[lowpro]

For the TLDR people:

“ In each previous section, what was at issue was a discrepancy between two figures, both obtained from data provided by Columbia. Regarding class sizes, the information provided to U.S. News conflicts with the information in the Directory of Classes. Regarding terminal degrees, the information provided to U.S. News conflicts with the information in the Columbia College Bulletin. Regarding full-time faculty, the information provided to U.S. News conflicts with the information provided to the Department of Education. And so on.”

The big conclusions are that Columbia seems to be providing inaccurate data, and that one of the outcomes of chasing rankings are that transfer students end up as second class students, at least at Columbia.

I think it’s a data driven case of how elite universities can perpetuate a system of reduced social mobility. For Columbia, the objectively more poor transfer students support the more wealthy non-transfer students, and the graduation rate shows that disparity.

[gnicholas]

> one of the outcomes of chasing rankings are that transfer students end up as second class students, at least at Columbia.

Interesting — when I was in law school, transfer students benefitted from the fact that they avoided our harsh first-year grading curves (20% A's, 60% B's, and 20% C's). The curve for second- and third-year classes was much more lenient, and it was relatively easy to get a 3.5 average during those years.

As a result, the transfer students disproportionately ended up with the highest GPAs, which seemed unfair to those of us who were there all 3 years.