Cal88 said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Great analysis by BearBoarBlarney.

Cal used to be considered one of the most beautiful campuses in the country. Now, in one recent poll, we are not even ranked in the top 10 in the State (or top 2 among UC campuses!):

https://www.ibtimes.com/most-beautiful-college-campuses-california-scenic-sanctuaries-learning-3725798

I think the ratings do matter. For years, we dominated the USNWR rankings but then have been slipping while Southern Branch has risen.

I think much of the country (including in particular the B1G) view that school in Westwood as the flagship now, with us as a branch. The Westwood school is ranked higher academically, is considered far more beautiful, receives more applications, has a lower acceptance rate, and is far better in athletics. I fear the B1G acted reasonably in letting Westwood be the California public school that was admitted to the conference. Other than Michigan State, which B1G schools are the second best public school in their state?

---

UCLA.

---

"Let us close our eyes
Outside their lives go on much faster
Oh, we won't give in
We'll keep living in the past."

BearSwarm said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

BearSwarm said:

---

All this fretting is quite literally the point of these rankings. "Ooh, rival Y just passed school X for the first time! Ooh, school X is back on top now! Better tune in next year to see what happens!" It's like the goofy mascot races during the 7th inning stretch - contrived and transparently designed to draw eyeballs. But here you don't even get a Personal Pan Pizza(TM) when your guy wins!

Major universities' fundamental level of educational quality and prestige don't change over a few months. Nobody "jumped" anybody since 2023. But they can't very well put out the same list every year, can they?

---

But this isn't overnight. UCLA has been catching up in the rankings for quite some time. Has been neck and neck with us recently and now ahead most likely due to some methodology changes. Well, just like in football, no excuses. Berkeley or Cal o n Al st whatever you want to call it, is not keeping up with the times.

---

Out of curiosity, what is it about the methodology of "U.S. News," a weird airport paper that nobody reads outside these rankings, that made you accept its rankings as the accurate barometer of university quality rather than the dozen or so other rankings?

---

Funny how we loved and cited the rankings over the past decades when they had us at #1.

Even now (see above) our campus embraces being #2. Again, this is the attitude that keeps us out of the B1G. In my day, Cal wanted to be the best at everything; nothing less than excellence was acceptable. Now we give extensions to coaches with losing records. Again, it's a symptom.

Cal88 said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Great analysis by BearBoarBlarney.

Cal used to be considered one of the most beautiful campuses in the country. Now, in one recent poll, we are not even ranked in the top 10 in the State (or top 2 among UC campuses!):

https://www.ibtimes.com/most-beautiful-college-campuses-california-scenic-sanctuaries-learning-3725798

I think the ratings do matter. For years, we dominated the USNWR rankings but then have been slipping while Southern Branch has risen.

I think much of the country (including in particular the B1G) view that school in Westwood as the flagship now, with us as a branch. The Westwood school is ranked higher academically, is considered far more beautiful, receives more applications, has a lower acceptance rate, and is far better in athletics. I fear the B1G acted reasonably in letting Westwood be the California public school that was admitted to the conference. Other than Michigan State, which B1G schools are the second best public school in their state?

---

UCLA.

---

Indiana. (Purdue is also public.)

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Great analysis by BearBoarBlarney.

Cal used to be considered one of the most beautiful campuses in the country. Now, in one recent poll, we are not even ranked in the top 10 in the State (or top 2 among UC campuses!):

https://www.ibtimes.com/most-beautiful-college-campuses-california-scenic-sanctuaries-learning-3725798

I think the ratings do matter. For years, we dominated the USNWR rankings but then have been slipping while Southern Branch has risen.

I think much of the country (including in particular the B1G) view that school in Westwood as the flagship now, with us as a branch. The Westwood school is ranked higher academically, is considered far more beautiful, receives more applications, has a lower acceptance rate, and is far better in athletics. I fear the B1G acted reasonably in letting Westwood be the California public school that was admitted to the conference. Other than Michigan State, which B1G schools are the second best public school in their state?

---

UCLA.

