搜了下新闻,好像还真的是“政治不正确”的 Appropriateness of usage[edit] In 2003,[5] the County of Los Angeles in California asked that manufacturers , suppliers and contractors to stop using "master" and "slave" terminology on its products.[5][6] The decision was taken by the county "based on the cultural diversity and sensitivity of Los Angeles County".[5] Following outcries about the decision, the County of Los Angeles issued a statement saying that the decision was "nothing more than a request".[5] Due to the controversy, the term was selected as the most politically incorrect word in 2004 by Global Language Monitor.[7] In May 2014, GitHub user fcurella submitted a pull request[8] to the GitHub repository for the Python framework Django, initially changing it to "leader /follower" and finally to "primary/replica".[9] This triggered an active discussion of the appropriateness of the master/slave terminology as well as the appropriateness of the change. In June 2014, Drupal 8 did the same as Django did, citing that the word " replica" is already in use by IBM, Microsoft, Engine Yard, Amazon Web Services, and ACM.[10] In September 2016, MediaWiki deprecated instances of the terms "slave" in preference of "replica".[11] [12]
下面是US News的评定项目和比重。对这种模型作个sensitivity analysis应该很简单 。如果rankings对比重变化越敏感,它的可靠程度就越差。 Undergraduate academic reputation (weighting: 22.5 percent for National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges; 25 percent for Regional Universities and Regional Colleges) Retention (20 percent for the National Universities and National Liberal Arts Colleges and 25 percent for Regional Universities and Regional Colleges) Faculty resources (20 percent) Student selectivity (15 percent) Financial resources (10 percent) Graduation rate performance (7.5 percent; for national universities and national liberal arts colleges only) Alumni giving rate (5 percent)
w*9
53 楼
就看占20%的faculty resources那一项吧。这是那个斯坦福校长的评论: “”“”“”“”“ In the category "Faculty resources," even though few of us had significant changes in our faculty or student numbers, our class sizes, or our finances, the rankings' producers created a mad scramble in rank order, for example: Down Last year This year Up Last year This year Harvard #1 #11 MIT #6 #2 Stanford 3 15 Duke 13 4 Brown 12 22 Yale 10 6 Johns Hopkins 15 19 Dartmouth 18 24 ”“”“”“”“”“”“
w*9
54 楼
就是比较靠前的学校涨落也会不小: ”“”“”“”“” What else is one to make of Harvard's being #1 one year and #3 the next, or Northwestern's leaping in a single bound from #13 to #9? And it is not just this year. Could Johns Hopkins be the 22nd best national university two years ago, the 10th best last year, and the 15th best this year? Which is correct, that Columbia is #9 (two years ago), #15 (last year) or #11 (this year)? “”“”“”“”“ 后面的学校名次涨落也会不小。
【在 w********9 的大作中提到】 : 就是比较靠前的学校涨落也会不小: : ”“”“”“”“” : What else is one to make of Harvard's being #1 one year and #3 the next, or : Northwestern's leaping in a single bound from #13 to #9? And it is not just : this year. Could Johns Hopkins be the 22nd best national university two : years ago, the 10th best last year, and the 15th best this year? Which is : correct, that Columbia is #9 (two years ago), #15 (last year) or #11 (this : year)? : “”“”“”“”“ : 后面的学校名次涨落也会不小。