1244115600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, but you go to Harvard because it has a good rep. The IL schools have a good rep because they give you good education.</p><p>What? Fuck education, good connections is what counts? Sure, you get that too (or, depending on how cynic you are, just that, but after all that's what counts), but why? Because the "important" people go there and thus you get to meet important people there. And they go there because the IL schools have a good rep.</p><p>See the cycle?</p><p>They have the best applicants because they have the best rep, thus they have the best graduates, thus they attract good people... now, if they suddenly get ranked down, who'd want to go there if he has free choice of schools because <i>every</i> school wants them?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , but you go to Harvard because it has a good rep. The IL schools have a good rep because they give you good education.What ?
Fuck education , good connections is what counts ?
Sure , you get that too ( or , depending on how cynic you are , just that , but after all that 's what counts ) , but why ?
Because the " important " people go there and thus you get to meet important people there .
And they go there because the IL schools have a good rep.See the cycle ? They have the best applicants because they have the best rep , thus they have the best graduates , thus they attract good people... now , if they suddenly get ranked down , who 'd want to go there if he has free choice of schools because every school wants them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, but you go to Harvard because it has a good rep. The IL schools have a good rep because they give you good education.What?
Fuck education, good connections is what counts?
Sure, you get that too (or, depending on how cynic you are, just that, but after all that's what counts), but why?
Because the "important" people go there and thus you get to meet important people there.
And they go there because the IL schools have a good rep.See the cycle?They have the best applicants because they have the best rep, thus they have the best graduates, thus they attract good people... now, if they suddenly get ranked down, who'd want to go there if he has free choice of schools because every school wants them?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218127</id>
	<title>Re:And...?</title>
	<author>toddestan</author>
	<datestamp>1244133120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You do realize that numbers like contrast ratio and response time have been gamed so heavily by the manufacturers that they are completely useless at this point?  Kind of like college rankings, actually.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that numbers like contrast ratio and response time have been gamed so heavily by the manufacturers that they are completely useless at this point ?
Kind of like college rankings , actually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that numbers like contrast ratio and response time have been gamed so heavily by the manufacturers that they are completely useless at this point?
Kind of like college rankings, actually.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216347</id>
	<title>CLEMSON'S A COW COLLEGE!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244117340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>GO COCKS!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>GO COCKS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GO COCKS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218225</id>
	<title>Clemson students/alums too stupid to cheat well</title>
	<author>leftie</author>
	<datestamp>1244134080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, everybody cheats. But what university trained the geniuses that managed to be caught cheating?</p><p>CLEMSON!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , everybody cheats .
But what university trained the geniuses that managed to be caught cheating ? CLEMSON !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, everybody cheats.
But what university trained the geniuses that managed to be caught cheating?CLEMSON!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216729</id>
	<title>Old Fashioned Cheating</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244119440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>      The way things have worked in the past and probably still do is the first step is having numerous associations that rate colleges.In some rating systems a dead cat could look better than Harvard.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Another nifty trick is an accredited university that has some departments that are not accredited at all. Graduate engineers have been shocked to find out that their credentials carried no weight as they had graduated from an unaccredited engineering college that was part of an accredited university.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Suspect tactics are placing weight on the SAT scores of entering students and grade averages of entering students as opposed to looking at college boards for years other than the freshman year. Placing undue weight on the quality of the school library or the investment in lab machinery and supplies is also part of the corrupt rating association game. The most likely to play such games are small private colleges with big reputations that charge a lot of money to students.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way things have worked in the past and probably still do is the first step is having numerous associations that rate colleges.In some rating systems a dead cat could look better than Harvard .
            Another nifty trick is an accredited university that has some departments that are not accredited at all .
Graduate engineers have been shocked to find out that their credentials carried no weight as they had graduated from an unaccredited engineering college that was part of an accredited university .
            Suspect tactics are placing weight on the SAT scores of entering students and grade averages of entering students as opposed to looking at college boards for years other than the freshman year .
Placing undue weight on the quality of the school library or the investment in lab machinery and supplies is also part of the corrupt rating association game .
The most likely to play such games are small private colleges with big reputations that charge a lot of money to students .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>      The way things have worked in the past and probably still do is the first step is having numerous associations that rate colleges.In some rating systems a dead cat could look better than Harvard.
            Another nifty trick is an accredited university that has some departments that are not accredited at all.
Graduate engineers have been shocked to find out that their credentials carried no weight as they had graduated from an unaccredited engineering college that was part of an accredited university.
            Suspect tactics are placing weight on the SAT scores of entering students and grade averages of entering students as opposed to looking at college boards for years other than the freshman year.
Placing undue weight on the quality of the school library or the investment in lab machinery and supplies is also part of the corrupt rating association game.
The most likely to play such games are small private colleges with big reputations that charge a lot of money to students.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28221081</id>
	<title>Re:Think that's bad?</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1244210580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds about normal.  My favourite quote from one of my students, complaining about my teaching was:<p><div class="quote"><p>I'm paying &#194;&pound;3,000 a year for this degree, I don't expect to be told to read something in a book!</p></div><p>When you give hand-out notes containing enough example code that your students can get a passing grade by just copying it, and half of them still manage to fail, you wonder how they are passing the other classes.  It makes me glad I'm not teaching anymore.  Want to improve the academic standard in the UK?  Let lecturers fail students who deserve it and stop using drop-out rate as a purely-negative indicator in league tables.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds about normal .
My favourite quote from one of my students , complaining about my teaching was : I 'm paying     3,000 a year for this degree , I do n't expect to be told to read something in a book ! When you give hand-out notes containing enough example code that your students can get a passing grade by just copying it , and half of them still manage to fail , you wonder how they are passing the other classes .
It makes me glad I 'm not teaching anymore .
Want to improve the academic standard in the UK ?
Let lecturers fail students who deserve it and stop using drop-out rate as a purely-negative indicator in league tables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds about normal.
My favourite quote from one of my students, complaining about my teaching was:I'm paying Â£3,000 a year for this degree, I don't expect to be told to read something in a book!When you give hand-out notes containing enough example code that your students can get a passing grade by just copying it, and half of them still manage to fail, you wonder how they are passing the other classes.
It makes me glad I'm not teaching anymore.
Want to improve the academic standard in the UK?
Let lecturers fail students who deserve it and stop using drop-out rate as a purely-negative indicator in league tables.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216381</id>
	<title>Re:Schools == Business</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1244117580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or in the case of California, even the ones that don't get funding from their State.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or in the case of California , even the ones that do n't get funding from their State .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or in the case of California, even the ones that don't get funding from their State.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28222749</id>
	<title>Furman University</title>
	<author>pbaer</author>
	<datestamp>1244218080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I attend a school that does a few unethical things, not all of them directly related to rankings. For starters they claim to only have only professors with Ph.D's, yet my CS professor only had a Masters. They also reported that only 2\% of students transfer out of Furman. While that is technically true, they failed to mention that their trimester system makes transferring very difficult. After attending, and talking to many people, it seems that at least 25\% would have transferred if had been easier to.<p>

The other gripe I have is that they tell everyone "2 years of GERs to figure out what you want to do, then major in anything you want". That is unfortunately a straight up lie. I talked to a music professor and he said that to be a music major a person would have had to declare freshman year, and would have had to play since late middleschool. He said it would be completely impossible for any sophmore to get a music degree. Also, other majors like CS, and Chemistry are either very linear, or only offer a few courses each term, so it takes at least 3 years to complete the major.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I attend a school that does a few unethical things , not all of them directly related to rankings .
For starters they claim to only have only professors with Ph.D 's , yet my CS professor only had a Masters .
They also reported that only 2 \ % of students transfer out of Furman .
While that is technically true , they failed to mention that their trimester system makes transferring very difficult .
After attending , and talking to many people , it seems that at least 25 \ % would have transferred if had been easier to .
The other gripe I have is that they tell everyone " 2 years of GERs to figure out what you want to do , then major in anything you want " .
That is unfortunately a straight up lie .
I talked to a music professor and he said that to be a music major a person would have had to declare freshman year , and would have had to play since late middleschool .
He said it would be completely impossible for any sophmore to get a music degree .
Also , other majors like CS , and Chemistry are either very linear , or only offer a few courses each term , so it takes at least 3 years to complete the major .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I attend a school that does a few unethical things, not all of them directly related to rankings.
For starters they claim to only have only professors with Ph.D's, yet my CS professor only had a Masters.
They also reported that only 2\% of students transfer out of Furman.
While that is technically true, they failed to mention that their trimester system makes transferring very difficult.
After attending, and talking to many people, it seems that at least 25\% would have transferred if had been easier to.
The other gripe I have is that they tell everyone "2 years of GERs to figure out what you want to do, then major in anything you want".
That is unfortunately a straight up lie.
I talked to a music professor and he said that to be a music major a person would have had to declare freshman year, and would have had to play since late middleschool.
He said it would be completely impossible for any sophmore to get a music degree.
Also, other majors like CS, and Chemistry are either very linear, or only offer a few courses each term, so it takes at least 3 years to complete the major.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215935</id>
	<title>Schools == Business</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244114940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Simply comes back down to schools are a business, even the ones that get funding from their State. Higher rankings means more attending students, and the ability to raise their prices and get more money. Plus there's the application processing fees, registration fees, and all the other fun BS. Who wouldn't expect them to bullshit their information to get more people to apply?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply comes back down to schools are a business , even the ones that get funding from their State .
Higher rankings means more attending students , and the ability to raise their prices and get more money .
Plus there 's the application processing fees , registration fees , and all the other fun BS .
Who would n't expect them to bullshit their information to get more people to apply ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply comes back down to schools are a business, even the ones that get funding from their State.
Higher rankings means more attending students, and the ability to raise their prices and get more money.
Plus there's the application processing fees, registration fees, and all the other fun BS.
Who wouldn't expect them to bullshit their information to get more people to apply?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28227287</id>
	<title>Re:Raise your hand</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244194500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not surprised at all. My father taught at another school in SC (Winthrop) where he knew another professor who transferred from Clemson. One of the reasons this other professor left Clemson was because he was fed up that they had a policy that stated "You must tutor any student in Athletics (football) enough so they can get a passing grade in your class." But then the students never showed up for the tutoring 'because of practice'. Yet they were still expected to pass the students. Winthrop has no Football program so he moved there. Not surprising a school with this type of policy would also be caught cheating on ranking data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not surprised at all .
My father taught at another school in SC ( Winthrop ) where he knew another professor who transferred from Clemson .
One of the reasons this other professor left Clemson was because he was fed up that they had a policy that stated " You must tutor any student in Athletics ( football ) enough so they can get a passing grade in your class .
" But then the students never showed up for the tutoring 'because of practice' .
Yet they were still expected to pass the students .
Winthrop has no Football program so he moved there .
Not surprising a school with this type of policy would also be caught cheating on ranking data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not surprised at all.
My father taught at another school in SC (Winthrop) where he knew another professor who transferred from Clemson.
One of the reasons this other professor left Clemson was because he was fed up that they had a policy that stated "You must tutor any student in Athletics (football) enough so they can get a passing grade in your class.
" But then the students never showed up for the tutoring 'because of practice'.
Yet they were still expected to pass the students.
Winthrop has no Football program so he moved there.
