Johns Hopkins 2023

[Jaysjay88]

That certainly wasn’t the case when I attended Hopkins. Compared to the three universities that I attended other than Hopkins, Hopkins had by far the worst quality of teaching. Faculty seemed to deem teaching a chore, and their poor quality of teaching reflected that. I also don’t understand what is good about “academic rigor”. Other top schools have academic rigor, but Hopkins took it to an extreme. I once got a 5 out of a 100 on an advanced physics test … and it was a passing grade. That’s just nuts … and stupid. The f*cking physics professor should have been fired for giving a test where even a class full of graduate students failed to break an average score of 20 out of 100. Another idiot Hopkins professor spent the entire semester deriving equations on a chalkboard without explaining why the equations were important or why we were deriving them. That guy should have been fired, too.

President Daniels has clearly prioritized improving the undergraduate experience without neglecting the graduate schools and research institutions. Some don’t like the new emphasis, but it’s way overdue. I can’t believe it took nearly 150 years for Hopkins to finally build a decent student center.

Agree 100%

[Farfromgeneva]

Pretty sure the climb up the rankings is mostly due to the university becoming more selective over the last 10-20 years. Acceptance rate is now just 8%. The Bloomberg money and going need-blind probably don't hurt. Philosophically and metrics-wise it's basically an Ivy League school with the added benefit that the lax team can offer the full allotment of schollies in addition to finaid. Bigger emphasis on research than most Ivies though.

Maybe it's just me, but I liked it better when JHU wasn't "basically an Ivy League school" and was actually something different. Frankly, I used to think it was - at an undergrad level - academically more rigorous than most of the Ivies, had less grade inflation and was more focused on substance rather than perception. One of the reasons the admissions were less selective (on a % basis) than the Ivies was the place had a reputation that scared some of the less serious off. While Daniels' chase of the rankings has undoubtedly been successful on its own terms, it does seem like the character of the institution has changed somewhat. And reasonable minds can differ on whether that's a good thing.

I think what Johns Hopkins used to be … and what some members of our forum wished it still was … is an institution that emphasized graduate studies and research over undergraduate instruction.

Frankly, I think that was an extremely detrimental approach. The undergraduate schools were, are, and will always be the heart of the university. The graduate and professional schools cannot ever form the core of the university’s community. Research institutions like APL and the Space Telescope Science Institute could easily be stand-alone institutions. The emphasis and focus should always be on the undergraduate schools.

That certainly wasn’t the case when I attended Hopkins. Compared to the three universities that I attended other than Hopkins, Hopkins had by far the worst quality of teaching. Faculty seemed to deem teaching a chore, and their poor quality of teaching reflected that. I also don’t understand what is good about “academic rigor”. Other top schools have academic rigor, but Hopkins took it to an extreme. I once got a 5 out of a 100 on an advanced physics test … and it was a passing grade. That’s just nuts … and stupid. The f*cking physics professor should have been fired for giving a test where even a class full of graduate students failed to break an average score of 20 out of 100. Another idiot Hopkins professor spent the entire semester deriving equations on a chalkboard without explaining why the equations were important or why we were deriving them. That guy should have been fired, too.

President Daniels has clearly prioritized improving the undergraduate experience without neglecting the graduate schools and research institutions. Some don’t like the new emphasis, but it’s way overdue. I can’t believe it took nearly 150 years for Hopkins to finally build a decent student center.

Ok … rant over.

*Drops Mic*

DocBarrister

other people tell you if you dropped a mic.

I can’t believe you got even this wrong.

*Ahem*

Dropping a mic is an inherently boastful act. It must be done by the person who is boasting. Boasting is the entire point of dropping a mic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mic_drop



DocBarrister

i'm talking about on social.
but wiki, boastful... checks out.

When Columbia drops from 2 to 18 because they f'ed up but otherwise are exactly the same school what does that tell you about the value of rankings? Or conversely what does it say about the difference between 2 and 20?

