WSJ Grid of Shame - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WSJ Grid of Shame (/thread-14170.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WSJ Grid of Shame (/thread-14170.html)
Pages:
1
2
Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - johnnyo53 - 09-01-2017
(09-01-2017, 08:55 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:They've gotta keep the formula secret so that word doesn't leak that they "redefined" admirable such that Stanford wouldn't come out on top every year.
Low number of NCAA violations, low number of law enforcement encounters, low number of academic retirements, low number of transfers out of the program, high matriculation, competitive acceptance, GPA?...those could all be factors.
LMAO- GOOD ONE
Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - CardinalSagehen - 09-01-2017
According to this pseudo-scientific four-quadrant chart, Cal is listed as a highly admirable Weakling, while Stanford is presented as a barely admirable Powerhouse. At least there is plenty of data to support the Weakling/Powerhouse axis; the Admirability axis, not so much!
On a side note, I used to be a management consultant in a respected firm many years ago, before redeeming myself. I can attest that this kind of "Gartner magic quadrant" chart does a phenomenal job of giving the impression of science where there is truly none! Do not seek to understand!Â
Re: WSJ Grid of Shame - CompSci87 - 09-01-2017
+1000!