Not surprising a school with this type of policy would also be caught cheating on ranking data.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216411</id>
	<title>Is anyone surprised about this?</title>
	<author>UseCase</author>
	<datestamp>1244117760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to spread doom and gloom but academia has been like this for a very long time.</p><p>Colleges and universities are struggling internally.  On the one hand schools have to generate revenue which requires advertisement, marketing and "looking" better than other competing schools.  On the other hand the primary roles of universities and colleges in society are to increase societies overall intellect and be a lightening rod for research, learning, and understanding.</p><p>The internet offers free access to knowledge and is stealing thunder from individual academic institutions.  For example, I can communicate almost instantaneously with authors, researchers and professors and get an answer in most cases.  I can view lectures and get materials on most subjects.  Most educators/professors have blogs and some have tweets.  We are not as dependent on academia to facilitate intellectual communication as we once were.</p><p>I have compared academia in the US, especially the Ivy League schools, to the luxury car industry.  The information rumored in the original post enforces the legitimacy of my comparison.  I recently read an small article on luxury vs performance that kinda applies to this topic.</p><p>

Luxury is about appearing better.  Performance is about being better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to spread doom and gloom but academia has been like this for a very long time.Colleges and universities are struggling internally .
On the one hand schools have to generate revenue which requires advertisement , marketing and " looking " better than other competing schools .
On the other hand the primary roles of universities and colleges in society are to increase societies overall intellect and be a lightening rod for research , learning , and understanding.The internet offers free access to knowledge and is stealing thunder from individual academic institutions .
For example , I can communicate almost instantaneously with authors , researchers and professors and get an answer in most cases .
I can view lectures and get materials on most subjects .
Most educators/professors have blogs and some have tweets .
We are not as dependent on academia to facilitate intellectual communication as we once were.I have compared academia in the US , especially the Ivy League schools , to the luxury car industry .
The information rumored in the original post enforces the legitimacy of my comparison .
I recently read an small article on luxury vs performance that kinda applies to this topic .
Luxury is about appearing better .
Performance is about being better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to spread doom and gloom but academia has been like this for a very long time.Colleges and universities are struggling internally.
On the one hand schools have to generate revenue which requires advertisement, marketing and "looking" better than other competing schools.
On the other hand the primary roles of universities and colleges in society are to increase societies overall intellect and be a lightening rod for research, learning, and understanding.The internet offers free access to knowledge and is stealing thunder from individual academic institutions.
For example, I can communicate almost instantaneously with authors, researchers and professors and get an answer in most cases.
I can view lectures and get materials on most subjects.
Most educators/professors have blogs and some have tweets.
We are not as dependent on academia to facilitate intellectual communication as we once were.I have compared academia in the US, especially the Ivy League schools, to the luxury car industry.
The information rumored in the original post enforces the legitimacy of my comparison.
I recently read an small article on luxury vs performance that kinda applies to this topic.
Luxury is about appearing better.
Performance is about being better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28220567</id>
	<title>Re:Think that's bad?</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1244206860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh! To visit Cambridge once a-gain!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh !
To visit Cambridge once a-gain !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh!
To visit Cambridge once a-gain!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216215</id>
	<title>Re:Schools == Business</title>
	<author>Red Flayer</author>
	<datestamp>1244116500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Higher rankings means more attending students</p></div></blockquote><p>Not really.  Higher rankings just means that the students they have tend to be better, which in turn feeds into higher rankings, etc.<br> <br>Almost every college in the country is operating at full (or even over full) attendance capacity.<br> <br>But, you're right that it's about money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Higher rankings means more attending studentsNot really .
Higher rankings just means that the students they have tend to be better , which in turn feeds into higher rankings , etc .
Almost every college in the country is operating at full ( or even over full ) attendance capacity .
But , you 're right that it 's about money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Higher rankings means more attending studentsNot really.
Higher rankings just means that the students they have tend to be better, which in turn feeds into higher rankings, etc.
Almost every college in the country is operating at full (or even over full) attendance capacity.
But, you're right that it's about money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216551</id>
	<title>Re:So?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244118540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most of what they do I would not call 'cheating the system'.  At best it is 'gaming the system'.
<p>For example, to go up in the salary number, they RAISED THE SALARY.  How is that cheating?   Yeah, they had to raise tuition to do it, but it is not cheating.
</p><p>Similarly, to get a better class size numbers, they horror of horrors, lowered the maximum number of students in several classes (countering this by enlarging the classes that were already large).
</p><p>Now, I would not call the badmouthing of other schools to be a good thing, but it is hardly 'cheating'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of what they do I would not call 'cheating the system' .
At best it is 'gaming the system' .
For example , to go up in the salary number , they RAISED THE SALARY .
How is that cheating ?
Yeah , they had to raise tuition to do it , but it is not cheating .
Similarly , to get a better class size numbers , they horror of horrors , lowered the maximum number of students in several classes ( countering this by enlarging the classes that were already large ) .
Now , I would not call the badmouthing of other schools to be a good thing , but it is hardly 'cheating' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of what they do I would not call 'cheating the system'.
At best it is 'gaming the system'.
For example, to go up in the salary number, they RAISED THE SALARY.
How is that cheating?
Yeah, they had to raise tuition to do it, but it is not cheating.
Similarly, to get a better class size numbers, they horror of horrors, lowered the maximum number of students in several classes (countering this by enlarging the classes that were already large).
Now, I would not call the badmouthing of other schools to be a good thing, but it is hardly 'cheating'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218667</id>
	<title>1st Hand Experience.</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1244138700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I went to the school that has been at the top of the list for ~9 years now.</p><p><b>Everything</b> was swept under the table. Not a single drinking or drug incident made it to the local news, magically.</p><p>There was a guy my freshmen class that got caught dealing. Not only did nothing happen to him, nothing ever made it to the papers. I don't even remember hearing of any on campus discipline. There were never any parties broken up by police, and the one or two that were, they also never made it to the paper.</p><p>When I transferred to a Big 10 school, that was in the same state (That's also &gt;10x larger). There was none of that. Freshmen getting kicked out of school first week for possession. It was so integrated into the town so the town cops had their hand all the underage drinking and PIs. They all made it to the paper. They're consistently in the top 10, but not #1. (Of a different list).</p><p>*Funny thing that when I started to interview. I got asked if I went to a technical college for 2 years. Just because you're #1 in Engineers minds doesn't mean you're #1 in HR's. As soon as I dropped them from my Resume I actually started getting callbacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to the school that has been at the top of the list for ~ 9 years now.Everything was swept under the table .
Not a single drinking or drug incident made it to the local news , magically.There was a guy my freshmen class that got caught dealing .
Not only did nothing happen to him , nothing ever made it to the papers .
I do n't even remember hearing of any on campus discipline .
There were never any parties broken up by police , and the one or two that were , they also never made it to the paper.When I transferred to a Big 10 school , that was in the same state ( That 's also &gt; 10x larger ) .
There was none of that .
Freshmen getting kicked out of school first week for possession .
It was so integrated into the town so the town cops had their hand all the underage drinking and PIs .
They all made it to the paper .
They 're consistently in the top 10 , but not # 1 .
( Of a different list ) .
* Funny thing that when I started to interview .
I got asked if I went to a technical college for 2 years .
Just because you 're # 1 in Engineers minds does n't mean you 're # 1 in HR 's .
As soon as I dropped them from my Resume I actually started getting callbacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I went to the school that has been at the top of the list for ~9 years now.Everything was swept under the table.
Not a single drinking or drug incident made it to the local news, magically.There was a guy my freshmen class that got caught dealing.
Not only did nothing happen to him, nothing ever made it to the papers.
I don't even remember hearing of any on campus discipline.
There were never any parties broken up by police, and the one or two that were, they also never made it to the paper.When I transferred to a Big 10 school, that was in the same state (That's also &gt;10x larger).
There was none of that.
Freshmen getting kicked out of school first week for possession.
It was so integrated into the town so the town cops had their hand all the underage drinking and PIs.
They all made it to the paper.
They're consistently in the top 10, but not #1.
(Of a different list).
*Funny thing that when I started to interview.
I got asked if I went to a technical college for 2 years.
Just because you're #1 in Engineers minds doesn't mean you're #1 in HR's.
As soon as I dropped them from my Resume I actually started getting callbacks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215877</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217503</id>
	<title>Re:And...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244125800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the very point of the grand-parent. That manufacturers make up bullshit claims about contrast ratio, etc. So you *shouldn't* rely on those numbers to pick a TV like you shouldn't rely on US news to pick a college.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the very point of the grand-parent .
That manufacturers make up bullshit claims about contrast ratio , etc .
So you * should n't * rely on those numbers to pick a TV like you should n't rely on US news to pick a college .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the very point of the grand-parent.
That manufacturers make up bullshit claims about contrast ratio, etc.
So you *shouldn't* rely on those numbers to pick a TV like you shouldn't rely on US news to pick a college.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216419</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218739</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244139660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's sad that this isn't used as a forum for developing solutions. Instead it seems to be an outlet for apathy and pessimism.</p></div><p>Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but with intelligence often comes a certain amount of apathy simply as a side effect of the ability to perceive the problems of this world and realize, correctly in many cases, that there are no good solutions. Why waste time and resources on a problem which will continue to persist despite your most diligent efforts to solve it? The intelligent man realizes when and where his efforts will be wasted and simply doesn't bother.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's sad that this is n't used as a forum for developing solutions .
Instead it seems to be an outlet for apathy and pessimism.Perhaps you had n't noticed , but with intelligence often comes a certain amount of apathy simply as a side effect of the ability to perceive the problems of this world and realize , correctly in many cases , that there are no good solutions .
Why waste time and resources on a problem which will continue to persist despite your most diligent efforts to solve it ?
The intelligent man realizes when and where his efforts will be wasted and simply does n't bother .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's sad that this isn't used as a forum for developing solutions.
Instead it seems to be an outlet for apathy and pessimism.Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but with intelligence often comes a certain amount of apathy simply as a side effect of the ability to perceive the problems of this world and realize, correctly in many cases, that there are no good solutions.
Why waste time and resources on a problem which will continue to persist despite your most diligent efforts to solve it?
The intelligent man realizes when and where his efforts will be wasted and simply doesn't bother.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217421</id>
	<title>Is the USNews Model good?</title>
	<author>mcleland</author>
	<datestamp>1244124900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the US News &amp; World Report model actually captures good things about a university, then what's wrong with attempting to match that model?  </p><p>That a university tries to match what it considers a good model shouldn't be surprising.  The validity of the model may be questioned.  The methods to match the institution to that model may be questioned.  But I don't see how attempting to get better under some model they consider good (by whatever criteria they pick) is bad.</p><p>I don't know enough about it to know if the USNews model is any good - maybe, maybe not.  But I know that institutions I'm generally familiar with land about where I might expect in the rankings.  Ivy leagues on top, small underfunded state colleges much lower.</p><p>Now, the claim that Clemson administrators purposefully rank other universities lower, that's a different matter.  That is the most troubling claim to me in the whole bit.  That action is highly unethical and I would be sorry to find out that it is true of Clemson, or anywhere for that matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the US News &amp; World Report model actually captures good things about a university , then what 's wrong with attempting to match that model ?
That a university tries to match what it considers a good model should n't be surprising .
The validity of the model may be questioned .
The methods to match the institution to that model may be questioned .
But I do n't see how attempting to get better under some model they consider good ( by whatever criteria they pick ) is bad.I do n't know enough about it to know if the USNews model is any good - maybe , maybe not .
But I know that institutions I 'm generally familiar with land about where I might expect in the rankings .
Ivy leagues on top , small underfunded state colleges much lower.Now , the claim that Clemson administrators purposefully rank other universities lower , that 's a different matter .
That is the most troubling claim to me in the whole bit .
That action is highly unethical and I would be sorry to find out that it is true of Clemson , or anywhere for that matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the US News &amp; World Report model actually captures good things about a university, then what's wrong with attempting to match that model?
That a university tries to match what it considers a good model shouldn't be surprising.
The validity of the model may be questioned.
The methods to match the institution to that model may be questioned.
But I don't see how attempting to get better under some model they consider good (by whatever criteria they pick) is bad.I don't know enough about it to know if the USNews model is any good - maybe, maybe not.
But I know that institutions I'm generally familiar with land about where I might expect in the rankings.