[DocBarrister]

Pretty sure the climb up the rankings is mostly due to the university becoming more selective over the last 10-20 years. Acceptance rate is now just 8%. The Bloomberg money and going need-blind probably don't hurt. Philosophically and metrics-wise it's basically an Ivy League school with the added benefit that the lax team can offer the full allotment of schollies in addition to finaid. Bigger emphasis on research than most Ivies though.

Maybe it's just me, but I liked it better when JHU wasn't "basically an Ivy League school" and was actually something different. Frankly, I used to think it was - at an undergrad level - academically more rigorous than most of the Ivies, had less grade inflation and was more focused on substance rather than perception. One of the reasons the admissions were less selective (on a % basis) than the Ivies was the place had a reputation that scared some of the less serious off. While Daniels' chase of the rankings has undoubtedly been successful on its own terms, it does seem like the character of the institution has changed somewhat. And reasonable minds can differ on whether that's a good thing.

I think what Johns Hopkins used to be … and what some members of our forum wished it still was … is an institution that emphasized graduate studies and research over undergraduate instruction.

Frankly, I think that was an extremely detrimental approach. The undergraduate schools were, are, and will always be the heart of the university. The graduate and professional schools cannot ever form the core of the university’s community. Research institutions like APL and the Space Telescope Science Institute could easily be stand-alone institutions. The emphasis and focus should always be on the undergraduate schools.

That certainly wasn’t the case when I attended Hopkins. Compared to the three universities that I attended other than Hopkins, Hopkins had by far the worst quality of teaching. Faculty seemed to deem teaching a chore, and their poor quality of teaching reflected that. I also don’t understand what is good about “academic rigor”. Other top schools have academic rigor, but Hopkins took it to an extreme. I once got a 5 out of a 100 on an advanced physics test … and it was a passing grade. That’s just nuts … and stupid. The f*cking physics professor should have been fired for giving a test where even a class full of graduate students failed to break an average score of 20 out of 100. Another idiot Hopkins professor spent the entire semester deriving equations on a chalkboard without explaining why the equations were important or why we were deriving them. That guy should have been fired, too.

President Daniels has clearly prioritized improving the undergraduate experience without neglecting the graduate schools and research institutions. Some don’t like the new emphasis, but it’s way overdue. I can’t believe it took nearly 150 years for Hopkins to finally build a decent student center.

Ok … rant over.

*Drops Mic*

DocBarrister

other people tell you if you dropped a mic.

I can’t believe you got even this wrong.

*Ahem*

Dropping a mic is an inherently boastful act. It must be done by the person who is boasting. Boasting is the entire point of dropping a mic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mic_drop



DocBarrister

i'm talking about on social.
but wiki, boastful... checks out.

When Columbia drops from 2 to 18 because they f'ed up but otherwise are exactly the same school what does that tell you about the value of rankings? Or conversely what does it say about the difference between 2 and 20?

No HS lax player is going to care.

If a HS lax player is considering Hopkins and academic reputation matters to that student athlete, they are going to look and see Hopkins is ranked #7.

Doesn’t mean the kid will sign up with the Blue Jays, just means that Hopkins will likely be perceived as very competitive with respect to academic reputation. Some kids will care. Some won’t.

Anyway, the U.S. News & World Report rankings are so firmly established that they are the ones most students and their parents look to when it comes to college rankings. Doesn’t mean the rankings have merit or should have any role in a kid’s college choice. It is what it is.

The debate about methodology? Nobody cares.

Frankly, I think U.S. News should have kept it a simple reputation survey instead of trying to make it seem “scientific”. The methodology is fairly random, never truly validated, and probably unreliable.

But as I said, the HS kid and his parents won’t care. Johns Hopkins is ranked 7th. That’s pretty much all they will take from the rankings … not some mundane debate over methodology, validity, and reliability.

DocBarrister

[Farfromgeneva]

Pretty sure the climb up the rankings is mostly due to the university becoming more selective over the last 10-20 years. Acceptance rate is now just 8%. The Bloomberg money and going need-blind probably don't hurt. Philosophically and metrics-wise it's basically an Ivy League school with the added benefit that the lax team can offer the full allotment of schollies in addition to finaid. Bigger emphasis on research than most Ivies though.