---

Indiana. (Purdue is also public.)

---

OK, 4 out of 18 B1G universities are public schools in the same state.

southseasbear said:

---

BearSwarm said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

BearSwarm said:

---

All this fretting is quite literally the point of these rankings. "Ooh, rival Y just passed school X for the first time! Ooh, school X is back on top now! Better tune in next year to see what happens!" It's like the goofy mascot races during the 7th inning stretch - contrived and transparently designed to draw eyeballs. But here you don't even get a Personal Pan Pizza(TM) when your guy wins!

Major universities' fundamental level of educational quality and prestige don't change over a few months. Nobody "jumped" anybody since 2023. But they can't very well put out the same list every year, can they?

---

But this isn't overnight. UCLA has been catching up in the rankings for quite some time. Has been neck and neck with us recently and now ahead most likely due to some methodology changes. Well, just like in football, no excuses. Berkeley or Cal o n Al st whatever you want to call it, is not keeping up with the times.

---

Out of curiosity, what is it about the methodology of "U.S. News," a weird airport paper that nobody reads outside these rankings, that made you accept its rankings as the accurate barometer of university quality rather than the dozen or so other rankings?

---

Funny how we loved and cited the rankings over the past decades when they had us at #1.

Even now (see above) our campus embraces being #2. Again, this is the attitude that keeps us out of the B1G. In my day, Cal wanted to be the best at everything; nothing less than excellence was acceptable. Now we give extensions to coaches with losing records. Again, it's a symptom.

---

For a long time now, USNWR has had us buried in the overall rankings well outside the top 10, with schools like Washington at Saint Louis or USC ahead of us, due to their methodology, using criteria that could be gamed or where private schools have an edge (such as % alumni donor). That's why Cal had settled for "#1 pulic school" way back.

Cal88 said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

BearSwarm said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

BearSwarm said:

---

All this fretting is quite literally the point of these rankings. "Ooh, rival Y just passed school X for the first time! Ooh, school X is back on top now! Better tune in next year to see what happens!" It's like the goofy mascot races during the 7th inning stretch - contrived and transparently designed to draw eyeballs. But here you don't even get a Personal Pan Pizza(TM) when your guy wins!

Major universities' fundamental level of educational quality and prestige don't change over a few months. Nobody "jumped" anybody since 2023. But they can't very well put out the same list every year, can they?

---

But this isn't overnight. UCLA has been catching up in the rankings for quite some time. Has been neck and neck with us recently and now ahead most likely due to some methodology changes. Well, just like in football, no excuses. Berkeley or Cal o n Al st whatever you want to call it, is not keeping up with the times.

---

Out of curiosity, what is it about the methodology of "U.S. News," a weird airport paper that nobody reads outside these rankings, that made you accept its rankings as the accurate barometer of university quality rather than the dozen or so other rankings?

---

Funny how we loved and cited the rankings over the past decades when they had us at #1.

Even now (see above) our campus embraces being #2. Again, this is the attitude that keeps us out of the B1G. In my day, Cal wanted to be the best at everything; nothing less than excellence was acceptable. Now we give extensions to coaches with losing records. Again, it's a symptom.

---

For a long time now, USNWR has had us buried in the overall rankings well outside the top 10, with schools like Washington at Saint Louis or USC ahead of us, due to their methodology, using criteria that could be gamed or where private schools have an edge (such as % alumni donor). That's why Cal had settled for "#1 pulic school" way back.

---

Yes, and now we are not even the #1 public. How long will we be able to hold on to #2?

southseasbear said:

---

BearSwarm said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

BearSwarm said:

---

All this fretting is quite literally the point of these rankings. "Ooh, rival Y just passed school X for the first time! Ooh, school X is back on top now! Better tune in next year to see what happens!" It's like the goofy mascot races during the 7th inning stretch - contrived and transparently designed to draw eyeballs. But here you don't even get a Personal Pan Pizza(TM) when your guy wins!

Major universities' fundamental level of educational quality and prestige don't change over a few months. Nobody "jumped" anybody since 2023. But they can't very well put out the same list every year, can they?