Ivy leagues on top, small underfunded state colleges much lower.Now, the claim that Clemson administrators purposefully rank other universities lower, that's a different matter.
That is the most troubling claim to me in the whole bit.
That action is highly unethical and I would be sorry to find out that it is true of Clemson, or anywhere for that matter.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28221529</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244212740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kind of like the 7&gt;10 argument when it comes to women</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kind of like the 7 &gt; 10 argument when it comes to women</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kind of like the 7&gt;10 argument when it comes to women</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217079</id>
	<title>Summary Wrong</title>
	<author>avilliers</author>
	<datestamp>1244122140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At no point in any of the three articles did I see anyone accused of "lying" about class sizes or professor salaries.  The number of classes less than 20 people actually did increase--at least partly by bogus 'load balancing'.  And the professor salaries increased, both by raising them in reality and because the old reported numbers didn't include benefits (as they should have).</p><p>I also couldn't find the source for the claim about filling out fraudulent applications, though it's possible I missed it.</p><p>None of this is to defend the ranking gaming, but the summary gives an extremely different picture than I got from the source material, which mostly is in the category of 'administering to the test'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At no point in any of the three articles did I see anyone accused of " lying " about class sizes or professor salaries .
The number of classes less than 20 people actually did increase--at least partly by bogus 'load balancing' .
And the professor salaries increased , both by raising them in reality and because the old reported numbers did n't include benefits ( as they should have ) .I also could n't find the source for the claim about filling out fraudulent applications , though it 's possible I missed it.None of this is to defend the ranking gaming , but the summary gives an extremely different picture than I got from the source material , which mostly is in the category of 'administering to the test'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At no point in any of the three articles did I see anyone accused of "lying" about class sizes or professor salaries.
The number of classes less than 20 people actually did increase--at least partly by bogus 'load balancing'.
And the professor salaries increased, both by raising them in reality and because the old reported numbers didn't include benefits (as they should have).I also couldn't find the source for the claim about filling out fraudulent applications, though it's possible I missed it.None of this is to defend the ranking gaming, but the summary gives an extremely different picture than I got from the source material, which mostly is in the category of 'administering to the test'</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216147</id>
	<title>No surprises here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244116140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been working in academia for years, and gaming of the USN&amp;WR rankings is hardly news to us.  Talk to any college administrator off the record, and he or she can rattle off the names of peer institutions that are almost certainly fudging the numbers.</p><p>The USN&amp;WR numbers are <i>self-reported</i> by each university, with no verification by the USN&amp;WR staff.  With so much funding and prestige riding on the rankings, who is surprised that some schools play fast and loose with the facts?</p><p>What is unfortunate is that USN&amp;WR has manipulated itself into the position of being the arbiter of school "quality", through no other action than being the first to create the poll.  A news magazine shouldn't have that kind of influence over the entire U.S. educational system, especially when it can't even be bothered to check the numbers that it publishes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been working in academia for years , and gaming of the USN&amp;WR rankings is hardly news to us .
Talk to any college administrator off the record , and he or she can rattle off the names of peer institutions that are almost certainly fudging the numbers.The USN&amp;WR numbers are self-reported by each university , with no verification by the USN&amp;WR staff .
With so much funding and prestige riding on the rankings , who is surprised that some schools play fast and loose with the facts ? What is unfortunate is that USN&amp;WR has manipulated itself into the position of being the arbiter of school " quality " , through no other action than being the first to create the poll .
A news magazine should n't have that kind of influence over the entire U.S. educational system , especially when it ca n't even be bothered to check the numbers that it publishes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been working in academia for years, and gaming of the USN&amp;WR rankings is hardly news to us.
Talk to any college administrator off the record, and he or she can rattle off the names of peer institutions that are almost certainly fudging the numbers.The USN&amp;WR numbers are self-reported by each university, with no verification by the USN&amp;WR staff.
With so much funding and prestige riding on the rankings, who is surprised that some schools play fast and loose with the facts?What is unfortunate is that USN&amp;WR has manipulated itself into the position of being the arbiter of school "quality", through no other action than being the first to create the poll.
A news magazine shouldn't have that kind of influence over the entire U.S. educational system, especially when it can't even be bothered to check the numbers that it publishes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216091</id>
	<title>Re:It explains a lot</title>
	<author>JoshuaZ</author>
	<datestamp>1244115840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I went to Yale so my biases may be showing but even in high school I never knew many students who paid that much attention to rankings when they were considering what schools to go to. It might make a difference if two schools were very far apart in the rankings but that was pretty much it. I And even then, that would simply be a proxy for one being a better school. Far more people cared either about the academics, the scholarships offered, and the location than anything else.
</p><p>
My impression is that the laws schools care a lot more about the rankings and that it influences people a lot more about where they are applying. (Not surprisingly one seems to see a lot more manipulation of the law school rankings than the undergraduate rankings). This care might be coming in part from the fact that employers such as law firms apparently care about the rankings for deciding whom to hire.
</p><p>
All of that said, if a ranking difference plays only a small weight on students' decisions it could still impact a lot of the students who were making knifeedge decisions about whether or not to go to a specific school.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I went to Yale so my biases may be showing but even in high school I never knew many students who paid that much attention to rankings when they were considering what schools to go to .
It might make a difference if two schools were very far apart in the rankings but that was pretty much it .
I And even then , that would simply be a proxy for one being a better school .
Far more people cared either about the academics , the scholarships offered , and the location than anything else .
My impression is that the laws schools care a lot more about the rankings and that it influences people a lot more about where they are applying .
( Not surprisingly one seems to see a lot more manipulation of the law school rankings than the undergraduate rankings ) .
This care might be coming in part from the fact that employers such as law firms apparently care about the rankings for deciding whom to hire .
All of that said , if a ranking difference plays only a small weight on students ' decisions it could still impact a lot of the students who were making knifeedge decisions about whether or not to go to a specific school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I went to Yale so my biases may be showing but even in high school I never knew many students who paid that much attention to rankings when they were considering what schools to go to.
It might make a difference if two schools were very far apart in the rankings but that was pretty much it.
I And even then, that would simply be a proxy for one being a better school.
Far more people cared either about the academics, the scholarships offered, and the location than anything else.
My impression is that the laws schools care a lot more about the rankings and that it influences people a lot more about where they are applying.
(Not surprisingly one seems to see a lot more manipulation of the law school rankings than the undergraduate rankings).
This care might be coming in part from the fact that employers such as law firms apparently care about the rankings for deciding whom to hire.
All of that said, if a ranking difference plays only a small weight on students' decisions it could still impact a lot of the students who were making knifeedge decisions about whether or not to go to a specific school.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216295</id>
	<title>Re:Common</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244116980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is common practice almost everywhere.  Most of these students need the extra help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is common practice almost everywhere .
Most of these students need the extra help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is common practice almost everywhere.
Most of these students need the extra help.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216029</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216317</id>
	<title>Rankings are garbage</title>
	<author>wshwe</author>
	<datestamp>1244117100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This proves rankings such as these are complete garbage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This proves rankings such as these are complete garbage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This proves rankings such as these are complete garbage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216095</id>
	<title>Playboy's Top Party Schools</title>
	<author>snsh</author>
	<datestamp>1244115840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>About 20 years ago Playboy Magazine picked MIT as one of the top ten party schools.  Rumor was that Playboy called some random dude on campus who listed out all the parties happening that year, making it sound like they were all happening that weekend.</p><p>I feel badly for all those kids who chose MIT because of its top-ten Playboy ranking, only to go and find a bunch of nerds, forever regretting not going to Clemson instead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>About 20 years ago Playboy Magazine picked MIT as one of the top ten party schools .
Rumor was that Playboy called some random dude on campus who listed out all the parties happening that year , making it sound like they were all happening that weekend.I feel badly for all those kids who chose MIT because of its top-ten Playboy ranking , only to go and find a bunch of nerds , forever regretting not going to Clemson instead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>About 20 years ago Playboy Magazine picked MIT as one of the top ten party schools.
Rumor was that Playboy called some random dude on campus who listed out all the parties happening that year, making it sound like they were all happening that weekend.I feel badly for all those kids who chose MIT because of its top-ten Playboy ranking, only to go and find a bunch of nerds, forever regretting not going to Clemson instead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218665</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Ihmhi</author>
	<datestamp>1244138640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey dawg, I heard you liked cheating, so I put cheating in your cheating so you can cheat while you cheat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey dawg , I heard you liked cheating , so I put cheating in your cheating so you can cheat while you cheat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey dawg, I heard you liked cheating, so I put cheating in your cheating so you can cheat while you cheat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216271</id>
	<title>Re:Schools == Business</title>
	<author>clarkkent09</author>
	<datestamp>1244116800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think it's really true that schools are a business (except private, for profit ones) but if they were that would be a good thing. Don't forget that schools compete for students not just by lying to get a higher ranking, but also by trying to obtain a higher ranking through legitimate means, better teaching staff, better facilities, better services etc. If anything, this story reflects a problem with a particular ranking system, not with competition between schools in principle.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think it 's really true that schools are a business ( except private , for profit ones ) but if they were that would be a good thing .
Do n't forget that schools compete for students not just by lying to get a higher ranking , but also by trying to obtain a higher ranking through legitimate means , better teaching staff , better facilities , better services etc .
If anything , this story reflects a problem with a particular ranking system , not with competition between schools in principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think it's really true that schools are a business (except private, for profit ones) but if they were that would be a good thing.
Don't forget that schools compete for students not just by lying to get a higher ranking, but also by trying to obtain a higher ranking through legitimate means, better teaching staff, better facilities, better services etc.
If anything, this story reflects a problem with a particular ranking system, not with competition between schools in principle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215935</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216781</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Zordak</author>
	<datestamp>1244119800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In other news... water is wet!</p></div><p>And athletes use steroids!  No, say it ain't so, Joe!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news... water is wet ! And athletes use steroids !
No , say it ai n't so , Joe !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other news... water is wet!And athletes use steroids!
No, say it ain't so, Joe!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219305</id>
	<title>Law School Manipulations</title>
	<author>TheoMurpse</author>
	<datestamp>1244233860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's some shit law schools have done:</p><p>Last year, Berkeley (#6) sent fee waivers to a ton of underqualified students. Students who would have never applied to Berkeley because applications cost money to submit. (Hence the fee waiver.) Underqualified students apply (because why not? it's free) and get rejected. Berkeley artificially deflates their acceptance rate, which helps their ranking score. This is likely done by a ton of schools. I just know of Berkeley doing it.</p><p>Another factor that affects LS rankings is the offer acceptance rate (basically, how many students who get accepted elect to attend that instutition). Schools will frequently reject obviously overqualified candidates because "they'll decide against going here and attend Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Columbia, NYU, etc. instead." Thus, qualified students are rejected for being "too qualified."</p><p>Finally, schools like Georgetown (GULC, #14) used to admit a <b>ton</b> of transfer students and part-time students. Neither transfer students nor part-time students affected the LS rankings. Thus, GULC basically could accept many less qualified people, extract $100K from each of them over the next two years, use these extra millions of dollars to entice very qualified candidates to attend with generous scholarship packages (full rides and the like). Because these transfer and part-time students didn't affect the rankings, GULC was effectively using a money-generating machine to attract very qualified candidates who may otherwise have attended a more highly ranked school like Chicago. However, this year, the USNWR started including part-time students in the rankings. Transfers still aren't included.</p><p>Of course, the question remains: Does this matter all that much? When a law school like Yale or Harvard has so much money and prestige to leverage to attract the best students even if the students won't get a better classroom education there, aren't other schools equally entitled to game rankings that, at the end of the day, are pretty much bullshit anyway?</p><p>Look, I attended a top law school, but I'm willing to acknowledge that the rankings are almost completely meaningless outside of job prospects. The rankings do create some sort of "job prospect tiers." But aside from that USNWR rankings are crap (at least in law, I don't know about other fields).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's some shit law schools have done : Last year , Berkeley ( # 6 ) sent fee waivers to a ton of underqualified students .