Maybe it's just me, but I liked it better when JHU wasn't "basically an Ivy League school" and was actually something different. Frankly, I used to think it was - at an undergrad level - academically more rigorous than most of the Ivies, had less grade inflation and was more focused on substance rather than perception. One of the reasons the admissions were less selective (on a % basis) than the Ivies was the place had a reputation that scared some of the less serious off. While Daniels' chase of the rankings has undoubtedly been successful on its own terms, it does seem like the character of the institution has changed somewhat. And reasonable minds can differ on whether that's a good thing.

I think what Johns Hopkins used to be … and what some members of our forum wished it still was … is an institution that emphasized graduate studies and research over undergraduate instruction.

Frankly, I think that was an extremely detrimental approach. The undergraduate schools were, are, and will always be the heart of the university. The graduate and professional schools cannot ever form the core of the university’s community. Research institutions like APL and the Space Telescope Science Institute could easily be stand-alone institutions. The emphasis and focus should always be on the undergraduate schools.

That certainly wasn’t the case when I attended Hopkins. Compared to the three universities that I attended other than Hopkins, Hopkins had by far the worst quality of teaching. Faculty seemed to deem teaching a chore, and their poor quality of teaching reflected that. I also don’t understand what is good about “academic rigor”. Other top schools have academic rigor, but Hopkins took it to an extreme. I once got a 5 out of a 100 on an advanced physics test … and it was a passing grade. That’s just nuts … and stupid. The f*cking physics professor should have been fired for giving a test where even a class full of graduate students failed to break an average score of 20 out of 100. Another idiot Hopkins professor spent the entire semester deriving equations on a chalkboard without explaining why the equations were important or why we were deriving them. That guy should have been fired, too.

President Daniels has clearly prioritized improving the undergraduate experience without neglecting the graduate schools and research institutions. Some don’t like the new emphasis, but it’s way overdue. I can’t believe it took nearly 150 years for Hopkins to finally build a decent student center.

Ok … rant over.

*Drops Mic*

DocBarrister

other people tell you if you dropped a mic.

I can’t believe you got even this wrong.

*Ahem*

Dropping a mic is an inherently boastful act. It must be done by the person who is boasting. Boasting is the entire point of dropping a mic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mic_drop



DocBarrister

i'm talking about on social.
but wiki, boastful... checks out.

When Columbia drops from 2 to 18 because they f'ed up but otherwise are exactly the same school what does that tell you about the value of rankings? Or conversely what does it say about the difference between 2 and 20?

No HS lax player is going to care.

If a HS lax player is considering Hopkins and academic reputation matters to that student athlete, they are going to look and see Hopkins is ranked #7.

Doesn’t mean the kid will sign up with the Blue Jays, just means that Hopkins will likely be perceived as very competitive with respect to academic reputation. Some kids will care. Some won’t.

Anyway, the U.S. News & World Report rankings are so firmly established that they are the ones most students and their parents look to when it comes to college rankings. Doesn’t mean the rankings have merit or should have any role in a kid’s college choice. It is what it is.

The debate about methodology? Nobody cares.

Frankly, I think U.S. News should have kept it a simple reputation survey instead of trying to make it seem “scientific”. The methodology is fairly random, never truly validated, and probably unreliable.

But as I said, the HS kid and his parents won’t care. Johns Hopkins is ranked 7th. That’s pretty much all they will take from the rankings … not some mundane debate over methodology, validity, and reliability.

DocBarrister

I’m sure you are right but more importantly doesn’t it mean there’s no meaningful difference and therefor who’s making decisions on 1-3 spots among this cohort? I’d be more worried about the kid that goes “I was going to go to Cornell but then when I saw the jump Hop made in USNWR I changed my mind and am going there instead”.

(Think Michigan has a solid amount of the kids described above right now..)