---

But this isn't overnight. UCLA has been catching up in the rankings for quite some time. Has been neck and neck with us recently and now ahead most likely due to some methodology changes. Well, just like in football, no excuses. Berkeley or Cal o n Al st whatever you want to call it, is not keeping up with the times.

---

Out of curiosity, what is it about the methodology of "U.S. News," a weird airport paper that nobody reads outside these rankings, that made you accept its rankings as the accurate barometer of university quality rather than the dozen or so other rankings?

---

Funny how we loved and cited the rankings over the past decades when they had us at #1.

Even now (see above) our campus embraces being #2. Again, this is the attitude that keeps us out of the B1G. In my day, Cal wanted to be the best at everything; nothing less than excellence was acceptable. Now we give extensions to coaches with losing records. Again, it's a symptom.

---

Speak for yourself. Who's the "we" that "loved" the goofy USNWR rankings?

As for the mythical past we're measuring ourselves against, not sure I get it. When I went to Cal in the 90s we were ranked lower than we are now, and definitely not the #1 public university. Michigan was above us, I believe UVA as well. Luckily I thought it was as meaningless then as I do now.

southseasbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Great analysis by BearBoarBlarney.

Cal used to be considered one of the most beautiful campuses in the country. Now, in one recent poll, we are not even ranked in the top 10 in the State (or top 2 among UC campuses!):

https://www.ibtimes.com/most-beautiful-college-campuses-california-scenic-sanctuaries-learning-3725798

I think the ratings do matter. For years, we dominated the USNWR rankings but then have been slipping while Southern Branch has risen.

I think much of the country (including in particular the B1G) view that school in Westwood as the flagship now, with us as a branch. The Westwood school is ranked higher academically, is considered far more beautiful, receives more applications, has a lower acceptance rate, and is far better in athletics. I fear the B1G acted reasonably in letting Westwood be the California public school that was admitted to the conference. Other than Michigan State, which B1G schools are the second best public school in their state?

---

UCLA.

---

Indiana. (Purdue is also public.)

---

OK, 4 out of 18 B1G universities are public schools in the same state.

---

I'd also say that Cal and UCLA are in a unique position by this metric, in that both are such elite public schools that their relative position to each other is fairly meaningless (if a conference wants to prioritize academics).

sycasey said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

Great analysis by BearBoarBlarney.

Cal used to be considered one of the most beautiful campuses in the country. Now, in one recent poll, we are not even ranked in the top 10 in the State (or top 2 among UC campuses!):

https://www.ibtimes.com/most-beautiful-college-campuses-california-scenic-sanctuaries-learning-3725798

I think the ratings do matter. For years, we dominated the USNWR rankings but then have been slipping while Southern Branch has risen.

I think much of the country (including in particular the B1G) view that school in Westwood as the flagship now, with us as a branch. The Westwood school is ranked higher academically, is considered far more beautiful, receives more applications, has a lower acceptance rate, and is far better in athletics. I fear the B1G acted reasonably in letting Westwood be the California public school that was admitted to the conference. Other than Michigan State, which B1G schools are the second best public school in their state?

---

UCLA.

---

Indiana. (Purdue is also public.)

---

OK, 4 out of 18 B1G universities are public schools in the same state.

---

I'd also say that Cal and UCLA are in a unique position by this metric, in that both are such elite public schools that their relative position to each other is fairly meaningless (if a conference wants to prioritize academics).

---

Right, they have Cal at #17 and UCLA at #16. The main issue with that ranking is that they have good but not stellar private schools like Northwestern, Brown, Cornell, John Hopkins etc ahead of us.

I guess WUSL is no longer there, last time I looked was a decade ago.

Also, the sticker prices are pretty shocking, $51k for UC out of state, and 65k-70k for the privates...

I wonder if there are some metrics that could be improved in order to gain a few spots on that ranking, like Alumni donations. You could for instance institute a systematic online request for a very small sum to recent graduates and other alumni in order to move the dial on the alumni support metric used in USNWR, something Lyons could work on, because that ranking has become a household name.