Students who would have never applied to Berkeley because applications cost money to submit .
( Hence the fee waiver .
) Underqualified students apply ( because why not ?
it 's free ) and get rejected .
Berkeley artificially deflates their acceptance rate , which helps their ranking score .
This is likely done by a ton of schools .
I just know of Berkeley doing it.Another factor that affects LS rankings is the offer acceptance rate ( basically , how many students who get accepted elect to attend that instutition ) .
Schools will frequently reject obviously overqualified candidates because " they 'll decide against going here and attend Yale , Harvard , Stanford , Chicago , Columbia , NYU , etc .
instead. " Thus , qualified students are rejected for being " too qualified .
" Finally , schools like Georgetown ( GULC , # 14 ) used to admit a ton of transfer students and part-time students .
Neither transfer students nor part-time students affected the LS rankings .
Thus , GULC basically could accept many less qualified people , extract $ 100K from each of them over the next two years , use these extra millions of dollars to entice very qualified candidates to attend with generous scholarship packages ( full rides and the like ) .
Because these transfer and part-time students did n't affect the rankings , GULC was effectively using a money-generating machine to attract very qualified candidates who may otherwise have attended a more highly ranked school like Chicago .
However , this year , the USNWR started including part-time students in the rankings .
Transfers still are n't included.Of course , the question remains : Does this matter all that much ?
When a law school like Yale or Harvard has so much money and prestige to leverage to attract the best students even if the students wo n't get a better classroom education there , are n't other schools equally entitled to game rankings that , at the end of the day , are pretty much bullshit anyway ? Look , I attended a top law school , but I 'm willing to acknowledge that the rankings are almost completely meaningless outside of job prospects .
The rankings do create some sort of " job prospect tiers .
" But aside from that USNWR rankings are crap ( at least in law , I do n't know about other fields ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's some shit law schools have done:Last year, Berkeley (#6) sent fee waivers to a ton of underqualified students.
Students who would have never applied to Berkeley because applications cost money to submit.
(Hence the fee waiver.
) Underqualified students apply (because why not?
it's free) and get rejected.
Berkeley artificially deflates their acceptance rate, which helps their ranking score.
This is likely done by a ton of schools.
I just know of Berkeley doing it.Another factor that affects LS rankings is the offer acceptance rate (basically, how many students who get accepted elect to attend that instutition).
Schools will frequently reject obviously overqualified candidates because "they'll decide against going here and attend Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Chicago, Columbia, NYU, etc.
instead." Thus, qualified students are rejected for being "too qualified.
"Finally, schools like Georgetown (GULC, #14) used to admit a ton of transfer students and part-time students.
Neither transfer students nor part-time students affected the LS rankings.
Thus, GULC basically could accept many less qualified people, extract $100K from each of them over the next two years, use these extra millions of dollars to entice very qualified candidates to attend with generous scholarship packages (full rides and the like).
Because these transfer and part-time students didn't affect the rankings, GULC was effectively using a money-generating machine to attract very qualified candidates who may otherwise have attended a more highly ranked school like Chicago.
However, this year, the USNWR started including part-time students in the rankings.
Transfers still aren't included.Of course, the question remains: Does this matter all that much?
When a law school like Yale or Harvard has so much money and prestige to leverage to attract the best students even if the students won't get a better classroom education there, aren't other schools equally entitled to game rankings that, at the end of the day, are pretty much bullshit anyway?Look, I attended a top law school, but I'm willing to acknowledge that the rankings are almost completely meaningless outside of job prospects.
The rankings do create some sort of "job prospect tiers.
" But aside from that USNWR rankings are crap (at least in law, I don't know about other fields).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219617</id>
	<title>PSAT, National Merit, and Scholarships</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244195040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One fallout from the rankings is that lots of people, myself included, get badass scholarship deals for high PSAT scores.</p><p>In short: a high PSAT score can earn you the title of "National Merit Scholar", and the number of NMSes attending the school factors into the college rankings. Schools looking to make a serious entrance into the rankings, therefore, offer really nice scholarship packages NMSes.</p><p>I'm not sure how I feel about it. The rankings might get gamed a little, but...it ended with me getting over half my college education (including room and board) paid for. My sister's going to get all of her college expenses paid for.</p><p>For being "academic" institutions, there really aren't very many academic scholarships to college anymore, comparatively. Pretty much everything has some percentage of need-based judging. The idea is good, but in reality there are a lot of us whose families can survive alright but really can't afford college for multiple kids, and we just don't qualify for need-based scholarships even though we need the scholarships. The PSAT-based scholarships made it possible for my sister and I to get bachelor's degrees...so I'm not really sure how I feel about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One fallout from the rankings is that lots of people , myself included , get badass scholarship deals for high PSAT scores.In short : a high PSAT score can earn you the title of " National Merit Scholar " , and the number of NMSes attending the school factors into the college rankings .
Schools looking to make a serious entrance into the rankings , therefore , offer really nice scholarship packages NMSes.I 'm not sure how I feel about it .
The rankings might get gamed a little , but...it ended with me getting over half my college education ( including room and board ) paid for .
My sister 's going to get all of her college expenses paid for.For being " academic " institutions , there really are n't very many academic scholarships to college anymore , comparatively .
Pretty much everything has some percentage of need-based judging .
The idea is good , but in reality there are a lot of us whose families can survive alright but really ca n't afford college for multiple kids , and we just do n't qualify for need-based scholarships even though we need the scholarships .
The PSAT-based scholarships made it possible for my sister and I to get bachelor 's degrees...so I 'm not really sure how I feel about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One fallout from the rankings is that lots of people, myself included, get badass scholarship deals for high PSAT scores.In short: a high PSAT score can earn you the title of "National Merit Scholar", and the number of NMSes attending the school factors into the college rankings.
Schools looking to make a serious entrance into the rankings, therefore, offer really nice scholarship packages NMSes.I'm not sure how I feel about it.
The rankings might get gamed a little, but...it ended with me getting over half my college education (including room and board) paid for.
My sister's going to get all of her college expenses paid for.For being "academic" institutions, there really aren't very many academic scholarships to college anymore, comparatively.
Pretty much everything has some percentage of need-based judging.
The idea is good, but in reality there are a lot of us whose families can survive alright but really can't afford college for multiple kids, and we just don't qualify for need-based scholarships even though we need the scholarships.
The PSAT-based scholarships made it possible for my sister and I to get bachelor's degrees...so I'm not really sure how I feel about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215905</id>
	<title>SHOCKED</title>
	<author>sexconker</author>
	<datestamp>1244114760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am SHOCKED that anything unethical would go on in academia, especially with regards to admissions and maintaining image.</p><p>Surely this is all bullshit and academia is focused on teaching students, not patting themselves on the back and striving for U-peen and the subsequent moneys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am SHOCKED that anything unethical would go on in academia , especially with regards to admissions and maintaining image.Surely this is all bullshit and academia is focused on teaching students , not patting themselves on the back and striving for U-peen and the subsequent moneys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am SHOCKED that anything unethical would go on in academia, especially with regards to admissions and maintaining image.Surely this is all bullshit and academia is focused on teaching students, not patting themselves on the back and striving for U-peen and the subsequent moneys.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216839</id>
	<title>Colleges are a business, that's all</title>
	<author>pembo13</author>
	<datestamp>1244120160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There maybe a few good, honest educators. But overall, it's just a business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There maybe a few good , honest educators .
But overall , it 's just a business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There maybe a few good, honest educators.
But overall, it's just a business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28221637</id>
	<title>Re:In other news...</title>
	<author>Sausage Nibblets</author>
	<datestamp>1244213280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How about you lead by example, rather than berating?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about you lead by example , rather than berating ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about you lead by example, rather than berating?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217393</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215877</id>
	<title>Raise your hand</title>
	<author>Romancer</author>
	<datestamp>1244114640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Raise your hand if you are surprised that this is going on.</p><p>Seriously, with all the incentive to attract and hold onto students and the funds they bring. Who would have thought that this is all above board and regulated?</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=college+rankings+corruption+&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=college+rankings+corruption+&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi=</a> [google.com]</p><p>It's not like this is new.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Raise your hand if you are surprised that this is going on.Seriously , with all the incentive to attract and hold onto students and the funds they bring .
Who would have thought that this is all above board and regulated ? http : //www.google.com/search ? hl = en&amp;q = college + rankings + corruption + &amp;aq = f&amp;oq = &amp;aqi = [ google.com ] It 's not like this is new .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Raise your hand if you are surprised that this is going on.Seriously, with all the incentive to attract and hold onto students and the funds they bring.
Who would have thought that this is all above board and regulated?http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;q=college+rankings+corruption+&amp;aq=f&amp;oq=&amp;aqi= [google.com]It's not like this is new.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218411</id>
	<title>Not all schools</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244136120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the reasons Reed College, of Portland, Oregon, decided to stop participating the various ranking systems available. I'm surprised more student bodies don't protest at their own school to shame em into quitting this arbitrary popularity system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the reasons Reed College , of Portland , Oregon , decided to stop participating the various ranking systems available .
I 'm surprised more student bodies do n't protest at their own school to shame em into quitting this arbitrary popularity system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the reasons Reed College, of Portland, Oregon, decided to stop participating the various ranking systems available.
I'm surprised more student bodies don't protest at their own school to shame em into quitting this arbitrary popularity system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28221649</id>
	<title>Boston University</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1244213340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Boston University does this with their College of General Studies.  CGS is a two-year program (basically an Associates Degree) and when you finish you go straight into the regular university.  Essentially, incoming students with poor high school grades are sent to CGS, and this college is conveniently left out of ranking calculations.  It's a huge cash-cow for them, as well, since most CGS students aren't receiving financial aid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Boston University does this with their College of General Studies .
CGS is a two-year program ( basically an Associates Degree ) and when you finish you go straight into the regular university .
Essentially , incoming students with poor high school grades are sent to CGS , and this college is conveniently left out of ranking calculations .
It 's a huge cash-cow for them , as well , since most CGS students are n't receiving financial aid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Boston University does this with their College of General Studies.
CGS is a two-year program (basically an Associates Degree) and when you finish you go straight into the regular university.
Essentially, incoming students with poor high school grades are sent to CGS, and this college is conveniently left out of ranking calculations.
It's a huge cash-cow for them, as well, since most CGS students aren't receiving financial aid.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218197</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating /and/ standards-chasing</title>
	<author>reub2000</author>
	<datestamp>1244133900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I go to Columbia College, a school with an open admissions policy. During my first year there, I had some classmates that weren't the most dedicated. Once I started taking 2000 level courses sophomore year, I noticed that quality of my classmates got better. So the students who didn't belong there got weeded out anyways, while the college made money off of them. The open admissions policy gives students who didn't do so well in high school a second chance, while providing the college with extra money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I go to Columbia College , a school with an open admissions policy .
During my first year there , I had some classmates that were n't the most dedicated .
Once I started taking 2000 level courses sophomore year , I noticed that quality of my classmates got better .
So the students who did n't belong there got weeded out anyways , while the college made money off of them .
The open admissions policy gives students who did n't do so well in high school a second chance , while providing the college with extra money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I go to Columbia College, a school with an open admissions policy.
During my first year there, I had some classmates that weren't the most dedicated.
Once I started taking 2000 level courses sophomore year, I noticed that quality of my classmates got better.
So the students who didn't belong there got weeded out anyways, while the college made money off of them.
