We are talking about school rankings, not professional researcher rankings
That's how university rankings work. This is widely known stuff.
If you think that Stanford is up there because they have brilliant students, you are objectively wrong. In fact, there is no standardized way of comparing students of two different institutions other than research work and citations, which makes them, again, part of the academic body.
There are literally standardized tests used in admissions. Looking at the averages of those standardized test scores of Stanford students vs other schools will tell a story about the student body that does not come as a surprise to most of us.
"Stanford is committed to a holistic review of all candidates. We consider the vast array of information provided in and with each student’s application, whether that information includes test scores or not. Students may continue to self-report test scores in their application if they would like. Applications without test scores will not be at a disadvantage." [0]
This paints a very different story.
Also, the fact that there is a percentage reserved for legacy admissions, invalidates your point completely.
Do you think that Stanford's legacy admission policy makes their student body indistinguishable from that of Pasadena City College? Or that no standardized scoring system would reveal any population-wide differences in academic ability between a school which admits 1 of 25 applicants from another that admits 25 of 25 applicants? Hell, admissions rate alone is probably enough to tell a pretty good part of the story.
Comments
What on earth are you trying to say? We are talking about school rankings, not professional researcher rankings.
Have you met any brilliant people? Ask them for their opinion.
The proof is in their grades, test scores, competition scores, PhD theses and papers, and later work output.
That's how university rankings work. This is widely known stuff.
If you think that Stanford is up there because they have brilliant students, you are objectively wrong. In fact, there is no standardized way of comparing students of two different institutions other than research work and citations, which makes them, again, part of the academic body.
There are literally standardized tests used in admissions. Looking at the averages of those standardized test scores of Stanford students vs other schools will tell a story about the student body that does not come as a surprise to most of us.
"Stanford is committed to a holistic review of all candidates. We consider the vast array of information provided in and with each student’s application, whether that information includes test scores or not. Students may continue to self-report test scores in their application if they would like. Applications without test scores will not be at a disadvantage." [0]
This paints a very different story.
Also, the fact that there is a percentage reserved for legacy admissions, invalidates your point completely.
[0] https://admission.stanford.edu
Do you think that Stanford's legacy admission policy makes their student body indistinguishable from that of Pasadena City College? Or that no standardized scoring system would reveal any population-wide differences in academic ability between a school which admits 1 of 25 applicants from another that admits 25 of 25 applicants? Hell, admissions rate alone is probably enough to tell a pretty good part of the story.