[molo]

Sorry to hear about your ug experience with JHU professors. Maybe my grad experience was better because of three professors who did sometimes else full time, but Leon Rosenberg (psychological), Leonard Derogatis (psychologist), and Elaine Davis (lawyer/principal) made the classroom come alive after a day of work.

[DocBarrister]

Sorry to hear about your ug experience with JHU professors. Maybe my grad experience was better because of three professors who did sometimes else full time, but Leon Rosenberg (psychological), Leonard Derogatis (psychologist), and Elaine Davis (lawyer/principal) made the classroom come alive after a day of work.

I’m glad your experience was better.

Should note that your professors were not physicists or mathematicians with absolutely no social or communication skills.

DocBarrister

[DocBarrister]

Pretty sure the climb up the rankings is mostly due to the university becoming more selective over the last 10-20 years. Acceptance rate is now just 8%. The Bloomberg money and going need-blind probably don't hurt. Philosophically and metrics-wise it's basically an Ivy League school with the added benefit that the lax team can offer the full allotment of schollies in addition to finaid. Bigger emphasis on research than most Ivies though.

Maybe it's just me, but I liked it better when JHU wasn't "basically an Ivy League school" and was actually something different. Frankly, I used to think it was - at an undergrad level - academically more rigorous than most of the Ivies, had less grade inflation and was more focused on substance rather than perception. One of the reasons the admissions were less selective (on a % basis) than the Ivies was the place had a reputation that scared some of the less serious off. While Daniels' chase of the rankings has undoubtedly been successful on its own terms, it does seem like the character of the institution has changed somewhat. And reasonable minds can differ on whether that's a good thing.

I think what Johns Hopkins used to be … and what some members of our forum wished it still was … is an institution that emphasized graduate studies and research over undergraduate instruction.

Frankly, I think that was an extremely detrimental approach. The undergraduate schools were, are, and will always be the heart of the university. The graduate and professional schools cannot ever form the core of the university’s community. Research institutions like APL and the Space Telescope Science Institute could easily be stand-alone institutions. The emphasis and focus should always be on the undergraduate schools.

That certainly wasn’t the case when I attended Hopkins. Compared to the three universities that I attended other than Hopkins, Hopkins had by far the worst quality of teaching. Faculty seemed to deem teaching a chore, and their poor quality of teaching reflected that. I also don’t understand what is good about “academic rigor”. Other top schools have academic rigor, but Hopkins took it to an extreme. I once got a 5 out of a 100 on an advanced physics test … and it was a passing grade. That’s just nuts … and stupid. The f*cking physics professor should have been fired for giving a test where even a class full of graduate students failed to break an average score of 20 out of 100. Another idiot Hopkins professor spent the entire semester deriving equations on a chalkboard without explaining why the equations were important or why we were deriving them. That guy should have been fired, too.

President Daniels has clearly prioritized improving the undergraduate experience without neglecting the graduate schools and research institutions. Some don’t like the new emphasis, but it’s way overdue. I can’t believe it took nearly 150 years for Hopkins to finally build a decent student center.

Ok … rant over.

*Drops Mic*

DocBarrister

other people tell you if you dropped a mic.

I can’t believe you got even this wrong.

*Ahem*

Dropping a mic is an inherently boastful act. It must be done by the person who is boasting. Boasting is the entire point of dropping a mic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mic_drop



DocBarrister

i'm talking about on social.
but wiki, boastful... checks out.

When Columbia drops from 2 to 18 because they f'ed up but otherwise are exactly the same school what does that tell you about the value of rankings? Or conversely what does it say about the difference between 2 and 20?

No HS lax player is going to care.

If a HS lax player is considering Hopkins and academic reputation matters to that student athlete, they are going to look and see Hopkins is ranked #7.

Doesn’t mean the kid will sign up with the Blue Jays, just means that Hopkins will likely be perceived as very competitive with respect to academic reputation. Some kids will care. Some won’t.