The open admissions policy gives students who didn't do so well in high school a second chance, while providing the college with extra money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28221711</id>
	<title>Re:And...?</title>
	<author>dkleinsc</author>
	<datestamp>1244213580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Does anyone actually base their college choice on these rankings, anyway?</p></div><p>Yes. That's the really scary part: rather than actually research colleges a significant number of potential students and parents go through the list starting at the top. Others will basically apply to as many schools as they possibly can (which is getting easier to do) and go with the top-ranked school that accepts them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone actually base their college choice on these rankings , anyway ? Yes .
That 's the really scary part : rather than actually research colleges a significant number of potential students and parents go through the list starting at the top .
Others will basically apply to as many schools as they possibly can ( which is getting easier to do ) and go with the top-ranked school that accepts them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone actually base their college choice on these rankings, anyway?Yes.
That's the really scary part: rather than actually research colleges a significant number of potential students and parents go through the list starting at the top.
Others will basically apply to as many schools as they possibly can (which is getting easier to do) and go with the top-ranked school that accepts them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215893</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28228581</id>
	<title>Stanford "games" the system too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244203260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stanford University has been "gaming the system" for years.  The following excerpt was published almost a decade ago:</p><blockquote><div><p>Not surprisingly, there is evidence that schools alter policies for the sake of rankings. This isn't automatically bad; most of what U.S. News encourages is pretty good. But because U.S. News doesn't measure the most important thing on campus--actual learning--it is pushing colleges to prioritize in ways that are not necessarily the best. In a sense, the rankings are like a professor who ignores the content of her student's papers and instead bases her grades only on spelling and punctuation.<br>[...]<br>The introduction of U.S. News' category of "percentage of alumni who give" also significantly affected fundraising. <b>When I was at Stanford</b>, student groups were paid $25 an hour to solicit donations from alumni and, on the one shift I worked, were <b>specifically told to mention that any donation would increase our ranking. </b></p><p>(Source: "Playing with Numbers", by Nicholas Thompson, in the <i>Washington Monthly</i>, September 2000,<br>at the link: <a href="http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0009.thompson.html" title="washingtonmonthly.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0009.thompson.html</a> [washingtonmonthly.com])</p></div></blockquote><p>Despite its high US News and World Report ranking, Stanford has significant problems.  An article in the <i>Stanford Report</i> by Ray Delgado (published May 19, 2004) admitted that Stanford's faculty members are apathetic towards undergraduates:</p><blockquote><div><p>Acknowledging that undergraduate advising and mentoring programs at the university fall "below the standards" set in other undergraduate education reforms, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education John Bravman announced several new initiatives that should significantly alter the experience for students and their advisers.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Bravman cited a number of issues that have contributed to disappointing experiences for many.<br>-<b>Faculty participation in advising has dropped from as much as 48 percent in the late 1970s to 12 to 15 percent today, partly due to ever-increasing demands on their time.</b><br>-Some advisers complained that they were matched with groups of students with nothing in common with each other or their adviser and felt uncomfortable participating in the standard socialization events. He said some faculty also complained about having too much information to digest when they became advisers.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>[Vice Provost Bravman said] "I think 15 percent is just a number that we should not be happy with. As a reasonable goal, I would love to get back to the point where we have half of our advisers who are on the faculty."<br>
&nbsp;</p></div> </blockquote><p>Five years later from that report, nothing seems to have changed:</p><blockquote><div><p>[Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education] Bravman noted that the major impingement has been on his staff - 16 layoffs, five hires for revised roles and the loss of nine positions due to attrition have meant an 18 percent reduction in the Vice-Provost for Undergraduate Education's non-lecturing staff. Further reductions have hit advising, which slashed the $750-per-year honoraria for its advisors and resulted in the loss of its HPAC (head peer academic coordinator) and peer advising programs, as well as the Sophomore Seminars and Sophomore College programs, which will face "continued reductions on the order of 15 to 20 percent." The latter two programs, Bravman said, are where students will feel the pain.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Stephen Stedman...probed Bravman on the elimination of the HPAC program. The vice provost responded bluntly.</p><p>"We received evidence that HPACs were giving <b>poor advice</b>," he said. <b>"The life experience of a 19-year-old is not optimized to offer advice to an 18-year-old."</b></p><p>(Source: "VPUE restructures", by Devin Banerjee in the <i>Stanford Daily</i>, May 15, 2009)</p></div></blockquote><p>Complaints by students have been published:</p><blockquote><div><p>Stanford's much vaunted academic excellence confronts new undergraduates with a bewildering array of departments, programs and interdisciplinary centers from which to choose. In order to fully take advantage of these resources, you need the advising that will cobble individual classes and research experiences into a coherent program. While some students get lucky with fantastic freshman advisors, <b>many/most of us are stuck with apathetic professors or administrators who could hardly be bothered to do more than hold a quarterly, 20-minute meeting. The University's commitment to advising remains questionable---the program has seen deep cuts. </b></p><p>(Source: "STUUKAS: An open letter to parents", By Stuart Baimel and Luukas Ilves, in the <i>Stanford Daily</i>, February 27, 2009)</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and this:</p><blockquote><div><p>We are coming to terms with the fact that even after having been admitted to Stanford, there is still a great deal of <b>competition for limited opportunities</b>. It's not as if all doors magically opened once we entered Stanford; there are still plenty of applications left to fill out.</p><p>(Source: "Life on the OSP waitlist", by the Editorial Board in the <i>Stanford Daily</i>, March 8, 2006)</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and this:</p><blockquote><div><p>Eric Showen '09 was not too thrilled when he found out he would be living in Crothers Hall this quarter, a dormitory across from Stern traditionally reserved for graduate students. Returning from a fall quarter spent at Stanford in Washington, Showen knew Crothers did not have a reputation for providing the greatest undergraduate living experience, and when he actually checked into his room last week he quickly learned why.</p><p>Showen found himself occupying a study room in the basement that had been converted into a one-room quad. Pipes hanging from the ceiling prevented Showen and his three roommates from lofting their beds. The heating system would not turn off, he said, leaving the room stuffy within the first few minutes. Several hundred law books lined the walls, taking up valuable floor space. Cobwebs and dead spiders hung near a rusty pipe that one occupant found so appalling he pulled his bed away from the wall.</p><p>"It was just absurd," Showen said.<br>(Source: "Students face cramped conditions", by Teho Milonopoulos, in the <i>Stanford Daily</i>, January 14, 2008)</p></div></blockquote><p>More lamentations can be found at <a href="http://www.epinions.com/content\_73675148932" title="epinions.com" rel="nofollow"> http://www.epinions.com/content\_73675148932 </a> [epinions.com]</p><p>Meanwhile, faculty members are well reimbursed.</p><blockquote><div><p>The average salary for a Stanford associate professor is the highest in the country, and the average salary for a full professor is the second highest, behind only Harvard, according to the annual report on faculty salaries by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).</p><p>For the 2008-2009 year, prior to the decision to freeze salaries, a full Stanford professor was slated to earn an average of $181,900. Only full professors at Harvard earned more--$192,600.</p><p>The average salary for a Stanford associate professor was $128,000; the California Institute of Technology was second with $126,200.</p><p>(Source: "Report: Stanford No. 2 in full professor pay", by Liz Stark, in the <i>Stanford Daily</i>, April 29, 2009)</p></div></blockquote><p>Faculty members have no trouble (or lack of time) to pursue their own interests, such as consulting for companies that sell services to Stanford.</p><blockquote><div><p>Stanford has spent more than seven years transferring its financial systems onto applications from Oracle called Oracle Financials. The project was supposed to be finished in 1999<br>.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..<br>Stanford has spent a lot of money on software and still has work to do. According to the university's annual budget plans, the board of trustees since 1999 has been asked to approve <b>$93.4 million</b> in capital expenditures for applications and infrastructure. The trustees had approved <b>$60 million</b> in 1994 to overhaul Stanford's entire administrative information systems, a project they expected would take five years, even though controller Susan Calandra says some of the projects in the original plan were never started.<br>What makes Stanford's troubles all the more ironic is the institution's proximity to Oracle and PeopleSoft. Stanford, with its gracious red-tiled roofs, and Oracle, with its gleaming metal-and-glass towers, sit just 10 miles apart along Route 101, the main thoroughfare through Silicon Valley. <b>Three Stanford professors serve on Oracle's board of directors...</b></p><p>(Source: "Campus Brawl" by Deborah Gage in <i>EWeek Magazine </i>, June 8, 2004))</p></div></blockquote><p>Serving on the board of directors is a paid position (at the very least $30,000 annually). Isn't it convenient that there are three professors paid by Oracle to serve on its board, and that the university then paid Oracle for $93 million of services? Apparently, the university's president John Hennessy is not immune from the temptations of wealth -- or conflict of interest:</p><blockquote><div><p>A smiling President John Hennessy juggling a roll of money, a diploma and a computer chip glazed the cover of <i>The Wall Street Journal</i> (WSJ) yesterday. Accompanying the photo was a 3,287-word-long article documenting the president's private investments in a number of technological corporations and <b>his eight figure profits over the last five years. </b></p><p>The WSJ calculated that, as a result of his investments in several venture-capital funds and his roles on the boards of several Silicon Valley firms, <b>Hennessy made $43 million over the last five years </b>-- a number far greater than the president's annual University <b>salary of $616,000.</b></p><p>The WSJ found some similarities between the University's investments and Hennessy's own, and suggested that in some instances companies endorsed by Hennessy received funding from venture-capital funds in which the president had also invested. Two companies the WSJ claims Hennessy unofficially supported -- Peribit Networks and Atheros Communications, for example -- received financial backing from Foundation Capital, a firm in which Hennessy and the Stanford Endowment are both investors.<br>(Source: "Hennessy's wealth explored" by Amit Arora in the <i>Stanford Daily</i>, February 26, 2007)<br>
&nbsp;</p></div> </blockquote><p>$43 million over the past five years makes you wonder how much money he has made in the past twenty years, doesn't it?</p><p>Are faculty members at research universities spending time training the next generation of researchers, or are they too busy making money with their side jobs? In 2006, Azia Kim slipped into a dorm and posed as student at the university. For <i> <b>eight months</b> </i>, nobody realized that she wasn't a registered student, even though dorms ostensibly have a faculty or staff member living at the dorms:</p><blockquote><div><p>Azia Kim was like any other Stanford freshman. She graduated from one of California's most competitive high schools last June, moved into the dorms during New Student Orientation, talked about upcoming tests and spent her free time with friends.<br>The only problem is that Azia Kim was never a Stanford student.<br>Kim, an 18-year-old from Orange County who graduated from Fullerton's Troy High School, lived in Kimball throughout fall and winter quarter. She lived in Okada, the Asian-American theme dorm, until Monday night, when University staff finally caught onto her ruse.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>"Personally, I don't feel safe now that Stanford allowed this to happen and that they're not doing anything to ensure the safety of their students," said Amy Zhou '08, Kim's roommate in Okada. "I think something's definitely wrong with the system if this could happen."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>To avoid suspicion while in Okada, Kim pretended to be a sophomore majoring in human biology, going as far as to buy textbooks and study with friends for tests she would never take. Residents of the 94-person dorm were none the wiser.<br>"She really knew her stuff, and really knew the schedule," Zhou said. "For HumBio, she would say, 'I have a midterm Monday in this room,' and I knew that was true because my friends are HumBio [students]."</p><p>(Source: "Imposter Caught" by Daniel Novinson in the <i>Stanford Daily</i>, May 24, 2007)</p></div></blockquote><p>Clearly, the adults weren't in charge...nor did they care.  At least Azia Kim spent no tuition money to get the same treatment a typical paying student would receive.</p><p>Despite the public complaints and the well-publicized Azia Kim fiasco, a record number of students applied to the university in 2008:</p><blockquote><div><p> In Stanford's <b>most competitive round of admissions ever</b>, 2,300 of this year's 30,428 applicants were accepted - the 7.6 percent admit rate is a record low. (Source: "Admit rate sinks to 7.6 percent", by Christine McFadden in the <i>Stanford Daily</i>, April 2, 2009)</p></div></blockquote><p>There's a sucker born every minute.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stanford University has been " gaming the system " for years .