There is absolutely no question that the USNWR rankings wildly overrate private schools. And it also seems they can be gamed within those bands. Like, does anyone really think Princeton is above Harvard and Yale?

Why are so many people concerned over this ranking? Yes, UCLA is a great school, but it is not in the same league as CAL. Take a look at the departments at each school and the research that is done at each school AND the awards won by each professor at each department. CAL has not been awarded all those Nobels by being second to UCLA. If there are any teachers on this forum, just take a look at the students that go to CAL and those that go to UCLA. The quality is not even close. Why is it that the same publication has ranked CAL the #1 public school in the world and #4 overall IN THE WORLD. At a seminar at Stanford some years ago a professor said that no public university in the country came close to being academically like Berkeley ,"maybe Michigan." I agree the campus can look dirty at times, and UCLA is not surrounded by a major road that ends directly at the sidewalk next to campus. Take a look at all the different rankings and CAL comes up on top more often than not, rather than UCLA.

HateRed said:

---

Why are so many people concerned over this ranking? Yes, UCLA is a great school, but it is not in the same league as CAL. Take a look at the departments at each school and the research that is done at each school AND the awards won by each professor at each department. CAL has not been awarded all those Nobels by being second to UCLA. If there are any teachers on this forum, just take a look at the students that go to CAL and those that go to UCLA. The quality is not even close. Why is it that the same publication has ranked CAL the #1 public school in the world and #4 overall IN THE WORLD. At a seminar at Stanford some years ago a professor said that no public university in the country came close to being academically like Berkeley ,"maybe Michigan." I agree the campus can look dirty at times, and UCLA is not surrounded by a major road that ends directly at the sidewalk next to campus. Take a look at all the different rankings and CAL comes up on top more often than not, rather than UCLA.

---

It is a matter of what criteria you select. An academic likely picks Cal for the reasons you stated, particularly research. But rankings are also about other things, and they look to a much broader audience such as prospective students, employers, etc. So criteria such as applications numbers, student sizes, and other factors are used.

I have always suggested Cal isn't for everyone. You have to like a more urban environment for starters. That said, Cal has some legitimate issues, for which (like in athletics) it has kicked the can down the road for too long; for example student housing. There is more to providing an education than simply winning academic awards.

Niche asked over a million high school students to rank colleges, and Cal finished badly on overall ranking (UCLA and Michigan were rated quire high). Cal was rated number 42, overall behind many publics (number 7). Cal finished high when you looked at some individual STEM majors such as engineering. Cal has very highly highs rated liberal arts and business programs in academic circlers, but not with students overall. Like I said, Cal is not for everyone. But Cal is less popular with students overall more than ever. That is a long run problem that the administration should give some thought. The press release where Cal congratulated itself for a falling ranking is cringe worthy.

wifeisafurd said:

---

HateRed said:

---

Why are so many people concerned over this ranking? Yes, UCLA is a great school, but it is not in the same league as CAL. Take a look at the departments at each school and the research that is done at each school AND the awards won by each professor at each department. CAL has not been awarded all those Nobels by being second to UCLA. If there are any teachers on this forum, just take a look at the students that go to CAL and those that go to UCLA. The quality is not even close. Why is it that the same publication has ranked CAL the #1 public school in the world and #4 overall IN THE WORLD. At a seminar at Stanford some years ago a professor said that no public university in the country came close to being academically like Berkeley ,"maybe Michigan." I agree the campus can look dirty at times, and UCLA is not surrounded by a major road that ends directly at the sidewalk next to campus. Take a look at all the different rankings and CAL comes up on top more often than not, rather than UCLA.

---

It is a matter of what criteria you select. An academic likely picks Cal for the reasons you stated, particularly research. But rankings are also about other things, and they look to a much broader audience such as prospective students, employers, etc. So criteria such as applications numbers, student sizes, and other factors are used.