Anyway, the U.S. News & World Report rankings are so firmly established that they are the ones most students and their parents look to when it comes to college rankings. Doesn’t mean the rankings have merit or should have any role in a kid’s college choice. It is what it is.

The debate about methodology? Nobody cares.

Frankly, I think U.S. News should have kept it a simple reputation survey instead of trying to make it seem “scientific”. The methodology is fairly random, never truly validated, and probably unreliable.

But as I said, the HS kid and his parents won’t care. Johns Hopkins is ranked 7th. That’s pretty much all they will take from the rankings … not some mundane debate over methodology, validity, and reliability.

DocBarrister

I’m sure you are right but more importantly doesn’t it mean there’s no meaningful difference and therefor who’s making decisions on 1-3 spots among this cohort? I’d be more worried about the kid that goes “I was going to go to Cornell but then when I saw the jump Hop made in USNWR I changed my mind and am going there instead”.

(Think Michigan has a solid amount of the kids described above right now..)

Well, first … everyone, not just lax players, should by default always choose Hopkins over Cornell.

Anyway, I suspect very few future Division I lacrosse players will make a final choice based on the academic rankings. Too many other factors that they care much more about (e.g., the coaching staff, cost, distance from home).

DocBarrister

[HopFan16]

Why is any of this relevant? Aren't all of these experiences from several decades ago? That's an eternity in a university's lifespan. I graduated this millennium and virtually all of my professors were fantastic. My experience, academically speaking, was great. The humanities and social sciences are the unheralded (relative to medicine and engineering) gems of JHU. Pretty sure the history, economics, and English departments are all top 25 too but when you have arguably the best pre-med track in the world, they're inevitably going to get overshadowed. The affiliation with SAIS and proximity to DC have also made poli sci/international studies a lot more appealing as well.

[jhu06]

what's driving the rankings rise are things that will probably help get better recruits. I liked Matin and the rec center while I was there but the improvements looked nice and if the school can raise the money good for them. Those other schools we've passed-duke, dartmouth, brown, northwestern etc aren't chumps and things that didn't make the press release but have been in the news or will be-the improved public safety stuff, the newseum building, the upcoming 150th anniversary and whatever $ campaign goes with it, won't hurt either.

I don't know if HF16 got there awhile ago but the roster has been updated for the fall.

https://hopkinssports.com/sports/mens-lacrosse/roster

[DocBarrister]

Why is any of this relevant? Aren't all of these experiences from several decades ago? That's an eternity in a university's lifespan. I graduated this millennium and virtually all of my professors were fantastic. My experience, academically speaking, was great. The humanities and social sciences are the unheralded (relative to medicine and engineering) gems of JHU. Pretty sure the history, economics, and English departments are all top 25 too but when you have arguably the best pre-med track in the world, they're inevitably going to get overshadowed. The affiliation with SAIS and proximity to DC have also made poli sci/international studies a lot more appealing as well.

There is a discussion where some folks don’t like the changes implemented by President Daniels. I am participating in that discussion, with my view being that President Daniels has brought some welcome, and much overdue, changes to Hopkins. I think his changes (which were certainly well underway when you attended) make Hopkins a more popular college destination.

DocBarrister

[nyjay]

Hadn't realized Crawley was the recruiting coordinator - I think it's a good thing that he is. Would be nice to get a 24 in the door soon.

[Sagittarius A*]

Why is any of this relevant? Aren't all of these experiences from several decades ago? That's an eternity in a university's lifespan. I graduated this millennium and virtually all of my professors were fantastic. My experience, academically speaking, was great. The humanities and social sciences are the unheralded (relative to medicine and engineering) gems of JHU. Pretty sure the history, economics, and English departments are all top 25 too but when you have arguably the best pre-med track in the world, they're inevitably going to get overshadowed. The affiliation with SAIS and proximity to DC have also made poli sci/international studies a lot more appealing as well.

There is a discussion where some folks don’t like the changes implemented by President Daniels. I am participating in that discussion, with my view being that President Daniels has brought some welcome, and much overdue, changes to Hopkins. I think his changes (which were certainly well underway when you attended) make Hopkins a more popular college destination.