The following excerpt was published almost a decade ago : Not surprisingly , there is evidence that schools alter policies for the sake of rankings .
This is n't automatically bad ; most of what U.S. News encourages is pretty good .
But because U.S. News does n't measure the most important thing on campus--actual learning--it is pushing colleges to prioritize in ways that are not necessarily the best .
In a sense , the rankings are like a professor who ignores the content of her student 's papers and instead bases her grades only on spelling and punctuation. [ .. .
] The introduction of U.S. News ' category of " percentage of alumni who give " also significantly affected fundraising .
When I was at Stanford , student groups were paid $ 25 an hour to solicit donations from alumni and , on the one shift I worked , were specifically told to mention that any donation would increase our ranking .
( Source : " Playing with Numbers " , by Nicholas Thompson , in the Washington Monthly , September 2000,at the link : http : //www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0009.thompson.html [ washingtonmonthly.com ] ) Despite its high US News and World Report ranking , Stanford has significant problems .
An article in the Stanford Report by Ray Delgado ( published May 19 , 2004 ) admitted that Stanford 's faculty members are apathetic towards undergraduates : Acknowledging that undergraduate advising and mentoring programs at the university fall " below the standards " set in other undergraduate education reforms , Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education John Bravman announced several new initiatives that should significantly alter the experience for students and their advisers .
...Bravman cited a number of issues that have contributed to disappointing experiences for many.-Faculty participation in advising has dropped from as much as 48 percent in the late 1970s to 12 to 15 percent today , partly due to ever-increasing demands on their time.-Some advisers complained that they were matched with groups of students with nothing in common with each other or their adviser and felt uncomfortable participating in the standard socialization events .
He said some faculty also complained about having too much information to digest when they became advisers .
... [ Vice Provost Bravman said ] " I think 15 percent is just a number that we should not be happy with .
As a reasonable goal , I would love to get back to the point where we have half of our advisers who are on the faculty .
"   Five years later from that report , nothing seems to have changed : [ Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education ] Bravman noted that the major impingement has been on his staff - 16 layoffs , five hires for revised roles and the loss of nine positions due to attrition have meant an 18 percent reduction in the Vice-Provost for Undergraduate Education 's non-lecturing staff .
Further reductions have hit advising , which slashed the $ 750-per-year honoraria for its advisors and resulted in the loss of its HPAC ( head peer academic coordinator ) and peer advising programs , as well as the Sophomore Seminars and Sophomore College programs , which will face " continued reductions on the order of 15 to 20 percent .
" The latter two programs , Bravman said , are where students will feel the pain .
... Stephen Stedman...probed Bravman on the elimination of the HPAC program .
The vice provost responded bluntly .
" We received evidence that HPACs were giving poor advice , " he said .
" The life experience of a 19-year-old is not optimized to offer advice to an 18-year-old .
" ( Source : " VPUE restructures " , by Devin Banerjee in the Stanford Daily , May 15 , 2009 ) Complaints by students have been published : Stanford 's much vaunted academic excellence confronts new undergraduates with a bewildering array of departments , programs and interdisciplinary centers from which to choose .
In order to fully take advantage of these resources , you need the advising that will cobble individual classes and research experiences into a coherent program .
While some students get lucky with fantastic freshman advisors , many/most of us are stuck with apathetic professors or administrators who could hardly be bothered to do more than hold a quarterly , 20-minute meeting .
The University 's commitment to advising remains questionable---the program has seen deep cuts .
( Source : " STUUKAS : An open letter to parents " , By Stuart Baimel and Luukas Ilves , in the Stanford Daily , February 27 , 2009 ) ...and this : We are coming to terms with the fact that even after having been admitted to Stanford , there is still a great deal of competition for limited opportunities .
It 's not as if all doors magically opened once we entered Stanford ; there are still plenty of applications left to fill out .
( Source : " Life on the OSP waitlist " , by the Editorial Board in the Stanford Daily , March 8 , 2006 ) ...and this : Eric Showen '09 was not too thrilled when he found out he would be living in Crothers Hall this quarter , a dormitory across from Stern traditionally reserved for graduate students .
Returning from a fall quarter spent at Stanford in Washington , Showen knew Crothers did not have a reputation for providing the greatest undergraduate living experience , and when he actually checked into his room last week he quickly learned why.Showen found himself occupying a study room in the basement that had been converted into a one-room quad .
Pipes hanging from the ceiling prevented Showen and his three roommates from lofting their beds .
The heating system would not turn off , he said , leaving the room stuffy within the first few minutes .
Several hundred law books lined the walls , taking up valuable floor space .
Cobwebs and dead spiders hung near a rusty pipe that one occupant found so appalling he pulled his bed away from the wall .
" It was just absurd , " Showen said .
( Source : " Students face cramped conditions " , by Teho Milonopoulos , in the Stanford Daily , January 14 , 2008 ) More lamentations can be found at http : //www.epinions.com/content \ _73675148932 [ epinions.com ] Meanwhile , faculty members are well reimbursed.The average salary for a Stanford associate professor is the highest in the country , and the average salary for a full professor is the second highest , behind only Harvard , according to the annual report on faculty salaries by the American Association of University Professors ( AAUP ) .For the 2008-2009 year , prior to the decision to freeze salaries , a full Stanford professor was slated to earn an average of $ 181,900 .
Only full professors at Harvard earned more-- $ 192,600.The average salary for a Stanford associate professor was $ 128,000 ; the California Institute of Technology was second with $ 126,200 .
( Source : " Report : Stanford No .
2 in full professor pay " , by Liz Stark , in the Stanford Daily , April 29 , 2009 ) Faculty members have no trouble ( or lack of time ) to pursue their own interests , such as consulting for companies that sell services to Stanford.Stanford has spent more than seven years transferring its financial systems onto applications from Oracle called Oracle Financials .
The project was supposed to be finished in 1999 .
..Stanford has spent a lot of money on software and still has work to do .
According to the university 's annual budget plans , the board of trustees since 1999 has been asked to approve $ 93.4 million in capital expenditures for applications and infrastructure .
The trustees had approved $ 60 million in 1994 to overhaul Stanford 's entire administrative information systems , a project they expected would take five years , even though controller Susan Calandra says some of the projects in the original plan were never started.What makes Stanford 's troubles all the more ironic is the institution 's proximity to Oracle and PeopleSoft .
Stanford , with its gracious red-tiled roofs , and Oracle , with its gleaming metal-and-glass towers , sit just 10 miles apart along Route 101 , the main thoroughfare through Silicon Valley .
Three Stanford professors serve on Oracle 's board of directors... ( Source : " Campus Brawl " by Deborah Gage in EWeek Magazine , June 8 , 2004 ) ) Serving on the board of directors is a paid position ( at the very least $ 30,000 annually ) .
Is n't it convenient that there are three professors paid by Oracle to serve on its board , and that the university then paid Oracle for $ 93 million of services ?
Apparently , the university 's president John Hennessy is not immune from the temptations of wealth -- or conflict of interest : A smiling President John Hennessy juggling a roll of money , a diploma and a computer chip glazed the cover of The Wall Street Journal ( WSJ ) yesterday .
Accompanying the photo was a 3,287-word-long article documenting the president 's private investments in a number of technological corporations and his eight figure profits over the last five years .
The WSJ calculated that , as a result of his investments in several venture-capital funds and his roles on the boards of several Silicon Valley firms , Hennessy made $ 43 million over the last five years -- a number far greater than the president 's annual University salary of $ 616,000.The WSJ found some similarities between the University 's investments and Hennessy 's own , and suggested that in some instances companies endorsed by Hennessy received funding from venture-capital funds in which the president had also invested .
Two companies the WSJ claims Hennessy unofficially supported -- Peribit Networks and Atheros Communications , for example -- received financial backing from Foundation Capital , a firm in which Hennessy and the Stanford Endowment are both investors .
( Source : " Hennessy 's wealth explored " by Amit Arora in the Stanford Daily , February 26 , 2007 )   $ 43 million over the past five years makes you wonder how much money he has made in the past twenty years , does n't it ? Are faculty members at research universities spending time training the next generation of researchers , or are they too busy making money with their side jobs ?
In 2006 , Azia Kim slipped into a dorm and posed as student at the university .
For eight months , nobody realized that she was n't a registered student , even though dorms ostensibly have a faculty or staff member living at the dorms : Azia Kim was like any other Stanford freshman .
She graduated from one of California 's most competitive high schools last June , moved into the dorms during New Student Orientation , talked about upcoming tests and spent her free time with friends.The only problem is that Azia Kim was never a Stanford student.Kim , an 18-year-old from Orange County who graduated from Fullerton 's Troy High School , lived in Kimball throughout fall and winter quarter .
She lived in Okada , the Asian-American theme dorm , until Monday night , when University staff finally caught onto her ruse .
... " Personally , I do n't feel safe now that Stanford allowed this to happen and that they 're not doing anything to ensure the safety of their students , " said Amy Zhou '08 , Kim 's roommate in Okada .
" I think something 's definitely wrong with the system if this could happen .
" ...To avoid suspicion while in Okada , Kim pretended to be a sophomore majoring in human biology , going as far as to buy textbooks and study with friends for tests she would never take .
Residents of the 94-person dorm were none the wiser .
" She really knew her stuff , and really knew the schedule , " Zhou said .
" For HumBio , she would say , 'I have a midterm Monday in this room, ' and I knew that was true because my friends are HumBio [ students ] .
" ( Source : " Imposter Caught " by Daniel Novinson in the Stanford Daily , May 24 , 2007 ) Clearly , the adults were n't in charge...nor did they care .
At least Azia Kim spent no tuition money to get the same treatment a typical paying student would receive.Despite the public complaints and the well-publicized Azia Kim fiasco , a record number of students applied to the university in 2008 : In Stanford 's most competitive round of admissions ever , 2,300 of this year 's 30,428 applicants were accepted - the 7.6 percent admit rate is a record low .
( Source : " Admit rate sinks to 7.6 percent " , by Christine McFadden in the Stanford Daily , April 2 , 2009 ) There 's a sucker born every minute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stanford University has been "gaming the system" for years.
The following excerpt was published almost a decade ago:Not surprisingly, there is evidence that schools alter policies for the sake of rankings.
This isn't automatically bad; most of what U.S. News encourages is pretty good.
But because U.S. News doesn't measure the most important thing on campus--actual learning--it is pushing colleges to prioritize in ways that are not necessarily the best.
In a sense, the rankings are like a professor who ignores the content of her student's papers and instead bases her grades only on spelling and punctuation.[...
]The introduction of U.S. News' category of "percentage of alumni who give" also significantly affected fundraising.
When I was at Stanford, student groups were paid $25 an hour to solicit donations from alumni and, on the one shift I worked, were specifically told to mention that any donation would increase our ranking.
(Source: "Playing with Numbers", by Nicholas Thompson, in the Washington Monthly, September 2000,at the link: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2000/0009.thompson.html [washingtonmonthly.com])Despite its high US News and World Report ranking, Stanford has significant problems.
An article in the Stanford Report by Ray Delgado (published May 19, 2004) admitted that Stanford's faculty members are apathetic towards undergraduates:Acknowledging that undergraduate advising and mentoring programs at the university fall "below the standards" set in other undergraduate education reforms, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education John Bravman announced several new initiatives that should significantly alter the experience for students and their advisers.
...Bravman cited a number of issues that have contributed to disappointing experiences for many.-Faculty participation in advising has dropped from as much as 48 percent in the late 1970s to 12 to 15 percent today, partly due to ever-increasing demands on their time.-Some advisers complained that they were matched with groups of students with nothing in common with each other or their adviser and felt uncomfortable participating in the standard socialization events.
