Ouch....why is UC Berkeley so low?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-top-u-s-colleges-1475030404


http://www.wsj.com/graphics/college-rankings-2016/

Lol they REALLY don't like public schools.

We're tied with the University of Miami!!!

Because they all went to those schools

Toejams will be referencing this ranking exclusively

I mis-posted 21-30. It's fixed.

Can't really argue about that resources column.

packawana;842736521 said:

---

Can't really argue about that resources column.

---

Yup, it's our low score, but it's true and a major part of this ranking. Oh well. This list obviously leans private & rich.

The funny thing is our grads average higher incomes than many of the schools ranked above us. Including SC. So we're killing it with what we've got.

Cal I guess spends $20,000 per student, while UCLA spends $38,000. That is interesting. That all must be the medical centers. Note that almost all of the higher ranked schools have medical centers which drive lots of the stats - like post-graduate salaries, resources, etc and probably the engagement metric.

I wonder what we would look like with UCSF in the mix. Cal should start a new medical school - we need more in the state.

Reich took to long to fall in line and support the queen.

It leans that way, sure, but we still trail UCLA and U of Michigan. We should be ahead of those two, not behind.

This is like a beauty pageant where 25% of the score is based on the color of the bikini .....

It's possible that U.C. Berkeley just isn't as good as we all think it is.

burritos;842736604 said:

---

It's possible that U.C. Berkeley just isn't as good as we all think it is.

---

Because this one need ranking out of many ranked is lower? Eh let's calm down.

That said, it clear we need more revenue everywhere.

oskirules;842736515 said:

---

Toejams will be referencing this ranking exclusively

---

... while we will be referencing all the "top world universities" rankings. (I mean, I will be, too, so...)

Is there a game this weekend?

burritos;842736604 said:

---

It's possible that U.C. Berkeley just isn't as good as we all think it is.

---

Maybe, but that wouldn't be validated by list. USC above two Ivy League schools, Georgetown, 3 pubic schools that demolish their research output, and a handful of elite Liberal Arts colleges infinitely more selective? Doubt it.

Oski87;842736526 said:

---

Cal I guess spends $20,000 per student, while UCLA spends $38,000. That is interesting. That all must be the medical centers. Note that almost all of the higher ranked schools have medical centers which drive lots of the stats - like post-graduate salaries, resources, etc and probably the engagement metric.

I wonder what we would look like with UCSF in the mix. Cal should start a new medical school - we need more in the state.

---

That's the problem with these rankings, they fail to compare apples to apples. Put in a campus social life score and many of the Ivies,MIT, CIT and furd would drop. All rankings use methodology to enhance the schools they're trying to promote. All rankings are bogus, in reality. Also, it wasn't that long ago that UCSF was called UC medical school and considered part of the Cal campus.

Here is what's interesting. The THE World Uni Rankings for 2016-17 has us tied at 10th in the world and 6th in the country. Ahead of us are CalTech, Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Princeton. We are tied with Chicago. This is a bit lower than normal for us but not as bad as the WSJ/THE rankings.

This means that the normal THE methodology is negatively (from our perspective) impacted by the addition of the WSJ. Unfortunately, the WSJ brand is strong and therefore it will be difficult for us to argue that the "pure" THE rankings are better.

https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2017/world-ranking#!/page/0/length/25/sort_by/rank_label/sort_order/asc/cols/rank_only

It's one thing to (I think legitimately) dismiss the US News and World Rankings which are done mostly to sell magazines, but it is more difficult to dismiss the THE/WSJ rankings. Hopefully, this will wake up the Berkeley administration and faculty to take action. I know it isn't ideal for the university to give too much weight to rankings and to react to it, but it impacts our lives, careers, and bragging rights, not to mention sports recruiting.

PalyBear;842736705 said:

---

It's one thing to (I think legitimately) dismiss the US News and World Rankings which are done mostly to sell magazines, but it is more difficult to dismiss the THE/WSJ rankings. Hopefully, this will wake up the Berkeley administration and faculty to take action. I know it isn't ideal for the university to give too much weight to rankings and to react to it, but it impacts our lives, careers, and bragging rights, not to mention sports recruiting.

---

But isn't it cool to be tied with a legendary sports school like The U?

concernedparent;842736667 said:

---

Maybe, but that wouldn't be validated by list. USC above two Ivy League schools, Georgetown, 3 pubic schools that demolish their research output, and a handful of elite Liberal Arts colleges infinitely more selective? Doubt it.

---

Yeah but how does another physics nobel prize winner on staff help the regular student? Being from Ventura County, two local Valedictorians in our area went to Georgetown fast track pre med over going to Cal. These aren't kids of wealthy parents either. I also encountered a local kid who went the Cal Lutheran(?!?!?) with a partial soccer schollie over Cal. Yes a lot of the kids in this area are still picking Cal/Ucla(often times kids of Asian descent) but the millennials just aren't as enamored with Cal as we are.

burritos;842736721 said:

---

Yeah but how does another physics nobel prize winner on staff help the regular student? Being from Ventura County, two local Valedictorians in our area went to Georgetown fast track pre med over going to Cal. These aren't kids of wealthy parents either. I also encountered a local kid who went the Cal Lutheran(?!?!?) with a partial soccer schollie over Cal. Yes a lot of the kids in this area are still picking Cal/Ucla(often times kids of Asian descent) but the millennials just aren't as enamored with Cal as we are.

---

I think our (UCLA/Cal) rising application numbers and plunging acceptance rates say otherwise. Those are far more indicative than personal anecdotes.