---

Academics / academic reputation are not the issues for Cal. The issues for Cal are the ones that have been around forever: administrative inertia / bureaucracy, housing shortage (and a lousy housing stock to boot -- I can say from experience that the Unit 3 renovations done in 1989 were the last time any significant renovations were done to that complex), state of the overall physical plant, general concerns about campus/vicinity safety, mediocre to bad dining halls, and this awful perception amongst high schoolers than UC Berkeley is hyper competitive and UCLA is more chill.

Worst of all, some of this nonsense is self-imposed: on a campus tour with my kid after he got accepted, the tour guide showed us -- and I'm not kidding with this -- "4.0 hill" in the Faculty Glade, a "4.0 ball" that students supposedly rub for good luck before their first midterm, and a "UC seal" in Memorial Glade that students dare not step upon if they wish to get a 4.0 GPA. I don't remember any of that crap when I entered Cal in '89. What I do remember is that my classmates were cool, collaborative, and those with a fake id bought the rest of us alcohol. The "4.0" stuff is not cute at all, and it gives prospective high schoolers a sense that this place is full of grade-mongering wh0res. I'm sure UCLA doesn't have a 4.0 hill that their freshmen roll down.

UCLA is NOT anywhere near as competitive as CAL. That is not perception, it's reality. That's why I'm telling you, as a teacher in the L.A. area for years, my own students would come back to visit, especially from UCLA because it was so near, and tell me how rigorous it was at CAL and how difficult it was get an A. That's opposed to what the students who went to UCLA said about their experience there. It was almost comical that my classes in AP Econ and AP Government and Politics in high school were more difficult than the classes at UCLA. When I go back to visit where I used to teach, I still hear from the teachers that are there that students are still saying the same things. Rigor at CAL is not a perception. It's reality. I'm not sure that it's a good thing though.

Recently retired teacher here (Bay Area). I totally affirm what you're saying. (^) Would also note, though, that I read something recently where there has been significant grade inflation (a.k.a. "easier grading") at Cal over the past decade or two. Still much more rigorous than most all institutions, but they are past the days of grading on a bell curve and almost trying to weed out a portion of the lower-division students. Which I think is good, because the students that are admitted nowadays... hardly any of them are "weeds"..

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

HateRed said:

---

Why are so many people concerned over this ranking? Yes, UCLA is a great school, but it is not in the same league as CAL. Take a look at the departments at each school and the research that is done at each school AND the awards won by each professor at each department. CAL has not been awarded all those Nobels by being second to UCLA. If there are any teachers on this forum, just take a look at the students that go to CAL and those that go to UCLA. The quality is not even close. Why is it that the same publication has ranked CAL the #1 public school in the world and #4 overall IN THE WORLD. At a seminar at Stanford some years ago a professor said that no public university in the country came close to being academically like Berkeley ,"maybe Michigan." I agree the campus can look dirty at times, and UCLA is not surrounded by a major road that ends directly at the sidewalk next to campus. Take a look at all the different rankings and CAL comes up on top more often than not, rather than UCLA.

---

It is a matter of what criteria you select. An academic likely picks Cal for the reasons you stated, particularly research. But rankings are also about other things, and they look to a much broader audience such as prospective students, employers, etc. So criteria such as applications numbers, student sizes, and other factors are used.

---

Academics / academic reputation are not the issues for Cal. The issues for Cal are the ones that have been around forever: administrative inertia / bureaucracy, housing shortage (and a lousy housing stock to boot -- I can say from experience that the Unit 3 renovations done in 1989 were the last time any significant renovations were done to that complex), state of the overall physical plant, general concerns about campus/vicinity safety, mediocre to bad dining halls, and this awful perception amongst high schoolers than UC Berkeley is hyper competitive and UCLA is more chill.

Worst of all, some of this nonsense is self-imposed: on a campus tour with my kid after he got accepted, the tour guide showed us -- and I'm not kidding with this -- "4.0 hill" in the Faculty Glade, a "4.0 ball" that students supposedly rub for good luck before their first midterm, and a "UC seal" in Memorial Glade that students dare not step upon if they wish to get a 4.0 GPA. I don't remember any of that crap when I entered Cal in '89. What I do remember is that my classmates were cool, collaborative, and those with a fake id bought the rest of us alcohol. The "4.0" stuff is not cute at all, and it gives prospective high schoolers a sense that this place is full of grade-mongering wh0res. I'm sure UCLA doesn't have a 4.0 hill that their freshmen roll down.