He said some faculty also complained about having too much information to digest when they became advisers.
...[Vice Provost Bravman said] "I think 15 percent is just a number that we should not be happy with.
As a reasonable goal, I would love to get back to the point where we have half of our advisers who are on the faculty.
"
  Five years later from that report, nothing seems to have changed:[Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education] Bravman noted that the major impingement has been on his staff - 16 layoffs, five hires for revised roles and the loss of nine positions due to attrition have meant an 18 percent reduction in the Vice-Provost for Undergraduate Education's non-lecturing staff.
Further reductions have hit advising, which slashed the $750-per-year honoraria for its advisors and resulted in the loss of its HPAC (head peer academic coordinator) and peer advising programs, as well as the Sophomore Seminars and Sophomore College programs, which will face "continued reductions on the order of 15 to 20 percent.
" The latter two programs, Bravman said, are where students will feel the pain.
... Stephen Stedman...probed Bravman on the elimination of the HPAC program.
The vice provost responded bluntly.
"We received evidence that HPACs were giving poor advice," he said.
"The life experience of a 19-year-old is not optimized to offer advice to an 18-year-old.
"(Source: "VPUE restructures", by Devin Banerjee in the Stanford Daily, May 15, 2009)Complaints by students have been published:Stanford's much vaunted academic excellence confronts new undergraduates with a bewildering array of departments, programs and interdisciplinary centers from which to choose.
In order to fully take advantage of these resources, you need the advising that will cobble individual classes and research experiences into a coherent program.
While some students get lucky with fantastic freshman advisors, many/most of us are stuck with apathetic professors or administrators who could hardly be bothered to do more than hold a quarterly, 20-minute meeting.
The University's commitment to advising remains questionable---the program has seen deep cuts.
(Source: "STUUKAS: An open letter to parents", By Stuart Baimel and Luukas Ilves, in the Stanford Daily, February 27, 2009) ...and this:We are coming to terms with the fact that even after having been admitted to Stanford, there is still a great deal of competition for limited opportunities.
It's not as if all doors magically opened once we entered Stanford; there are still plenty of applications left to fill out.
(Source: "Life on the OSP waitlist", by the Editorial Board in the Stanford Daily, March 8, 2006) ...and this:Eric Showen '09 was not too thrilled when he found out he would be living in Crothers Hall this quarter, a dormitory across from Stern traditionally reserved for graduate students.
Returning from a fall quarter spent at Stanford in Washington, Showen knew Crothers did not have a reputation for providing the greatest undergraduate living experience, and when he actually checked into his room last week he quickly learned why.Showen found himself occupying a study room in the basement that had been converted into a one-room quad.
Pipes hanging from the ceiling prevented Showen and his three roommates from lofting their beds.
The heating system would not turn off, he said, leaving the room stuffy within the first few minutes.
Several hundred law books lined the walls, taking up valuable floor space.
Cobwebs and dead spiders hung near a rusty pipe that one occupant found so appalling he pulled his bed away from the wall.
"It was just absurd," Showen said.
(Source: "Students face cramped conditions", by Teho Milonopoulos, in the Stanford Daily, January 14, 2008)More lamentations can be found at  http://www.epinions.com/content\_73675148932  [epinions.com]Meanwhile, faculty members are well reimbursed.The average salary for a Stanford associate professor is the highest in the country, and the average salary for a full professor is the second highest, behind only Harvard, according to the annual report on faculty salaries by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP).For the 2008-2009 year, prior to the decision to freeze salaries, a full Stanford professor was slated to earn an average of $181,900.
Only full professors at Harvard earned more--$192,600.The average salary for a Stanford associate professor was $128,000; the California Institute of Technology was second with $126,200.
(Source: "Report: Stanford No.
2 in full professor pay", by Liz Stark, in the Stanford Daily, April 29, 2009)Faculty members have no trouble (or lack of time) to pursue their own interests, such as consulting for companies that sell services to Stanford.Stanford has spent more than seven years transferring its financial systems onto applications from Oracle called Oracle Financials.
The project was supposed to be finished in 1999.
..Stanford has spent a lot of money on software and still has work to do.
According to the university's annual budget plans, the board of trustees since 1999 has been asked to approve $93.4 million in capital expenditures for applications and infrastructure.
The trustees had approved $60 million in 1994 to overhaul Stanford's entire administrative information systems, a project they expected would take five years, even though controller Susan Calandra says some of the projects in the original plan were never started.What makes Stanford's troubles all the more ironic is the institution's proximity to Oracle and PeopleSoft.
Stanford, with its gracious red-tiled roofs, and Oracle, with its gleaming metal-and-glass towers, sit just 10 miles apart along Route 101, the main thoroughfare through Silicon Valley.
Three Stanford professors serve on Oracle's board of directors...(Source: "Campus Brawl" by Deborah Gage in EWeek Magazine , June 8, 2004))Serving on the board of directors is a paid position (at the very least $30,000 annually).
Isn't it convenient that there are three professors paid by Oracle to serve on its board, and that the university then paid Oracle for $93 million of services?
Apparently, the university's president John Hennessy is not immune from the temptations of wealth -- or conflict of interest:A smiling President John Hennessy juggling a roll of money, a diploma and a computer chip glazed the cover of The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) yesterday.
Accompanying the photo was a 3,287-word-long article documenting the president's private investments in a number of technological corporations and his eight figure profits over the last five years.
The WSJ calculated that, as a result of his investments in several venture-capital funds and his roles on the boards of several Silicon Valley firms, Hennessy made $43 million over the last five years -- a number far greater than the president's annual University salary of $616,000.The WSJ found some similarities between the University's investments and Hennessy's own, and suggested that in some instances companies endorsed by Hennessy received funding from venture-capital funds in which the president had also invested.
Two companies the WSJ claims Hennessy unofficially supported -- Peribit Networks and Atheros Communications, for example -- received financial backing from Foundation Capital, a firm in which Hennessy and the Stanford Endowment are both investors.
(Source: "Hennessy's wealth explored" by Amit Arora in the Stanford Daily, February 26, 2007)
  $43 million over the past five years makes you wonder how much money he has made in the past twenty years, doesn't it?Are faculty members at research universities spending time training the next generation of researchers, or are they too busy making money with their side jobs?
In 2006, Azia Kim slipped into a dorm and posed as student at the university.
For  eight months , nobody realized that she wasn't a registered student, even though dorms ostensibly have a faculty or staff member living at the dorms:Azia Kim was like any other Stanford freshman.
She graduated from one of California's most competitive high schools last June, moved into the dorms during New Student Orientation, talked about upcoming tests and spent her free time with friends.The only problem is that Azia Kim was never a Stanford student.Kim, an 18-year-old from Orange County who graduated from Fullerton's Troy High School, lived in Kimball throughout fall and winter quarter.
She lived in Okada, the Asian-American theme dorm, until Monday night, when University staff finally caught onto her ruse.
..."Personally, I don't feel safe now that Stanford allowed this to happen and that they're not doing anything to ensure the safety of their students," said Amy Zhou '08, Kim's roommate in Okada.
"I think something's definitely wrong with the system if this could happen.
" ...To avoid suspicion while in Okada, Kim pretended to be a sophomore majoring in human biology, going as far as to buy textbooks and study with friends for tests she would never take.
Residents of the 94-person dorm were none the wiser.
"She really knew her stuff, and really knew the schedule," Zhou said.
"For HumBio, she would say, 'I have a midterm Monday in this room,' and I knew that was true because my friends are HumBio [students].
"(Source: "Imposter Caught" by Daniel Novinson in the Stanford Daily, May 24, 2007)Clearly, the adults weren't in charge...nor did they care.
At least Azia Kim spent no tuition money to get the same treatment a typical paying student would receive.Despite the public complaints and the well-publicized Azia Kim fiasco, a record number of students applied to the university in 2008: In Stanford's most competitive round of admissions ever, 2,300 of this year's 30,428 applicants were accepted - the 7.6 percent admit rate is a record low.
(Source: "Admit rate sinks to 7.6 percent", by Christine McFadden in the Stanford Daily, April 2, 2009)There's a sucker born every minute.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218231</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216339</id>
	<title>Here's a way that my College cheated a ranking...</title>
	<author>VinylRecords</author>
	<datestamp>1244117220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My College was always top on a list of Colleges that the highest percentage of alumni donating to the college after graduating. The rankings would score a college or university based on what percentage of alumni donated back to the school the first year after graduating.</p><p>My College found the simplest way to manipulate that index. Just have every single student who graduates donate one dollar back to the school and then find one or two students with extremely wealthy parents (this was not hard at my school) and have them donate thousands and thousands of dollars. This way the school would report absurd figures like "90 percent of students donated back to our school within the first year of graduating from our undergraduate program" and it would make the school look good and it would make the degree you just got look a little more prestigious. They never told the index that we only donated a dollar and were instructed to by some of administration.</p><p>And with the few giant donations from one or two individuals, the school could artificially say that the average donation was way higher than typical, while hiding the fact that it was offset by just one or two massive donations.</p><p>Other ways to cheat is hiring adjunct professors or part time professors under different titles like 'technician' or 'consultant'. This makes the percentage of full time faculty and professors look way higher than it actually is because the school hides its adjuncts under different titles. Another way they cheated the system was renaming classrooms as different titles. One of the rankings is how many classrooms on campuses have TVs/projectors/computers and if you hide the classrooms without those your percentages increase in your 'technology' score as well.</p><p>If I think of any more I'll them but these were the ones that came to mind immediately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My College was always top on a list of Colleges that the highest percentage of alumni donating to the college after graduating .
The rankings would score a college or university based on what percentage of alumni donated back to the school the first year after graduating.My College found the simplest way to manipulate that index .
Just have every single student who graduates donate one dollar back to the school and then find one or two students with extremely wealthy parents ( this was not hard at my school ) and have them donate thousands and thousands of dollars .
This way the school would report absurd figures like " 90 percent of students donated back to our school within the first year of graduating from our undergraduate program " and it would make the school look good and it would make the degree you just got look a little more prestigious .
They never told the index that we only donated a dollar and were instructed to by some of administration.And with the few giant donations from one or two individuals , the school could artificially say that the average donation was way higher than typical , while hiding the fact that it was offset by just one or two massive donations.Other ways to cheat is hiring adjunct professors or part time professors under different titles like 'technician ' or 'consultant' .
This makes the percentage of full time faculty and professors look way higher than it actually is because the school hides its adjuncts under different titles .
Another way they cheated the system was renaming classrooms as different titles .
One of the rankings is how many classrooms on campuses have TVs/projectors/computers and if you hide the classrooms without those your percentages increase in your 'technology ' score as well.If I think of any more I 'll them but these were the ones that came to mind immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My College was always top on a list of Colleges that the highest percentage of alumni donating to the college after graduating.
The rankings would score a college or university based on what percentage of alumni donated back to the school the first year after graduating.My College found the simplest way to manipulate that index.
Just have every single student who graduates donate one dollar back to the school and then find one or two students with extremely wealthy parents (this was not hard at my school) and have them donate thousands and thousands of dollars.
This way the school would report absurd figures like "90 percent of students donated back to our school within the first year of graduating from our undergraduate program" and it would make the school look good and it would make the degree you just got look a little more prestigious.
They never told the index that we only donated a dollar and were instructed to by some of administration.And with the few giant donations from one or two individuals, the school could artificially say that the average donation was way higher than typical, while hiding the fact that it was offset by just one or two massive donations.Other ways to cheat is hiring adjunct professors or part time professors under different titles like 'technician' or 'consultant'.
This makes the percentage of full time faculty and professors look way higher than it actually is because the school hides its adjuncts under different titles.
Another way they cheated the system was renaming classrooms as different titles.