How matriculants are picking which school to go to head to head:
Georgetown(69) vs Cal(31)
Michigan(33) vs Cal(67)
Ucla(43) vs Cal(57)
Stanford(88) vs Cal(12)
Caltech(78) vs Cal(22)
UPenn(81) vs Cal(19)
Brown(79) vs Cal(21)
USC(33) vs Cal(67)
Cal Lutheran(33) vs Cal(67)
Claremont(50) vs Cal(50)
Harvard(59) vs Stanford(41)

Play around with it, it's kind of fun.

socaliganbear;842736728 said:

---

I think our (UCLA/Cal) rising application numbers and plunging acceptance rates say otherwise. Those are far more indicative than personal anecdotes.

---

Maybe that's because there is a rising population?

burritos;842736729 said:

---

How matriculants are picking which school to go to head to head:
Georgetown(69) vs Cal(31)
Michigan(33) vs Cal(67)
Ucla(43) vs Cal(57)
Stanford(88) vs Cal(12)
Caltech(78) vs Cal(22)
UPenn(81) vs Cal(19)
Brown(79) vs Cal(21)
USC(33) vs Cal(67)
Cal Lutheran(33) vs Cal(67)
Claremont(50) vs Cal(50)
Harvard(59) vs Stanford(41)

Play around with it, it's kind of fun.

---

We'd go 9-3 in this league and Sonny would be Coach of the Year. Bunch of Quidditch and squash nerds.

burritos;842736731 said:

---

Maybe that's because there is a rising population?

---

Your matriculation post, which is pretty cool and I have used, tells us Cal is pretty damn popular.

socaliganbear;842736734 said:

---

Your matriculation post, which is pretty cool and I have used, tells us Cal is pretty damn popular.

---

I would send my kids there if they could get in a heartbeat. I don't think they will though. And I couldn't get with today's standards.

burritos;842736721 said:

---

Yeah but how does another physics nobel prize winner on staff help the regular student?

---

There's definitely a benefit. While it's true that ability in research doesn't necessarily correlate to ability in teaching, someone who is more plugged into cutting edge developments (and the people driving those developments in the first place) has the potential to do a lot more cool stuff in their class than someone who's not. You could also argue that the average Cal student is, in fact, someone who will participate in research at some point in their undergraduate career (though that's not the case at every university), at which point Cal's faculty is an incredible asset. Tons of Cal grads decide to go to grad school, and that's a direct reflection of the professors and graduate students that teach them. Sure, everyone has their story about the brilliant professor who couldn't/wouldn't teach worth a lick, but make a list of your best, most dynamic professors at Cal. My bet is that most of them (certainly the younger ones) were incredibly accomplished researchers, and that if you looked for it, you'd see that fact at work in their classes.

burritos;842736735 said:

---

I would send my kids there if they could get in a heartbeat. I don't think they will though. And I couldn't get with today's standards.

---

That we can agree on. My youngest brother grew up a huge Cal fan. Not a chance. But that's ok.

I would also add that my favorite professors at Cal (urban studies) were incredibly accomplished and actually famous. I'm not sure what my experience would have been like without them.

burritos;842736729 said:

---

How matriculants are picking which school to go to head to head:
Georgetown(69) vs Cal(31)
Michigan(33) vs Cal(67)
Ucla(43) vs Cal(57)
Stanford(88) vs Cal(12)
Caltech(78) vs Cal(22)
UPenn(81) vs Cal(19)
Brown(79) vs Cal(21)
USC(33) vs Cal(67)
Cal Lutheran(33) vs Cal(67)
Claremont(50) vs Cal(50)
Harvard(59) vs Stanford(41)

Play around with it, it's kind of fun.

---

Who in their right mind would pick Georgetown over Cal? That's nutty. Furd is really gaining ground on Harvard. I remember one of these charts in the NY Times about 5 years ago and it ws 80% Harvard/20% Furd.

burritos;842736729 said:

---

How matriculants are picking which school to go to head to head:
Georgetown(69) vs Cal(31)
Michigan(33) vs Cal(67)
Ucla(43) vs Cal(57)
Stanford(88) vs Cal(12)
Caltech(78) vs Cal(22)
UPenn(81) vs Cal(19)
Brown(79) vs Cal(21)
USC(33) vs Cal(67)
Cal Lutheran(33) vs Cal(67)
Claremont(50) vs Cal(50)
Harvard(59) vs Stanford(41)

Play around with it, it's kind of fun.

---

Can you send a link for this? I'd like to check it out.

juarezbear;842736740 said:

---

Who in their right mind would pick Georgetown over Cal? That's nutty. Furd is really gaining ground on Harvard. I remember one of these charts in the NY Times about 5 years ago and it ws 80% Harvard/20% Furd.

---

Tons of people imo? Especially people from back east. The two are really so different, they appeal to a different type of person.

Here ya go: http://www.parchment.com/c/college/tools/college-cross-admit-comparison.php

socaliganbear;842736743 said:

---

Tons of people imo? Especially people from back east. The two are really so different, they appeal to a different type of person.

Here ya go: http://www.parchment.com/c/college/tools/college-cross-admit-comparison.php

---

For Georgetown, I imagine the waspy wealthier types who didn't get into the big three ivies. Sort of like SC people, but that is an impression that is totally made up in my mind without any real foundation. The two anecdotal students I knew of were both mixed asian/white who are definitely not wealthy, plus my cousin who went to Georgetown 15 years ago is full asian.

socaliganbear;842736743 said:

---

Tons of people imo? Especially people from back east. The two are really so different, they appeal to a different type of person.

Here ya go: http://www.parchment.com/c/college/tools/college-cross-admit-comparison.php

---

If they're from Back East, that makes sense as the cost is roughly the same. I guess I have an over-inflated impression of my alma mater.