Feed on

We’re #37!

And we charge like we are #1! And per usual, my alma mater is #2 behind the evil empire.

4 Responses to “We’re #37!”

  1. Normally I would say #37 is something we should be proud of, but I am in fact completely embarassed.

    Here are the Rochester Rankings for every year the data is available:
    1991: 25
    1996: 29
    1997: 30
    1998: 31
    1999: 29
    2000: 32
    2001: 33
    2002: 36
    2003: 36
    2004: 35
    2005: 34
    2006: 34
    2007: 34
    2008: 35
    2009: 35
    2010: 25
    2011: 37

    In other words, 2011 is the worst ranking Rochester has ever received! We are on a slow but embarassing downward spiral. Amongst other schools in our division, which are similar both in size and reputation, we are being outperformed and the rankings show it. We used to be tied with Carnegie Mellon and just slightly behind Emory, Wash U and U of Chicago. Now the only school behind us is Case Western, with Brandeis and NYU passing us and pulling away.


    THE PROBLEM: The University does not embrace people of different hobbies and activities. Great schools offer the opportunity to gain a great education as well as partake in WHATEVER social activities they enjoy. Once upon a time Rochester was known for its work hard, play hard mentality. Now our administration crunches down on partying like it is a one way path to failure. If Rochester is going to attract the same sort of brilliant minds it once did, the administration needs to accept that a lot of very smart students still come to school to party as well as work.

    Long story short: Ease up administration, let us have some fun between exams so our school can gain a work hard, play hard reputation once more.

  2. 2010: was 35, not 25*

    I feel I should also mention I really do mean any hobby or interest. Whether it is chess club, glee club, gay club, or big parties, good schools offer a social life for every individual.

  3. Harry says:

    When I taught, the head of my (English) department told me a true story.

    He had taught a senior who by most measures would qualify him for anywhere — over 1400 on the [old] college boards, sports, etc.

    The kid applied to Amherst, then as always among the toughest colleges to get into.

    During the on-campus interview he was asked, “By any chance, do you play the glockenspiel?”

    (I’m taking some dramatic liscence here.)

    The kid answered no.

    The interviewer said, “We need a glockenspiel player.”

    The kid was rejected and his angry English teacher called the Amherst director of admissions, who said something of this sort:

    When you have to make a choice and when you have all the smart kids you need and the lacrosse and hockey teams are filled, what would you do?”

    My friend answered, “I guess I’d pick the kid who could play the glockenspiel.”

    I would not tell this story if Wintercow had played football for Harvard. Nor do I wish to make a broad point about justice.

    Wintercow must have had something more than smarts and football skills going, assuming they were not desperate for a running back.

  4. Alex says:

    This is actually a little bothersome; I didn’t apply to this school because of its rankings, but regardless of my reasoning its annoying that these reviews could imply to some that people here, myself included, don’t work as hard or have the same abilities as other comparable schools. I understand that, provided I’m content with the education and experience I’m paying for, I shouldn’t care about the opinions of third parties, yet for some reason I do.

    A big part of our problem is well known and discussed: reputation. Or, rather, lack of. Almost a quarter of the 2011 rankings are based on reputation, the category I believe that the school is lacking the most. I wish I knew how to deal with the problem and, judging by a number of comments and speeches from school officials (such as one given on the 2nd day of school for the class of 2012 by president Seligman), so does the administration.

Leave a Reply