One of the rankings is how many classrooms on campuses have TVs/projectors/computers and if you hide the classrooms without those your percentages increase in your 'technology' score as well.If I think of any more I'll them but these were the ones that came to mind immediately.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217601</id>
	<title>Oh, and other dirty tactics</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244126760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I just remembered this one; rumour has it that the WFU Business School hired anyone who couldn't get a job last year so they could put out some BS about how all their graduates got jobs even in These Turbulent Economic Times (tm).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just remembered this one ; rumour has it that the WFU Business School hired anyone who could n't get a job last year so they could put out some BS about how all their graduates got jobs even in These Turbulent Economic Times ( tm ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I just remembered this one; rumour has it that the WFU Business School hired anyone who couldn't get a job last year so they could put out some BS about how all their graduates got jobs even in These Turbulent Economic Times (tm).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216913</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217125</id>
	<title>Think that's bad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244122380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm at a University in the UK. There are many students here on the MSc Computer Science scheme that can not program. Any language. At all. One of the group-work programming modules has been altered this year, so that rather than programming a solution, students can use Access / Excel / Word to produce the prototype of their 'system'. And as students might not find that easy, rather than do a presentation demo-ing their work, they can instead videotape the demo, allowing for smoke and mirrors tricks. <br>
&nbsp; <br>We have students with 80\%+ plagiarism according to TurnItIn, and being let off with a slap on the wrist due to "cultural differences".<br>
&nbsp; <br>We have a Professors of Multimedia who can only code a web page when using Word 2003, and requires help opening Visual Studio solution files. We have lecturers who write down which files need to be moved to which folders, because they have yet to master drag and drop in Windows...</p><p>On the other hand, we have lecturers who are experts in their field. We have some young, highly knowledgeable and enthusiastic lecturers who know their subject inside out, yet don't for a second come across as arrogant. Who continue to be told "If we achieve less than 80\% pass-rate on your module, it's your fault for not teaching the subject properly" despite the powers-that-be allowing students onto the degree who clearly have no skill with computers, whose only contribution to the School is 3x the normal annual fee.</p><p>The good lecturers get more work put upon them. The crap lecturers have told the-powers-that-be to sod off... so they are not given extra work any more. This gives them more time for leisure, recreation, and outside pursuits.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Sorry to rant... but for all the crap, I do love my University. I just wish the Executive, the Dean, the Associate Deans, and the Senior Lecturers cared enough to do something about it.</p><p>They don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm at a University in the UK .
There are many students here on the MSc Computer Science scheme that can not program .
Any language .
At all .
One of the group-work programming modules has been altered this year , so that rather than programming a solution , students can use Access / Excel / Word to produce the prototype of their 'system' .
And as students might not find that easy , rather than do a presentation demo-ing their work , they can instead videotape the demo , allowing for smoke and mirrors tricks .
  We have students with 80 \ % + plagiarism according to TurnItIn , and being let off with a slap on the wrist due to " cultural differences " .
  We have a Professors of Multimedia who can only code a web page when using Word 2003 , and requires help opening Visual Studio solution files .
We have lecturers who write down which files need to be moved to which folders , because they have yet to master drag and drop in Windows...On the other hand , we have lecturers who are experts in their field .
We have some young , highly knowledgeable and enthusiastic lecturers who know their subject inside out , yet do n't for a second come across as arrogant .
Who continue to be told " If we achieve less than 80 \ % pass-rate on your module , it 's your fault for not teaching the subject properly " despite the powers-that-be allowing students onto the degree who clearly have no skill with computers , whose only contribution to the School is 3x the normal annual fee.The good lecturers get more work put upon them .
The crap lecturers have told the-powers-that-be to sod off... so they are not given extra work any more .
This gives them more time for leisure , recreation , and outside pursuits .
  Sorry to rant... but for all the crap , I do love my University .
I just wish the Executive , the Dean , the Associate Deans , and the Senior Lecturers cared enough to do something about it.They do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm at a University in the UK.
There are many students here on the MSc Computer Science scheme that can not program.
Any language.
At all.
One of the group-work programming modules has been altered this year, so that rather than programming a solution, students can use Access / Excel / Word to produce the prototype of their 'system'.
And as students might not find that easy, rather than do a presentation demo-ing their work, they can instead videotape the demo, allowing for smoke and mirrors tricks.
  We have students with 80\%+ plagiarism according to TurnItIn, and being let off with a slap on the wrist due to "cultural differences".
  We have a Professors of Multimedia who can only code a web page when using Word 2003, and requires help opening Visual Studio solution files.
We have lecturers who write down which files need to be moved to which folders, because they have yet to master drag and drop in Windows...On the other hand, we have lecturers who are experts in their field.
We have some young, highly knowledgeable and enthusiastic lecturers who know their subject inside out, yet don't for a second come across as arrogant.
Who continue to be told "If we achieve less than 80\% pass-rate on your module, it's your fault for not teaching the subject properly" despite the powers-that-be allowing students onto the degree who clearly have no skill with computers, whose only contribution to the School is 3x the normal annual fee.The good lecturers get more work put upon them.
The crap lecturers have told the-powers-that-be to sod off... so they are not given extra work any more.
This gives them more time for leisure, recreation, and outside pursuits.
  Sorry to rant... but for all the crap, I do love my University.
I just wish the Executive, the Dean, the Associate Deans, and the Senior Lecturers cared enough to do something about it.They don't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28221889</id>
	<title>It will get worse</title>
	<author>juggledean</author>
	<datestamp>1244214420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There is a company Academic Analytics <a href="http://www.academicanalytics.com/" title="academicanalytics.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.academicanalytics.com/</a> [academicanalytics.com] that, for a price, will search the web and provide rankings to "help" Deans and Boards of Trustees to evaluate their graduate programs.   The "better" programs have all ready been accused of search engine optimization.  I guess it could also be seen as an opportunity.
</p><p>
At least with US&amp;WR we all know how much they know about quality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a company Academic Analytics http : //www.academicanalytics.com/ [ academicanalytics.com ] that , for a price , will search the web and provide rankings to " help " Deans and Boards of Trustees to evaluate their graduate programs .
The " better " programs have all ready been accused of search engine optimization .
I guess it could also be seen as an opportunity .
At least with US&amp;WR we all know how much they know about quality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There is a company Academic Analytics http://www.academicanalytics.com/ [academicanalytics.com] that, for a price, will search the web and provide rankings to "help" Deans and Boards of Trustees to evaluate their graduate programs.
The "better" programs have all ready been accused of search engine optimization.
I guess it could also be seen as an opportunity.
At least with US&amp;WR we all know how much they know about quality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28223487</id>
	<title>2000-level?</title>
	<author>KingAlanI</author>
	<datestamp>1244220840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have enough trouble with the 400 and 500-level courses!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have enough trouble with the 400 and 500-level courses !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have enough trouble with the 400 and 500-level courses!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28312481</id>
	<title>Re:It explains a lot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244838060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As someone who works in higher ed, let me tell you something we know about these rankings that others may not... we don't worry about the kids looking at them.  The kids usually show some sense.  We worry about the PARENTS looking at them*.  Students are more likely to look at the whole package and all the details than Mom and Dad--most likely because, hey, Mom and Dad don't have to live with being stuffed in a box for four years, or herded into a classroom with 200 other students.</p><p>Parents of high school upperclassmen are insane.</p><p>*and frankly, we try not to worry about them at all.  We're one of the schools trying to aim people away from rankings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who works in higher ed , let me tell you something we know about these rankings that others may not... we do n't worry about the kids looking at them .
The kids usually show some sense .
We worry about the PARENTS looking at them * .
Students are more likely to look at the whole package and all the details than Mom and Dad--most likely because , hey , Mom and Dad do n't have to live with being stuffed in a box for four years , or herded into a classroom with 200 other students.Parents of high school upperclassmen are insane .
* and frankly , we try not to worry about them at all .
We 're one of the schools trying to aim people away from rankings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who works in higher ed, let me tell you something we know about these rankings that others may not... we don't worry about the kids looking at them.
The kids usually show some sense.
We worry about the PARENTS looking at them*.
Students are more likely to look at the whole package and all the details than Mom and Dad--most likely because, hey, Mom and Dad don't have to live with being stuffed in a box for four years, or herded into a classroom with 200 other students.Parents of high school upperclassmen are insane.
*and frankly, we try not to worry about them at all.
We're one of the schools trying to aim people away from rankings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215959</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28220893</id>
	<title>Re:Cheating /and/ standards-chasing</title>
	<author>BrotherBeal</author>
	<datestamp>1244209440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Foo -

There's a big difference between the undergrad and grad programs at Wake. From what I've heard from every one of my friends who graduated from the undergrad business program, which is VERY highly regarded, Wake's graduate business school is pretty much awful - a paper tiger. They give out same day acceptances, with scholarship offers, because they can't fill spots in their grad program. Supposedly the best professors in the MBA program were asked to switch to teaching undergrads. It's my understanding that this was a conscious choice to help maintain Wake's "focus on the undergrads" image. Whether it's good or not is not really my say, but this is what I've heard from folks who have gone on to bigger and better things in the business world.

I graduated WFU in '05 to give you a time frame for this blatant display of hearsay and anecdotal evidence. I also had no contact with the business school apart from fraternity brothers (Lambda Chi), so take this with as much salt as you wish.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Foo - There 's a big difference between the undergrad and grad programs at Wake .
From what I 've heard from every one of my friends who graduated from the undergrad business program , which is VERY highly regarded , Wake 's graduate business school is pretty much awful - a paper tiger .
They give out same day acceptances , with scholarship offers , because they ca n't fill spots in their grad program .
Supposedly the best professors in the MBA program were asked to switch to teaching undergrads .
It 's my understanding that this was a conscious choice to help maintain Wake 's " focus on the undergrads " image .
Whether it 's good or not is not really my say , but this is what I 've heard from folks who have gone on to bigger and better things in the business world .
I graduated WFU in '05 to give you a time frame for this blatant display of hearsay and anecdotal evidence .
I also had no contact with the business school apart from fraternity brothers ( Lambda Chi ) , so take this with as much salt as you wish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Foo -

There's a big difference between the undergrad and grad programs at Wake.
From what I've heard from every one of my friends who graduated from the undergrad business program, which is VERY highly regarded, Wake's graduate business school is pretty much awful - a paper tiger.
They give out same day acceptances, with scholarship offers, because they can't fill spots in their grad program.
Supposedly the best professors in the MBA program were asked to switch to teaching undergrads.
It's my understanding that this was a conscious choice to help maintain Wake's "focus on the undergrads" image.
Whether it's good or not is not really my say, but this is what I've heard from folks who have gone on to bigger and better things in the business world.
I graduated WFU in '05 to give you a time frame for this blatant display of hearsay and anecdotal evidence.
I also had no contact with the business school apart from fraternity brothers (Lambda Chi), so take this with as much salt as you wish.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216913</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216215
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28223487
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28227287
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219565
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28228581
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28221711
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217817
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28220567
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28220521
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218225
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216295
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216781
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218167
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28220893
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216879
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28312481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28221637
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216797
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216913
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28221081
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28220601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219371
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216419
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28222435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217847
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216271
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215925
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218323
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216029
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_04_226219_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28221529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217393
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216277
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28220521
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215887
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216913
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28220893
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217601
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218197
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28223487
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219565
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216551
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215893
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216419
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217503
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216821
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28221711
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216147
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215925
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216385
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216339
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215935
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216271
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28221081
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28220567
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215885
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218225
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28220601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216781
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28217393
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28221637
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218231
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28228581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28219261
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28221529
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28222435
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218665
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216029
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218323
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28227287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28218667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216347
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_04_226219.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28215959
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28312481
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_04_226219.28216051
</commentlist>
</conversation>