---

They have a cracked step (one of their well known walk ways) that if you step on it, it means you will graduate later (forget how many quarters).

Econ141 said:

---

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

HateRed said:

---

Why are so many people concerned over this ranking? Yes, UCLA is a great school, but it is not in the same league as CAL. Take a look at the departments at each school and the research that is done at each school AND the awards won by each professor at each department. CAL has not been awarded all those Nobels by being second to UCLA. If there are any teachers on this forum, just take a look at the students that go to CAL and those that go to UCLA. The quality is not even close. Why is it that the same publication has ranked CAL the #1 public school in the world and #4 overall IN THE WORLD. At a seminar at Stanford some years ago a professor said that no public university in the country came close to being academically like Berkeley ,"maybe Michigan." I agree the campus can look dirty at times, and UCLA is not surrounded by a major road that ends directly at the sidewalk next to campus. Take a look at all the different rankings and CAL comes up on top more often than not, rather than UCLA.

---

It is a matter of what criteria you select. An academic likely picks Cal for the reasons you stated, particularly research. But rankings are also about other things, and they look to a much broader audience such as prospective students, employers, etc. So criteria such as applications numbers, student sizes, and other factors are used.

---

Academics / academic reputation are not the issues for Cal. The issues for Cal are the ones that have been around forever: administrative inertia / bureaucracy, housing shortage (and a lousy housing stock to boot -- I can say from experience that the Unit 3 renovations done in 1989 were the last time any significant renovations were done to that complex), state of the overall physical plant, general concerns about campus/vicinity safety, mediocre to bad dining halls, and this awful perception amongst high schoolers than UC Berkeley is hyper competitive and UCLA is more chill.

Worst of all, some of this nonsense is self-imposed: on a campus tour with my kid after he got accepted, the tour guide showed us -- and I'm not kidding with this -- "4.0 hill" in the Faculty Glade, a "4.0 ball" that students supposedly rub for good luck before their first midterm, and a "UC seal" in Memorial Glade that students dare not step upon if they wish to get a 4.0 GPA. I don't remember any of that crap when I entered Cal in '89. What I do remember is that my classmates were cool, collaborative, and those with a fake id bought the rest of us alcohol. The "4.0" stuff is not cute at all, and it gives prospective high schoolers a sense that this place is full of grade-mongering wh0res. I'm sure UCLA doesn't have a 4.0 hill that their freshmen roll down.

---

They have a cracked step (one their well known email ways) that if you step on it, it means you will graduate later (forget how many quarters).

---

Now I know why it took me 5 years to graduate.

BearBoarBlarney said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

HateRed said:

---

Why are so many people concerned over this ranking? Yes, UCLA is a great school, but it is not in the same league as CAL. Take a look at the departments at each school and the research that is done at each school AND the awards won by each professor at each department. CAL has not been awarded all those Nobels by being second to UCLA. If there are any teachers on this forum, just take a look at the students that go to CAL and those that go to UCLA. The quality is not even close. Why is it that the same publication has ranked CAL the #1 public school in the world and #4 overall IN THE WORLD. At a seminar at Stanford some years ago a professor said that no public university in the country came close to being academically like Berkeley ,"maybe Michigan." I agree the campus can look dirty at times, and UCLA is not surrounded by a major road that ends directly at the sidewalk next to campus. Take a look at all the different rankings and CAL comes up on top more often than not, rather than UCLA.

---

It is a matter of what criteria you select. An academic likely picks Cal for the reasons you stated, particularly research. But rankings are also about other things, and they look to a much broader audience such as prospective students, employers, etc. So criteria such as applications numbers, student sizes, and other factors are used.