DocBarrister

I attended before either of you and I recall having profs that were off the chain. I had some professors that were better than anyone you've ever seen on TV, with the exception of Stephen Hawking. Humanities classes were out of the park. Every single one. I still remember my undergrad experience today.

I just wish Ron Daniels and Mike Bloomberg cared about lacrosse. Lax was so much better back in the day. More like a religion than a sport.

[OCanada]

+3

Some developments began quite awhile ago in their planning stages and took time to develop and find funding. Michael made it possible for them to reach fruition

[HopFan16]

Are we already back to the "we lost to Navy last year because Ron Daniels doesn't go to lax games" argument? It's only September. Let's at least save that for February.

'06 pointed out that the roster looks mostly updated for 2023. There are some big boys in this freshman class:

Collison 6'4'' 220
Brown 6'2'' 200
Bigelow 6'4'' 220
Smith 6'2'' 205
Didden 6'3'' 200
Billings 6'4'' 200

Take with a grain of salt but Collison is listed at attack

[nrthcrosslax]

No Blake Rodgers?

[HopFan16]

No Blake Rodgers?

Both he and Russ Maher were in a photo the team posted to Instagram two days ago so not sure what’s going on there

Freshman Eric McDonald was given #19

[10stone5]

Are we already back to the "we lost to Navy last year because Ron Daniels doesn't go to lax games" argument? It's only September. Let's at least save that for February.

'06 pointed out that the roster looks mostly updated for 2023. There are some big boys in this freshman class:

Collison 6'4'' 220
Brown 6'2'' 200
Bigelow 6'4'' 220
Smith 6'2'' 205
Didden 6'3'' 200
Billings 6'4'' 200

Take with a grain of salt but Collison is listed at attack

That’s a good class.

Its potentially transformative

[Sagittarius A*]

Are we already back to the "we lost to Navy last year because Ron Daniels doesn't go to lax games" argument? It's only September. Let's at least save that for February.

'06 pointed out that the roster looks mostly updated for 2023. There are some big boys in this freshman class:

Collison 6'4'' 220
Brown 6'2'' 200
Bigelow 6'4'' 220
Smith 6'2'' 205
Didden 6'3'' 200
Billings 6'4'' 200

Take with a grain of salt but Collison is listed at attack

That’s a good class.

Its potentially transformative

Ah, but size doesn't always equal success.

[HopFan16]

Are we already back to the "we lost to Navy last year because Ron Daniels doesn't go to lax games" argument? It's only September. Let's at least save that for February.

'06 pointed out that the roster looks mostly updated for 2023. There are some big boys in this freshman class:

Collison 6'4'' 220
Brown 6'2'' 200
Bigelow 6'4'' 220
Smith 6'2'' 205
Didden 6'3'' 200
Billings 6'4'' 200

Take with a grain of salt but Collison is listed at attack

That’s a good class.

Its potentially transformative

Ah, but size doesn't always equal success.

Well you've also got Marquis and English who are listed at 160 and 150, respectively. A little bit of everything

Roster questions headed into fall ball:
- Attack makeup (Degnon/Angelus stay or move back to midfield? How involved are Collison/Marquis immediately?)
- Third defenseman behind Smith and Szuluk
- #2 LSM behind Mazzone
- Shortie depth behind Martin and Jaronski

[flalax22]

Are we already back to the "we lost to Navy last year because Ron Daniels doesn't go to lax games" argument? It's only September. Let's at least save that for February.

'06 pointed out that the roster looks mostly updated for 2023. There are some big boys in this freshman class:

Collison 6'4'' 220
Brown 6'2'' 200
Bigelow 6'4'' 220
Smith 6'2'' 205
Didden 6'3'' 200
Billings 6'4'' 200

Take with a grain of salt but Collison is listed at attack

That’s a good class.

Its potentially transformative

Ah, but size doesn't always equal success.

I’d rather lose with 6’4 than a lineup of smurfs