---

Academics / academic reputation are not the issues for Cal. The issues for Cal are the ones that have been around forever: administrative inertia / bureaucracy, housing shortage (and a lousy housing stock to boot -- I can say from experience that the Unit 3 renovations done in 1989 were the last time any significant renovations were done to that complex), state of the overall physical plant, general concerns about campus/vicinity safety, mediocre to bad dining halls, and this awful perception amongst high schoolers than UC Berkeley is hyper competitive and UCLA is more chill.

Worst of all, some of this nonsense is self-imposed: on a campus tour with my kid after he got accepted, the tour guide showed us -- and I'm not kidding with this -- "4.0 hill" in the Faculty Glade, a "4.0 ball" that students supposedly rub for good luck before their first midterm, and a "UC seal" in Memorial Glade that students dare not step upon if they wish to get a 4.0 GPA. I don't remember any of that crap when I entered Cal in '89. What I do remember is that my classmates were cool, collaborative, and those with a fake id bought the rest of us alcohol. The "4.0" stuff is not cute at all, and it gives prospective high schoolers a sense that this place is full of grade-mongering wh0res. I'm sure UCLA doesn't have a 4.0 hill that their freshmen roll down.

---

Many of us from the '70s had the same experience as you. But I think some of that has changed. A very academically driven classmate of my son's started at Cal in mechanical engineering in 2006 but finished at Davis precisely because he said the Cal culture was too cutthroat and non-collaborative.

Cal should describe itself as "one of the world's great universities" rather than the no.1 or now no. 2 public university for any number of reasons. The most obvious is that US News, the source of the claim, favors private universities and places a raft of privates above Cal, or UCLA for that matter, that are not in Cal's academic league. Why do we embrace the notion that public universities are second tier? Further, the criteria US News uses for its undergraduate rankings are so arbitrary that there was always a risk Cal would slip from the no.1 slot. That's now happened for the second or third time to the embarrassment of our university which has proclaimed in every conceivable forum that Cal is the best of the public schools.

Years ago the President of Stanford wrote this about the US News rankings: "The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and the University of California-Berkeley... are among the very best universities in America--one could make a strong argument for either in the top half-dozen. Yet, in the last three years the U S News formula has assigned them ranks that lead many readers to assume that they are second rate."

BearSwarm said:

---

southseasbear said:

---

BearSwarm said:

---

Econ141 said:

---

BearSwarm said:

---

All this fretting is quite literally the point of these rankings. "Ooh, rival Y just passed school X for the first time! Ooh, school X is back on top now! Better tune in next year to see what happens!" It's like the goofy mascot races during the 7th inning stretch - contrived and transparently designed to draw eyeballs. But here you don't even get a Personal Pan Pizza(TM) when your guy wins!

Major universities' fundamental level of educational quality and prestige don't change over a few months. Nobody "jumped" anybody since 2023. But they can't very well put out the same list every year, can they?

---

But this isn't overnight. UCLA has been catching up in the rankings for quite some time. Has been neck and neck with us recently and now ahead most likely due to some methodology changes. Well, just like in football, no excuses. Berkeley or Cal o n Al st whatever you want to call it, is not keeping up with the times.

---

Out of curiosity, what is it about the methodology of "U.S. News," a weird airport paper that nobody reads outside these rankings, that made you accept its rankings as the accurate barometer of university quality rather than the dozen or so other rankings?

---

Funny how we loved and cited the rankings over the past decades when they had us at #1.

Even now (see above) our campus embraces being #2. Again, this is the attitude that keeps us out of the B1G. In my day, Cal wanted to be the best at everything; nothing less than excellence was acceptable. Now we give extensions to coaches with losing records. Again, it's a symptom.

---

Speak for yourself. Who's the "we" that "loved" the goofy USNWR rankings?

As for the mythical past we're measuring ourselves against, not sure I get it. When I went to Cal in the 90s we were ranked lower than we are now, and definitely not the #1 public university. Michigan was above us, I believe UVA as well. Luckily I thought it was as meaningless then as I do now.

---

U.S. News Rankings for 57 Leading Universities, 19832007 - Public University Honors